This is a funny question, since all my life I've assumed that we are totally physical beings, and there is no such thing as our immaterial souls.

However, a couple days ago, me and my friend were talking about the possible invention of Transporter technology. It is possible for the quantum state of a single atom to be transfered to another atom a small distance away, so it might be possible, sometime in the future, to move the quantum state of every atom in a human body to another place in space.

Let's go with the assumption that this is possible. It would involve making a copy of a person and then killing the original. He argued that, well this would save time and travel and such, it wouldnt' be "you" any longer. You would have been killed, and somebody else, who just happened to have your memories, your thoughts, and your tendencies would have been created.

To take it a little farther, what if the original body wasn't destroyed, what if an EXACT copy of every atom in the human body was copied. Obviously, I wouldn't be controlling two bodies, I would only be in the original. The second one would also be concious, but would be somebody else. Only I'm me.

Based on this, I don't see how it's possible that I am totally material. Clearly, there is something else that makes me me and that makes an exact copy of me [i]somebody else[i].

What is your opinion on this idea? Feel free to totally trash what I just said if you can think of some logical argument against it, based on the assumption that it IS possible to make a copy of a human.

Good luck!

I don't fully understand your argument. The best I can understand is you're saying every human created must have a unique soul because you can't control yourself and a copy of you? That wouldn't make *any* sense considering they are seperate brains. What makes YOU is just a bunch of chemical reactions!
Edit: Oh yea, <insert joke about not having a soul for long, har har, etc>

I've never thought of it in that, it's definitely interesting. For one thing, this clone would think and behave exactly like you for a short period of time (I'd guess act exactly like you for the first 5 minutes, and in general like you for the first 2 months max) due to the different experiences you would be having.

Think of yourself as the original and you having the clone (you step out of the original cloning chamber), you think it is cool, you maybe want to test how alike you are, but you are more confident (presumably) because you are the original and he is just a clone. After a couple minutes this sinks in and how you behave is different... You think that you might be rich for this, that you might have your work cut in half (he can do the rest), he can do stuff for you...

Now step out as the clone, having the thoughts from the original just seconds ago you know that you are the clone, and that it was successful and you are just like your original copy. This is all fine and dandy for awhile, like your original you too are obviously curious as to how alike you are. You eventually begin to realize that you are a clone, and depending on the cercumstances(SP?)(is it a test, or something done regularly) you begin to wonder what the future has in store for you. Are you killed (or maybe even 'destroyed'?) so that no one will know, will you ever get to love, or experience life? Or will they keep you, experiment on you and see what went on. If it's something done regularly in the future, are you expected to live life doing stuff for your original, or can you go live your own life? Do you have a soul [note: without a soul, you are not affected by judgement from God, you can do as you wish without consequences (this is assuming you believe in God)]?

Since it is not something that science has proved yet, I don't think they know enough (if at all) about souls, and how you would clone that or create a new one. What all do souls do? Is that where feelings come from, or do chemicals excreated(sp?) by your brain just make you feel the same way in identical situations?

My 2cents for now, I'll probably keep posting replies though this is interesting.

Iago, sorry to have to break this to you on a forum. You are my robot son. I built you and programmed you (which explains those crashes you sometimes have). All your memories up until two days ago were created by my team and planted in your core storage.

lol Grok

I think jok3r missed my point, maybe I can clarify it a bit.

I am me. I am concious. I am in control of my body. It's hard to explain, but it all boils down to I am me.

If an exact copy was made, it wouldn't be me. It would be somebody else. But if it's an exact copy, how could it be somebody else? I've been in control of this body my entire life, and it doesn't seem like I could ever be somebody else, even if that somebody else was the exact same as me.

It seems like the only way to explain why I'm me, and an exact copy is somebody else, would be an immaterial part that isn't copied.


Finally, I'm talking about about more than a clone, too, a clone is just the same DNA, but I'm talking about an exact atomic quantum copy.

Both of them would be you. And then the you's would develop separately. I don't see any problem with it.

Who would I be in control of, then? If a copy was made, whose eyes would I be seeing out of? Clearly I wouldnt' be controlling both of them at the same time!

This sort of thing is sorta addressed in the movie "Seven Days". People are essentially killed, and then exact clones of them are made that go as far as retaining the memories of their "pre-cloned" self up to the point of death. They're not "them" any longer; they're a clone. Yet they behave, and essentially are the same person. It's a fairly fascinating discussion. :)

Iago, if there were two of you, you'd essentially control yourself. If you were to be killed, and then cloned, "you'd" still be dead, but there would be someone EXACTLY the same as you roaming around, behaving as you would, and retaining your exact memories up to the point of its matriculation, but you YOURSELF wouldn't be in control of it. It'd sort of be in control of itself based on you. This is, ofcourse, all from a scientific standpoint. From a religious one, it certainly gets alot more complicated, and I don't know if I could understand it at all. :)

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=0#msg20715 date=1063125989]
Who would I be in control of, then? If a copy was made, whose eyes would I be seeing out of? Clearly I wouldnt' be controlling both of them at the same time!
[/quote]

I don't understand the question. It obviously depends on which one you consider I? Since I is selfrelative, both of them would be I to themselves, just like I'm I to me...

"I" exists only at a particular instant, and then "I" is only your memories (real or fake) and conditioning. If you were emulated in hardware, and the emulator could be stopped and restarted, how would that feel? Which session would be "I"?

You're just your brain which acts to interpret everything you /see/think/feel/etc. If a copy is made of you, it's a seperate brain. You can't control your friend's brain can you? I really don't see the problem here. The INSTANT a copy is made, it's not identical to you, because there would be some thought or some subconscious thing that would already be slightly different. So the idea of two exact replicas of you walking around is not really possible in my opinion.

I am Grok.

[quote author=Soul Taker link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=0#msg20729 date=1063138602]The INSTANT a copy is made, it's not identical to you, because there would be some thought or some subconscious thing that would already be slightly different. [/quote]


This is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to get at. Even if you make a copy of EVERY ATOM in your body, it's still not YOU! Therefore, there surely must be more to a human being than just a collection of atoms!

No, there's just infinite amounts of possible thoughts/actions/etc possible.

If you are you and it is you who would know who's you and who's it aside from it thinking it thinking it is you while you know it is it and you are you?

What would happen if "someone" shut off the transporter... would you split into two, or would you just evaporate into the air or just make a bloody mess on the floor on both sides of the transporter? :-X

Kind of irrelavent? If you were being transported on the subatomic level, it wouldn't be all at once...

Anyways, I know what Iago means. You are your conscience, and your consciousness. This MIGHT all be transferred over, but you wouldn't exist anymore if the original clone (you) were to be destroyed, so I don't really see a point in cloning yourself if your gunna be killed in the proccess.

It's hard to explain, but I understand what Iago means.

[note]We do not fully understand how the human brain works, hence we don't fully know if the copy would get all the memories and understand everything as you did, it might just come out as a child. We do know however that dogs associate smells with chemicals in their brains and in their noses in order to remember what the smell is, if this were to be the same as humans than it should be possible[/note]

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=0#msg20748 date=1063145747]
[quote author=Soul Taker link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=0#msg20729 date=1063138602]The INSTANT a copy is made, it's not identical to you, because there would be some thought or some subconscious thing that would already be slightly different. [/quote]


This is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to get at. Even if you make a copy of EVERY ATOM in your body, it's still not YOU! Therefore, there surely must be more to a human being than just a collection of atoms!
[/quote]

By that argument, you aren't you. If every millisecond that passes alters you in some way, then there's no appreciable length of time during which you can take some kind of empirical measurement and say 'This Is Me'. Who YOU are is changing, constantly. Therefore there is no you. hah!

I think the argument has to be based either scientifically or spiritually. You could say, yes, there's a soul, it's totally separate, and this process would remove it. Or you could say that your soul is contained somehow within the quantam state of the atoms that make up your body. Or you could say that the soul is a bunch of nonsense and that everything you are is contained within your physical makeup. On a side note, wouldn't such a device constitute murder?

This is one of those paradoxical questions that those who study ethics may end up dealing with at some time. It's an interesting topic indeed and there are conter-arguments to every possible argument you can dish out. What it comes down to is just what iago said, a person or persons must decide whether or not human beings have souls. It is linked to philosophy and religion in many ways and is an extremely delicate topic. iago has pretty muched posed a paradox in which there will be two definite sides. I enjoy the question and would I personally believe people have souls. This would pose an interesting ethical problem to those who were to attempt such an endeavour as transport in that fasion. Obviously, your direct genetic copy wouldn't be you in actuality. The person may have the same ideas, beliefs, hopes, dreams, etc. but I agree with iago that it would no longer be you. Thanks iago, great topic for intelligent discussion.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=15#msg20787 date=1063191517]
Kind of irrelavent? If you were being transported on the subatomic level, it wouldn't be all at once...

Anyways, I know what Iago means. You are your conscience, and your consciousness. This MIGHT all be transferred over, but you wouldn't exist anymore if the original clone (you) were to be destroyed, so I don't really see a point in cloning yourself if your gunna be killed in the proccess.

It's hard to explain, but I understand what Iago means.

[note]We do not fully understand how the human brain works, hence we don't fully know if the copy would get all the memories and understand everything as you did, it might just come out as a child. We do know however that dogs associate smells with chemicals in their brains and in their noses in order to remember what the smell is, if this were to be the same as humans than it should be possible[/note]
[/quote]
Actually I believe the current theory is that our memories are actually stored in our RNA and people are just trying to prove it further.

Ah, well that makes sense I guess, there is definitely alot more that could be stored...

Maybe I can clear up for Arta what Iago was trying to say... It's true that your always changing and you always will be, but there is a level of conciousness that is YOU, you are in control and you decide what's going on (as far as you are concerned at any rate), if you were to be killed and a clone made of you, you as you right now, always have, and will be thinking will not be your clone (or copy, note: I use clone instead of copy). It will be someone else controlling that body, not you, and someone else making the decisions.

It's kind of like if you were acting in a movie, and in the movie your character has a freak accident and another actor is used for the character. Up until that point where you were cut out, you control the characters expressions and actions (within bounds, you have to follow the script), and when the other peron fills in for you, it's no longer you that is controlling everything, but it is still 'you' (the character that is). I think I lost my point in this paragraph, but it's worth a shot.

[quote]Therefore there is no you. hah![/quote]
I see why you chose stewie as your avatar :P

Yes, Jok3r, I'm glad somebody is seeing my point. Most of the posts here, while they still deal with interesting questions, are missing my point.

The actor analogy is a very good analogy, I must say, I wish I had thought of it :-D

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=15#msg20823 date=1063230625]
Yes, Jok3r, I'm glad somebody is seeing my point. Most of the posts here, while they still deal with interesting questions, are missing my point.

The actor analogy is a very good analogy, I must say, I wish I had thought of it :-D
[/quote]

As a Canadian national, you are not entitled by your government to have a point.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=0#msg20748 date=1063145747]
This is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to get at. Even if you make a copy of EVERY ATOM in your body, it's still not YOU! Therefore, there surely must be more to a human being than just a collection of atoms!
[/quote]

If it had exactly the same properties in every physical way, it would be you. Unfortunately, two atoms don't like to share the same physical space, and so, since you're sitting in *this* chair, you know that the guy sitting in *that* chair is your clone.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=15#msg20823 date=1063230625]
Yes, Jok3r, I'm glad somebody is seeing my point. Most of the posts here, while they still deal with interesting questions, are missing my point.

The actor analogy is a very good analogy, I must say, I wish I had thought of it :-D
[/quote]

I'm not sure what your point is. I think the "always changing" point is good. If you're talking about who's controlling your body as "you", then what happens when you sleep, or walk in your sleep? You don't exist when you're not conscious? What about a machine that produces two copies and destroys the original? (i.e. a modified transporter)

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=15#msg20841 date=1063234484]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=15#msg20823 date=1063230625]
Yes, Jok3r, I'm glad somebody is seeing my point. Most of the posts here, while they still deal with interesting questions, are missing my point.

The actor analogy is a very good analogy, I must say, I wish I had thought of it :-D
[/quote]

I'm not sure what your point is. I think the "always changing" point is good. If you're talking about who's controlling your body as "you", then what happens when you sleep, or walk in your sleep? You don't exist when you're not conscious? What about a machine that produces two copies and destroys the original? (i.e. a modified transporter)
[/quote]

When you walk in your sleep or you sleep, you still wake up, and are able to return to full control of your body (unless you die somehow...), but the actions you perform while you sleep are based on your dreams (when you wake up in a cold sweat it's because of a dream, and sometimes when people sleepwalk they are walking in their dreams (as my friend toled me)).

I fail to see what the concept of creating 2 clones and destroying the original is, or even making 1 clone and destroying the original (unless you alter the DNA to perfect them, but why would someone do that if they won't be there to appreciate it?). The movie 'Swordfish' has something like that, the lead terrorist has clones of himself that active when he dies, and star wars galaxies has the same concept. The clone is created and preserved until the person dies, this does not include destroying the original just for the clone.

Uh... You might want to watch Swordfish again. And not be on acid.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=15#msg20969 date=1063333528]

When you walk in your sleep or you sleep, you still wake up, and are able to return to full control of your body (unless you die somehow...), but the actions you perform while you sleep are based on your dreams (when you wake up in a cold sweat it's because of a dream, and sometimes when people sleepwalk they are walking in their dreams (as my friend toled me)).
[/quote]

But when you are dreaming, you may be dreaming that you are someone else, and as far as you know at that time, you *are* that other person. What I'm trying to say is that it's not clear at all who "I" is, other than the simple definition of always being who/whatever you like to think of as "self" at the current instance of time, and it might be different at another time.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=15#msg20969 date=1063333528]
I fail to see what the concept of creating 2 clones and destroying the original is, or even making 1 clone and destroying the original (unless you alter the DNA to perfect them, but why would someone do that if they won't be there to appreciate it?). The movie 'Swordfish' has something like that, the lead terrorist has clones of himself that active when he dies, and star wars galaxies has the same concept. The clone is created and preserved until the person dies, this does not include destroying the original just for the clone.
[/quote]

The concept of making 1 copy and destroying the original is known as "teleportation". By enhancing that into producing two copies, you will have two you's that wake up in the teleport receivers, both thinking and feeling that they are you. And both will be as similar to you as you yourself are when you wake up in the morning and resume control of your body.

[quote author=Soul Taker link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=15#msg20971 date=1063335386]
Uh... You might want to watch Swordfish again. And not be on acid.
[/quote]
I saw it two years ago in theatres before my graduation... All I remember was the guy was blown up in a helicopter and there was a frozen version of him in a freezer or something.

[quote]But when you are dreaming, you may be dreaming that you are someone else, and as far as you know at that time, you *are* that other person. What I'm trying to say is that it's not clear at all who "I" is, other than the simple definition of always being who/whatever you like to think of as "self" at the current instance of time, and it might be different at another time.[/quote]
Well that might be different, however I (nor anybody else I know) have never dreamed that I was someone else, which is what makes scary dreams scary.

[quote]The concept of making 1 copy and destroying the original is known as "teleportation". By enhancing that into producing two copies, you will have two you's that wake up in the teleport receivers, both thinking and feeling that they are you. And both will be as similar to you as you yourself are when you wake up in the morning and resume control of your body. [/quote]
Your right about the teleportation... But that is what brings us back to our original thread topic, would that person have a soul, would it have your soul, and would it actually be you? Obviously from my standpoint it would not be you, I don't think it would have a soul unless science finds out how to create souls... Another idea: What would they do with the body? Would they kill it fast and drop it into fire and burn it up? Donate the organs to hospitals? Launch it into outer space? I fail to see why they would kill the original once again.

What to do with the original body is a good question. It would seem to make the most sense to break down the atoms and use that energy in the transporter reaction.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=15#msg20979 date=1063363894]The concept of making 1 copy and destroying the original is known as "teleportation". By enhancing that into producing two copies, you will have two you's that wake up in the teleport receivers, both thinking and feeling that they are you. And both will be as similar to you as you yourself are when you wake up in the morning and resume control of your body. [/quote]

Yup, and they will both "know" that they are the ones with the "soul", so the other one must be a soulless clone.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=15#msg20982 date=1063373141]
What to do with the original body is a good question. It would seem to make the most sense to break down the atoms and use that energy in the transporter reaction.
[/quote]

That sounds likely. Producing matter from energy requires enormous amounts of energy. By destroying matter and turning it into energy in one end, then turning it back to matter in the other end, you'd be in balance.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=30#msg20987 date=1063374944]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=15#msg20982 date=1063373141]
What to do with the original body is a good question. It would seem to make the most sense to break down the atoms and use that energy in the transporter reaction.
[/quote]

That sounds likely. Producing matter from energy requires enormous amounts of energy. By destroying matter and turning it into energy in one end, then turning it back to matter in the other end, you'd be in balance.
[/quote]

There's no perfect process in energy transformation, so there will be energy loss. But yes, all the original mass-energy will be needed to make the first copy or the process would be very expensive.

I guess the question that you have to ask someone, which would be pretty decisive in terms of finding out what they truly think about this subject is:

Would you be prepared to test a transporter that worked on this principal?

I wouldnt.

No matter how identical the copy was, no matter if it had the thoughts and memories, reactions and opinions of me, it wouldnt be "me". It might be -a- me, but me, myself, the being to which I refer when I use the term "I" would be no more.

I was discussing this with my brother in some depth, and we decided the crucial question which would decide the whole debate, would be:

If the transporter malfunctioned (as already mentioned) and failed to destroy the "original" me, would I have "awareness" of both entities, or still just awareness of this one?

Personally I'm gonna hold out for controlled-wormhole teleporter technology before I volunteer to test.

It seems the best chance at a transporter would be one that converts mass to energy, transmits the energy to the new location, and uses that energy to convert back to mass.

During this process you would not have sufficient neural pathway cohesion to have thought, so wouldn't be "I" at all.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=15#msg20980 date=1063366408]
[quote author=Soul Taker link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=15#msg20971 date=1063335386]
Uh... You might want to watch Swordfish again. And not be on acid.
[/quote]
I saw it two years ago in theatres before my graduation... All I remember was the guy was blown up in a helicopter and there was a frozen version of him in a freezer or something.
[/quote]
No, the frozen corpse was just a body that looked like him and had fake records, etc. He escaped unharmed, and the corpse was on the helicopter to make people think he was dead.

[quote]
It seems the best chance at a transporter would be one that converts mass to energy, transmits the energy to the new location, and uses that energy to convert back to mass.
[/quote]

I'm not sure I agree with you there. The process of mass->energy conversion would be comparatively simple (assuming the technology existed)... however the conversion of energy->mass in the correct proportions, producing the correct particles in the correct places would first require that you knew exactly where those particles were to begin with in order to reconstitute them.

This analysis would be theoretically impossible without contravening the uncertainty principal.

However, the folding of space, or the creation of a wormhole allowing you to "step" from one location to another would fit within the bounds of current theoretical physics, and would offer a lot less in the way of "runtime" complexity.

[quote]
During this process you would not have sufficient neural pathway cohesion to have thought, so wouldn't be "I" at all.
[/quote]

This is, of course, making the assumption that the answer to the question "Do we have souls?" is no.

[quote author=EvilCheese link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=30#msg20994 date=1063387343]
If the transporter malfunctioned (as already mentioned) and failed to destroy the "original" me, would I have "awareness" of both entities, or still just awareness of this one?
[/quote]

If the transporter malfunctioned, then depending on what parts of you were transferred, you might have control of one part or the other, or both to some extent. Like, maybe it had transferred the left part of you and not the right... You probably wouldn't live long though.

A soul question: If your brain is split in two, you can still live on? Which part of the brain holds your soul, left or right? If you move the parts away from each other, which part will be you?

A soul is not bound by a piece of matter, it exists within your mental being I think, but once again I am not sure (nor do I think anyone is).

[quote]If the transporter malfunctioned (as already mentioned) and failed to destroy the "original" me, would I have "awareness" of both entities, or still just awareness of this one?[/quote]
Is it just me, or would it make more sense to transfer it all at once and not have this risk? Convert matter to energy inside the machine, THEN transfer it all at once (we should be able to do this by the time we can do what we are discussing...), and have the recieving end convert it back. They will probably need to have backup power, incase the energy get's interrupted on the way to the other machine. Not only backup power, but they would have to backup the person's DNA and information about the molecules and everything too just in case something were to go wrong...

[quote]Would you be prepared to test a transporter that worked on this principal?[/quote]
With something of this magnitude (the 'teleportation'), I'm sure they would test it on simple organic beings, such as flies, then move to a rat, dog, horse, monkey (or along those lines atleast), and THEN a person.

[quote]
With something of this magnitude (the 'teleportation'), I'm sure they would test it on simple organic beings, such as flies, then move to a rat, dog, horse, monkey (or along those lines atleast), and THEN a person.
[/quote]

Ah hah, but to rats, dogs, horses and monkeys have the "soul" in question? How do you know you the dog you reassembled has the same ( or any? ) "soul" as the one you broke down?

[quote]
With something of this magnitude (the 'teleportation'), I'm sure they would test it on simple organic beings, such as flies, then move to a rat, dog, horse, monkey (or along those lines atleast), and THEN a person.



Ah hah, but to rats, dogs, horses and monkeys have the "soul" in question? How do you know you the dog you reassembled has the same ( or any? ) "soul" as the one you broke down?
[/quote]

Also, though the person who comes out of the transporter may walk the same, look the same, talk the same and have the same memories as the person who went in....how can you be sure it IS the same person?

[quote]
A soul is not bound by a piece of matter, it exists within your mental being I think, but once again I am not sure (nor do I think anyone is).
[/quote]
A soul is an abstract idea, it cannot be proven existant yet so of course no one can be sure.

Well, I haven't read this whole thread but I get the idea...
I believe that if you make a clone of yourself, and in this case looks like you, acts like you, but in the end; it just isn't you right? In my belief of this theory is its all about the person experience of how his life was. The clone apparently can't be you or ever replace you because he hasn't been through what you have. Now I know this might sound weird, but I dont believe in religion; matter of fact I don't even believe in god. Do you see a dog with a halo over his head in a church window? Obviously not, anyways im off topic. But the fact is it's all about the persons life, experiences, things you've been through. God feels like im repeating myself.

To make it brief and to stop my babbling.
It's all about ones journey. My theory. I dont know if anyone has already said this, but feel free to bash or disagree with my idea on this post.

[quote author=Hitmen link=board=2;threadid=2635;start=30#msg21044 date=1063414948]
[quote]
A soul is not bound by a piece of matter, it exists within your mental being I think, but once again I am not sure (nor do I think anyone is).
[/quote]
A soul is an abstract idea, it cannot be proven existant yet so of course no one can be sure.
[/quote]

Or, more likely, which is the idea I'm somewhat arguing: A soul is nonexistant in the way people who believe in souls believe that it exists.

I mainly think about souls in the way that Descartes describes the "Mind". To summarize Descartes' theory, there are two types of substances: body and mind. The body has extension (Length, Width, and Depth), but doesn't think and isn't the entire person. The mind has NO EXTENSION (no length, no width, and no depth), and thinks. Somehow, the body and the mind are joined (he had theories about how this worked which I'm not too famalier with).

According to Descartes, corpses and animals don't have minds; that's what seperates them from humans.

Having a mind would imply an afterlife, since the mind doesn't age with the body, only the connection wears down. When the body ceases to function, the mind is disconnected from it. Perhaps it joins another body (ie, reincarnation) or it stays disconnected (ie, afterlife). If the afterlife works like that, then Pratchett's idea of the afterlife is probably the most true: that you go where you think you're going to go. If you think you'll end up in Heaven, you go there. If you think you'll end up in Hell, you'll go there. This is why it's important to kill missionaries on sight. :-)

And in terms of EvilCheese's idea about it malfunctioning, there are a couple points about that. First, he didn't say that you would end up as half a person, he said that it fails to destroy the original, and this is the point that I was trying to get at. Second, if Descartes' "Mind" is the same as the "Soul" I'm talking about, then if an exact copy was made the original "Mind" wouldn't be copied over, since it has no extension, it's not actually made up of atoms. The new version would either not have a mind, and therefore would no longer be a human (would probably just die), or a new mind would be joined and, while the person wouldn't realize it, it would be some one else.

In terms of EvilCheese not wanting to test it out, and using a space-folding technology instead, that technology would consume so much power it doesn't seem to be possible. And I agree with him, no matter whether animals or even other people went through, I still wouldn't want to. It just seems like the chances of losing your soul or mind would be too great.

I believe that the soul idea is very strange. If every human being has a soul, when would the soul be created? I think most of the people who believes in souls, thinks that the soul is created some time between the time when the sperm enters the egg and the time of the birth. Maybe after, what do I know. That means that you believe that the soul is created because there is some kind of psysical material present. Then if there would be an exact copy of a human being, then wouldn´t another soul be created? It is indeed a very strange problem. And if there would be another exact clone, with the exact same memories and everything you mentioned before, there is nothing that could decide which body is to be controlled by "me".

I´ve also discussed this problem with a friend for a long time, and i cant explain it. I understand the thought that by the time they open their eyes, their experiences change and they become different people, but lets say there is no difference at al. Lets say they are put in two paralell worlds that look exactly the same, would I be controlling two people. ... But the mind is located in the brain, and therefor there will be two minds... and there is no "I" or "me" since they´re just the same. But its hard to get stuck with the "who am I controlling" thing. But still, after several explainations i cant say I really understand, one moment I think i get it all and the other I am amazed that there is no solution. :-\

Uh, youll never, ever control your clone. It's just similar to you. You'll always only control yourself.

That's the point I was trying to make, Why would you control yourself and not the clone? There must be something unique about you that the clone wouldn't have. Since the clone would have the exact same atoms and molecules and everything else, it must be something immaterial.

Right?