flamingjimmy Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 What you are talking about there is personality whereas DNA represents the actual physical person. But your personality is a part of your physical person, it is a function of your brain. The same goes for your memories and experiences. Every time you experience anything, the physical form of your brain literally changes, new connections are made, neurons fire etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 But your personality is a part of your physical person, it is a function of your brain. The same goes for your memories and experiences. Every time you experience anything, the physical form of your brain literally changes, new connections are made, neurons fire etc. What has that got to do with the price of fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Pretty much. I used to think a similar thing, but back in 1996 if I had travelled to the end of the universe, I wouldn't have ended up back where I began. I would have been further out into the currently newish observable universe, nor do I believe that if I travel to the end of our current observable universe that I'll end up back where I began. I think that kind of mindset should be left to things like galaxies and planets that are proven to rotate. Don't get me wrong, it might be correct that you will eventually end up where you started, but I think the chances of it are so slim it's unreal. Mainly because dimensions are infinite, they will exist regardless of whether we have the matter to observe the way dimensions govern matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 We still don't fully understand the brain, but one thing we are sure of is that there's more than just neurons that are important to it's functioning! I think I already said that you are a result of your environment at least as much as your genes though, so a replica of your brain grown from DNA would be only superficially like you. I completely agree DNA wouldnt produce the same behaviour, I'd go as far as to say two clones would be significantly different in their behaviour. DNA gives an instruction for certain proteins to be produced, ie two brains may have similar sized components, but their exact pathways and interaction would be randomly generated. I like the idea that if you can exactly copy something then for a short time, it will work in exactly the same way (until the different environmental factors cause behaviour to diverge). Hawkins used this idea in his latest book, stating we could change our opinion of free will: if we know everything about a system, (including a human system) then we can predict what will happen next. I agree. Regarding the uncertainty principle, I thought it applied to scales much smaller than molecular, ie at least atomic / sub-atomic? I propose it would be possible to scan all the molecules in a body with enough accuracy to build a copy that would have all molecules in the right place - even if they were a 100th of an atom out of place when scanned, they would fall into the correct place due to the usual forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 I think you're correct re:molecules, but various possible quantum behaviours have been suggested as part of brain function (although non have been proven as far as I know). I think it's wishful thinking myself as it would conveniently make the system non deterministic, ie it gives you back 'free will' or maybe 'random will'... The illusion of free will is convincing anyway, which means you have to act as if it was real, otherwise you stop acting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 I used to think a similar thing, but back in 1996 if I had travelled to the end of the universe, I wouldn't have ended up back where I began. I would have been further out into the currently newish observable universe, nor do I believe that if I travel to the end of our current observable universe that I'll end up back where I began. I think that kind of mindset should be left to things like galaxies and planets that are proven to rotate. Don't get me wrong, it might be correct that you will eventually end up where you started, but I think the chances of it are so slim it's unreal. Mainly because dimensions are infinite, they will exist regardless of whether we have the matter to observe the way dimensions govern matter. There is no evidence to suggest that the universe is infinite, all the evidence we have suggests otherwise. Your opinion is just wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 What has that got to do with the price of fish. It makes the point pretty clearly that you are a function of both DNA and environment, being able to replicate your physical form from DNA does not replicate you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 What you are talking about there is personality whereas DNA represents the actual physical person. We've been talking all along about the consciousness that is you (or me). Not the physical body. Replicating the physical body does not replicate me because the replication you propose is not complete, it's not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 It makes the point pretty clearly that you are a function of both DNA and environment, being able to replicate your physical form from DNA does not replicate you. We've been talking all along about the consciousness that is you (or me). Not the physical body. Replicating the physical body does not replicate me because the replication you propose is not complete, it's not even close. You or someone spoke about a natural birth which is a new beginning, and it would be the same at the resurrection for we would be a new creation. The points you have made confirm this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 There is no evidence to suggest that the universe is infinite, all the evidence we have suggests otherwise. Your opinion is just wishful thinking. It's not wishful thinking at all, it's a scientific hypothesis on the afterlife. Which is the topic of discussion. Sorry if you happen to have a problem with it. The evidence of global warming suggests polar bears are drowning in great numbers too, doesn't mean that they are. Just means they utilised a single photo of a polar bear on a block of ice to the best of its suggestive potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.