A clone of me with all my memories until a certain point of my life is not "me" (points, society)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some people feel like if they would be "immortal" if they could produce a clone of themselves, and upload their memories to the clone's brain.
But a clone of me with all my memories until a certain point of my life is not "me".
The simplest way of demonstrating this is to make that clone while I'm still alive.
The clone will have all my memories until a certain point of my life, but from that day onwards, the clone will be the clone, and me will be me.
The clone will look at me, and I will look at the clone. And he will accuse me of being a clone of him, while I will strongly deny that, and say that it's the other way around.
Not sure if the clone will believe HE is the clone, not me, but, anyway, from this day onwards he will have his life, and I will have my life. Each day that passes, he will do different things than I will do. He will have his personal history, his memories (from the "C-day" onwards) and I will have my personal history and my memories (from the "C-day" onwards).
So, the clone is not me.
If, five years after the cloning, I come to die, he will not have my memories from those five years. He will not be "my continuation" in any way. The fact he is alive won't make me immortal.
Off the cuff I'd say that is because you're still alive and creating two YOU timelines.
If you weren't there, the clone would technically be an exact copy of you just prior to your demise, and it would absolutely continue living the way you would live...because he's you. Seamless.
Off the cuff I'd say that is because you're still alive and creating two YOU timelines.
If you weren't there, the clone would technically be an exact copy of you just prior to your demise, and it would absolutely continue living the way you would live...because he's you. Seamless.
From the moment me and the clone meet each other, and he accuses me of being his clone, while I say he is my clone, we are going to live totally different lives, even if we still meet each other from time to time.
He will not be me, he will be just a clone, even if he THINKS he is me. Maybe I will need a few years to convince him that he is a clone, and I'm the original.
And after I die, he goes on with his clone life, he is not me, and I will not be "immortal" in any way.
From the moment me and the clone meet each other, and he accuses me of being his clone, while I say he is my clone, we are going to live totally different lives, even if we still meet each other from time to time.
He will not be me, he will be just a clone, even if he THINKS he is me. Maybe I will need a few years to convince him that he is a clone, and I'm the original.
And after I die, he goes on with his clone life, he is not me, and I will not be "immortal" in any way.
That's my point.
You can't argue that cloning won't work to extend your life seamlessly because you're describing a scenario in which the two clones exist at the same time AND interact with each other.
Remove that.
Now download your memories from this moment into a new body. Voila. You're still you. Remember that what makes you YOU is programming that basically comes from the sum of your experiences. If those are "downloaded," then you'll still be you and do what you do and experience what you experience.
Some people feel like if they would be "immortal" if they could produce a clone of themselves, and upload their memories to the clone's brain.
But a clone of me with all my memories until a certain point of my life is not "me".
The simplest way of demonstrating this is to make that clone while I'm still alive.
The clone will have all my memories until a certain point of my life, but from that day onwards, the clone will be the clone, and me will be me.
The clone will look at me, and I will look at the clone. And he will accuse me of being a clone of him, while I will strongly deny that, and say that it's the other way around.
Not sure if the clone will believe HE is the clone, not me, but, anyway, from this day onwards he will have his life, and I will have my life. Each day that passes, he will do different things than I will do. He will have his personal history, his memories (from the "C-day" onwards) and I will have my personal history and my memories (from the "C-day" onwards).
So, the clone is not me.
If, five years after the cloning, I come to die, he will not have my memories from those five years. He will not be "my continuation" in any way. The fact he is alive won't make me immortal.
Within certain parameters it's quite obvious what "me" is. It isn't necessary for us to confine our thought processes to those parameters though.
Similarly, within certain parameters it's quite obvious what "immortality" is. It isn't necessary for us to confine our thought processes to those parameters though.
One thing that nobody's discussed so far is, at what point in its life did the clone obtain our memories? I think the way to make the clone closest to "me" would be for the clone to be in a kind of hibernation state with no dreams or thoughts until the clone is somehow rapidly aged to our current age, then awakened and given our memories. The clone would awaken at my current age. In that scenario, I think there would be two timelines of "me." They'd become different people, but I think they'd begin as the same person.
Without the technology to rapidly age us, we might keep the clone in hibernation until it reaches the age we were when it was cloned. The clone would feel as if it had time-jumped into the future. It would be less "me" than the clone mentioned immediately above due to the different environment.
Without the technology to rapidly age and put people into a hibernation state, I think that's where I'd cease perceiving the clone as another timeline of me. A baby with my memories that gained its own addition memories through its life would, I'd think, be two people in one at most rather than just me. An adult given my memories along with its own would also be two people in one, at most, rather than just me. If an adult clone of me had its memories replaced with my own, I think that would be less close to me the first version of me I mentioned, but still me. However, I think that would also be murder...so it wouldn't be acceptable to do.
So...without the technology to rapidly age people and put them into hibernation states, I think that would not be me. What's important is what it feels like and that our knowledge continues. Multiple clones of ourselves existing at once with the same memories and approximately the same ages could make us feel less like their lives after we die would be a continuation of our lives. In that case their existence makes us feel less immortal so we might as well be less immortal or not immortal. That mentality doesn't necessarily have to happen though. A person could look at those people as a continuation of his or herself, and feel as if they'd attained immortality through the lives of the multiple clones of his or herself. It'd probably take more mental discipline than there simply being only one me conscious at once, but there's no logical reason why more clones of me with my memories would make me any less immortal than one clone of me existing at once. If a person sees those multiple clones with is or her memories as a continuation of his or herself, he or she might as well have obtained a form of immortality through them, and if the person were to make save points throughout his or her life by periodically making new clones of his or herself as he or she ages each with his or her memories, even if they were all younger versions of him or her, I would see no difference between that and immortality.
What's most important is what it feels like and the practical aspects such as the retention of memory. Some people could look at it like they gain a form of immortality through their kids or through the continuation of their species or the continuation of any sentient life at all. Some people could look at it like permanent amnesia is the same as dying and being reborn.
The simple fact that me and a clone of me could exist at the same time and interact with each other is enough to make it very clear that a clone is another "self", and not "my self".
If me and my clone were together, I would never be able to "read his mind" and "feel what he is feeling", as well as he would never be able to read my mind and feel what I was feeling.
Cloning myself will not make me immortal, he will never be "me in another body".
The simple fact that me and a clone of me could exist at the same time and interact with each other is enough to make it very clear that a clone is another "self", and not "my self".
If me and my clone were together, I would never be able to "read his mind" and "feel what he is feeling", as well as he would never be able to read my mind and feel what I was feeling.
Cloning myself will not make me immortal, he will never be "me in another body".
I agree that no clone will be me in the sense that I cannot peer out from two minds at once. What I am, in one sense at least, is very clear. I am that which looks through my eyes.
However, if we take that view, I don't think we can say I am the me of my childhood. I am, instead, the me now. A cloned me, rapidly aged to my current age and given my memories would be closer to me than the childhood me. I think if we say the cloned me is not me, we must also say the childhood me is not me, and even the me of a few hours ago is not me.
Basically, if we'd want immortality, I see no reason why the creation of a clone with our exact memories, kept in hibernation while rapidly aged to adulthood would not suffice.
Or...we can look at "me" as an ongoing process rather than individual beings or one being.
OP, you are correct.
That will be a copy of you, but only in relevance to memories copy/pasted onto the clone. Still a copy.
Why is it no more you than a copy?
Quote:
This been discussed forever. Movies made. The Island. 6th Day.
Books written. Ursula LeGuinne had a good one on it.
Cloning is cloning.
Look at identical twins. They are close - but not same.
Identical twins begin life with no identity and develop one over time. They begin life soon enough that there's no identity to fight over. If I clone myself and give my clone my memories, that clone also takes with it my identity upon its creation. I think that would mean it would be sensible to view cloning as a kind of immortality. Given that the particles on our bodies will eventually be replaced, and the cells that compose us will eventually die and be replaced by new cells, and our memories and thought processes change dramatically with age...I wouldn't see cloning ourselves (if those clones are given our exact memories) as any different than a more sudden version of the molecules in our bodies being replaced by new molecules.
I've been sorely unimpressed with discussions about this topic I've heard before in movies. I've never seen one movie or even read a science fiction book where cloning was seriously discussed. I find that they're more often silly about it. Clones are depicted as somehow being worth less than the originally cloned, or as mindless automatons, or the cloners are depicted as evil. If they took this topic seriously I'd expect to see society view the lives of my clone as having equal value as my life. I assume I haven't read the books you've read or watched the movies you've read, but I've been heartily ticked off by what I've seen whenever any entertainment source mentions cloning. I am glad people are arguing about this though. This is fun.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
