What if

[Tom Crooze]

You died, but somebody made an exact copy of you? Same memories and such, would it still be you?

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

No... It would be someone else.

[irontaino]

Different soul inhabiting a different flesh puppet, so no.

[Tiwaz]

Would this new you be made up of same materials as you? If not, then it really couldn't be you.
After all, there would be corpse of you and body with identical makeup of chemical processes which made up your personality in the same time.

If, however, copy was made of materials which made up you at the moment of your death, it gets more interesting. Would it be copy rather than reboot of you?

[Diamat]

Considering that there is no such thing as a "you" in the first place, the answer is irrelevant. What you think is "you" is nothing but a conglomeration of your experiences. Upon death, those experiences are lost once your brain ceases activity. Upon death, the supposed "you" is revealed to be non-existent.

Christians and people of other faiths, of course, would disagree, and hence their answer would be: "it's not the same person, since your immortal soul is what makes up your person."

Two different answers based on two different world views...

[Armatus]

Well, to be fair no one that will ever live (technically) will know what happens after death because no one has ever survived it har har... (though some claim of course)

I would like to think that at some point I could become a force in the evolution of the greater universe by propelling my only kind forward.

[Justice and Mercy]

Would this new you be made up of same materials as you? If not, then it really couldn't be you.

Why? Are you the same person that was born on your birthday by your mother with your name and your genes?

The materials that make up you have changed.

Tell me, how then, can we still reference "you" as "you"?

What you think is "you" is nothing but a conglomeration of your experiences.

"What you think..."

How do I think if I don't exist?

Utter nonsense.

Upon death, the supposed "you" is revealed to be non-existent.

No, it becomes non-existent. During my life, I existed.



This problem is the Ship of Theseus with a dose of "What makes you you?"

The answer, of course, is simple. I am the consciousness that thinks and says "I." I exist until the bodily functions which allow for that existence cease. Now, can those bodily functions be restarted? Absolutely. They are a function of matter and matter can be manipulated. Would it be the same flow of consciousness? If the brain is the same as it was, yes, after all the consciousness is a function of the brain.

If someone made a copy of me out of different matter it would NOT be me, because it would be the formation of an entirely new consciousness.

[Diamat]

"What you think..."

How do I think if I don't exist?

Utter nonsense.



No, it becomes non-existent. During my life, I existed.
.

I couldn't agree more with you. You must have misunderstood me. All I was saying was that what makes us a person, an individual, is nothing more than a conglomeration of all our experiences. These experiences are, ultimately, dependent on our brains, of course. Your experiences, and thus your person, will vanish if your brain ceases to function (as far as modern science can tell).

Of course you "existed" while you were alive. However, as a person, you were constantly changing. Every second you become a different person because your experiences accumulate. Your existence is based on a very unique perspective, a perspective only you can possess. There is no permanence in your existence. The only thing permanent is change itself--change is constant. Realizing that everything is changing, you also realize that there is no permanent "I". You exist, of course, but the way your existence is viewed is dependent on whatever is beholding of your existence. You may feel like a person due to your own subjective perspective. However, you are nothing but a complex construct of cells etc.

[Justice and Mercy]

I couldn't agree more with you. You must have misunderstood me. All I was saying was that what makes us a person, an individual, is nothing more than a conglomeration of all our experiences. These experiences are, ultimately, dependent on our brains, of course. Your experiences, and thus your person, will vanish if your brain ceases to function (as far as modern science can tell).

Human beings have more to us than simply our experiences. An experience is a retained percept. We have two additional faculties: The conceptual faculty, and the faculty of volition.

The only thing permanent is change itself--change is constant.

Change presupposes that which changes. Which means: That which changes must be permanent, or there can be no change.

You may feel like a person due to your own subjective perspective. However, you are nothing but a complex construct of cells etc.

I don't just "feel" like a person, I am a person. I am a complex construct of cells capable of recognizing reality and acting accordingly.

[Diamat]

Human beings have more to us than simply our experiences. An experience is a retained percept. We have two additional faculties: The conceptual faculty, and the faculty of volition.



Change presupposes that which changes. Which means: That which changes must be permanent, or there can be no change.



I don't just "feel" like a person, I am a person. I am a complex construct of cells capable of recognizing reality and acting accordingly.

Again, I completely agree with you. lol

[Justice and Mercy]

Again, I completely agree with you. lol

And yet you're implying, if not explicitly stating, the exact opposite of what I am.

What is meant by "You may feel like a person do to your own subjective perspective. However..."?

[Diamat]

And yet you're implying, if not explicitly stating, the exact opposite of what I am.

What is meant by "You may feel like a person do to your own subjective perspective. However..."?

You ARE a person. Yet you are also not a person. Both are true. The concept of person only exists because you exist. You are a person while you are alive, but cease to be upon death. "Person" is a loaded term, containing various implications which depend on your existence. One should be careful in using such terms, otherwise you will run the danger of believing in an immortal person which persists despite your biological death.

[Justice and Mercy]

You ARE a person. Yet you are also not a person. Both are true.

That's very clearly a contradiction, and thus false.

The concept of person only exists because you exist.

Well, to be clear, the concept of a "person" would exist without me as long as there were another creature capable of conceptual thought that sought to identify "person."

Don't need me, in particular, for that.

But yes, the concept of "person" only exists because people exist. Further, ANY concepts exist at all only because people exist.

"Person" is a loaded term, containing various implications which depend on your existence.

ALL terms are loaded. Everything that exists exists as a particular thing of particular properties and in a particular context, except for the universe as a whole (which DOES exist as a particular thing of particular properties, but not in a certain context.)

One should be careful in using such terms, otherwise you will run the danger of believing in an immortal person which persists despite your biological death.

No more than I believe in an immortal keyboard once this keyboard wears out and breaks down.

[Diamat]

That's very clearly a contradiction, and thus false.

This time there is one thing I do disagree with, as quoted above. Practical Example: a person in Korea may call a tanned person ugly...yet a person in the United States might call a tanned person beautiful...same person, two different descriptions...a contradiction, yet still true in both ways. Same about hot and cold and other things which are perceived by us. You admitted that the concept of person depends on people's existence. Hence, there exists a certain relativity concerning this term. This is how something can exist yet also not exist--it's relative.

[Armatus]

It's perfectly natural for people to have inbuilt preferences for race or characteristics physical or cultural so not a contradiction unless you're much higher above on the cosmic scale than mere humans.

[Justice and Mercy]

This time there is one thing I do disagree with, as quoted above. Practical Example: a person in Korea may call a tanned person ugly...yet a person in the United States might call a tanned person beautiful...same person, two different descriptions...a contradiction, yet still true in both ways.

No, it's not a contradiction. To say "I find that person beautiful" does not mean "EVERY person finds that person beautiful."

Same about hot and cold and other things which are perceived by us.

And? Perceptions relay REAL information to us.

Hence, there exists a certain relativity concerning this term.

Yeah, the relation being that in order for concepts to exist, people must exist, and in order for the concept "person" to exist, a person must identify the concept as such.

This is how something can exist yet also not exist--it's relative.

It doesn't not exist. It DOES exist. So no, that's not a contradiction either.

[Diamat]

No, it's not a contradiction. To say "I find that person beautiful" does not mean "EVERY person finds that person beautiful."



And? Perceptions relay REAL information to us.



Yeah, the relation being that in order for concepts to exist, people must exist, and in order for the concept "person" to exist, a person must identify the concept as such.



It doesn't not exist. It DOES exist. So no, that's not a contradiction either.

Dude, I really don't know in how many more other ways I can explain the same thing to you. We are not really disagreeing...it's just a matter of terminology...

[Justice and Mercy]

Dude, I really don't know in how many more other ways I can explain the same thing to you. We are not really disagreeing...it's just a matter of terminology...

No, it's not. It's far deeper than that. It's a disagreement on concepts as such, the validity of human perception, and the nature of reality.

It's a disagreement on every fundamental idea there is.

[Diamat]

No, it's not. It's far deeper than that. It's a disagreement on concepts as such, the validity of human perception, and the nature of reality.

It's a disagreement on every fundamental idea there is.

Yeah, you don't see the relativity that I am seeing.

[Justice and Mercy]

Yeah, you don't see the relativity that I am seeing.

That's because it doesn't exist in the manner you mean it.

If you believe that the universe is "relativistic" in the sense that contradictions can exist, it means that you believe that the universe is illogical and beyond human comprehension.