I had to leave this yesterday, but I see you went on with it, and this is interesting.
Originally posted by Brenda+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Brenda)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Kinda going off-topic a bit here but how about comparing it to file-sharing?
Is a copied song any different from the original, indeed is there ever actually an original or just a simulacra?
Is the 'original' the one available to buy, bceause as they are mass produced this kind of negates their originality.
Is the original the demo recording done at the studio - because this is made of of different peices of music put together through a machine i.e the drums are recorded first, then the baselin, etc......
Or is the original the song played all together from beginning to end - because any live performace is different from the studio version and also defferent from any other live performance.
I'm beginning to convince myself that there is no 'orginal' anything. I'm not even sure that there is an original me[/b]
If we factor in the rest of the body, then you are right, there really isn't an original you, cells die, and new ones take their place all the time, in fact, it doesn't take too long to replace all the cells in your body, except those in your brain.
And even new brain cells can be created tho' not at the same rate as the rest.
What you do now, is to define yourself from external perception, rather than to rely on your own mind.
From an outside onlooker's point of view, the you they percieve is no different if it is a perfect copy.
Therefore, only you might mourn your death, in the society I described earlier, or rather, you wouldn't, as you had ceased to be even as the copy was created.
I think the example you give relies on the lack of conciousness on the part of the original, if the original never thinks, then every reproduction that matches it perfectly is as good as the original itself, as it is only defined from outside.
<!--QuoteBegin-RGX
Untill we have a sure fire way of measuring conciousness or soul or whatever you want to call it, I dont think we can truly determine untill we try it ourselves.
I read a book over my holiday called Ilium. Its a sci fi novel with three intertwining stories, one of which involved a race who used teleportation or "fax portals" to travel from place to place. About halfway through the book they found out that "faxing" involved destroying the old human and creating a copy on the other side rather than teleportation. This obviously came as quite a shock to them and they stopped faxing immediatley. It also presents the moral dilemma of "im just a copy, the original me is gone, my memorys werent really experienced by this conciouness", which must be (excuse the pun) soul destroying.
This is much the same as the teleportation technology that exsists now to transport photons in experiments (as far as i know). It involves making exact copys of the original photon, then destroying it.
BTW Ilium is a great read for anyone wondering. [/quote]
Oddly enough, this is something that I react to on tv-series like star trek.
Every time someone is beamed or teleported, no matter the story, they are ripped apart into their constituents and their "pattern" is sent off to a reciever where they are rebuilt.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that every teleportation of this kind is equal to suicide. Well, half of the time I am, then I factor in other matters, like the quantuum connection I mentioned, and I'm more hesitant- "will it reattach itself to the new individual, or not?", "will it still work if there is the possibility to make multiple copies at the recieving end?" and so forth. The matter of having been copied over and over might also be a factor, maybe a human being is then defined by his potential information rather than his continuous conciousness, or somesuch.
I like the term "faxing" tho'.
And the book sounds like a good read.
EDit: prettied it up.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks