Can splitting in two create a divided identity?

[-I-]

Hypothetically-
If you were able to split in two like a bacterium, would you be two people with separate identities, or would you be one person living in two bodies?

 

[out of whack]

After a bacterium splits into two there are two bacteria that can be separately identified so there are two identities: left bacterium and right bacterium. You don't have one bacterium living in two cells unless you decide to define terms differently (but then let everybody know).

 

[King Arthur]

Definitions- Identity-
What makes you, you. Your own self. What classes something as alive.
Consciousness and awareness are, IMO, evolutionary advantages that probably started with the advent of pain, to reduce damage to an organisms.

Left out of whack, Right out of whack, Your body is split but do you think your own self is only in one?
If so which one?
Thanks for your reply.
-I-

 

[raolduke]

Couldnt you be everyone? Or everyone is you? - Everyone could be a projection of you or just an illusion.

 

[out of whack]

Left out of whack, Right out of whack, Your body is split but do you think your own self is only in one?
If so which one?
Thanks for your reply.
-I-

King Arthur, you signed your message -I- so are you both one and the same? It would be a pertinent situation given the subject of this thread.

To answer your question, first you have to say to whom you are asking the question, either left out of whack or right out of whack. They are two separate identities, each self living within its own body. Think of twins if it helps you. There is no reason to think that only one self is sharing two bodies. If you ask the question to both of them, each will answer that they are their own self within their own body and each will be right since each one is living a different experience as soon as the hypothetical split begins: one self experiences a split to the left, the other self experiences a split to the right. This makes both different: as soon as you decide to split me in two, two separate experiences begin, distinct from each other. You create two distinct identities in two distinct bodies.

 

[Q_Goest]

If you were able to split in two like a bacterium, would you be two people with separate identities, or would you be one person living in two bodies?

Let's call this "The Me Problem of Consciousness". The Me Problem of Consciousness is even more difficult to define than the hard problem of consciousness. The me problem stems from the sensation of there being a difference in the world with 'me' in it. I think the first thing to do is to try and define the problem, just as Chalmers defined the "hard problem" of consciousness. Here's some thoughts...

We might ask, "Where is the center of the universe?" We might then raise our hand and point to ourself because there seems to be something unique about 'me' in this universe that differentiates everything else from 'me'.

Another way of looking at this problem is to note that all the other matter in the universe that exists in 'other' people can create a behavior that is just like my own. That matter is in all the other people, and the phenomena it produces is analogous to the phenomena the matter which makes up "me" creates. But there is a very large exception to that observation, that is the fact that the matter that makes up 'me' creates a phenomena that is more than just a behavior. The phenomena is 'me'.

Recognizing these things, we can separate matter into two catagories - matter that exists in me, and matter that exists in everyone else. These two sets of matter create very different phenomena, despite the fact there is identical or at least very similar matter to my own. The two sets of matter are fundamentally different in their ability to create this specific phenomena of consciousness.

 

[King Arthur]

Does it matter who I am, do you want to discuss the debate or the debator?
Quoting out of whack
-If you ask the question to both of them, each will answer that they are their own self within their own body -
You quoted me talking about you,
so why not just say YOU would answer that you are your own self within each body? Is this what your saying?

But then you say-There is no reason to think that only one self is sharing two bodies- Don't get angry with me, your words not mine.

My question to both is, who is now out of whack?

You say each will be their own self within their own bodies. OK.

1.So your saying you will be your own self within two bodies?
OR
2.Your saying you will be your own self in one body and somebody else in the other?
OR
3.You no longer exist and there are now two different people in the two bodies?
OR
4.You invoke rules like (you must not talk to both- out of whacks at once)
Quote- (first you have to say to whom you are asking the question Left or right) OK, lefty, are you the real out of whack?
OR
5.Quote-(Think of twins if it helps you.) As for explaining what you think, it does not. Is this 1, 2 or 3?

I only want a straight answer, why complicate what is not complicated? Sure its a paradox but its straight foward.

Sorry raolduke but let's clear this up first.

Q Goest-Consciousness and awareness are, IMO, evolutionary advantages that probably started with the advent of pain, to reduce damage to an organisms. More evolutionary spectacular than the human hand or a dogs nose, but developed the same way.
The people your quoting are not here to debate with, you are, what's your take on this.
Which Q Goest Hypothetically-
If you were able to split in two like a bacterium, would you be two people with separate identities, or would you be one person living in two bodies?

 

[light_bulb]

separate, because each person would have separate experiences and form their own opinions based on them.

 

[out of whack]

Does it matter who I am, do you want to discuss the debate or the debator?

No, I don't need to know who you are, we will never meet. I was just curious since you logged on as King Arthur to participate in a thread you started under you other name -I- for the topic of "divided identity" which I thought was amusing. I just had to ask, that's all.

You quoted me talking about you, so why not just say YOU would answer that you are your own self within each body?

In your hypothetical experiment you split my own self into two, which destroys the original whole while you find the materials needed to complete two other halves and finish off with two wholes that are half original and half copy. So there is no original anymore, what you have is two half-copies. This means that you can no longer talk to me, I no longer exist intact.

But then you say-There is no reason to think that only one self is sharing two bodies- Don't get angry with me, your words not mine.

Uhhh, why would I get angry with you? Don't worry, I won't, we're just talking. And yes, my words do state that there is no reason to think that only one self is sharing two bodies. Is there any such reason? What is the reason?

My question to both is, who is now out of whack?

Out of whack is no longer, the experiment destroyed him in the process of making two copies. What the copies will answer depends on what they know of the experiment. If they don't know then they should both mistakenly assume that they are out of whack. If they do know then they should each identify themselves as the left and right copy of out of whack.

1.So your saying you will be your own self within two bodies?
OR
2.Your saying you will be your own self in one body and somebody else in the other?
OR
3.You no longer exist and there are now two different people in the two bodies?
OR
4.You invoke rules like (you must not talk to both- out of whacks at once)
Quote- (first you have to say to whom you are asking the question Left or right) OK, lefty, are you the real out of whack?
OR
5.Quote-(Think of twins if it helps you.) As for explaining what you think, it does not.

1. No
2. No
3. Yes
4. No and no
5. Fine then, don't think of twins.

I only want a straight answer, why complicate what is not complicated? Sure its a paradox but its straight foward.

Straight answer given. Nothing complicated, it's not really a paradox, all four of us agree that it's straight forward.

 

[David Burke]

WOW! This is a short thread but my head already hurts... Um... Entangled particles in QM are actually just one particle, not many. They are split in a similar way. So the universe can obviously accomidate such an event as you have mentioned and in the case of photons retain a single identity.

 

[King Arthur]

?only 3 replies showing

 

[King Arthur]

Got here only by going through my email. Ok ignor ? only 3 replies, hope I can get here agian.
I have only limited access to the net at home , thought -I- got banned for stating the -I- theory, the computer is slow and acts funny, might be a virus, don't really know.

Out of whack-
Your not being cloned, your not being copied, your not being destroyed. You are hypothetically spliting like, and growing into full bodies like, a bacterium. If this is not clear enough, imagine you are put on an operating table and are being split head to groin and both are being kept alive somehow. (As living conscious halves)

Either way the original "out of whack" is now in two places, two bodies, two people with their own consciousness, but one identity-both being you, do you think this statement is some way wrong? If you think your copied or destroyed in the senerio, I would like a reason why you think so.
Please read below before replying.

Light bulb-
Quote from third post in this thread- identity is not consciousness-
Consciousness and awareness are, IMO, evolutionary advantages that probably started with the advent of pain, to reduce damage to an organisms.

Left now wants to watch TV, right now wants to sleep, does not change the idea that they are the same identity. Identity is what classes something as alive only, what makes you, you. Consciousness, IMO, is only an advanced sense of pain, it is split with the body, consciousness is not identity.

David Burke-
I have had similar thoughts. I can see it explains (fits) lots of things in physics, but I cannot argue them, I don't have the in depth knowledge.
Is individuality the illusion?

 

[out of whack]

Either way the original "out of whack" is now in two places, two bodies, two people with their own consciousness, but one identity-both being you, do you think this statement is some way wrong?

Yes, it is wrong because my identity as an individual being has been altered to the point that it no longer exists. It was replaced by two different and separately identifiable beings, something that I never was. I was not two, I was not one half either, I was one. When you change something or someone, it becomes something or someone else. You may decide to retain its name and to claim that it retains its identity as defined by you, but it's only your decision to do so, not what actually happens. In your experiment what you end up with is clearly two people, two identities, not one.

 

[King Arthur]

There is no one part of you that is you, your identity, but it has to be contained somewhere, seems logical then it is in all of you. It appears your argument is that amputation of the body would somhow effect (destroy) you being you.
You don't explain replaced, altered, copied, cloned or destroyed; you just present it as fact and hinge the rest of your argument from it.

Identity as I defined it-
What makes you, you. Your own self. What classes something as alive.
Problem?

Lets see- One bacterium splits, not disappears and then reappears as two different bacteria, but the original splits. You could have argued one is the original and one is new (but your still creating a new identity). But to say its replaced; by what power, by who's power, seems to be leaning toward the supernatural, seems identities in your interpertation are created from nothing.
I am more of the Hawkins school of thought that it just always was.

Heres something I read here at PH-
nameta9


nameta9 is Offline:
Posts: 160 Are any two electrons equal mathematically ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In various threads dealing with why mathematics is so good at describing physics, the fact that elementary particles are exactly equivalent is really weird. Are any 2 electrons exactly equal in all possible mathematical sense ? Is this really conceivable and possible ? I find it hard to imagine 2 electrons that are exactly equal as if they were 2 exactly equal numbers. So electrons would end up being pure mathematical objects. They would in essence be pure abstractions. Maybe quantum indetermination and virtual particles and feynman diagrams of electrons self interacting make it so that NO TWO ELECTRONS ARE REALLY EVER EXACTLY EQUAL... to any decimal place. Very odd problem indeed.

 

[baywax]

Hypothetically-
If you were able to split in two like a bacterium, would you be two people with separate identities, or would you be one person living in two bodies?

You're asking specifically about identity in humans.

Do identical twins have the same fingerprints? No.

Do identical twins have the same moles? No.

Do identical twins share the same space? No.

Do identical twins share the same identity? No.

Are identical twins two people living with separate identities? Yes.

Just ask 1.

 

[King Arthur]

Baywax
Your left hand has different fingerprints from your right hand, using this logic you are two identities.

Are identical twins two people living with separate consciousness? Yes.
Identities? (is this just a play on the word identity, do you understand the concept not being about consciousness?)

Quote from 3rd post in this thread-

Definitions- Identity-
What makes you, you. Your own self. What classes something as alive.
Consciousness and awareness are, IMO, evolutionary advantages that probably started with the advent of pain, to reduce damage to an organisms.
End quote-

By the way Baywax what if I split you in two? (just hypothetically OK)

1. Will you be your own self within two bodies?
OR
2. Will you be your own self in one body and you create somebody else in the other?
OR
3.Will you no longer exist and you create two different people in the both bodies?

Thanks for your reply -I-

 

[baywax]

Baywax
Your left hand has different fingerprints from your right hand, using this logic you are two identities.

Are identical twins two people living with separate consciousness? Yes.
Identities? (is this just a play on the word identity, do you understand the concept not being about consciousness?)

Quote from 3rd post in this thread-

Definitions- Identity-
What makes you, you. Your own self. What classes something as alive.
Consciousness and awareness are, IMO, evolutionary advantages that probably started with the advent of pain, to reduce damage to an organisms.
End quote-

By the way Baywax what if I split you in two? (just hypothetically OK)

1. Will you be your own self within two bodies?
OR
2. Will you be your own self in one body and you create somebody else in the other?
OR
3.Will you no longer exist and you create two different people in the both bodies?

Thanks for your reply -I-

The left hand has a different identity as compared to the right. When the right and left are matched to the person the hands belong to, you have the identity of the person. The kidney's have differing characteristics. They have their own identity. You can tell the left kidney from the right one if you know the differences in identity between them.

Are you trying to point out how each person perceives events differently?

Like fingerprints, neuroal networks are all different from person to person. When you are cut in half the configurations of the neurons in each half have been modified. If, by some miracle, your halves survive and become whole beings they will exhibit the configurations of neurons that perceive events differently from each other half. Each half, in other words, will experience the world differently from the other.

I don't get your point. Do you?
Do you just like thinking about cutting people in half? Did you grow up with identical twins? Did that long drawn out experience drive you think about cutting people in half?

 

[King Arthur]

Baywax
Are you angry with me, do you want to discuss the debate or the debator?
Do you understand the concept not being about consciousness but about identity? (do I have to copy the definition from the 3rd post agian?)
Are you going to answer the muti-choice question you quoted back at me without answering agian?
If 2 or 3 are you going to explain where these new identities come from?

Thanks for your response -I-

 

[King Arthur]

THE POINT
An ancient creature with a nerve and a simple recptor, the minimum requirement for awareness. Even this creature had to evolve, so before the evolution of this creature, living creatures had no consciousness/awareness. These creatures were alive so had identity, but without consciousness.

Quote
I don't get your point. Do you?
Answer
CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT IDENTITY!

 

[baywax]

THE POINT
An ancient creature with a nerve and a simple recptor, the minimum requirement for awareness. Even this creature had to evolve, so before the evolution of this creature, living creatures had no consciousness/awareness. These creatures were alive so had identity, but without consciousness.

Quote
I don't get your point. Do you?
Answer
CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT IDENTITY!

I think you'll find a large number of definitions for the word "identity". None of them say that consciousness is not identity.

Actually, a person's identity can be defined by their level of concsious awareness and by something known as "identity of interest". Identity of interest is soley facilitated by being aware or "concsious". In order to have interests, one must be aware of them.

I don't know why you have neglected to include these definitions linked below.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:identity&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Best of luck.

 

[Evo]

I'm locking this. This isn't a discussion, it's apparent King Arthur, that you only want people to agree with you. You obviously aren't open to any differing opinions and as a result this thread is going nowhere.