I’d argue that an instance of life is it’s continued existence. An interruption where it gets fully destroyed means that instance of a life has ended. Once reconstructed, a perfect, indistinguishable copy is created, but it is not the same life.
If you were to create the copy without destroying the original, would you now be in two places at the same time? Or are there two you’s in two different points in space?
Your brain doesn’t stop working when you sleep or are under. Your physiology keeps going.
Killing and freezing a person kills them. You can’t revive someone after doing that.
We’re unable to do piece-by-piece replacements of the brain(stem) so not much to argue about there. But if we could, it’s probably still you since you’re the continuation of your biological processes, which doesn’t get interrupted, just modified.
There’s plenty of examples of people who have drowned under the ice, been dead for many (most I can remember is around 30) minutes, and have been revived. We’re talking about people that have had no heartbeat and no brain activity for a prolonged amount of time. I would definitely argue that they’re the same “life” when they wake up.
With such “revivals” they weren’t fully dead yet. They would be, if nobody intervened.
Human bodies are irrecoverable once life fully ceases. Before that happens revival is still possible. Afterwards, it isn’t.
There also have not been any revivals after brain activity stops. Once neurons stop firing (which happens on cell death), no revival is possible anymore. At that point, death is permanent.
Under anaesthesia like propofol your brain literally pauses, when you wake up you are typically confused because it’s like you were literally paused and resumed
Hamsters and other small animals can be and are regularly frozen and unfrozen
Propofol slows down your brain and changes several “rhythms”, but your brain activity does not cease at any point. To your conscious self it may appear as if you’ve “paused”, but this is absolutely not the case.
Hamsters and small animals can be partially frozen and unfrozen. Once fully frozen (or close to it) they can no longer be revived. Once brain cells die, they cannot be revived.
His study showed that every animal in which 15% or less of the body water had been frozen recovered completely. Two-thirds of those in which 15 to 40%, and one-third of those in which 40 to 50% of the water had been frozen were fully resuscitated and survived long periods.
Hamsters in which 55 to 70% of the water had been frozen subsequently recovered heart beats and breathing but not consciousness, whereas when 76% of the body water had been in the form of ice resumption of heart beat was the only sign of life.
This question obviously revolves around the philosophical idea of the ship of Theseus.
In the scenarios you listed, it is definitively the same ship (albeit with different pieces/cells that have replaced parts over time), whereas in the original scenario it is akin to making an identical, second ship.
There is a clear distinction between those things. If there weren’t, the ship of theseus couldn’t exist as a thought exercise
What if they’re in a coma for long enough that all of their cells are replaced? It’s all dancing around the question: assuming there is no soul, what is the self?
I don’t think any of those questions and in writing this comment I have decided that I solved the ship of theseus and decided that I deny the premise outright.
So anyway I’m gonna get some sleep and continue manic posting tomorrow.
It’s all dancing around humans not wanting to admit they are just a bunch of stuff that could be hypothetically rearranged, destroyed, recreated, cloned, etc.
Any such device being wormhole based is far more realistic than considering the insane requirements of instantaneous subatomic recreation, transmission of that information and destruction of the original
I’d argue that an instance of life is it’s continued existence. An interruption where it gets fully destroyed means that instance of a life has ended. Once reconstructed, a perfect, indistinguishable copy is created, but it is not the same life.
If you were to create the copy without destroying the original, would you now be in two places at the same time? Or are there two you’s in two different points in space?
The true answer to this is that we simply don’t know. Consciousness is perhaps the greatest mystery in our universe
What about when you sleep, or get anesthesia? Continued existence of what exactly?
What if you kill and freeze a person, and revive them later?
What if you do the same but piece by piece and reassemble them?
Your brain doesn’t stop working when you sleep or are under. Your physiology keeps going.
Killing and freezing a person kills them. You can’t revive someone after doing that.
We’re unable to do piece-by-piece replacements of the brain(stem) so not much to argue about there. But if we could, it’s probably still you since you’re the continuation of your biological processes, which doesn’t get interrupted, just modified.
There’s plenty of examples of people who have drowned under the ice, been dead for many (most I can remember is around 30) minutes, and have been revived. We’re talking about people that have had no heartbeat and no brain activity for a prolonged amount of time. I would definitely argue that they’re the same “life” when they wake up.
With such “revivals” they weren’t fully dead yet. They would be, if nobody intervened.
Human bodies are irrecoverable once life fully ceases. Before that happens revival is still possible. Afterwards, it isn’t.
There also have not been any revivals after brain activity stops. Once neurons stop firing (which happens on cell death), no revival is possible anymore. At that point, death is permanent.
Under anaesthesia like propofol your brain literally pauses, when you wake up you are typically confused because it’s like you were literally paused and resumed
Hamsters and other small animals can be and are regularly frozen and unfrozen
That’s literally not how it works.
Propofol slows down your brain and changes several “rhythms”, but your brain activity does not cease at any point. To your conscious self it may appear as if you’ve “paused”, but this is absolutely not the case.
Hamsters and small animals can be partially frozen and unfrozen. Once fully frozen (or close to it) they can no longer be revived. Once brain cells die, they cannot be revived.
Those questions are easily answered, though.
This question obviously revolves around the philosophical idea of the ship of Theseus.
In the scenarios you listed, it is definitively the same ship (albeit with different pieces/cells that have replaced parts over time), whereas in the original scenario it is akin to making an identical, second ship.
There is a clear distinction between those things. If there weren’t, the ship of theseus couldn’t exist as a thought exercise
What if they’re in a coma for long enough that all of their cells are replaced? It’s all dancing around the question: assuming there is no soul, what is the self?
I don’t think any of those questions and in writing this comment I have decided that I solved the ship of theseus and decided that I deny the premise outright.
So anyway I’m gonna get some sleep and continue manic posting tomorrow.
It’s all dancing around humans not wanting to admit they are just a bunch of stuff that could be hypothetically rearranged, destroyed, recreated, cloned, etc.
Any such device being wormhole based is far more realistic than considering the insane requirements of instantaneous subatomic recreation, transmission of that information and destruction of the original