Topic: If 98% of the atoms in our body are replaced in just 1 year, what are we? - page 4. (Read 5713 times)
May 01, 2016, 07:32:20 PM
"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".
April 30, 2016, 03:44:34 PM
Saying the machine will be a exact clone of us, a perfect copy, means to say that it won't be the original, us. But since you agree that it would be a clone and would be an autonomous individual you have to agree it wouldn't be us, but a copy.
The clone would have a right to your property? Better be glad you don't have an unknown identity twin (unless you dismissed the conclusion because of some tiny differences, like fingerprints) somewhere or it seems you would agree he would have a right to your property.
The clone would have a right to your property? Better be glad you don't have an unknown identity twin (unless you dismissed the conclusion because of some tiny differences, like fingerprints) somewhere or it seems you would agree he would have a right to your property.
machine will never be like us. they're not able to have our intelligent, mind and nature system of our body. the smartest person itself is not capable of doing such thing. even they can create smart human machines, those machines aren't the clone or a copy because the machines just have the same shape of our body, but the materials of our body are extremely different.
exactly agreed.. machines will never replace humans.. becauses machines will never have emotions like anger, love, jealosy etc.. for that reason , humans will always be the best creature living on earth for sure..
A human is just a biological machine
April 29, 2016, 09:31:50 AM
Saying the machine will be a exact clone of us, a perfect copy, means to say that it won't be the original, us. But since you agree that it would be a clone and would be an autonomous individual you have to agree it wouldn't be us, but a copy.
The clone would have a right to your property? Better be glad you don't have an unknown identity twin (unless you dismissed the conclusion because of some tiny differences, like fingerprints) somewhere or it seems you would agree he would have a right to your property.
The clone would have a right to your property? Better be glad you don't have an unknown identity twin (unless you dismissed the conclusion because of some tiny differences, like fingerprints) somewhere or it seems you would agree he would have a right to your property.
machine will never be like us. they're not able to have our intelligent, mind and nature system of our body. the smartest person itself is not capable of doing such thing. even they can create smart human machines, those machines aren't the clone or a copy because the machines just have the same shape of our body, but the materials of our body are extremely different.
exactly agreed.. machines will never replace humans.. becauses machines will never have emotions like anger, love, jealosy etc.. for that reason , humans will always be the best creature living on earth for sure..
April 28, 2016, 09:41:08 PM
There is enough evidence to convince the most stubborn theist (including the pope) that we descend from things much worst than monkeys.
Of course, not even the most compelling evidence would convince people that simple don't want to be convinced, no matter what.
Of course, not even the most compelling evidence would convince people that simple don't want to be convinced, no matter what.
Like someone said, it is hard to reason with someone who hasn't arrived at his conclusions through reason. Although he is technically right. We didn't descend from monkeys. More like from apes.
I like that quote too, it's from Jonathan Swift, the writer of Gulliver.
Of course, it can be interpreted also on a violent way. If he doesn't want to listen to reason, let's force him to obey. But I prefer to just read it as a let's give up and stop wasting time.
April 28, 2016, 09:34:40 PM
Anyway, if this technology became available, probably there would be criminals willing to kidnap rich people and create an "adult super-clone" out of their DNA and a "scan" of their brain. Then, kill the original person and make the clone assuming his place, in order to blackmail him, thanks to small secret changes on the DNA allowing to see he wasn't the original.
This could make a good science fiction novel or movie... probably, someone has already wrote it.
This could make a good science fiction novel or movie... probably, someone has already wrote it.
It already is a movie. "The 6th Day" starring Arnold Schwarzenegger.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216216/
Good point. I saw the movie and no longer remembered it.
April 24, 2016, 04:35:03 PM
Re: If 98% of the atoms in our body are replaced in just 1 year, what are we?
A sieve.
April 23, 2016, 07:49:49 PM
There is enough evidence to convince the most stubborn theist (including the pope) that we descend from things much worst than monkeys.
Of course, not even the most compelling evidence would convince people that simple don't want to be convinced, no matter what.
Of course, not even the most compelling evidence would convince people that simple don't want to be convinced, no matter what.
Like someone said, it is hard to reason with someone who hasn't arrived at his conclusions through reason. Although he is technically right. We didn't descend from monkeys. More like from apes.
April 23, 2016, 06:01:18 PM
Anyway, if this technology became available, probably there would be criminals willing to kidnap rich people and create an "adult super-clone" out of their DNA and a "scan" of their brain. Then, kill the original person and make the clone assuming his place, in order to blackmail him, thanks to small secret changes on the DNA allowing to see he wasn't the original.
This could make a good science fiction novel or movie... probably, someone has already wrote it.
This could make a good science fiction novel or movie... probably, someone has already wrote it.
It already is a movie. "The 6th Day" starring Arnold Schwarzenegger.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216216/
April 23, 2016, 02:31:32 PM
There is enough evidence to convince the most stubborn theist (including the pope) that we descend from things much worst than monkeys.
Of course, not even the most compelling evidence would convince people that simple don't want to be convinced, no matter what.
Of course, not even the most compelling evidence would convince people that simple don't want to be convinced, no matter what.
April 19, 2016, 02:34:15 AM
Every one year about 98% of atoms in your body are replaced, did you know that the DNA in monkeys is Only only 3% different from the DNA in humans.
That does not make me a descendant of monkeys!
April 17, 2016, 09:22:06 AM
But that changes nothing. The super-clone would never have a right to your property. He didn't made anything to earn it. He only would have the memories of doing it.
Exactly the same can be said for the original, being made of entirely different materials than he was some years ago. In any case, a clone's memories of doing work would be a form of suffering, and isn't it wrong to bring suffering upon a sapient life-form without some form of compensation? Compensation for the suffering of doing work is why the original got paid in the first place, remember.He would only by a copy, not the original. Actually, realizing he was just a "super-clone" would be a trauma that would provoke changes on his personality, making him different.
Again, speak for yourself. I suppose some religious person who believes in souls would be distraught at discovering there is more than one of himself in the world, but not me.Anyway, if this technology became available, probably there would be criminals willing to kidnap rich people and create an "adult super-clone" out of their DNA and a "scan" of their brain. Then, kill the original person and make the clone assuming his place, in order to blackmail him, thanks to small secret changes on the DNA allowing to see he wasn't the original.
Blackmail him for what? What exactly does the clone stand to lose by revealing that the original was murdered? April 17, 2016, 07:24:25 AM
Saying the machine will be a exact clone of us, a perfect copy, means to say that it won't be the original, us. But since you agree that it would be a clone and would be an autonomous individual you have to agree it wouldn't be us, but a copy.
Ies disagree. Both of Ies would think myselves to be the original, and both would be correct, except in the narrow sense that Ies would not made of the original material, but as the thread title points out, nobody is.The clone would have a right to your property? Better be glad you don't have an unknown identity twin (unless you dismissed the conclusion because of some tiny differences, like fingerprints) somewhere or it seems you would agree he would have a right to your property.
Better also be careful with your DNA. Because you are arguing that if someone stole your DNA (if you drink from a glass, there are high probabilities that you will leave your DNA on it) and made a clone of you against your will, the clone would have the right to take everything you own, including job, wife, children, etc.
Stop equivocating. At first you used the word "clone" to mean "a copy of our neurons with all of their connections" with "all of our memories, personality and mental capacities", and in this sense, the clone would indeed be another me, regardless of all other factors, as identity is an aspect of consciousness, which is a property of the mind, which is a process of the brain. Same brain = same person. But here you're using "clone" in the traditional sense of a being with identical DNA, like a twin. Obviously these clones do not have, and have never had, the same brain, and cannot in any way be considered to be the same person, and it is absurd to suggest I said otherwise.Better also be careful with your DNA. Because you are arguing that if someone stole your DNA (if you drink from a glass, there are high probabilities that you will leave your DNA on it) and made a clone of you against your will, the clone would have the right to take everything you own, including job, wife, children, etc.
That doesn't make the slightest sense. Mad scientists would have an incentive to create clones from rich people and ask a price to the clone for their services for creating them of 50% of "their" fortune.
Huh? 50% of their fortune is less than what they started with, when there was just one of them in the world. By having to share one person's property between the two of them, both the clone and the original have been robbed by scientist, who is now faced with two people who hate him instead of one person who didn't. Not the best idea ever.Alright, I accept you were writing only about a super-clone (with the same neurons and synapses), not a usual one, with only the same DNA.
But that changes nothing. The super-clone would never have a right to your property. He didn't made anything to earn it. He only would have the memories of doing it.
He would only by a copy, not the original. Actually, realizing he was just a "super-clone" would be a trauma that would provoke changes on his personality, making him different.
Loving or hating the mad scientist is irrelevant to the issue. But the "super-clone" would own his life to him.
Anyway, if this technology became available, probably there would be criminals willing to kidnap rich people and create an "adult super-clone" out of their DNA and a "scan" of their brain. Then, kill the original person and make the clone assuming his place, in order to blackmail him, thanks to small secret changes on the DNA allowing to see he wasn't the original.
This could make a good science fiction novel or movie... probably, someone has already wrote it.
April 14, 2016, 05:59:32 PM
TL;DR
1. Atomic theory is questionable, are there really atoms?
2. Wiki has some resources on the subject in question:
1. Atomic theory is questionable, are there really atoms?
2. Wiki has some resources on the subject in question:
- QuoteFour-dimensionalism
Ted Sider and others have proposed that considering objects to extend across time as four-dimensional causal series of three-dimensional "time-slices" could solve the ship of Theseus problem because, in taking such an approach, each time-slice and all four dimensional objects remain numerically identical to themselves while allowing individual time-slices to differ from each other. The aforementioned river, therefore, comprises different three-dimensional time-slices of itself while remaining numerically identical to itself across time; one can never step into the same river-time-slice twice, but one can step into the same (four-dimensional) river twice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus - QuoteWorm theorists believe that a persisting object is composed of the various temporal parts that it has. Thus, they believe that all persisting objects are four-dimensional "worms" that stretch across space-time, and that you are mistaken in believing that chairs, mountains, and people are simply three-dimensional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdurantism
April 14, 2016, 05:26:33 PM
We are the ship of Theseus, the key mistake people make is to reduce the system to its elements, yet this doesn't work for any system. A great example is DNA, not long ago people were starting to sequence genomes and thought that this would give them all the required information about species, as it turned out it's not. Epigenesis, the way genes interact with inviroment is reciprocal, it activates and deactivate genes and adds more to the system, of course the invorment for a system of a cell is different than that of a cardiovascular system etc. Knowledge that reduces things to their component is just the starting point, its much more important to know how the system behaves and interacts with its outside. Your consciousness is replaced every day, you wake up feeling the same, although your gamma neural oscillations took a break from existence, no problem as long as the conditions to recreate it are there.
April 14, 2016, 05:00:36 PM
Every one year about 98% of atoms in your body are replaced, did you know that the DNA in monkeys is Only only 3% different from the DNA in humans.
April 14, 2016, 04:04:49 PM
Saying the machine will be a exact clone of us, a perfect copy, means to say that it won't be the original, us. But since you agree that it would be a clone and would be an autonomous individual you have to agree it wouldn't be us, but a copy.
The clone would have a right to your property? Better be glad you don't have an unknown identity twin (unless you dismissed the conclusion because of some tiny differences, like fingerprints) somewhere or it seems you would agree he would have a right to your property.
The clone would have a right to your property? Better be glad you don't have an unknown identity twin (unless you dismissed the conclusion because of some tiny differences, like fingerprints) somewhere or it seems you would agree he would have a right to your property.
machine will never be like us. they're not able to have our intelligent, mind and nature system of our body. the smartest person itself is not capable of doing such thing. even they can create smart human machines, those machines aren't the clone or a copy because the machines just have the same shape of our body, but the materials of our body are extremely different.
I see zero reason we could not replicate us into a machine.
We are simply a store of memories and we react to those memories for our own advantage.
April 12, 2016, 11:55:36 PM
Saying the machine will be a exact clone of us, a perfect copy, means to say that it won't be the original, us. But since you agree that it would be a clone and would be an autonomous individual you have to agree it wouldn't be us, but a copy.
The clone would have a right to your property? Better be glad you don't have an unknown identity twin (unless you dismissed the conclusion because of some tiny differences, like fingerprints) somewhere or it seems you would agree he would have a right to your property.
The clone would have a right to your property? Better be glad you don't have an unknown identity twin (unless you dismissed the conclusion because of some tiny differences, like fingerprints) somewhere or it seems you would agree he would have a right to your property.
machine will never be like us. they're not able to have our intelligent, mind and nature system of our body. the smartest person itself is not capable of doing such thing. even they can create smart human machines, those machines aren't the clone or a copy because the machines just have the same shape of our body, but the materials of our body are extremely different.
April 12, 2016, 04:00:54 PM
We are just a tool for little bacteria to spread and thrive off,nothing more to us than that. The interesting aspects that make us human like personality are the interesting cog that I stumble on when thinking about what we are. If everything is done before we actually think it than its not me thinking it.
April 12, 2016, 12:24:05 AM
The truth is we are all part of the same organism. Our, bodies, our minds, possibly even our souls (citation needed). The way we perceive the world gives us the illusion of individuality, but in reality we all share a common body and mind. There is increasing evidence to the effect of a collective conscious, meaning that our thoughts may not even be uniquely our own, but rather a cobbling of everyone's ideas.
Now for the mind blowing part. The human brain is psychologically designed as a scalar transceiver! Energy can be transmitted and relieved via our brain, outside of our bodies. The two hemispheres of our brains are designed to create an interference pattern which can either send or receive information via electrical waves. We are effectively electrical instruments swimming in a sea of resonant energy. No one is really truly independent.
At this point I am sure some of you expect me to start talking about reptilians or ESP or something, so I am going to stop trying to simplify this very complicated subject and suggest that if you find this concept interesting, you should research scalar resonance and scalar waves, and compare how those devices function in relation to the physiological design of the human brain.
Now for the mind blowing part. The human brain is psychologically designed as a scalar transceiver! Energy can be transmitted and relieved via our brain, outside of our bodies. The two hemispheres of our brains are designed to create an interference pattern which can either send or receive information via electrical waves. We are effectively electrical instruments swimming in a sea of resonant energy. No one is really truly independent.
At this point I am sure some of you expect me to start talking about reptilians or ESP or something, so I am going to stop trying to simplify this very complicated subject and suggest that if you find this concept interesting, you should research scalar resonance and scalar waves, and compare how those devices function in relation to the physiological design of the human brain.
I want to believe that Everything is one.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/jeremy-england-the-man-who-may-one-up-darwin-1036242
April 11, 2016, 11:37:53 PM
Saying the machine will be a exact clone of us, a perfect copy, means to say that it won't be the original, us. But since you agree that it would be a clone and would be an autonomous individual you have to agree it wouldn't be us, but a copy.
Ies disagree. Both of Ies would think myselves to be the original, and both would be correct, except in the narrow sense that Ies would not made of the original material, but as the thread title points out, nobody is.The clone would have a right to your property? Better be glad you don't have an unknown identity twin (unless you dismissed the conclusion because of some tiny differences, like fingerprints) somewhere or it seems you would agree he would have a right to your property.
Better also be careful with your DNA. Because you are arguing that if someone stole your DNA (if you drink from a glass, there are high probabilities that you will leave your DNA on it) and made a clone of you against your will, the clone would have the right to take everything you own, including job, wife, children, etc.
Stop equivocating. At first you used the word "clone" to mean "a copy of our neurons with all of their connections" with "all of our memories, personality and mental capacities", and in this sense, the clone would indeed be another me, regardless of all other factors, as identity is an aspect of consciousness, which is a property of the mind, which is a process of the brain. Same brain = same person. But here you're using "clone" in the traditional sense of a being with identical DNA, like a twin. Obviously these clones do not have, and have never had, the same brain, and cannot in any way be considered to be the same person, and it is absurd to suggest I said otherwise.Better also be careful with your DNA. Because you are arguing that if someone stole your DNA (if you drink from a glass, there are high probabilities that you will leave your DNA on it) and made a clone of you against your will, the clone would have the right to take everything you own, including job, wife, children, etc.
That doesn't make the slightest sense. Mad scientists would have an incentive to create clones from rich people and ask a price to the clone for their services for creating them of 50% of "their" fortune.
Huh? 50% of their fortune is less than what they started with, when there was just one of them in the world. By having to share one person's property between the two of them, both the clone and the original have been robbed by scientist, who is now faced with two people who hate him instead of one person who didn't. Not the best idea ever. Jump to: