A mind boggling question...

My take on this, is that memories and experiences do not equal consciousness. Even if Clones 67 and 68 had the same memories and experiences, they are still different entities even if active at different time periods. When one dies, that's it. Clone 69 might gain additional data input from 67's experiences prior to deactivation, but that doesn't mean that Clone 69 is 67. Meanwhile Clone 68 is plotting against the rest of the Clones, because there can only be one.

There is no shared consciousness between clones.

I haven't read any of the other responses and I'm a pretty uneducated person, but that's how I feel

 

I'm not sure I can agree with this so much, though I can see where you're coming from. I would simply submit that while experiences and other influences can change a person, the changed person is not a totally different entity than they were previously. They are simply different. Painting a ship and replacing each of its parts are two different concepts, or at least I would think so. But here we seem to have reached a conceptual disagreement, which I can respect.

 

Do you think you can be two people at once? Because you can't. You don't share a conscious with your clone.

You are hence not the same person.

 

Again, these factors can be replicated, but it still wouldn't be the exact same entity.

You can disassemble and reassemble a form/pattern/etc. using the same materials, and yes, it would still be the same thing. However, doing this with completely separate set of the same exact types of materials is an entirely different can of worms.

If you cease to exist, you cease to exist. So it wouldn't be you.

But if you transferred the exact same neurons and necessary components into any compatible "vehicle" (i.e., a clone of your body), then it would still be you. The patterns being the same or whatever... that doesn't matter. No matter what or how you do it, or with what materials... if it's not the exact memory cells/neurons inside your mind that were experiencing it as a conscious moment, then it's simply not you.

If you're sitting next to a "shell" clone, which is identical to you in every way, except for your memories/consciousness/personality/etc., and someone kills you... everything goes black for you, right? So then, since the separate entity next to you was made entirely *without* taking anything from the original entity (the initial/real/first you), then it would not be you. You would still be dead. The clone, when "activated" or "brought to life" after your death would simply be a "new life" exactly like yours. If anyone, after all the scientifically factual/common-sense information given here, still thinks that they would just "wake up" or "fade back from black" into the new body next to them if *copies* of the original entity's memories/consciousness/personality in brand new, separate memory cells were implanted into this new body, then they're absolute loons.

It's just not possible without at least some modicum of physical transference of memory cells, nano-technologically.

No, the mistake is you're not understanding basic logic. Read above to [hopefully] understand.

 

Is this argument operating under an assumption that the original is still alive?

Does the original being alive or not matter?

Edit: Actually, can we figure out a definition of "self" that everyone can agree on?

 

No, it doesn't matter. But what he and I have both been saying, is that you cannot be two entities at once.

You can't be your own clone looking at your clone looking at the real you. You would only be able to look at the clone as it is looking at you. Inversely, the clone would only be able to look at the real you looking at the clone you. You wouldn't be doing both simultaneously.

If either you or the clone you are dead, it does not hinder the ability to look at the other... or any other functions of the other, for that matter. But being identical doesn't make either of them "one and the same."

Twins may look and act the same, but they aren't the same. Changing this so that two people aren't just twins, but are exact replicas of the other doesn't make them the same person, experiencing the same things.

Admittedly, the aforementioned examples are strange, somewhat complicated ways of putting it -- but hopefully it makes sense to you in the way I've put it.


EDIT:
Edited about a million times for clarity, 11:25 CST. My apologies in advance to those who may be quoting

 

To everyone else it will look like you still exist, as if nothing happened. The clone will 100% believe themselves to be you, to them everything would be normal (unless they got the memories of death as well) They are however a new instance of your consciousness, and the original instance is now destroyed and 100% does not exist in any way shape or form. So you still die, you're still dead, a fate which should be avoided at all costs, its just that to everyone else, you're still around, but you, the original, are dead.

On a bit of a tangent, if a clone of you is created, but you still exist, there will be two of you for only a relatively small time after the cloning event. After enough time, you both will have become your own unique individuals having experienced different things.

 

I feel bad for the clone. He seems to get discriminated against so harshly...
As far as the clone is concerned, he is you.

My issue here, though, is that both sides seem to be arguing completely different things.
Both sides seem to be using different definitions of you and self.
Agreeing on common definitions seems like the best course of action to break out of what looks to me to be an endless debate.

 

Welp, just think of starbound as a rougue-like game then; the original you dies, and the new you retains everything that you have. It's a little bit unrouguish, but it'll work.

 

At this point, this is a purely philosophical debate about the nature of self in regards to perfect human cloning.
I don't think anyone really cares about the Starbound respawn aspect anymore.

 

Could just do some wibbly wobbly hijinks and involve some kind of "soul catcher" in the lore.

Heck, that's actually what I did in my own fiction: Bringing someone back to life is actually rather hard because you need the soul, a 'snapshot' of a good deal of their memories and the equipment to reattach the soul and put it in sync with the new body, otherwise... Well, bad things can happen. Some much worse than others.

 

This feels like one of those "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound" kind of ordeal. The fact of the matter is, if a fact is kept secret from the rest of the world (in this case, the fact being that the real you has died, and the perceived "real you" is actually just a clone), that doesn't mean it didn't happen, and change didn't occur. It doesn't mean you aren't still "seeing black."

EDIT:
I'm just kind of riffing and adding to your point, not trying to say you're wrong or anything. You may not have taken it that way, I just wanted to clarify my stance, just in case

Of course the clone will think he is the real you. But that doesn't mean/change the fact that in reality, he isn't. Not knowing something does not mean it didn't happen. It just means you're unaware of it.

There is no debate. I and a few others are merely stating common sense, and others are misunderstanding it.

 

He may believe so, but it is not the case. The original is you, the clone is a copy. No amount of perfection in the replication will change that, he is a separate entity who did not previously live through any of the memories he has. He is a fake, he is not you, he will not ever be you and you wont ever be him. There is nothing taken directly from you and put into your clone, he is a copy of you.

The only thing that boggles my mind about this thread is that people hold to the belief that they can die and somehow be resurrected as a clone despite having ceased to exist.

 

As far as the game goes, cloning is fine. It's just a respawn....

But in the real world, cloning will not work for humans. I believe humans are unique with three parts - body, mind and soul.
Science can rebuild the body, and is close to duplicating the brain... but the soul cannot be manufactured, or copied.

That's just my belief.

 

We're speaking scientifically. Souls don't exist in science.

 

No, souls can't be PROVEN to exist...

Remember, the earth was round at one point

 

This, this, this, a thousand times this. I've tried to explain this. Here's how I see it: Imagine a person as a quilt. The fabric is the body and the pattern on the quilt is the self, the psyche, the whatever you call it. If you see somebody that has a quilt with the same pattern, you might say that they have the same quilt as you. Obviously you aren't suggesting some sort of co-ownership of a single quilt; just that their quilt is identical to yours. Does that clear things up?

 

Souls are a non-falsifiable hypothesis. They raise more questions than they answer and hence aren't used in scientific discussion.

No it doesn't clear anything up and is completely different to your argument. Stop using comparisons which do not apply. The Clone, is not, you. It is a CLONE, a COPY, it may be identical, that doesn't make it the same individual as you.

This has been explained time and time again and this is getting tiresome. You cannot be two individuals. A clone may be exactly like you, but it IS NOT YOU. The only way I can see you understanding this is to meet your clone and realize that you are two separate individuals with individual thoughts and expressions. Even if at one point you were completely identical with the same memories, you are still two different individuals, two separate entities.

A clone, is not and will never be you. Hence why we call it a clone.

 

Who we are is nothing but our memories. Some person gets in a car accident and loses their memories, they might be still alive, but that person is gone.

If I am "Suasive" and the original Suasive dies, the new "Suasive" with all my memories of knowledge, connections, and personal history is now me. With a copy that exact, as far as everyone knows, I have never left.

 

Again this has been said, ignorance of a fact does not mean that fact doesn't exist. The fact is that you no longer exist, you died, your clone is not you, but a copy. People may not be able to tell the difference, the clone may not be able to tell the difference, that doesn't matter. The fact remains that you ceased to exist the minute you died and the clone now lives in your stead. It is not you, you HAVE left.