>>16559258
that's how you understand you don't really care you just invent issues to stress about. but you do have a 50/50 chance of ending in the clone
also
>what are identical twins

>>16559258
>If I clone my body atom for atom, the clone will be a different consciousness that thinks it's me
Well, yeah. That's all everything is in this universe. A configuration of atoms.

>>16559258
>constantly being replaced by different consciousnesses
that's called gaining experience and wisdom, anon

>>16559258
>How do I know that I am not constantly being replaced by different consciousnesses that think they're the previous version?
That's literally what's happening. You don't have access to the consciousness of your past self, only an imperfect memory of it.

>>16559294
Are you saying that is no real me, only an entity. Some kind of abstraction?

>>16559258
Consciousness isn't even real so of course you aren't being replaced.

>>16559311
>Consciousness isnt even real
Is this person a p-zombie? How could he unironically say this while fully experiencing consciousness while typing that?

>>16559258
>This is proven by the fact that I can't be conscious in 2 bodies at the same time

>make erroneous assumption
>get nonsense result
I know this is hard for the midwit brain to comprehend, but if you have two things that are the same, then they will be the same.

>>16559309
Yeah your mind is a series of experiences with some kind of fuzzy continuity, but there's nothing absolute that is shared by these experiences that retains identity in any kind of clear-cut manner.

>>16559258
Your consciousness is not inherently valuable and it's not the government's responsibility to ensure its survival. Parasite. Grow the fuck up and die like an adult.

memories are based on perception and are essentially illusory

>>16559338
That's a really mean thing to say

>>16559258
You are a consortium of neurons who conveniently work together but could also start doing their own thing if for example a tumor shows up in your brain.

The function of these neurons is you. You don't exist as a single thing in the universe, so no matter how you manage to copy the building blocks of your body, you are subservient to these specific neurons' coordination. They stop, you stop. They come back on, you come back on. But then if they are not functioning the same as before, how can you say you are the same?

What allows you to feel is still a mystery. But if you want to entertain the thought and claim people's experiences can be mixed, you wouldn't be able to call that the same as before but perhaps a new person altogether.

>>16559343
An by mean I meant average.

>>16559258
Perfect cloning is impossible.

>>16559317
From an objective point of view consciousness does not exist. No evidence you can ever acquire with you external senses can prove the existence of consciousness. Consider this, how do you know that anyone is or is not a p-zombie, you don't, its not possible to tell.

>>16559389
The consciousness of other people is not any more unknowable than the existence of the physical world. Both are reasonable but indirect inferences from your conscious experience, rather than anything rigorously proven.

>>16559258
In my opinion, it is a question of self-love. I mean, how inclined are you to harm yourself or others who acting similarly to you ? If you are at peace with yourself, I might be able to inform you about this problem. For example, consider the concept of a digital twin. Probably, everyone already has a digital twin, but how much do you agree with it making decisions on your behalf ? Do you see it as your represantative or as a part of yourself ?

>>16559375
I am not deeply familiar with it. However, the correct answer could be determined by exploring the case of conjoined twins(Siamese twins). Are there instances where one person controls two bodies, and is it possible to separate them ?

>>16559646
>Connect cabled thing to two actuators
>Both activate thing
no shit sherlock.

In the case of twins conjoined at the head, with a shared brain, they can read the other's thoughts. This is what I talk about. What you consider yourself is the boundary of your body. Within that boundary there's an assortment of things working clockwork. Disconnect them and they begin working on their own, see medular reflexes for example. Your identity is the result of that cellular cooperation. The cells stop cooperating, you cease to exist.

>>16559694
So that is how it is.. Maybe brain implants will change this concept. But then, for conjoined twins, there is a risk of breaking another person`s free will, making him an observer.

>>16559258
>clone my body atom for atom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

>>16559309
>Are you saying that is no real me
all yous are real yous anon. you are just expecting for there to be only one you at a time.

>>16559317
I think he meant that you cannot separate consciousness from any working brain. if it is an emergent phenomenon and you don't affect the brain then it's tied to the brain. you cannot make it separate from its substrate. thus not real in a sense, it's just a human concept used to describe our subjective experience. it's not something you get or lose without your material structure being affected somehow

>>16559387
dunno that matters, are you saying you must have atomic resolution? you're also not a perfect clone one moment to the other, your current state is pretty different than state of 5 seconds ago. proteins moving around etc. different configuration yet it's still you.

>>16559389
Simply the fact that you can observe your own consciousness proves that it has material effects, or else you wouldn't be able to change your beliefs about consciousness based on the observation. The other option is that you are being tricked by your brain into believing you are conscious when you actually aren't, then you can't even be sure that you are yourself a p-zombie.

>>16559646
>Probably, everyone already has a digital twin, but how much do you agree with it making decisions on your behalf ?
your clone would make decisions for itself like you make for you.
cloning is dumb if it's not done for some purpose. why would you split your experience? apart from trying to make sense of the implications, in practice this wouldn't happen. cloning is forking your experience on a different path. like twins are. same thing on two slightly different paths.
it's easier to understand if you think that identical twins have been split way earlier and thus don't have shared experience. like cloning yourself later would. both would be you up to the point of cloning, from there on they're diverging from each other.

>>16559857
>being tricked by your brain into believing you are conscious when you actually aren't
What a strange brain rot this is.

>>16559862
So you agree that consciousness has physical effects and you could, in principle, prove the consciousness of other people?

>>16559864
Consciousness doesn't have some kind of distinct effect that cannot be replicated via other means.
What you are talking about is some kind of output based on input. You are basing the judgement on literal output from human in question. That can be faked, as in generated with machines which work via different principles of operation.
You need something which can be made only in one way, and prove it can't be made any other way, and then test for that. Which I think is silly anyway.
If you replicate a mobile phone you can expect it to function identically to the phone you copied. You expect everything to be there without having to prove the call you are making is not some kind of alternate way of making the call that is not based on the same principles as it is on the original phone you copied. It's the same function because you made the same thing.

>>16559258
>>This is proven by the fact that I can't be conscious in 2 bodies at the same time
how? what? are you stupid?

>>16559878
I never said that you can prove it based solely on someone claiming that they can observe themselves being conscious. If there is some physical mechanism between being conscious and telling others that you are conscious, then it should be distinguishable from other causes through examination of the brain or other involved parts of the body.

>>16559885
If you make something which works the same way you don't need to prove it's the same function. You take it for granted.
There's no way to test for consciousness from the outside, you can at most expect it when you have something which works like a human brain, including other human brains, in their normal operation state, as in not damaged or affected in some way.

>>16559857
Consciousness, that being specifically your subjective experience has zero material effects. The physical brain is responsible for all your externally visible behavior, subjective experience has no effect on the physical. You, the observer has no control, you just experience whatever your brain does.

>>16559891
From the outside of what? I suggested observing someone's internals to determine what caused someone to say that they are conscious. I'm not sure how duplicating a known conscious system is relevant to determining whether other already-existing people are conscious.

>>16559896
Then that falls into the second camp where being conscious has no influence over whether we believe we are conscious, so we may as well not actually be conscious despite it being experienced as self-evident. I think this is the same realm of absurdity as denying that your mind can make logical deductions that are at least approximately sound.

>>16559899
Hmm, listen, we don't KNOW anyone is conscious apart from us. Still. To this day. We all take it for granted everyone else is because they kinda look the same and act the same and we "figure" they're conscious like we are.
You do not know anyone else is. If you copy anyone you can at most give the copy what you gave to the original, guess it must be. That's it. What you need to make sure is copy works on same principles as original, same theory of operation, observe its activity for some random stimuli, compare to original, if seems the same it's the same thing. That's as far as you can ever go.

>>16559907
>That's as far as you can ever go.
This is the part I disagree with. If there is some physical chain of action that causes conscious people to claim to be conscious, then it should be possible to observe these steps in action. If it's also possible by a different cause, assuming this other cause is purely physical, it should be possible to instead observe that this mechanism is taking place, with enough observational power.

Actually, if consciousness is non-physical, then you might not be able to distinguish it from other non-physical causes, like your soul telekinetically stimulating your brain cells vs Satan doing it. But that makes a lot of assumptions and you can't say categorically that consciousness can't be proven.

>>16559916
>Actually, if consciousness is non-physical
Zero proof in all human history and science that anyone ever witnessed a consciousness without a material support. It was always brains whenever we interacted with consciousness.
This is a science board, if you're going to go into mystical stuff then maybe >>>/x/

>If there is some physical chain of action that causes conscious people to claim to be conscious, then it should be possible to observe these steps in action.
You are just repeating what I said. If you build the same thing it should be conscious because it works on the same principles and exhibits the same side-effects (cerebral activity). You have similar structure, you have similar activity, and it itself says it's conscious.
Observing the brain and understanding how it works allows you to make something similar and thus you should expect similar behavior. So yes, you observe how it works and make that and you get ... consciousness. That's why I said you have to either make a brain or a brain-like thing, like a synthetic brain. As long as it works on same theory of operation on the same principles and exhibits other similar effects to a human brain it should be conscious yes. This is the best you can do.
If you do anything less you risk mimicking responses with other type of assemblies which work on different principles, or not quite the same, and you end up confusing yourself. Corporations will try to mimic brain like things doing different shit, and try to sell it. If it's not working on the same principles, has same compute power (nr of neurons and connections between etc) and is missing parts or has way more of other parts, you cannot say that is conscious even if "it says it is". You don't know. All you know is humans are, with this kind of brain, of this relative size, with that many neurons, connected that sort of way, and process speeds of that much. That's your absolute maximum resolution into consciousness.

>>16559921
>Zero proof in all human history and science that anyone ever witnessed a consciousness
I just addressed non-physical consciousness because I realized everything I said beforehand I was assuming a physical one.

>Observing the brain and understanding how it works allows you to make something similar and thus you should expect similar behavior. So yes, you observe how it works and make that and you get ... consciousness. That's why I said you have to either make a brain or a brain-like thing, like a synthetic brain. As long as it works on same theory of operation on the same principles and exhibits other similar effects to a human brain it should be conscious yes. This is the best you can do.
Then it sounds like we both think that you could determine someone else to be conscious by comparing their body to yours, so we are in agreement. It's plausible to me that research could result in enough insight to conclude that things other than human brains have consciousness, or maybe that it's impossible, but that's not what I was trying to argue and I don't think I am prepared to.

>>16559933
>I just addressed non-physical consciousness because I realized everything I said beforehand I was assuming a physical one.
what the fuck? why would you even think of that? what does have to do with fucking science anon? what (scientifically) makes you think that makes any sense? how and why? how come? for what fucking reason would you separate the two? it's like implying superconductivity can happen without particles involved, just like that, because le interesting idea.

>It's plausible to me that research could result in enough insight to conclude that things other than human brains have consciousness
Since you cannot go inside someone's head and "see" for yourself you can't really test it. At most you can use the structures which we already agree exhibit consciousness, a human brain, and expect anything like that is.
I am not saying that making a human brain with some more stuff or less stuff wouldn't be conscious, it's just we don't know. We lose resolution. It could be.
Problem is without a strict definition you'll have people trying to profit by making something which "behaves" the same but on different working principles. They have incentive to, especially if replicating a human brain is difficult atm. Imagine they only have to trick some output behavior, they don't have to make the whole thing. Using this really low resolution info to judge if conscious or not is not a good idea. If it's left to how interaction with such a system "makes you feel".
>but dude I swear that shit is conscious acted just like a human. knows philosophy as well, gotta be conscious

>>16559258
consciousness is ubiquitous everywhere, but all memories are not alike. Actually, it's memory that allows the consciousness to feel "attached" to a body
therefore, if two object share memory in the same place then the overarching consciousness feels these 2 bodies at the same time.
If you connected the two clone's memories in each respectives brain, they would feel like two people at the same time

>>16559258
>If I clone my body atom for atom
Good news, OP. That's assembly, not cloning. You can go back to sleep.

>>16559963
cloning means copying. if you copy anon you get anon. you assemble another anon.
if you destructively copy anon you get the same anon again. destructive copy is cut/paste not copy/paste.

>consciousness is material

Ooferino.

>>16559907
>Hmm, listen, we don't KNOW anyone is conscious apart from us.
Yeah, just like we don't KNOW sun is going to rise tomorrow. Or basically anything. But we don't need to bring the whole Cartesian doubt paranoia into every statement we make, practically speaking.

The idea that everyone else but you are zombies is a sufficiently far-fetched schizo conspiracy theory that we can say that we know other people are conscious in the same way we can say we "know" sun is going to rise tomorrow.

>>16559258
Isn't this the Copenhagen Interpretation on crack?

>>16559978
>plastic wombs are teleporters!
>and consciousness is code.
>dammit
Go back to sleep, Frog. It was just a bad dream.
Seriously, not even Netflix would buy that one.

>>16559988
not an argument

>>16559706
>brain implants
You don't want shit rattling inside your brain. You don't want foreign shit ANYWHERE near your brain. There isn't a single biomaterial the body doesn't realize it's foreign and tries to encapsulate.

Also, you miss my point. Stop talking about twins and talk about trisomy13 mosaicism. That's the closest you get to a fused body, because it literally is a fused body. What you say is nonsense, because your identity is only what exists from your senses outwards.

>>16559991
It is criticism. Your fan-fiction sucks. 0 stars. Amazon will refund.

>>16560204
I kinda don't care what you think about it lol
also didn't say consciousness is code. but it's clearly an effect of certain particle arrangements

>>16559258
>the clone will be a different consciousness that thinks it's me
That is not how clones work at all. I'm not saying I'm a clone expert or anything, but I have played a lot of Metal Gear Solid and other videogames with clones, and that is not how it works. Cloning is for the most part purely aesthetic, you can't actually clone stuff like personality or anything similar to that. That's as far as I understand it, though.

Nah they um intergrate them together or something

Consciousness superposition