/sci/ - Science & Math

can't even understand the hypothetical

I'm guessing two seperate consciuosness
basically two different people

>>4103066

so you're saying there is something non-physical about consciousness that can't be reproduced?

>>4103033

if they shared the same consciousness they would effectively be psychic, able to communicate with each other or itself across vast distances instantaneously...this would probably break some laws of physics

if it didn't work and 2 ppl were created, then there is something immaterial about consciousness that neurons and atoms can't reproduce....

either way, some fucked up shit would happen

for fucks sake i figured /sci/ would be smarter than this

the moment their experiences began to diverge (which it would at the moment of duplication since they're in two separate bodies at slightly different points in space) they wouldn't be the same individual anymore, they would have the exact same memories up to the point of duplication, and then they would have slightly different (but diverging the more that time goes by and they experience different things) memories after that

tl;dr: they are not the same person but this doesn't mean there is anything "immaterial" underlying consciousness

No. I'm pretty sure you're implying souls exist and I believe the human mind is just layers of learned/evolved reactions/instincts.

While the two organism would be identical and may act extremely similarly, there brains would not be able to communicate on a subconscious level.

I'm only familiar with biology, so if I missed some physics point, pardon my error.

>>4103100

This.

the qualities that distinguish one consciousness from another are:
history
location
physiology

so if you had two consciousnesses with the exact same history and physiology, but in different locations, they would be two distinct consciousnesses.

so no. It is not possible to be conscious in two different bodies.

>>4103100

>the moment their experiences began to diverge they would be different people

this assumes the process didn't create the same copy
if the same consciousness was duplicated, then any "new" experience the copy experience the original would also experience...

there would be no divergence if the consciousness was copied. the extra body would simply function as an extra limb or eye or nose to the 1 consciousness....

you assume it is impossible to actually reproduce the same consciousness in another body?

or do you think consciousness has no identity

Wait wait wait. Lemme get this straight. You think that, if you don't share consciousness, that would be evidence [i]for[i] something inherently non-physical and mysterious about consciousness?

So if consciousness is really a mundane [i]merely physical[i] phenomenon then you would expect it to defy locality. Really?

Like seriously you don't need to resolve this by saying something like "their experiences would differ after a while" or even "in light of QM it is non-physical nonsense to be talking about distinct identical things" to respond to this. If that were the case then a mere change in the laws of physic would change your answer. The answer to this question isn't "that's not actually possible and here's why physics says so" it's "no".

Okay here's a tough one: Let's say I have two calculators, and I make extra sure that I tweak my physics so that I can make them totally identical, and I ask them both what is 9 times 9. Do they both perform the same instance of that computation?

If it's obvious why that's a silly question to ask then it should be equally obvious why the original question is silly, unless you still believe on some gut level that consciousness is [i]not[i] mere computation.

>>4103100

this makes no sense, if we assume the physicalist position and consciousness is just a brain-configuration, then re-creating a brain, atom by atom, would ipso facto create the same consciousness in two bodies

a new experience would be handled just like any new experience a person encounters....

it would be integrated into that one consciousness...

this leads to other problems though, being psychic and transmitting information faster than light

but to say that the process wouldn't work or is theoretically impossible is to say there is something non-physical about consciousness

either way, it breaks the materialist position

>>4103159
>unless you still believe on some gut level that consciousness is [i]not[i] mere computation.

consciousness doesn't compute anything
i haven't seen any theory of consciousness involving computation

computation is a higher-order syntactic and semantic process of the brain

you might as well confuse consciousness with memory, IQ or perception...because nothing you said really deals with the question

>Is it possible to be conscious out of two bodies at the same time?

No.

>would you be conscious out of the duplicate body?

No. Even if there were biological mechanisms that could permit such an event, it is physically impossible for both "clones" to transmit the necessary information between one another.

>>4103077
>something non-physical about consciousness

No, and I don't understand where you got that notion.

>>4103187
>No, and I don't understand where you got that notion.

your consciousness is the product of your brain.
duplicate your brain.
ipso facto, we have duplicated your consciousness.

if we duplicate your brain, 100% accurately, yet your consciousness doesn't emerge, then, it stands to reason that there is something more to consciousness than the brain.

Do you follow? I can't make it simpler :(

>>4103167

Okay I'm not gonna bother arguing about the computation bit unless you actually want to go into that, but I will make my actual point clear in case it isn't already.

In general, you wouldn't say two distinct instances of the same physical process are connected in any deeper sense than that your predictions about one would also apply to the other. ie if I throw a basketball and my evil twin on nega-earth also throw a basketball, they don't become the same basketball, no matter how alike they are in all their properties.

So why would you expect that of consciousness?

What stops you from having two distinct instances of the same consciousness?

>>4103227
get out

>>4103235
okay

>>4103225

No, that doesn't follow at all.

They'd both have consciousness, but it cannot be the same consciousness. That would require impossible non-physical hogwash.

If the brain were perfectly recreated, you'd end up with two conscious people who have the same memories right up until the point they were cloned. Their memories diverge there forward.

>>4103245

the only implication of your denial is that you're saying consciousness is not strictly the product of a physical brain

>>4103245

the only way to argue this is to say that consciousness has no identity

if consciousness has an identity, and it depends on the brain, and you recreate the same brain, then you recreate that specific consciousness...no way around it

>>4103249

That is a falsehood, and an intentionally malicious one at that. Good day sir.

>>4103249
>>4103256

This makes no sense at all. Define identity, and consciousness for that matter.

>>4103259
>>4103255
>>4103245

>this X is strictly the product of this configuration Y.

>so if we reproduce this exact configuration Y, we will produce this X?

>No. Because I'm inconsistent and make no sense.

LMFAO...

The entire concept of consciousness is pseudoscientific at best. No one has been able to detect these so-called "thoughts" and "feelings" inside brains, only signals. You don't actually exist; you're just an illusion.

>>4103278
>No one has been able to detect these so-called "thoughts" and "feelings"

I'm pretty sure we can detect our thoughts and feelings quite easily and they are the most real and concrete things we know

the problem is they are 1st person experiences; science deals with 3rd person observations...

science has no access to this realm, so it can't really say much about it

>>4103294
>I'm pretty sure we can detect our thoughts and feelings quite easily and they are the most real and concrete things we know
Where is your evidence for this garbage? I'm pretty sure the flying spaghetti monster is the most real and concrete thing we know.

>>4103308
Amen brother.

>>4103308

it is self-evident
the problem is, it's 1st person evidence

I know pain when I feel it, I know a thought when I think it, I can't transmit this objectively so that science can look at it

this is a deficiency of science and its method. It can never overcome it. unfortunately this will lead to people coming up with absurd theories, like rocks are conscious...or nothing is conscious...

everything has qualia, or there is no qualia...absurdities like this is what science fanatics will be reduced to, incoherent gibberish because they can't bridge the 1st person and 3rd person gap

>>4103317

Amen brother.

>>4103317


This is basically it.

The end.

>>4103083
>>4103083
yeah right, and they project some rays of energy to update each other...
..

OP, I don't know if this question is answered so far, but I'd try to make an analogy to the hard drive: If you duplicate it, there are two of them with the same information (except for differences due to fabrication of the hard drives). Well, in the very first moment they would be the exact same, but in the next moment they are not.

so, basically this >>4103100

>>4103317
hyperbolic discounting detected

Only if you believe in mind body dualism

>>4103361


theres nothing in a harddrive that can be compared to consciousness...so the analogy doesn't really work

>>4103382
If there's no consciousness in hard drives, how do the porn actresses move around on my screen?

Is OP really looking for clear answers? I'm disappointed in /sci/

However, I wouldn't tell anyone about my double, and since she would also hate the world we'd go on a killing rampage with perfect alibis. Also, amazing sex with myself. kthxbye.