If I have a clone, would my clone have my memories? Memories alone will be a huge differing factor. |
|
I have wondered: Clone someone atom by atom, twice. So two clones. To begin with, they'd be in the exact same state, in some sort of suspended animation. Now, if you were to place both of these clones in two identical, pitch black rooms. Orientated the same, and in exactly the middle of their respective rooms. Once suspended animation had been lifted, would both of these clones then do exactly the same things in their room? |
|
Last edited by Wolfwood; 04-18-2012 at 03:24 PM.
Who looks outside, dreams;
who looks inside, awakes.
- Carl Jung
If I have a clone, would my clone have my memories? Memories alone will be a huge differing factor. |
|
yuuuuppp. |
|
|
|
Who looks outside, dreams;
who looks inside, awakes.
- Carl Jung
I will say yes, they'll act exactly the same. |
|
Well, two identical (controlled temperature, oxygen content etc), pitch black rooms, side by side, you'd expect them to contain exactly the same variables that'd influence thought & action. So whilst two objects cannot occupy the same space, I don't think this would be necessary to maintain identical extraneous stimuli between the two clones. |
|
Who looks outside, dreams;
who looks inside, awakes.
- Carl Jung
Double post. |
|
Last edited by Carrot; 04-18-2012 at 06:00 PM.
These kinds of thought experiments have no basis in reality. You cannot simply remove complexity from the situation. However, if you could, then theoretically they would behave the same. But in reality they would not because in reality it would be impossible to replicate something exactly the same way twice. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Of course it is a thought experiment. And not everything needs to be carried out in reality to determine how people think of particular ideas, e.g., free will. It was more to determine whether people thought all of what we are, our identity, is contained within this personal physical system. And whether one would then say, in some sense, everything within this large system is deterministic, rooted in causality. It elucidates to me how people reason. |
|
Last edited by Wolfwood; 04-18-2012 at 05:08 PM.
Who looks outside, dreams;
who looks inside, awakes.
- Carl Jung
I've never actually read any of Watts. But that video alone has made me wish to. |
|
Who looks outside, dreams;
who looks inside, awakes.
- Carl Jung
It is Alan Watts after all, but I don't see how it relates to metaphysics. As he said at the end, it depends on which circle he is conversing with because its simple ecological awareness. An organism does not evolve randomly, but in reaction to its environment. The main thing to take away from this is that there is a transaction occurring where one both affects their environment and is affected by it. |
|
Last edited by Omnis Dei; 04-18-2012 at 05:37 PM.
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Wait, I recognise this... |
|
|
|
Who looks outside, dreams;
who looks inside, awakes.
- Carl Jung
Haha, yes, it was your post in abortion that brought it to mind. |
|
Last edited by Wolfwood; 04-18-2012 at 05:54 PM.
Who looks outside, dreams;
who looks inside, awakes.
- Carl Jung
Right he applies a different definition though he doesn't dismiss those concepts either. He has an interesting take on astrology. Astrologers look at the state of the universe at the time of your birth. Then they determine what kind of person you'll be. Watts says the argument is sound, only astrologers have no idea how to read the chart. We are affected by the world around us, which in turn is affected by the greater reality surrounding it, and so on and so forth. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
You'd be better asking somebody like Philosopher, because I am ignorant about concepts like information of a system and how uncertainty relates to all of that. But on a small scale, the universe certainly seems best described as fundamentally being composed of waves of probability. |
|
Last edited by Xei; 04-18-2012 at 06:07 PM.
Naa you make sense. With a finite amount of variables and values, everything would evidently be predictable, and deterministic - literally like a billiard ball table (metaphorically, a closed system with finite variables). Obviously with an infinite range of variables and only a finite grasp of the infinite, one cannot make certain predictions. |
|
Last edited by Wolfwood; 04-18-2012 at 06:06 PM.
Who looks outside, dreams;
who looks inside, awakes.
- Carl Jung
Pondering infinity too much, you find your reason leads you to make some rather upsetting concessions. That's why many theories related to infinity have been grouped under something I call Magical Theory. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Bookmarks