How did you lose your faith

[Willie71]

Regarding cloning. Our experiences shape our brain development, so how much of our personality survive cloning, assuming the brain was an exact copy of the existing brain? I know this isn't really how it works, just like musculature wouldn't be identical, nor would any injuries or arthritic conditions be transferred.

[EdEarl]

Regarding cloning. Our experiences shape our brain development, so how much of our personality survive cloning, assuming the brain was an exact copy of the existing brain? I know this isn't really how it works, just like musculature wouldn't be identical, nor would any injuries or arthritic conditions be transferred.

No one knows.

[Delta1212]

There is tall grass wherein a predator may hide is a thought process necessary for survival. If we always analyzed how the grass grew and which path the predator took, we would be food before we finished causal thoughts. Correlations are important, but some people seem inept or unwilling to think about causes and make rational conclusions, especially with a complex chain of causes and effects.

 

True, but at least some memories are coded within interconnections of neurons, especially synapses. Perhaps ET could recover the memories form that structure and reanimate the clone, with memories. It would not be the same person, but might be indistinguishable. We certainly do not know enough yet to say one way or another, and it seems a long shot, but...

Or would it be the same person? If you swapped a person's body out one atom at a time, would it still be the same person? If you used all of the original atoms to build an exact copy if the person, which would be the real one?

[imatfaal]

Or would it be the same person? If you swapped a person's body out one atom at a time, would it still be the same person? If you used all of the original atoms to build an exact copy if the person, which would be the real one?

 

Penrose spent a long time explaining that he believe No would be the answer to your question. He was convinced that quantum effects are crucial and dominant in the formation / emergence of consciousness. Obviously even if we were to build atom by atom we would be held to a certain level of inaccuracy due to inherent uncertainty of quantum mechanics - if Penrose is correct then clearly our consciousness would not be replicated.

 

To be honest I read the book Penrose expounds his ideas of quantum consciousness - The Emporor's New Mind - when it was first published and I felt then it was over-reaching itself then; I have read oodles of pertinent material since then - whether this would change my view of his work I really cannot tell without rereading. Trouble is that I remember it being a real struggle to get through - neither pop-science nor academic but an admix with some bad features of both.

[Delta1212]

 

Penrose spent a long time explaining that he believe No would be the answer to your question. He was convinced that quantum effects are crucial and dominant in the formation / emergence of consciousness. Obviously even if we were to build atom by atom we would be held to a certain level of inaccuracy due to inherent uncertainty of quantum mechanics - if Penrose is correct then clearly our consciousness would not be replicated.

 

To be honest I read the book Penrose expounds his ideas of quantum consciousness - The Emporor's New Mind - when it was first published and I felt then it was over-reaching itself then; I have read oodles of pertinent material since then - whether this would change my view of his work I really cannot tell without rereading. Trouble is that I remember it being a real struggle to get through - neither pop-science nor academic but an admix with some bad features of both.

I'm usually interested in those sorts of arguments, but generally I find that they wind up being justifications for pre-existing philosophical positions rather than attempts to draw scientifically valid conclusions from the available data.

 

And I'd also wonder if, in the case of swapping out the matter making up a pre-existing person one atom at a time, when they stop being the person in question.

[Willie71]

Penrose spent a long time explaining that he believe No would be the answer to your question. He was convinced that quantum effects are crucial and dominant in the formation / emergence of consciousness. Obviously even if we were to build atom by atom we would be held to a certain level of inaccuracy due to inherent uncertainty of quantum mechanics - if Penrose is correct then clearly our consciousness would not be replicated.

 

To be honest I read the book Penrose expounds his ideas of quantum consciousness - The Emporor's New Mind - when it was first published and I felt then it was over-reaching itself then; I have read oodles of pertinent material since then - whether this would change my view of his work I really cannot tell without rereading. Trouble is that I remember it being a real struggle to get through - neither pop-science nor academic but an admix with some bad features of both.

Isn't the inaccuracy only relevant on extremely small time scales? I've been pondering this for the past few weeks, and haven't come to any conclusions yet.

I'm usually interested in those sorts of arguments, but generally I find that they wind up being justifications for pre-existing philosophical positions rather than attempts to draw scientifically valid conclusions from the available data.

And I'd also wonder if, in the case of swapping out the matter making up a pre-existing person one atom at a time, when they stop being the person in question.

Our bodies replace the entire cellular contents countless times throughout our lives. I can't remember the exact timeline, but I seem to remember every 2 weeks, or 2 months? I'll have to dig through my texts and find it again.

[Ten oz]

I'm not sure. Imagine you could take a large group of children (damn those ethics committees!) and bring them up in a new environment where there was no trace of any sort of religion or mythology. I am fairly sure that some of those children would invent some sort of spiritual beliefs as they grew up as their way of making sense of the world around them. (We have enough evidence on this forum of people making up their own weird ideas.)

I think that would depend on whether or not that large group of children were brought up with a modern understanding of Physics and Biology. While history reflects society after society creating myths those societies did so because they had no other explanations. When an explanation is availible myths is are not necessary. For example assuming the children involved in this experiment were taught astronomy it is unlikely they would invent a God to explain solar eclipses.

[MigL]

IIRC even on Star trek the transporter which 'destroyed every atom of the source body and then 're-created' it at the destination, needed a Heisenberg Compensator, to account for the uncertainties brought in by QM effects.

If you cannot know the exact state of a system, you cannot recreate it.

[imatfaal]

Isn't the inaccuracy only relevant on extremely small time scales? I've been pondering this for the past few weeks, and haven't come to any conclusions yet.

 

Penrose claims there are subcellular structures (IIRC) that would easily be small enough to come a cropper with Uncertainty - I didnt checking his working but as he is one of the great mathematical-physicists of the 20thC then I am pretty sure that he will have got his scales correct. I thought his philosophy stank - but I couldn't dream of being able to criticise his physics. Please bear in mind I read this book when I was eighteen almost 25 years ago!

 

The pair of non-commuting observables I was thinking of was position and momentum - so small time scales are not essential for that to be of influence. But energy and (life) time are also non-commuting observables that have a shared minimum uncertainty - but I don't think this is what you were thinking of.

Our bodies replace the entire cellular contents countless times throughout our lives. I can't remember the exact timeline, but I seem to remember every 2 weeks, or 2 months? I'll have to dig through my texts and find it again.

 

I think neurons are an exception to this - there is neurogenesis in adults but I do not seem to remember that it affects the connexions which are "us"; It is certainly not the wholesale renewal that we see in some organs and connective tissue.

 

edit - It seems that adult neurogenesis is an ongoing debate with quite a separation between camps. I am glad to say that most of the work was well after I dumped medicine so I am excused from my ignorance

I'm usually interested in those sorts of arguments, but generally I find that they wind up being justifications for pre-existing philosophical positions rather than attempts to draw scientifically valid conclusions from the available data.

 

It is better than that Delta - it is a valiant attempt (and was the first by anyone with the academic clout necessary) to describe the emergent nature of consciousness through a strictly physical model without this model being at the biochemical/cell membrane level. I was recommended to read it on a GEB discussion bulletin board where I was seeking clarifications after my first read-through; so it was the first book I read after the mindblowing experience of GEB which might have coloured my views.

[Strange]

I think that would depend on whether or not that large group of children were brought up with a modern understanding of Physics and Biology. While history reflects society after society creating myths those societies did so because they had no other explanations. When an explanation is availible myths is are not necessary. For example assuming the children involved in this experiment were taught astronomy it is unlikely they would invent a God to explain solar eclipses.

 

I'm not convinced of that. There are always people who will reject such explanations as being too "dry", too mechanical, not having any "soul". They will always insist "there must be more to it" (whether "it" is consciousness or the ewather). You must have come across them posting on science forums? And there are (apparently) other forums totally dedicated to such ideas.

[Ten oz]

I'm not convinced of that. There are always people who will reject such explanations as being too "dry", too mechanical, not having any "soul". They will always insist "there must be more to it" (whether "it" is consciousness or the ewather). You must have come across them posting on science forums? And there are (apparently) other forums totally dedicated to such ideas.

I think people have the feelings you described above because religion is already a thing. Everyone already has a concept of it. Facts compete for a persons attention vs the foundation of myth which already exists. If there were no myths to begin with and a foundation of science did I don't believe religion would rise. It came about before because humans had far less knowledge. Humans did not know where floods came from, why eclipses happened, what caused volcanos to erupt, and etc. Starting fresh with our modern knowledge of science in a world where religion does not already have a huge footprint I do not think religion would organically just spring up.

[Willie71]

You would have to teach the idea of pareidolia from a very early age to account for the natural tendency to see faces, meaning, hearing things in the environment that are actually random. People with above average dopamine levels will experience the religious presence of spirits, or father more frequently. This would have to be taught at a scientific level. It's overcoming the significant perceptual and cognitive limitations that we have to use to function and survive. I don't know if it could work. Most atheists have lower dopamine levels, and are less prone to the religious presence, so it's easier to reason it away.

 

Interesting thought. As a comparison, raising children in gender neutral environments does not prevent the expression of gender specific traits. Who knows? It's unlikely to get funding, or pass the ethics board on this.

[yahya515]

I am surprised a question like that is allowed on a science forum.

some Questions are allowed some are not.

 

 

I realised that since none of them ever came back, there was no way anyone could tell if it was true.

do you have an evidence?!!! if not, it is silly to present theories that you developed in your childhood!!

[Strange]

do you have an evidence?!!! if not, it is silly to present theories that you developed in your childhood!!

 

He gave his evidence: "none of them came back". That is as true now as it was then.

[ZVBXRPL]

I cannot remember the exact day I stopped believing in a "God" and "Heaven" but I know it was around the same time I stopped believing in Father Christmas.

My faith would be critical thinking. I question everything and never accept anything as "gospel". I don't care who is providing the information to me, whether it is a family member, a politician, a celebrity, a scientist, a zookeeper or a hobo off the street. I always question them, whatever it is they are saying to me. More often than not the information I receive is false. So a major part of life is searching for truth through BS

[Curiousabout]

Truth boy what a concept. That is a subject unto itself.

[yahya515]

I remember the day I started to believe in God when I said to myself , well God commands to do the right things and I appreciate doing the right things . Suppose God is imaginary and I am asking help , protection etc from an imaginary entity so what I'll loose while the things I ask God are not capable to be done by myself. I said to myself the reason why I won't believe in God is because I live in the USA ( I mean United Sudan in Africa!!) The country of science , technology and civilization and other people will laugh at me because I believe in an old book full of legends when I should focus on my work in NASA to know about heaven without the need for such book.