|
I love this dilemma.
I believe tha base of the dilemma is the soul. In this case one can define a “soul” as a part of our identity which science may not understand and therefore not replicate. This is what people fear.
I would say that oneself = the mind.
Therefore if the mind is perfectly replicated along with memories, personality and soul (if one exists) then the person remain the same.
The body is not important. The person will change based on the new point of reference i.e. the being without a body or in a new body. But it can be argued that we always change because our point of reference always changes. This change of bodies happens naturally as we age. One certainly can’t say that the past self is the same as the present self. There is a part of the past self in the present self but the whole is not exactly the same.
Does the person die? Yes they cease to exist, but that doesn’t matter. People have near death experiences and no one would doubt that they are not the same person. One could point out that their mind continues functioning in a near death experience. This is not important because if one was replicated the mind would simply pause.
If the original person does not get destroyed then there would two very similar people. There would not be two identical people, as their experiences would vary from a relative point of reference beginning the moment the clone was created. The same way twins, while looking the same are two totally different people even if they mimic each other in every way, because their frame of reference is different and their thoughts vary even more.
We can bring up this same dilemma without destroying the body. The same question could be applied to a person in a state of suspended animation. Suppose one’s molecular functions are frozen somehow. Even though the body is not destroyed the mind is not functioning. I don’t think that any one of us would argue that we would still be the same person once we are animated again.
I hope I expressed myself clearly enough.
Cheers.
|