# Personal Identity **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 17, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565 "2012-07-17T22:02:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Man\_About\_Town](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Man\_About\_Town](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Man_About_Town)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/81 "2012-07-20T12:56:10Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > The question doesn’t have a proper answer, because the goalposts are moved halfway through the game. > > Whichever room you choose, one of the awoken persons will have been right all along, the other wrong. Agnostic stance couched in weasel words? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![wayward](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a87d85/32.png) [@wayward](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wayward)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/82 "2012-07-20T13:26:15Z")
I know it’s difficult, but try not to think of consciousness as some sort of unique and magical thing. Another analogy that might help. Think of a work-in-progress story. Halfway through writing it, a copy is made, and two authors continue it in two different directions. Which is the original? The answer is both, and neither. ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/83 "2012-07-20T13:32:44Z")
> [@grude](#): > > This exact scenario is well explored in the Battlestar Galactica reboot, in case the OP is interested in fiction with this premise. See TV-Tropes: Expendable Clone for an interesting discussion of this theme. And many examples. > **[Expendable Clone - TV Tropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExpendableClone)** > > The tendency of characters to treat clones and other Doppelgangers as expendable, often to the point of killing them casually because they can be replaced with reserves, or, in cases where there is an original version of the entity, it's the only … ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/84 "2012-07-20T14:19:31Z")
> [@Man\_About\_Town](#): > > Agnostic stance couched in weasel words? 🙂 No. It’s not a question that can be properly answered, because it asks something (“Which single boolean choice of outcome will occur?”), when the design of the scenario does not provide a single outcome - it provides a pair of complementary outcomes. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/85 "2012-07-20T15:08:55Z")
> [@Canadjun](#): > > I don’t think it is at all weird and/or paradoxical, but being atheist I don’t believe in souls. If someone did then there might be philosophical issues with what happens to the soul. Of course Me2 would wake up and feel that nothing out of the ordinary had happened; nothing out of the ordinary did happen in his experience. I also don’t think it would be weird or paradoxical if you didn’t kill Me1 and instead let both Me1 and Me2 go on living; you’ve just got two people with identical memories. Identical up to the point of waking. After that, they begin to accumulate different memories, because the two of them will not have the same experiences. This is why the stories of “resurrecting someone from a DNA sample”, etc. can never work. Suppose you die tomorrow. We take a sample of your blood, extract your DNA, gen up a clone, speed-age it up to your present age while implanting language and basic knowledge like math, etc. When it wakes up, it ain’t gonna be you. It doesn’t have the memories of things like the skinned knee at age four, the first kiss, etc., all of which combine to make you uniquely you. ---
**Author:** ![Man\_About\_Town](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Man\_About\_Town](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Man_About_Town)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/86 "2012-07-20T15:46:37Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > No. It’s not a question that can be properly answered, because it asks something (“Which single boolean choice of outcome will occur?”), when the design of the scenario does not provide a single outcome - it provides a pair of complementary outcomes. You mean after the experiment I would become a pair of complementary selves? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/87 "2012-07-20T17:05:42Z")
> [@Man\_About\_Town](#): > > You mean after the experiment I would become a pair of complementary selves? You would become ‘they’. And complementary only in the question of which room. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/88 "2012-07-20T20:17:25Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > From a strictly material viewpoint, there’s no difference between ‘me’ and ‘a perfect copy of me’ > > The ‘me’ that was here yesterday exists only in my memory, so if there was something else here, remembering that, it would be me in every sense I am. I’d think of that as being from a strictly conceptual viewpoint, rather than a material one, because in a material viewpoint, the paperwork says That Body was the original and That Other Body just came off the assembly line. If the crew gets them mixed up later, that’s bad paperwork. But I do agree that conceptually we are none of us the exact person we were five minutes ago. I’m not up on the views of today’s physicists on time, but in Thief of Time by Pratchett, time was explained to be granular. There was a smallest quantum of time and between one quantum and the next the universe disappeared and reappeared in a slightly different state. I agree that both Me1 and Me2 are equally experiencing this disappearance and reappearance.\* And I agree that the internal experience of self would be the same. But there is a history of past quanta associated with each one. One walked in the door after however many years of running around under the illusion that I exist, while the other woke for the first time after a briefer manufacturing process. If you get too sub-atomic about it, then an illusion of personal existance is all that’s available to any Me, including the Me reading this. \*assuming the theory is correct (I also wouldn’t be complimentary. I’d probably say, ‘damn, woman, you need to lose weight.’) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/89 "2012-07-20T21:10:50Z")
The problem with this question, which I’ve enjoyed debating many a time in the past on the SDMB (was that me though, or just someone I remember being?) is that the idea of personal identity is so compelling, that people tend to go off hunting for _anything_ that makes the ‘original’ distinct from the duplicate, then seize upon that, claiming that _this must be the important difference that makes me ‘me’, and the copy ‘just someone that thinks he’s me’_. Last time we debated this, someone was arguing that unbroken continuity of process was the really important difference; the time before that, it was the specific atoms, or maybe their quantum states that was the really important difference. People are convinced there _is_ a really important difference before they have any idea what it might even be. What it boils down to is that, even for many non-religious people, there’s a compelling notion of possessing what amounts to a soul (albeit not necessarily an immortal one) ---
**Author:** ![Man\_About\_Town](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Man\_About\_Town](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Man_About_Town)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2012, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/90 "2012-07-21T09:07:17Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > And complementary only in the question of which room. This doesn’t make sense to me. Using boolean logic there are four choices of outcome. 1. I cease to exist (never wake up) 2. I wake up in room1 3. I wake up in room2 4. I wake up in both rooms (which means I would get sensory input from two different, spatially separated environments) Which of those corresponds to your “two complementary outcomes”? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2012, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/91 "2012-07-21T09:20:07Z")
> [@Man\_About\_Town](#): > > This doesn’t make sense to me. Using boolean logic there are four choices of outcome. > > 1. I cease to exist (never wake up) > 2. I wake up in room1 > 3. I wake up in room2 > 4. I wake up in both rooms (which means I would get sensory input from two different, spatially separated environments) > > Which of those corresponds to your “two complementary outcomes”? 1. There are now two separate things which used to be ‘you’. The problem is that, after the duplication, ‘I’ isn’t what was at the beginning. The question itself is flawed, because it asks for a singular outcome, when a pair of complementary outcomes are to happen. Whichever room you expect to wake in, one version of you will be right, the other wrong; that is the sense in which case your two identity-descendants are complementary. They can’t both be right, because the question posits that two different things will happen to them. You said in post #79 that you accepted that both of the individuals have an equally valid claim of being you, and that they are distinct individuals. ---
**Author:** ![Man\_About\_Town](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Man\_About\_Town](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Man_About_Town)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2012, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/92 "2012-07-21T10:09:48Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > 1. There are now two separate things which used to be ‘you’. This conclusion is made by an EXTERNAL OBSERVER. In my experiment there’s only one observer - myself. I, before of after the experiment, couldn’t care less how many things would claim being me, ALL I want to know is from what place (environment) I would be receiving the sensory input after the experiment. > [@](#): > > The problem is that, after the duplication, ‘I’ isn’t what was at the beginning. The question itself is flawed, because it asks for a singular outcome, when a pair of complementary outcomes are to happen. Ok, let’s brake the outcome down into two possibilities: 1. I survive 2. I die Is this legitimate to ask and what is the possible answer? > [@](#): > > Whichever room you expect to wake in, one version of you will be right, the other wrong; that is the sense in which case your two identity-descendants are complementary. They can’t both be right, because the question posits that two different things will happen to them. Ones again, I couldn’t care less which version of myself is right or wrong, if there’s only one observer - me - there’s no point in asking who is right or wrong. > [@](#): > > You said in post #79 that you accepted that both of the individuals have an equally valid claim of being you, and that they are distinct individuals. Right, what’s wrong with it? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2012, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/93 "2012-07-21T13:17:57Z")
> [@Man\_About\_Town](#): > > This conclusion is made by an EXTERNAL OBSERVER. In my experiment there’s only one observer - myself. No, there is not only one observer, at least not for the whole experiment. This is why the question is flawed; the rules change halfway through the game. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/94 "2012-07-21T13:24:35Z")
Point of view, external or otherwise doesn’t even matter - the question is flawed in a way that it wouldn’t yield a sensible answer if we were talking about cutting an apple in half - which half is the original apple? They both are. But there was only one apple, so which half is the apple? You start off with one thing and end up with two things, which in the case of the apple, are just parts, but in the case of you and your duplicate, are both identical and complete descendants of the original - it just doesn’t make sense to ask “which of these two is the one?” There are two now. ---
**Author:** ![Man\_About\_Town](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Man\_About\_Town](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Man_About_Town)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2012, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/95 "2012-07-21T13:33:39Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > No, there is not only one observer, at least not for the whole experiment. This is why the question is flawed; the rules change halfway through the game. What rules changed? In what way other observers influence the outcome? You don’t supply any argument to support your claim that the question is flawed. Well, is this question flawed: “will I survive or will I die after the experiment?” ---
**Author:** ![Man\_About\_Town](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Man\_About\_Town](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Man_About_Town)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2012, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/96 "2012-07-21T13:37:00Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > it just doesn’t make sense to ask “which of these two is the one?” There are two now. This is not the question, the question is “will I survive?” ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2012, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/97 "2012-07-21T13:38:13Z")
> [@Man\_About\_Town](#): > > This is not the question, the question is “will I survive?” Yes you will - both of you. ---
**Author:** ![Man\_About\_Town](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Man\_About\_Town](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Man_About_Town)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2012, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/98 "2012-07-21T13:43:12Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Yes you will - both of you. Then from which room would I receive the sensory input? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2012, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/99 "2012-07-21T13:54:01Z")
> [@Man\_About\_Town](#): > > Then from which room would I receive the sensory input? You won’t be one thing any more, but two separate things, having divided into two things from being only one thing previously. I can only imagine you’re being obtuse by now. You will be in room A and _another you_ will be in room B. Both of these individuals will experience their own separate narrative, branching off the single one from the day before. ---
**Author:** ![Man\_About\_Town](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Man\_About\_Town](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Man_About_Town)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565/100 "2012-07-21T15:51:32Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I can only imagine you’re being obtuse by now. From which I infer that you are deliberately trying to avoid the issue which implications, I’m sure, you are very well aware of and prefer throwing ad hominems instead. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-identity/628565.md?page=6)