# The Clone Paradox **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 4, 2015, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-clone-paradox/733482 "2015-10-04T08:59:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-clone-paradox/733482/241 "2015-10-21T23:32:13Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Re-reading this post, I actually realised that I can’t tell whether you’re conceding any part of the argument, or declaring yourself the winner, or why. . . . Is that an option! “I’m the winner!” Woo-hoo! Sodas and hot-dogs my place! Plus a costume competition! We’ll debate if .999… = 1 ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-clone-paradox/733482/242 "2015-10-22T00:25:16Z")
I dunno, I think \*\*Mangetout \*\*and \*\*Trinopus \*\*may have tripped on that transporter a few too many times. And, I warned them not to get in it together (you remember _[The Fly](http://www.weeatfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/thefly4.jpg)_, don’t you?). 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-clone-paradox/733482/243 "2015-10-22T01:39:12Z")
Grin! Good point. There are some things I do not want to be an exact duplicate of! (Now, I’m a “furry.” Could we merge me with a nice ferret or something?) ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-clone-paradox/733482/244 "2015-10-22T02:41:29Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Both instances are “you.” They both have the same sensations, beliefs, Personal Identity, Qualia, etc. If I swap 'em behind a curtain, you can’t tell which is which. The “extrinsic property” is evanescent. You’re talking magic, like a homeopathic chemist with water that once had salt dissolved in it. In this kind of discussion ISTM that both sides always accuse the other of magical thinking. Your position may sound to some like magical thinking; being able to exist in N places at the same time, the possibility of immortality etc. But personally I think this is a kind of ad hominem. As long as no-one starts talking about chakras or whatever, we’re all trying to formulate a scientific (or at least formal) conception of how personal identity works. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe [Question\_A and Question\_B] are separate questions. I can’t possibly address them that way. > … > I never claimed [“You died” and “You transported, and are now seeing the destination” are] both true. You’ve said that a heap of times, but I haven’t. So you now understand why Question\_A and Question\_B are separate questions. Because Question\_A: Is Mijin still Mijin, can be fuzzy, and subjective. Who’s to say? But Question\_B: dead or transported, is at most one of those alternatives with nothing between. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-clone-paradox/733482/245 "2015-10-22T02:49:48Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > If one can object to the identity of objects at (0,0,0) and (2000,0,0) then, in four dimensions, I suppose one can as easily object to the identity of objects at (0,0,0,0) and (0,0,0,2000) (using X,Y,Z and Time coordinates.) Time coordinate is special. This is not a fudge for the hypothesis, this is consistent with how we treat all objects. If there’s a coin at X=1, X=2 and X=3 and they share the time coordinate, that’s 3 coins. But a coin sharing spatial coordinates but with 3 contiguous time coordinates? That’s 1 coin. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-clone-paradox/733482/246 "2015-10-22T03:01:16Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I don’t know what this means. Either I’m still experiencing something, or I am not > [@Mangetout](#): > > Or you are _not entirely you anymore_, and are experiencing something. i.e. still experiencing something. I understand what you’re trying to say; that there are different levels of experience / consciousness, sure I agree. But I’ve been very clear; I’m talking about whether someone’s experiencing _anything at all_, or is dead. I’m talking about _that_ line. And I’m talking about a fully-formed, fully-functional person being at the destination, and whether I’m now seeing out of those eyes. > [@](#): > > If you are still entirely you, ‘inside’, even after losing parts of your identity or personality, then it starts to sound like the ‘inside’ thing is the real you, and is somehow remaining intact and whole regardless of the damage. Well, I’m still alive. The distinction (and lack of “homunculus”) is very clear when we talk about Question\_A and Question\_B as outlined above. If I lose all my memories, am I still Mijin (Question\_A)? Well, that’s debatable, maybe I’m a “new person” now. Am I still experiencing something, am I still alive (Question\_B)? Of course, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-clone-paradox/733482/247 "2015-10-22T05:03:32Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > . . . Question\_A: Is Mijin still Mijin, can be fuzzy, and subjective. Who’s to say? > > But Question\_B: dead or transported, is at most one of those alternatives with nothing between. Why? The two are exactly the same: what got transported? All of you, or maybe just most of you. How much is “enough?” If we can ask Plato’s question about surgically removing more and more of a person – and wonder, “When does it stop being a person?” – why can’t we perform exactly the same process via a bad transporter. Instead of removing your arm with a bone-saw, I remove your arm by not properly transporting it to the destination. Arm missing: still “you?” Yes. Okay… Keep going. In due course, it won’t be “you” any longer but a stripped down carcass. Why does transporting get a special category to itself that surgery doesn’t? ---
**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:** [October 22, 2015, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-clone-paradox/733482/248 "2015-10-22T05:59:08Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > i.e. still experiencing something. > > I understand what you’re trying to say; that there are different levels of experience / consciousness, sure I agree. > But I’ve been very clear; I’m talking about whether someone’s experiencing _anything at all_, or is dead. I’m talking about _that_ line. And I’m talking about a fully-formed, fully-functional person being at the destination, and whether I’m now seeing out of those eyes. If I have a massive head injury this afternoon, and later make a full recovery, but with significant amnesia and alteration of personality traits, etc, _someone_ will be experiencing stuff, but that someone will only partly be me; the other part will have ceased to be. I don’t see how it is relevant or useful to draw the wrong line in the right place - survival of ‘me’ as a person isn’t about whether there is a 150-pound blob of flesh walking and talking amongst the crowd - it’s about whether or not the mental function of that organism is ‘me’ - and for that, the only bright lines are at the extremes. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-clone-paradox/733482/249 "2015-10-22T09:05:43Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Okay… Keep going. In due course, it won’t be “you” any longer but a stripped down carcass. > > Why does transporting get a special category to itself that surgery doesn’t? It doesn’t. The point at which you strip enough pieces off that the person dies is where you draw the line in that example. > [@Mijin](#): > > I don’t see how it is relevant or useful to draw the wrong line in the right place - survival of ‘me’ as a person isn’t about whether there is a 150-pound blob of flesh walking and talking amongst the crowd - it’s about whether or not the mental function of that organism is ‘me’ - and for that, the only bright lines are at the extremes. To what extent a person is “me” is explicitly not the question being put to you, I’ve made that very clear. I think you both are trying to answer the question you _wished_ you had been asked. I’m talking about a fully-functioning, conscious, seeing, hearing person at the destination transporter pod. There can be no “partial” in this situation; you can’t occupy part of a brain. Either you transported or you didn’t. ---
**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:** [October 22, 2015, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-clone-paradox/733482/250 "2015-10-22T17:29:26Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > It doesn’t. The point at which you strip enough pieces off that the person dies is where you draw the line in that example. > > To what extent a person is “me” is explicitly not the question being put to you, I’ve made that very clear. > > I think you both are trying to answer the question you _wished_ you had been asked. > > I’m talking about a fully-functioning, conscious, seeing, hearing person at the destination transporter pod. There can be no “partial” in this situation; you can’t occupy part of a brain. Either you transported or you didn’t. You can’t occupy part of a brain, but part of you can. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-clone-paradox/733482/251 "2015-10-22T22:57:28Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > . . . To what extent a person is “me” is explicitly not the question being put to you, I’ve made that very clear. No… You have not. > [@](#): > > I think you both are trying to answer the question you _wished_ you had been asked. Please do not presume to do my thinking for me. > [@](#): > > I’m talking about a fully-functioning, conscious, seeing, hearing person at the destination transporter pod. There can be no “partial” in this situation; you can’t occupy part of a brain. Either you transported or you didn’t. Why not? Why can there not be a partial transportation? I’ve given several examples, and so has **Mangetout**. I transport you, but one arm fails to materialize. Partial transportation, but you’re still “you.” I transport you, but you end up with severe mental difficulties and dislocations, memory loss, etc. But you’re still “you.” I transport you, and the result is wholly acerebral. You aren’t “you” any more, nor anyone at all. Somewhere in there, the failure is absolute. But where? You say the line is sharp and exact. I say it’s mussy and fuzzy and hard to establish. I acknowledge there is a line. Why do you think you’re right and I’m wrong? You keep declaring this to be so, but you can’t give a reason. I don’t know if it’s your fault, my fault, or both of our faults, but clarity is not being attained here. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2015, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-clone-paradox/733482/252 "2015-10-25T00:03:22Z")
> [@Tibby or Not Tibby](#): > > I dunno, I think \*\*Mangetout \*\*and \*\*Trinopus \*\*may have tripped on that transporter a few too many times. And, I warned them not to get in it together (you remember _[The Fly](http://www.weeatfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/thefly4.jpg)_, don’t you?). 😃 > [@Trinopus](#): > > Grin! Good point. There are some things I do not want to be an exact duplicate of! > (Now, I’m a “furry.” Could we merge me with a nice ferret or something?) I don’t think **Mangetout** will take kindly about you not wanting to become a **Trinopus-Mangetout** hybrid. You seem to be implying that he’s some sort of real-life furry. 😃 If you prefer, I’ll let you jump in the transporter with me—then you can at least be half “God’s gift to women”! 🙂 Cognitive science philosophy professor, [Susan Schneider](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7fN0xW8egc), warns against [the transhumanist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPwC41ZfhIo) idea of uploading your consciousness into a SAI being (this, I believe, correlates well with transporters and perfect clones). I’ll heed her warning. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-clone-paradox/733482.md?page=12)