tar

Willie71, I don't think I ever agreed with 100% of what any candidate, Republican or Democrat, stood for. I don't like the tea party, I don't like Fox, I don't answer the goofy Republican polls I am sent. Certain right wing stances, I find unworkable, and not reasonable. Certain left wing stances I find unworkable and not reasonable. It is a shame that we have such a two party system where you have to hold your nose, when you pull the lever, attempting to pick the lesser of two evils. Back when I supported McGovern, I liked his stance on everything...then when he became front runner, he had to start moderating his position, to gain more popular support. Politics. I hate politics. It is not reasonable to expect somebody to fulfill all of my expectations as a representative or leader AND to fulfill all of your expectations, much less the expectations of 200 or 300 million people, each with their own will, desires, hopes and dreams. Regards, TAR

Strange, But an identical pattern may not be enough to have "you" show up at the clone end. "You" are still at the location of the scan. My consideration in attempting to imagine what would happen in the experiment, concerns the whole holistic situation...as in where is Strange during the process. Is Strange in the room with the original or is Strange in the room where the clone appears. If there is a window between the rooms, where Strange, standing in either room, can watch the whole operation, you would know which "identical" group of neurons and neural patterns was the original, and which was the clone. If you owed me 20 dollars, who would you pay? Regards, TAR

Strange, Consider what you call yours. Which is your house, your family, your town, your country, your mother, your car, your planet, your solar system, your galaxy, your nose, your idea. Some of that identity is particular atoms. Some rely on the positioning of other atoms and their relationship to each other. The person is both a pattern and material in the form of that pattern. You can't just take the pattern and call it you, and you can't just take the material and call it you. A person is of and in reality. A self is the composite of the sensor and what is being sensed. It involves both the capability of the sensor and the storage, and the positioning of the sensor and storage unit, as to what it is that there is to be conscious of. Regards, TAR Strange, If there is a hydrogen atom in a molecule of water, that is in a drop of blood that is currently moving through my left pinky, that is NOT the hydrogen atom that was in the drop of urine you expelled an hour ago. It might have been in a drop of urine you expelled yesterday, but that particular atom that is paired up with a particular other hydrogen atom to make one H 2 molecule, that is combined with a particular oxygen atom, does not have a way to magically "get" from my pinky to your bladder. It has to leave my body through sweat or pee or breath or whatever, evaporate into the atmosphere, or run into the river or into the ground water, and be taken up into a particular cloud or worm that a particular bird eats, that flies in your direction and poops on your lawn where it evaporates and gets breathed in by you, where it then has a chance of being absorbed into your blood stream and go through your pinky and wind up in your bladder at some point. Just because it has the same weight and spin as the hydrogen atom currently in your toilet, does not make it the same hydrogen atom. I am talking about the one in my pinky now. It cannot be the one you just peed away. Its a different atom. Regards, TAR as identical as they may be, they have different identities, different histories, have been components of different entities and the two cannot exist in the same place at the same time, nor can they get from one location to another in any magical way

Strange, Yes and no. The "you", is the composite of the physical matter. The emergent thing that exists because of all the composite pieces, but is a pattern, a unique pattern, that can neither be moved independently of the physical pieces and positions, nor exist without the physical pieces. For a soul to go to heaven or hell, they would need to carry their senses with them so they could feel the satin and taste the honey, or feel the boiling oil. Without a body and senses, either place would be difficult to experience. In this thought experiment the self gets moved to another location, another mass of neurons, as if it IS a thing not bound to reality and substance. I am not thinking that is possible, as a large part of having an identity, in fact maybe the most important part of having an identity is having a unique location in the universe, with the rest of the universe consistently placed around. The spot you are in, is your spot. The skin you are in is your skin. The neurons that hold your memories are your neurons. Nobody else's. Yours. The clone is in another spot. Is another unique individual because of it. Not you. Him. Regards, TAR

Willie71, Just so you know, I am an atheist, brought up Presbyterian. Just so you know, I am registered Republican, which I did when I moved to a Republican district. Just so you know, I campaigned for McGovern in New Hampshire and once had a 5-10 minute conversation with Peter Rodino at a campaign event in Essex County, New Jersey. Just so you know, my departed mother was a mathematician (who knows what 5-2 is) who campaigned for Nixon, took us to Sunday school, and who was a teacher all her life, guided and helped and loved people 'til the day she died. She believed heavily in Jesus and his teachings and considered him alive, and considered herself to be in his embrace. Just so you know, my living father is a retired Psychology professor, a strong Democrat, scientific and an atheist, also brought up in a faith that was United Brethren. Just so you know, my wife is Episcopal and also was registered democrat when we were in Essex County and is now registered Republican as we are in rural, Northern Passaic county. Just so you know, we raised our two daughters Episcopal, but like in my youth, my wife took them to church and Sunday school, and the father (me) only attended on special events. My family and extended family consists of Republicans and Democrats, atheists and believers. None of us are "the problem." All of us are good people, that respect others, serve the community and the country (both my father and I are veterans.) All of us were or are good Americans, teachers, fire chiefs, computer experts, executives in steel and oil, clergy, school superintendents. Overtone's black and white, Republican Party is bad view of the world is not anywhere close to realistic, when viewed from my position. I have lived a life where Republicans and Democrats coexisted and worked together to make the world safe and warm and pleasurable for all. Neither is the "problem". The problem is when we try to move the other out from under the umbrella of America. The whole point is to hold your umbrella over everybody, and everybody holds their umbrella over you. I am very interested in the Pope's talk to congress today (is it today.) I am thinking he will say things that make party line Republicans feel uncomfortable. I am thinking he will say things that make party line Democrats uncomfortable. But I am thinking he will hold an umbrella over us all. Regards, TAR

Willie71, A good portion of the population may be detached from reality, but which portion is the detached portion is based on what your own model of the world suggests is the "right way" to be. To a church congregation, the people who live outside the rules established by the church, are not living up to the standards of the community, and are detached from the understanding and common reality that everybody else in the congregation ascribes to. Each person's "reality" is based on different team membership than the guy next to him. Socrates inspected his own life and the life's of the people in his community, and questioned their proper behavior, their in-touchness with logic and sensibility and reality. The community put him to death...so who was in touch with reality, and who was detached? To the scientific community, and to me and you, creation should not be taught in schools, because it is not true. But, in reference to this thread, and who is detached from reality, creationists are real. The basis of the U.S. constitution allows everyone to follow their own god, and such should not be dictated by the government, and the government should protect each individual's right, to follow their own god. Each individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is central to the "real" code that guides Americans. The "reality" of the situation though, is that people that believe in god, or that identify with a religion, be it Catholics, or Protestants, Jews or Muslims, Shinto followers, or Buddhist followers...or any other native religion, cult religion or regional religion, outnumber the people that do not identify with such a teaching. Being that such is true, and is the reality of the situation, the people that are detached from reality are the people who feel they are in the majority, or are in the "proper" group, if they are among the people who find fault with the 75-90% of the population who identify with a religion. So, whether you or I think the Pope has any special powers, does not change the fact that he actually does. What he says, moves millions to action. What he says and does brings people to tears. He has a large number of "followers". Should what he says affect politics? Change laws? Change how people feel about themselves and each other? If his words open people's hearts and minds to the suffering of others, and causes activity that reduces the suffering of a child, or a cripple, or a shunned individual, that is a good thing. Actually, really a good thing, and substantially part of reality. To discount all the Catholics in the world, as "problems", would be erroneous. To deride Catholics as being detached from reality would be actually an indication, that it was you, who was ignoring the facts, and wishing a large amount of things would change, so things could be right, in your model of how the world should be. It has long been my litmus test of the truthfulness of my own worldview, and model of reality, that I should consider how many things would have to change, in order for my take to be right. If a large amount of things would have to change in order for me to be right, then I am probably imagining things. Regards, TAR

Overtone, There you have it. Proved my point. Regards, TAR

puppypower, Language is symbols, standing for something. If I use a language you understand, you know what I am talking about. There is, in my take, something similar about what it means for you to see a dog, and what it means for me to see a dog. We can "say" something about the dog, and know what it is the other is saying about the dog. The language we use is understandable and meaningful, because of the dog. It is the same dog. The symbols might be thought of as software, but the dog, what is that? The rods and cones on the back of my eye that are being activated by the light coming from the dog, tell me its shape. You get the same pattern impressed upon your hardware. Then we both store the shape and compare the shape against other shapes and colors we have sensed. What we have called a dog before, and been rewarded for calling a dog, we call a dog again. We agree to call that shape and color, a dog. Especially if it barks and bites and fetches a frisbee. In this discussion of consciousness and selfness, I think the word most central to our figuring, is "memory". We need to talk a little more about what memory is, in terms of software, and hardware, and in terms of the thing sensed and remembered, before we assign consciousness as a state, or as a collection of hardware, or as software, or as a combination of the thing sensing and remembering, and the thing sensed and remembered. A couple years ago, in reference to another thread, whose topic I have forgotten, I was driving along a road that I have driven many times, as my parents and my wife's cousin both live in the area where driving that road is the most direct way of getting there. I was thinking that the turns and trees, hills and houses, business and lights along that route were part of my model of the world. They were also part of the model of the world of my family. In addition, that route is part of the model of the world of an unknown number of people that live in the area, or have vacationed or visited or done business in the area. However, you may never have driven on Rt. 23 between Rt 287 and Highpoint. It may not be part of your memory. Why I mention this, is the idea of memory. What is it that is involved in memory. I am thinking that not all of memory is happening within the skull, and I am thinking that a great deal of memory is actually happening in the configuration of the world that is being sensed and remembered. That is, that there is an analog version of the world, "happening" within our skulls, that is constantly being compared against the actual world being sensed. With this thought, it is not enough to say that the memories of the original and the clone, are identical, because the clone, if he is on another planet, can not go down some steps into the garage, get in the car, back out, go left, go left, go right and get to Rt. 23. Regards, TAR In fact, if the clone remembered that he left the keys in the right hand pocket of the brown jacket...he can't use that memory.

Overtone, No, I don't know what your criteria are. I have some guesses from what you repeatedly rail against, but I don't really know. I think you dislike most of the stupidity I dislike, but you are blind to the substance and strength that conservatives provide. There are activities, like racism and sexism, pimping and drug dealing, cheating and lying, stealing and blackmail and such that most of us, whether Republican or Democrat, are very unwaveringly against. If a Republican does one of those things, it does not impugn all Republicans any more than a Democrat taking drugs impugns all Democrats. That has always been my main theme in argument with you. That you are bias against Republicans. Bigoted if you will. Prejudice. You see no redeeming social value in a Republican, and view them as simply a human in error. In regards, to this thread, this "always" stance of yours is argument for my suggestion that the biggest problem with America is the lack of trust that the left has in the right, and the lack of trust that the right has in the left. There are plenty of endeavors that people involve themselves in, without asking how the other participants are registered. Because, in the end there are more ways we agree than ways we disagree. If I think Paterson would be better without drug dealers, you would surely agree, for instance. It would not however be useful for someone to tell me I am racist, because I see black and Hispanic gangs as the root of the problem. Nor would it be proper for someone to say that drug infested cities always vote Democrat, and therefore the Democratic party line is bankrupt in its membership and the outcome of its leadership. Regards, TAR

Overtone, The place has been functioning for the last forty years. In spite of some, because of others. I don't agree with your criteria upon which you judge who is who. There are still wonderful hospitals, innovative companies, fantastic universities, incredible art and recreation establishments...the best of all sorts of human endeavors that exists in the U.S. and that the U.S. exports to the rest of the world. Republicans and Democrats make that happen, every day. Regards, TAR

Graeme M, I am thinking that I am a discrete, separate thing...from the rest of the universe. Connected, surely in a million ways. Subject to the same history as the stuff around me and so on, but all that history is substantial. I am much more complex and intricate than a cup. The emerged consciousness that exists as TAR is fleeting and fragile. I can be killed in a million ways, and certainly will die in the next 50 years, barring some amazing technology. Perhaps I don't believe that the spark of life is unrelated to the components that needed to come together for life to have occurred. That is, that it matters greatly that I have a mother. Even if she is now dead. She will however not be my clones mother. My clone would have been created by the team that built the scanner and clone building equipment. His mother's womb would be the plasma field or whatever was required to generate him. He never existed in my mother's womb. Therefore I maybe don't think the agreed upon exactness of the copy is possible. He would be made up of atoms that had different history than mine. He would be in a different relationship to the Sun and the Earth and Saturn and Jupiter and Times Square, and my basement, than I am in. Like the doppleganger that possibly already exists for anyone of us, somewhere in the vast universe. They wouldn't be exact, because they don't live on Earth, in the Milky Way. If each were to point at the other, one would be pointing toward the Milky Way and the other away from it. In my world view, each atom, each quark is unique. As identical and interchangeable as two hydrogen atoms might be...there is still the one, and the other. Regards, TAR

Bill Angel, Exactly. That is why it is inappropriate to throw anybody out of the good American club, based on a characteristic, belief, background or status in anybody else's eyes. Here is where such sentiment as "one nation under god" comes into play. The equal in the eyes of god is a sentiment that can be held, without even believing in an anthropormorphic god, ultimate judge type character. You can have the sentiment that regardless of your beauty or your youth, or your strength or your smarts, or your expert judgement, or your wealth, or your power, or the amount of friends you have, or the size of your gang and the number of your weapons, you are "in the eyes of god" on equal footing with a poor, dumb tick infested country boy. Regards, TAR

Graeme M, OK, I think I get what you are saying, and I am almost thinking we are in agreement...except for the location thing. We have all watched Star Trek, so have no problem considering getting transported from the ship to the surface...except the process proceeds in an understandable fashion. Your arrangement gets turned into a section of wiggly energy which is still "you", in the hands of the transporter, and then, at the same time this "wiggle" is happening at the other place. There is an amount of you that is on the Enterprise, an amount that is in wiggle mode somewhere in the equipment and the space between the ship and shore and some amount that is in wiggle mode on shore. As the amount of solid you decreases on the ship, it increases on shore. The equipment sometimes has trouble tuning you in, and its possible to arrive as a mass of geletin or be lost to the ether, but basically you exist in proper part on the Enterprise, in the transporter, in the space between or on shore. The fate of you is completely in the hands of the transporter. It either works or does not. The location of "you" is never in question. There is never an imposter, an "other" you. It is always you, making the trip, surrendering yourself to wiggle mode and trusting you will be unwiggled at the other end with all your parts and pieces in the right arrangement. But in this thought experiment we don't only have the real you, the original you, we have this "copy". The fate of the copy is the copy's business. You are not involved. The thought experiment has you put to death inorder that the universe does not have two instances of you, but you have not submitted yourself to wiggle mode process, you have just been scanned and the facsimile of yourself created was created elsewhere. "YOU" were not subjected to the trip. "YOU" can't be in the other place. Its just someone else, that looks like you, and thinks like you. You perhaps to an objective observer, but not you, to you. Perhaps I have a wrong interpretation of location and direction and existence and reality...or at least a different model of the universe than others might hold, in terms of what is subjective and what is objective, what is possible and impossible, what is existing from a god's eye view and what is existing from a local here and now view. I am bound, in my logic to account for how a thing "gets" from location to location, and what the cosmic time is when they get there. I have, in my worldview, demanded that a person must exist consistent with the existence of the rest of the universe, and can not "leave" and come back to reality in a different form, in a different place. Each of us is a particular arrangement of stuff, a particular neural pattern if you will, of actual stuff, in actual arrangement, in respect to the rest of the universe. In the clone experiment there is one arrangement of stuff here and one arrangement of stuff there, and both have the ability to sense the rest of the universe in proper time, from their position. It is only us, running the experiment that can put ourselves alternately in the shoes of the one, and in the shoes of the other. In actuality each is isolated by their awareness of the rest of the universe, from their particular place in it. Their here and now is the only one available to them. We can see both, but they must only be able to experience one. Regards, TAR

Overtone, So 1/3 of us are a problem to the other 2/3 ? Is that not a problem? Regards, TAR It would be easy to argue that old people are a drain on society and don't provide the value, strength, energy, reproductive potential, and capabilities that a younger person would. Would it however, be proper, with these realities in mind, to, as the younger 2/3 of society, say that the old 1/3 was a problem that should be eliminated so the other 2/3 can move along easier? Take any of the divisions in society. Rich and poor, old and young, male and female, straight and gay, atheist and believer, small business and big business, computer aged and traditional, white and black, native American and European settler, smart and dumb, pretty and ugly, skinny and fat, fast and slow...any division, any distinction, any characteristic of body, belief or position that puts one person on the "in" and another on the "out" of 1/3, 2/3 split, or a 50/50 split or a 90/10 split, and you will probably find somebody on the one side of the division that thinks somebody on the other side of the division, is a problem. In a country though, I don't think you can reasonably call 66 million people "the problem". Seems one has to face reality and accept those 66 million as fellow Americans. That is, if one is not to "have a problem" with such a substantial group of folk. Regards, TAR

Graeme M, I am still stuck on the question of how does my consciousness "get" to the other location in the thought experiment. By what magic does this take place? Suppose for instance that to a Martian, there are 10,000 people that look "identical" to TAR, same height, same voice qualities, same facial features, same memories (songs, commercials, sports teams, favorite restaurants, interstate 81, etc.,) yet not one of the 10,000 pops up in the similar body/brain/heart group of any of the other 9,999. Each "stays with" themselves. How does oneself "get" to the clone? Regards, TAR

Delta1212, My initial thinking related to this thread, was heavily influenced by my father's situation. He fell on his forehead, was on Cumidin and a lot of fluid built up in his brain. We thought we lost him that night, but we did not. There were over the next months, in and out of hospitals and rehab places, times where he was certainly not "himself". He had to have brain surgery and did not "wake up" for three hard days. When he saw my sister, in from West Virginia, and said "HI, Peg," I had to leave the room, choked up with joy. I am crying now, remembering the situation. I felt "he" was in there, and he was. "He" is not what he was before the fall, even now, but continues to improve. "He" is putting himself back together. There is "something" that is a person, that one can recognize as a consciousness, as an identity, even if it is diminished. This thing, in regards to my father, never left him, even the three days where he did not speak. Regards, TAR Delta1212, I don't know anything about a hemispherectomy. What is taken out, and what is left. I would guess, that talking with the patient, one that knew the patient before the operation and talking with him after, would not feel that the patient was "all there". My cousin's mom does not know who my cousin is, most of the time. There is something of her that has been lost. Not dead, still my Aunt, still talks and smiles and laughs and feels a kiss on her cheek, but not completely "her". My dad, on the other hand is still there. How you want to parse that, in terms of identity is complicated and difficult, but there are elements there, that we would have to agree on, before deciding on whether cutting out half of a person's brain would be "killing" that half of the guy. Regards, TAR

no, I would think of it like an amputation

Delta1212, An interesting question. But we would have to take it very carefully step by step to see what the situation is, at each cut and juncture. The left and right brain for instance have different functions, yet rely on their relationship and connections for functionality. When you first cut me in half, I would not function as me, to begin with. You will have actually killed me, as surely as cutting off Marie's head killed her. And let's say the heart is on the left side of the body. One clone would have two hearts, and the other none. One me would die from no blood circulation, and the other would die because the routing and functionality of the veins and arteries were all screwed up. Same fouled up situation would happen in the brain area, as one half is not constructed to operate with a mirror image of its self. Like cutting your face in half in Photoshop and flipping both halfs, to make two full faces, neither looks like you. So bottom line, I think your experiment would start with my death, so which regrown half would be me, would be a mute question. As soon as you split me apart, I would cease to function as me. Regards, TAR It is quite amazing how the brain grows in a fetus. How the fibers and dendrites know which way to grow, and what connections to make, is very amazing indeed. There are billions of the little guys doing "their thing", all based on chemicals and proteins replicating and following some complicated chain of events somehow encoded in the DNA and the RNA of the various stem cells that base the process. I am thinking that such a process as growing a brain, and having a brain continue to function in such a way as to have the senses sense the outside world and subsequently build an analog model of it, within the structures and signals in the brain, is not a process that can be simply interrupted. Their are way too many complicated interactions, happening at various levels and scales, and too many interacting systems in a body/brain/heart group, to cut one in half down the middle and expect to know, or even guess at which half would "house" you, to be realistic. I think you need the whole complex to be you. And that includes your history, your environment, and the history of your environment. You can't magically take yourself out of reality and put yourself back in, in another configuration. There has to be continuity. Continuity of all matter and energy and positional relationships involved. Otherwise you are just pretending.

Graeme M, I think both would know the difference. Like earlier in the thread, where the clone came to consciousness in the next room, he would have known about the experiment, and he would know he was the clone, and he would know he was in a different room than he was a moment before, and that the body he was in was all a facimile of his original body. His memories include the setup and his first experience includes the awareness that he is a clone and the "real", or original Tar is in the next room. It is like, if I were to get my knee replaced, I would know it was not original equipment. Regardless of the fact that the clone TAR feels exactly like original TAR, his position in the universe is unique, no one else is occupying my clone's body, but the consciousness that is aware of being in that place and time. He could be happy or sad, and original TAR would not know, unless he asked, or saw his mood. I am thinking that the reality of being "exactly the same" is not the crucial component here, and even given the impossible, and suggesting that EVERYTHING is the same, there would still be the fact that original is in the same room he started in and clone came to consciousness in the next room. There alone is a huge difference. As huge a difference as the two individuals that are Siamese twins. One exists in a universe that includes the other. They are not the same person. Regards, TAR Regards, TAR Even if the Siamese twins shared the same body and heart there would be two different body/brain/heart groups in the room. One is still aware of the other, as another consciousness. The theory of mind, still applies. The other is another consciousness, not a singular entity. And each is separately privileged as a life, regardless of their shared "state".

Graeme M, Perhaps I am thinking it is quite substantial to be a you, and such a you is not transferable to "other" arrangements. Even identical arrangements. Consider how closely identical one human is to another. Same organs, same brain structure, same chemicals doing the same stuff in so many ways. And people in the same country or the same school or business or family have even many of the same memories as the person sitting next to them. A very similar neural state, as opposed to say the state of a beaver and the state of a fruit fly, or a rock, or an asteroid. Yet I have definitely been me and no one else, for the last 61 years. Everywhere I've gone, there I've been. There is a definite privileged me that would not be transferred to the clone. The clone would be TAR to others. The clone would even be TAR to himself. But "I" would not be seeing things through his eyes. I would be seeing things through mine. There is not a way to get "me" into another vessel, unless you count children. It would be nice to think there was a way to be immortal, to put your consciousness into a thousand copies of yourself. But, look around. There are 8 billion copies of you living right now. Only one of them is subjectively you. There is no mistake in identifying oneself. There is a privileged you. At least while you are alive. Regards, TAR

Overtone, Like I said, the biggest problem in America is you don't trust half of us to be sane, responsible, intelligent, well meaning, hard working, trustworthy capable people. Regards, TAR

Graeme M, The memories are the same, according to the thread premise, but we may have to discuss what a memory is to decide if qualitatively the subjective experience is the same. For instance we could be standing next to each other, looking at the moon, close our eyes and subjectively have the same memory of the moon. Your memory however would be a little different than mine, since we were standing a few feet from each other, you could see a few feet more of the moon's edge on the right than I could, and your memory would reflect that. Also I don't have 20/20 vision anymore, and you do, so your memory of the moon might be a little sharper than mine. Plus there was an overhanging tree, an outside leaf of which was in front of the moon for me, and that was not the case for you. Our memories of the same thing are then not subjectively the same. Plus we have the whole qualia discussion, where how I perceive and remember may be different from how you do it. I might not be able to subjectively know what it is like for you to remember the moon. So the premise of the thread is that the memories are identical, and the equipment, every cell and synapse is identical and the subjective experience of the clone would be absolutely no different than the subjective experience of the original...except there are now two TARs, one, the original and one the copy and that makes two conscious entities, who can not read each other's mind...well maybe a little, but each, going forward, can "go their own way" and have their own thoughts. If you would then cut off the hand of the original, only the original would feel the pain. The person feeling the pain is you. You are not concurrently "in" the body of the clone, not feeling the pain. The new experiences and the memories of the clone have nothing whatsoever to do with you. Do they? Regards. TAR

Thread, After all that, I find I have the two coins with the three point at the center, drawn wrong. I will redo, but the 6 half segments are drawn wrong. There should be 2+ grids showing on one end of each of the partial segments and 1+ grids showing on the other end of each of the partial segments, which I have, but I have it reversed from how it should be. The 2+ grids should be along the line coming from the center, after a four point. The 1+ grid lines should show on the line coming from a three point near the edge. Sorry. Sort of bad to get my own 2d depiction wrong. Here is the right way. Regards, TAR

Graeme M, Well I am not so sure waking up from anesthesia is the same as dying and being reborn. There seems to be a consideration in your thinking, that I have ruled out of mine. That of a ghost in the machine. In my thinking, the person IS the machine, and without the arrangement would not be the person. That is, when you are under anesthesia you still possess the arrangement that "wakes up" and continues functioning, with the same arrangement of brain cells and blood cells, muscles and organs and such. If you had an empty stomach when you were put under, you would have a empty stomach when you regained consciousness (unless someone else put something in your stomach while you were out.) There is not "another" you that can be transferred to some location sans your body/brain/heart group. In your thinking, there is this entity which is you, which is not contingent on your body/brain/heart group being functioning and alive. It can reappear in 100 clones. My question to you, is how does "it" get from you to the other vessels? Regards, TAR

Commander, Seems I have lost. I concede. What ever I do you either have a winning move or you could leave me with 2 and 2 in which case I would have to give you a board with a winning move. Perhaps some other member would like a go at it. You could start another and see if you have any competition. Regards, TAR