tar

You might have a problem identifying a species of hermit crab by the color of its shell, for instance.

Whatever Theory, Couple thoughts. I got that number by multipying 256X256X256, figuring for each R you have 256 G and then you can have all those combinations for each of 256 Bs. I once saw a makeup ad, that showed most everybody's complexion is a shade of coffee. In your mention of "ratios" being the same, you are just saying the difference between r and g and the difference between g and b are the same. The ratios between the numbers are not really staying the same. What you are seeing, you can simulate with the custom colors selection in Word. Give R,G,B all 255 and you have white. Give them all 0 and you have black. Give R 255 G 0 and B 255 and you have magenta. R 0 and g,b 255 is cyan and B 0 with R and G 255 gives yellow. All the same number, any number, is a shade of gray. Start with any combination of numbers, and add or subtract the same number from each of the three and you get the same tint, in a different shade. Lighter if the number is higher. Darker if the number is lower. In the copier industry, mixing equal amounts of the three color toners gives you process black (sort of a real dark brown, or red grey.) We also have something called under color reduction which saves on the color toner by using black toner in place of equal parts of CMY. So a color (tint and shade) you could obtain with 200 C, 160M and 115Y, you could come very close to, by using 85 C,45 M, 0 Y and 115 B. Try out some numbers in Custom color in Word, remembering that CMYK is subtractive (pigments) color and RGB is additive (light) colors. In addition, remember the complimentary colors and if you have NO green wavelengths, but all the other two colors of light, it will look Magenta. I am bothered by two things about the mother and child in your picture. One, there seems to be an orangish rectangle around the sample area above the left eye of both the mother and the child. The other thing I am bothered by, is that the mother's middle of the forehead sample is not in the center of her forehead. When giving a species a color, you should decide what you are using and stay consistent. Skin? Hair? Hoofs? Shells? Feathers? Scales? And remember sometimes males are more colorful than females in birds for instance. So you have to decide how you are going to handle that as well. Regards, TAR I did not want you to use a spectrometer, I was only pointing out that "species" (elements) are already recognized by their signature wavelengths.

Hypercube, I don't think obedience to god so you will be saved had all that much to do with the experiment. It seems to me it was more obey and be paid, or disobey and not get paid. The authority figure was an employer. Think how many atheists do what their boss tells them to do, even if is against their better judgement. Regards TAR. 4 dollars for an hour's work in 1961 was significant. I think my dad made well under 10K as a college professor back then. Think what you might be able to do, if a trusted scientist that was paying you 40 dollars to do it, said it would be OK to do it. And maybe the subjects had a feeling it was a recording screaming and picked up a falseness about the timings or something, and proceeded, knowing it was an experiment, and no scientist would intentionally kill a subject with a heart condition with an electric shock. Even though the subject administered the shock "they were just following orders". Perhaps people in that time period, anxious to have Nazi guards convicted of their crimes, thought that by "following dasterdly orders" in an experimental setting, they would help to prove the prison guards guilty of dasterly deeds. Or some other combination of prosocietal behaviors that would add up to 66 percent of the people fulfilling their contracts with the experimenter. It most likely has nothing to do with fearing god.

whatever theory, I worked in the copier industry for years, and working with the Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black toner, put down onto "white" paper, and understanding the way people see color (red, yellow and blue cones) and the red yellow and blue pixels that glow on your monitor, and together this gives me a little background to make these suggestions, in regards, to your approach. You said. "I am not comparing the pictures to each other, I am only seeing if the color that appears on the surface of the crystal matches the color of the background to see if the crystal has color." What I learned about pigments, is that the green grass absorbs all the frequencies of sunlight, EXCEPT the green. So saying the "grass is green" is just a matter of convention, as that is the color of white light (visible) that is NOT absorbed, the most. Some species, bees for instance, "see" in infrared (or ultraviolet,I forget) bands that we do not. There are marking on flowers, different pigments that attract bees, and allow the bees to identify food, that we, and the RGB scale of your camera program, do not even take into consideration. The RGB is a 256 level for each color system designed to simulate a thing and reproduce it on a RGB monitor. It is not very precise, and the light that is illuminating the object is more of a factor, than the pigments in an object, absorbing the light. As others have mentioned here, in low light conditions, we, with the cone setup in our eyes, do not register color very well. To illustrate this, look at something colorful out of the corner of your eye (the light from the object is hitting an area on the back of your eye that is rich in rods, but not heavily populated with cones sensitive to red, green and blue light.) Another quick experiment you can do, to understand color, and how we perceive it, is to stare at one spot on an object, or picture for 30 seconds, without moving your eyes, forcing certain cones to slightly fatigue. Then, quickly stare at one spot on a white wall, or a white piece of paper. You will see the object you were staring at, in complementary colors. The red stuff will materialize as cyan stuff, the green stuff as magenta, and the blue stuff as yellow. And you are just staring at a spot on a white piece of paper. So your work is interesting, but be careful of confirmation bias. You can, as many have suggested, find a matching RGB pixel, somewhere on a picture, or a pixel that is exactly half way between a pixel on the mother and one on the father. It doesn't tell us as much as you imagine. Regards, TAR One thing I have learned on this board is that it is more important to try and falsify your theory, than to find the two or three places where it may be true. For instance, for the sake of science, take a random, unselected pixel from the mother, and record the RGB values. Take a random, unselected pixel from the father and record the RGB values. Take a random, unselected pixel from the child and record the RGB values. My guess would be, that the values for the child's pixel, WILL NOT be such that the yellow value is half way between the yellow value of the parents, and that the green values will not be averaged and the blue values will not be averaged, as in your example. You worked at finding those particular three pixels, that came out that way. This is called confirmation bias. You have to consider the 10,000 sets of random samples that do not fit your scheme, not the one that does. Consider the spectrometer. It "sees" the wavelengths of light put out by certain transitions of electrons, characteristic of certain elements. Certain minerals found in a "location" might contain contain certain elements. Living things tend to ingest stuff that comes from their surroundings. Certain "colors" are reflected, absorbed or radiated by an object, and what you can say about the object, because of its apparent color is dependent on why that color is apparent, not on the byte value of the RGB color, alone. My profile picture includes my wife and two daughters, as well as my father and step-mother. Ignoring the fact that the pictures were taken under different lighting conditions by different camera and processes, I would be willing to bet that a random pixel from me and one from my wife and one from each of my daughters would not confirm your theory. And I would be willing to bet that you could find a pixel on my step-mom and a pixel on my dad, that would average to a pixel on my picture. And she is my step-mom, as in NOT my mother, and she is from Rhode Island, and my blood mother was from PA. Her ancestors were from France, and mine from Germany and Switzerland and Ireland. Can your RGB pixel information confirm these facts? another drawback to your scheme being workable, is a mathematical one. A square inch of your monitor, figuring 200x200 pixels per inch has 4000 pixels. Many of those 4000 pixels do not have the same RGB value. A 32bit color system would have one byte for Red 256, 256 values that Blue could take and 256 values that Green could take. This puts a limit on your possible colors at 16777216. Considering the spacial complexity of multicolored species, and such, this does not give you much room to operate. (sorry I multiplied wrong, 200x200 is 40000, but that makes your identifying a species by one specific pixel out of 40000 in a square inch, sort of a shaky excercise)

"It is very likely that the QE spectrum predated even the big bang. Your QEF is the immutable, the indestructible you." TonyLang, I don't think that makes sense. If the universe is doing everything it is doing, right now (in the universal now sense,) for the first time, then the exact arrangement of the rest of the universe, around any POV instantiated being, is unique at the moment, and could not have existed this way, even a instant ago, much less "before" the Big Bang. Your OP seemed good up to the point where you used the term vessel. You seem to be a ghost in the machine type of thinker. I believe reality is what it is that we experience from this particular POV and you can't have it, any other way. You can put yourself in someone else's shoes, but that is just imaginary. The second place where I lost you, was in your talk about belonging to a verse more basic than this universe. While such talk is understandable from an imaginary point of view, it makes no sense from a sensible, scientific, discussion point of view. As in "show me the evidence". If some evidence can only be found in some other verse, how could we possibly see it from this POV? And what difference could it make. I am thinking we are well insulated from both the beginning and the end of this universe, by immense distances and time spans. Reaching beyond those points for something understandable, is rather unsubstantial. Not quite the job of a substantiated POV type human. Not that religion is not a thing that people can agree upon. There are many instances where millions agree on imaginary stuff. But science is an area where billions agree on stuff that shows itself to be substantial, in this universe, every time you check. A connection to the world is obviously something we all have. But if conscious humans require an Earth with lots of carbon compounds around, to emerge in the first place, all things about a conscious human, substantiated POV type individual, require carbon at least. Something it took a generation or two worth of stars to create from hydrogen. How can we predate ourselves? Regards, TAR

SwansonT, I think you are right, that the particle has to remain at the top of the dome, and that it cannot move off of its spot, and fulfill the second case unless Newton's first law is violated. But "If the system is displaced an arbitrarily small distance from the equilibrium state, the forces of the system cause it to move even farther away." with our point mass and frictionless surface, that allows ANY small change in the particle being normal to the dome, to cause gravity to instantly pull the particle in the opposite direction of the movement of the dome that caused the tip of the dome to no longer be between the particle and the center of the Earth. So the second case, that of the particle starting to move from its rest position, can not occur, unless the dome moves or the particle moves, and the tip of the dome, the particle and the center of the Earth are no longer lined up. Whether a truck hits the dome, or a Chinaman jumps off a chair on the other side of world and displaces the dome a little, or we have a case of MigL's quantum giggling, the line particle-dome-center of Earth must be disturbed, for the particle to move. With a frictionless surface and a point particle ANY infinitesimal move off of the normal will cause the ball to no longer be at rest. Regards, TAR

MomentTheory, One question and a suggestion and an observation. Why, when you shine the laser off the top mirror and onto the floor of the experiment, is the light circle the size of a tennis ball? I would try some of Sensei's variables, especially "Spin your device - whether orientation north-south, east-west has any influence." (also, wouldn't hurt to intentionally change the angle of the mirrors and their distances from each other, to see what adjustments, cause the track of reflections to change character.) The front of the experiment is awash in green light, on the sides of the boards and in between the mirrors. You can even see green light in the edge of the top mirror which means some light has traveled backward, and as someone said, I believe it was Strange or RobbityBob1, you can "see" green light when you look at the experiment from the other end, so light is making it through. There is a lot of reflection and lensing and refraction going on, and just rotating the laser, or skewing it this way or that, bounces green light all over the place. Regards, TAR

Thread, Made the figure today from equilateral triangles. Made the framework for each Janus section, and taped them together. Each "wall" or boundary is two equilateral triangles of the same color with the degree around the hexagonal plane that the boundary represents in the TARadian coordinate system I came up with in December. This figure allows one to visulalize how the Red, Yellow, Blue and Green planes intersect one another and completely describe the sphere. Segment 1. Going around the equator West to East. Segment11. Segment 4. Segment12. (the equilateral triangles are 60 60th of an inch per side, which is also the radius of the 2 inch ball that is cut into the 12 Janus sections) Regards, TAR The hexagonal planes might not intersect each other at 60/120 degrees as I assumed before. Measuring the pink Spherical Rhombic Dodecaheron, the Xs look to be closer to 110/70 degrees. Interesting but not necessarily the actual measurement, or pertinent, is the fact that 110/70 is 1.5714. Double that, is 3.1428.

Imatfaal, Yes, I am sorry to. I don't really thrive in those highly artificial circumstances. I will leave it up to the mathematicians to prove the thing, to their satisfaction. Regards, TAR

imatfaal, I am not offering a proof, but offering an indication that it should be provable for even higher than 8. I have often commented to my wife, while driving long distances on heavily populated interstates, during the day, that I drove a speed that caused me to, from time to time, be a lonely runner. I have a rule that I should not drive more than 7 miles an hour, over the speed limit, and often drive 71 in a 65. This speed causes slower drivers to not catch up to me, and faster drivers to pass me. In any case, there have been times where I have estimated a 1/4 mile between the "pack" in front of me, and 1/4 mile between me and the "pack" behind. As I spend the majority of my time on such populated highways actually in a pack, or being passed by a pack, or in passing a slower driver, I would say the k is higher than 8, considering the average number of cars that would pass a particular point on that highway, in 30 seconds (1/2 mile) at that time, on that day. Perhaps the solution can be found in terms of probability. As in, what is the longest possible time you can stand on the side of a busy interstate, moving at highway speeds, far from exits and entrances, without a car passing you. Regards, TAR Or perhaps a NASCAR track. The tracks are of a particular length, and the cars still in the race is going to be around 30 so the k could be figured. A long time after a caution, when the leader is lapping cars, what is the longest possible period of time you can sit in the stands, without a car passing?

Phi for All, I have not gone to "Zbigniew Lisiecki's" paper yet, but I have gone to several of Arete's links. Changes in phenotype can not be passed on to the next generation, through the genes, but if one population survives an environmental factor, where another one dies, the surviving population ALREADY had the genotype with which to fit that particular environment. It seems to me, that junk DNA is already loaded with prearranged, non coding stuff, that does not "fit" the parent's environment, so is not used. But, if the environment changes, since the genotype of the offspring, can not include a change in the phenotype as a reaction to the change in the environment, the fitting nature of the surviving population, was already present in the parent's genotype in that population, and the fitting nature of the genes present in the child's genes was not the result of a mutation that occurred between the pattern of the parent and the pattern of the child, but must have been a random, non useful, strand of DNA, that was copied faithfully for eons and never used before, until the penicillin was encountered in the surviving population's environment. Regards, TAR Like, if some Solar flare fried the brains of everybody with black or brown hair, but 10% of blonds survived. The mutation had nothing to do with radiation, and it happened eons ago. The blondes were already fit to survive the flare.

Thread, Looks like my assumption might be incorrect. Taking measurements of the pink spherical rhombic dodecahedron, by "rolling" the 60th of an inch edge of a ruler along the short diagonal of the 12 diamonds, I got an average measurement of 68.5. The long diagonals averaged about 90, whereas 16 measurements of the edges of the diamonds averaged 57.5. If my assumption were to be correct, the short diagonal would have to be equal to 1/6 of a hexagon, and/or 1/6 of a circumference, since there are places on the figure where you can count 4 edges and two diagonals, tracing a great circle around the figure. By measurement this seems to be "not the case" as the edges averaged 57.5 and the short diagonals 68.5. The measurements showed the divisions to be somewhat inconsistent, but close enough to expectations, to consider almost correct(the long diagonals should add up to 377 if we are measuring a 2 inch in diameter sphere, and 4 times 90 is 360 which is close, percentagewise to 377. ) 58 and 69 are not so close, and the length of the short diagonal of a diamond seems like it might be longer than a side of the diamond. Still working on proving my assumption correct, or incorrect.

Spyman, So, I like that. The "marking of an object" does not make it a different object. Just the same object, with a new marking. When we cloned Spyman earlier, we took a different lump of material and gave it all of Spyman's markings. This did not make the thing Spyman, just a lump of stuff, with all of Spyman's markings. Convincing to all others, that the markings are identical to Spyman's markings, but there is no natural continuity that would carry the actual Spyman, to the clone. When the original Spyman looked at the moon, his brain was "marked" with an analog representation of the moon, in a particular orientation to the analog mark of the horizon that was marked in Spyman's brain on the same day/night. A person has the whole history of his/her life marked on the body/brain/heart group and "thinks" about, and integrates all the marks, to where the person has a consistent, fitting model of the world, with his/her body/brain/heart group, positioned in the world, here and now. Sleeping, a person dreams and plays with images and symbols and arranges them any way that suits. Once awake though, you reclaim your position in space and time and learn what time it is and what day it is, and who's house you are in, and whether you fell asleep on the couch, or in the bed, or on the chair. You put together a consistent model, that fits with all the facts that were the case, and all the facts your senses are informing you about. You decide whether you have to get up and shower, or whether you can go back to sleep. The clone, would have a little problem. The memories, would not fit the new facts coming in. All indications would be he was clone of Spyman, in the next room. He would have no reason to believe he was Spyman. Just a clone, with Spyman's memories (marks). Regard, TAR

Except, my assumption might be incorrect. Still working on it.

Thread, Here is a nice 2D layout of the 3D space we are talking about. Notice you can follow each of the 4 hexagonal planes around, 0,60,120,180,240,300,(360). The red in a left semicircle, the yellow in a right semicircle, the green in a circle and the blue in a broken circle (that completes if you take the two bottom diamonds and put them on top ((wrap around)).) Regards, TAR (copyright TAResolutions LLC) Thread, Still working on what the length of the line between vertices of the spherical rhombic dodecahedron must be, but I am thinking it is 1/6 the circumference based on the following assumption. A hexagon is made of 6 equilateral triangles. The spherical rhombic dodecahedron can be simulated with 24 equilateral triangles of cardstock (actually 48 taped and clipped together to simulate 24.) If you imagine the top edge of each of the triangles (the edge normal to the center) as a chord of a circle circumscribing a hexagon, the vertices would have be one r away from each other, in a straight line, and likewise one 1/6 of a circumference. Since circumference = pi D and the radius of our 1/4 pound is 60, 60th of an inch, then in 60th of an inch; Circumference= pi * 120= approx 377 and 1/6 of that, is approx 62.8. So, if my assumption is correct (that you can exactly make a spherical arrangement with equilateral triangles)(or that the flat sides of Janus sections are equilateral triangles with a 1/6 circumference ice cream scope on top of the cone) then; chord=60 arc=62.8 (62.831853071795864769252867666559) Regards, TAR The equilateral triangles shown here are not to 1/4lb. of clay scale. The edges of the triangles here are approximately 100, 60th of an inch, or about 5/3 scale. Actually about 105/60th of an inch to a side. My triangles were not very consistent. In making the triangles I incorrectly thought I could cut two large equilateral triangles out of a 3 x 5 card, with two left over pieces that would, if put together make a third large triangle, and I was cutting 4 equilateral triangles from each large triangle. Turns out, you cannot cut a 3 x 5 card up thusly. 60 degrees from corner to edge is 210, 60th of an inch. 60 degrees and 210 60th of an inch makes a nice equilateral, but from that point gets you close to the other corner, but you run out of card. Your first large triangle is 210 by 210 by 210. Your second triangle is not equilateral, instead is 210 by 200 by 192.

Thread, If you take six crosses of card stock, you can put them in the center of the six sides of the cube and describe the xy plane, the xz plane and the yz plane of the Cartesian coordinated system. If you take each of the six crosses (made slightly longer to reach across the diagonal of a face) and orient them on the diagonals of the face, you no longer (keep the two card stock pieces orthogonal to each other, but rotate each of the pairs 45 degrees, to go from going across and up and down, from edge to edge, to going diagonally from corner to corner,) are describing the eight sections of space, but are describing the twelve sections of space, that are being considered in this thread. (the twelve "janus" sections of space) Regards, TAR

Thread, "Lines" here are radial lines from the center of the figure under discussion (ie. sphere, cube, tetrahedron) and likewise are rays starting at the origin of an x,y,z Cartesian coordinate grid, made of cubic units. Insight is, that the center of each of the twelve sections of the sphere, is in the same direction as the center of one of the edges of a cube and a cube can be exactly placed on a three axis right angle, coordinate grid. Thus providing translation points between the four intersecting hexagonal planes of the figures that divide nicely into the 12 identical sections (6 axes at 60 degrees to each other), and the x,y,z 3 axis, right angle grid we are already familiar with. Regards, TAR

1 R0(360)/Y0(360) is is the line where z=x 2 R60/G60 is the line where y=x 3 B60/r120 is the line where y=-z 4 ye180/r180 is the line where -z=-x 5 g240/r240 is the line where -y=-x 6 R300/b240 is the line where -y=z 7 g120/Y60 is the line where y=z 8 ye120/b120 is the line where y=-x 9 ye240/G300 is the line where -y=-z 10 B300/Y300 is the line where -y=x 11 B0(360)/G0(360) is the line where -z=x 12 g180/b180 is the line where z=-x

Delta1212, I can't explain exactly why, but I think somehow here we are saying the duplicate would seem like TAR to others, so this would mean he would feel like TAR to TAR. To me, TAR has the most to say about this. It is exactly why some here have declined to be the subject of the transporter experiment. We don't care if the rest of the world thinks we are alive and carrying on exactly in the manner we did before, if in actuality we have been atomized. The objective structure and function of TAR is the only thing the duplicate has. What ever I am, has not been transferred to the other room. The experiment has provided no mechanism for the composite, body/brain/heart group of TAR, to relocate in the other room. All the material for the duplicate came out of "toner" bottles, ectoplasma cyan, carbon chain yellow. No part of the actual TAR transferred to the other room. To the objective world, there is no difference. The technology is perfect. The copy is flawless. To the rest of the world, TAR is still alive. To me, however, I have been atomized. I have no part, any longer, in the discussion. You can not claim my consciousness has been transferred to the other room. The experiment specifically claims every thing about me has be REPRODUCED. Not moved, but copied. Consider identical twins. They can fool even their own parents from time to time, as to who is who. But I would be willing to bet, they can not fool each other. Each always knows who is the me and who is the twin. So you say someone has replaced me, in my sleep. My question is, what did they do with me, when they made the switch? The duplicate might carry on with my life, and might fool everyone on the board, but I would be locked in the sound proof room in the cellar, screaming at the top of my lungs to be let back in my life. Yoseph, "1. You live out your life as the one you landed with and when you die your consciousness "jumps" back in time to the moment you split and you then get to experience the life as the other copy." The use of the words, "landed" and "jumps", seems to presuppose a separate entity, that can move from body to body. If my take here, is correct, you can not go anywhere without your body/brain/heart group, going along. Regards, TAR In science, I believe things like atoms are considered interchangeable and indistinquishable from each other. I do not think that works with people. In the case of people, the atom knows who it is, and keeps track of itself. It makes a difference to the atom that it was that particular Hydrogen atom that was in that particular water molecule, that once was in the snot of Hitler, and at another point, had gone over Niagra Falls.

Delta1212, The spike through the frontal lobe. My vote, would be its the same consciousness that we previously assigned to that particular brain/body/heart prior the spike, but now it has less capability than it did before. The pre-spike brilliant guy is no longer available. But the same guy is still available, he just can't perform functions that require a fully functioning frontal lobe. Like an amputee can not play basketball like he used to prior the leg getting taken off. Identity is an interesting side issue here. I feel a lot different now that I don't have a job. Like something is not right, I am not pulling my weight, I have lost my identity, I can not identify with the company that I identified with for 26 years. But does that mean a person's consciousness dies when they get divorced, or lose a mate, or a child or a parent.? Is "feeling of self", or self esteem part of this question? Does it matter, as far as Bob being a unique, living, conscious being, whether one cell, or a billion in his brain stop working correctly? I might not be the man I used to be, at 30, slower, not as sharp, a little lame, a little forgetful, a little emotional. But as far as being TAR, I never stopped, and no other entity ever took up the role. Regards, TAR

Thread, Made a little progress today toward translating known coordinate systems into TAR coordinates. Here is the convention for lining up Cartesian coordinates with the Earth in terms of the 12 segments of the sphere. We are putting the center of segment 1 on the Prime Meridian, where it intersects the equator. This "direction", the center of segment one, is exactly R 0(360) degrees/ Y 0(360) degrees, which conventionally can be lined up with the line x=z. The pairs of toothpicks shown in the previous post happen to coordinate exactly with the lines (goofy equations removed...under revision) These lines (the double toothpicks) go exactly through the middle of each edge of the cube. If we let the axis of the Earth be the y axis and run the x axis through Africa (a point on the equator between Kenya and the Belgian Congo on my globe), the negative x axis would come through the surface on the equator, between Hawaii and the Marquesas Islands. The positive z axis would break the surface on the equator in the north of Brazil , the negative z on the equator between Australia and the Philippines. The association in regards to the center of the twelve TAR sections would be (numbers in degrees) 1 R0(360)/Y0(360) is (to be determined) 2 R60/G60 is (to be determined) 3 B60/r120 is (to be determined) 4 ye180/r180 is (to be determined) 5 g240/r240 is (to be determined) 6 R300/b240 is (to be determined) 7 g120/Y60 is (to be determined) 8 ye120/b120 is (to be determined) 9 ye240/G300 is (to be determined) 10 B300/Y300 is (to be determined) 11 B0(360)/G0(360) is (to be determined) 12 g180/b180 is (to be determined) I am thinking, with the center of the RY section, being an arbitrary/conventional point on the equator, and the North pole being where sections 7,2,3 and 8 touch, any spherical system, where an axis of rotation, an up, and a choosen point on the equator can be decided upon, can be designated in TAR coordinates, and thusly a transform from any spherical coordinate system to TAR coordinates and back again, should be possible. Regards, TAR Please note two errors in drawing diamond 1 on the globe. The top of the diamond is slightly to the West of the Prime Meridian (is lined up with Scotland) and the bottom of the diamond, is WAY off, following a line where the globe was glued, that has nothing to do with anything.

Yoseph? What do you think? Are we getting anywhere, toward answering your OP? Delta1212, So if all the processes and activity and mechanisms and physical patterns remain intact, during the trip, then I believe the consciousness would stay with the traveler and never leave him/her for the copy. There would be no mechanism to transfer the consciousness to the copy, but there would be all the reasons to stay alive in the original. If for instance wormholes changed one important thing about what causes consciousness in the first place, then the original might not be conscious of his/her body, getting to the other end. A body, with the consciousness removed. Say for instance structures that create dopamine (my pet subject at the moment) are turned to structures that make pee pee, during the trip through the wormhole, then whatever thoughts and actions, activities and non-activities related to consciousness, that require dopamine to be involved to happen at all, would not happen, which would mean consciousness would not occur at the other end. We killed me, by sending me through the wormhole. My body is intact, but it does not work anymore. Any process that required dopamine is now non-operative. It is like my objection to rivers of honey. What would be the use, without a tongue to taste the sweet. Regards, TAR If the body/brain/heart group, is non-operative, YOU is dead. You can't sit on a satin bench, without a butt. Wow, I just had a thought, related to the butt comment. What if what we are conscious of, IS our body/brain/heart group and its position in space and time? That would 'spain everything. The answer is, YOU are nothing without you. Nothing but a memory.

Delta1212, I just reread your switch around, and understand now that you were challenging the here portion of my here and now criteria. I would have to say you have a point. The consciousness would go with the instance that was transported to Mars. So my here and now is not a litmus test. However I would have to ask if I remained intact, while going through the wormhole? That is, was I always present, during the trip? Regards TAR

Delta1212, Well wait, I was saying that reality would keep the copy from being exactly like the original, not lack of technology. I can't entertain your experiment, because I don't know what happens when you step into a wormhole. I already think that time travel is not realistic and the wormhole thing makes no sense to me, I don't know what the wormhole is in. You seem to be introducing another aspect here. Or at least bringing up in my mind an aspect that I don't think has been discussed yet in reference to the OP and that is our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes. And to clarify the meanings behind the perspectives elucidated herein, one would have to specify when they are an observer, and when they are putting themselves in the shoes of another observer, and when they are putting themselves in the shoes of an imaginary observer that has no realistic constraints. That is, as soon as you step out of the wormhole, at the other end of the Milky Way, you have separated yourself from Earth by a hundred thousand lightyears. Anything that happens there, won't matter here for 100,000 years. At which point what happened there will be what happened 100,000 years ago. How long lived is our observer, and where is he/she standing? Define the observer of the experiment's unique here and now, and no jumping back and forth between hypothetical observers that have unrealistic powers of observation.(without announcing the change in perspective) Regards, TAR Regards, TAR

plus, if original was explained the process, and clone had all of original's memories, then clone would know exactly that he was a clone, and original was alive, and sitting in the next room