View Single Post
  #57  
Old March 8th 13, 03:35 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.history,sci.physics,alt.religion,alt.philosophy
Immortalist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default Ethics & The Future of Brain Research

On Mar 8, 3:36 am, casey wrote:
On Mar 8, 11:36 am, Immortalist wrote:

[...]
We are still struggling with Heraclitus's puzzle.


http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/theseus.htmlhttp://faculty.... Onhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/heraclit/


The human body is more like a whirlpool in a river where a *pattern*
remains constant although it can move about and change shape
while the water molecules that compose it are forever changing
and those water molecules may go on to make up other whirlpools.


Time bound phenomenon.

Range of patternicity.

So it seems to me that personal identity is a continuation of a
dynamic pattern when we talk about the personal identity of
a human being.


Functionalism.

So although ship C may be made out of the same parts that
once made ship A it is not the same ship anymore than if the
atoms that made one person are then used to build another
person would make the other person the same while the first
person is now made up of a completely new set of atoms.


This is where I think of some science fiction scenarios.

Condition 1 two identical clones begin apart from each other and each
performs unique behavior more or less going their own way.

Condition 2 two identical clones begin and their brains do the
identical things for a short period of time.

In condition 2 they would experience the world for that period in an
identical manner. They would be the exact same person during that
experimental period, thinking e exact same thoughts and have the same
feelings.

So is it he particular run of the pattern in the whirlpool or the
possible runs that could happen in that whirlpool that would continue
to constitute the identity of that particular pattern?

We are way to far back here in time to be considering how nature does
this yet.

This leads to other insane sounding propositions. Are we the
particular runs that necessarily must fit inside the possible runs
that that whirlpool could host or are we any run that fits withing
that whirlpools possibility space of possible runs?

Are we portable in that a clone of the whirlpool allows the genuine
pattern, you, to happen?

I have went way further than this but **** starts to sound insane...
Like this page I made in the mid 90s

http://www.reocities.com/researchtri...ontents_2.html