On Monday, February 17, 2014 12:44:43 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:45:13 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:49:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 16 February 2014 01:32, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > No, the copy of the experience has no belief or experience at all. >>>>> The >>>>> > reflection of the fire doesn't burn anything. >>>>> >>>>> Are you saying that the copy will be dead? >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm saying that the copy was never alive to begin with. >>>> >>>> >>>>> A pathologist would examine >>>>> it and declare that it cannot possibly be dead, everything is normal. >>>>> It not only looks like Craig, it also has skin, bones, internal >>>>> organs, blood, the histological structure of the organs is all normal, >>>>> biochemical analysis is normal, everything is normal. >>>> >>>> >>>> You are assuming that is possible, but it isn't. All you can do is >>>> clone me, which is no better than a twin brother as far as being a copy. >>>> No >>>> other kind of reproduction will work, any more than a flame could be made >>>> out of pixels. >>>> >>>> >>>>> If it's all >>>>> normal by every objective test but it is dead, that would be a >>>>> miracle. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It won't be normal by every objective test. You keep thinking of a >>>> zombie, but I am talking about a doll. There are no zombies, just as there >>>> is no way to turn lead into gold by a chemical transformation. >>>> >>> >>> I'm proposing that all the atoms will be in place, put there by a >>> futuristic version of a 3D printer. >>> >> >> I understand, but I am saying that is not possible. Atoms do not >> literally occupy 'places', it is only impressions of atoms which appear to >> occupy relative places within a sense modality. If you try to copy a living >> cell, you won't get an exact copy, you'll just get another living cell (if >> you're lucky). >> >> >>> Any analysis will then show that this is a normal human with healthy >>> organs. >>> >> >> It would, in a universe where it was possible to literally copy physical >> presence, but it is not possible in this universe. Copying is a concept >> that relies on our failure to detect differences from our perceptual >> vantage point. There are no actual copies of physical events, and a human >> lifetime is a single, irreducible physical event (within its own frame of >> reference). >> > > I'm not sure what you think I mean by "copy" but what I actually mean is > that it is physically similar to the original, in the same way that a new > black 32GB Google Nexus 5 phone is physically similar to every other such > phone. They are not literally "the same phone" as they are physically > distinct, and if you did very precise measurements you would find that they > differ in multiple small ways, but if they came out of the factory within > engineering tolerance they are close enough to be shipped to customers as > "black 32GB Google Nexus 5". >
What I am saying though is that who a person is consists entirely of the experience of the phone calls made with the phone, not the forms or functions of the phone. > >> A pathologist doing an autopsy of a cadaver finds at least some evidence >>> of tissue damage consistent with death even if the cause of death is >>> undetermined, but in this case he will find nothing wrong. Are you claiming >>> that, nonenetheless, the 3D printed copy will be as lifeless as a cadaver? >>> >> >> I doubt that a 3D printed copy of a fully developed body will ever live. >> A 3D clone of DNA grown in vitro will live, but it will of course have a >> separate life and be a separate person, just as all identical twins, even >> brain-conjoined identical twins are separate people. If there were some way >> to copy a fully developed body so that it lived, it would still not be a >> copy of the original, but just a new original that reminds us of the copy >> from the outside perspective. >> >> Craig >> > > If the copy were not alive then as I said a pathologist would find some > deficit in it, > The deficit is that it won't be alive. The parts won't integrate into a whole. Every examination will yield only more levels of where the copy is incomplete. The primary sequence of DNA is right, but the tertiary protein folding doesn't work. The cells seem normal but the immune system attacks them. Every level will fail to account for the other completely. > which would indicate a technical problem with the copying process. > Yes, the technical problem is that nothing can be copied literally except in our perception. If we try to make a copy of something based on our perception, then we get pieces of what we think we are copying rather than the whole. My view is that the whole can appear to be cut into pieces, but pieces can never be assembled into a whole in the absence of some conscious perception. > For example, it may be that its heart does not beat because, on close > analysis, there is a structural problem with the myosin in the cardiac > cells. To fix this would require an adjustment to the 3D printer. I'm > spelling this out but usually in philosophical discussions it's assumed > mere technical issues are solved. Or do you think there is some other > ingredient that arbitrarily precise molecular assembly can never capture? > If so, how would you explain the mystery of a body with apparently > perfectly healthy tissues that is dead? > I think that there is a reason that precise molecular assembly can never capture but it has nothing to do with another ingredient. It is that molecular assembly itself supervenes on the larger context of awareness. It is the molecular appearances which are ingredient-like, not the totality. The appearance of an unknown cause of death is not uncommon. I don't know that it is even possible to get to square one. If you tried to copy even a single living cell by placing molecules adjacent to each other, I don't think it will work, any more than duplicating the buildings in Hollywood will make movies. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
