What resurrects, the person or a perfect copy?

by JH 99 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AlanF

  Maverick said:

  : if the orginal is no more then is the replacement a copy?

  Suppose I own the original 1450 (or whatever) Gutenberg Bible. I ask God to make an identical copy for me, and he obligingly does. I then destroy the original. Is the copy now the original? Why or why not? Relate your answer to your question above.

  : As pointed out earlier, our atoms are replaced on a regular basis.

  Correct, but in the process, that all-important continuity of physical existence is retained.

  : I wonder if the shell is being given more weight than the essence of our being. After all, we live in our minds, all we view external is from within our own thoughts. The outside world is transmitted to our brains by our senses via nerve pathways.

  You're getting fuzzy and metaphysical here. You need to sick to concrete things.

  Think again about my example of God creating an identical copy of you and standing him alongside you. How would you convince the copy that he's not the original? He fits your above criteria perfectly, yet he isn't the original, and most importantly, he isn't you. Then revisit your comment below:

  : Now, would the replacement body, or copy, have our individual conscience?...I believe yes!

  It would, by definition of "identical copy". It still wouldn't be you, though.

  AlanF
• 

  LittleToe

  And you wonder why people have believed in an immortal soul for thousands of years?
• 

  AlanF

  You're right, LittleToe. Even groups as whacky as the B'Hai (who have a wierd combination of Muslim, Jewish and Christian belief, modified by their own ideas) have considered the problem of the resurrection, and concluded that, even though they don't believe in an "immortal sould" per se, there must be some sort of physical/spiritual 'something' that provides the needed continuity.

  AlanF
• 

  RubaDub

  So then he said "what part of the person resurrects, since it's not the same body"? Since the person is dead, and doesn't exist anymore, and now that person only exists in God's memory, how do we know it's the same person who will resurrect?

  The person may do well to investigate several professional sources for help with this issue.

  Specifically,I would encourage the person to see the documentary by director W. Allen titled "Sleeper." It is an indepth discussion about the body and soul of a person coming back to life after "sleeping" for many decades. The information focusses on issues that a person waking up after being in an inactive state for humdreds of years would most likely encounter.

  Topics include dealing with the initial shock and fear of waking up in the future, caretakers that likely will welcome the person back to life, dealing with then-current technology and adapting to the new lifestyle are discussed.

  It's available on video and DVD in most stores.

  ***** Rub a Dub
• 

  logansrun

  What is Beethovan's "Ninth Symphony"? Is it the actual notes written by the composer on a piece of paper? Is it the sounds caused by instruments playing the music? Is it the memory or impression made on human brains? Does it exist?

  To me, humans are nothing more than information recorded in our genes and our brains. The actual hardware is not important. If it were possible to download my consciousness into a computer would I still exist? I think so, but who knows.

  Is continuity really all that important as AlanF said? I think it's a good argument, but who really knows? Since a "re-creation" has never occurred (to our knowledge) we have no idea how a perfectly copied being would react when told they are just a copy of someone (themselves?) who existed, say, a thousand years ago. Any answer given to the question by neccessity must have vast elements of pure speculation in it.

  Bradley
• 

  frenchbabyface

  So to answer this question what resurrects, the person or a perfect copy?
  
  I would have say that we are not only a memory, it is very important in the reasoning (somebody who've lost his memory is still him) So now as the example of what Alan shows about the copy (which is logical) resurrection would have nothing to do with re-creation but for the body only, that would mean that in fact we are a spirit who needs a body to be active.

  BUT then that would also mean that the spirit still does exist after the death of the body but would be stored unable to be reinstated in a new body. AND that would mean that even not alive we still does exist without knowing it, of course, but also maybe that this inactive spirit can be destroyed

  Then you've got what Stillajw said :
  we are Borg controlled from the center -- we have no original thought

  In knowing that our spirit (active or not) is a material in fact, we can be controlled by those who are able to manipulate it, then that would mean that we could be still us but always unable to be controlled, and That's why I don't understand why god have chooses the heredity sin to disciplined the human beings because that means that we didn't need to go trough this) that doesn't make sense AT ALL ... UNLESS his is INSANE (SNEAKY, SNEAKY, SNEAKY)

  And then you have an other possibility (as viewed in different way in the topic mentioned but let set them all here)

  We does exist anyway with or without being active before (A) or since (B) we've got a body but unable to be controlled in that matter

  Who's got the control?

  (A) So if we existed before, those who's got the control are Alien scientists or one Alien not even a scientist (why not ? :what is science for us is maybe just as simple as (1+1) for him/them and in fact he/they would be our awaker(s) and manipulator(s)

  (B) if it have to be created by a god (he still needs that material out of himself or out of anything)

  CONCLUSION HERE EVERTHING TEND TO SAY THAT

  (C) Our spirit does exist since it APPEAR by ITSELF (Like a STARTING ENERGY a kind of BIG BANG ANYWAY we can ESCAPE FROM THAT) It makes sense just because we does exist and in any way if you believe that god does exist (otherwise from where would he come from?)

  But then again, we can be manipulated like in (A)& (B) & (C) by "X" who wants to keep the control or who don't care at all - yes we have to keep that in mind - they maybe exist but maybe don't care OR they are maybe in the same situation that we are ourselves which could be this one :

  Maybe we are only a kind of energy with different kind of memory (who dies) and then depends on what this energy (in one peace or not) is unable to integrate to be active again with maybe a new or a different kind of memory (again in one peace or not)

  That could also mean that several energies from different starting energies can be shared by the same body (means maybe a part of the energy of Jean + the Cat + a three + ... ago in its last form that was was active who died 100 years in anyone of us even, if it is only a little part of each one of them now together in us)

  In fact it would tend to say that the native American was right WE ARE MOTHER NATURE (CHEMICAL)
  
  Basically a part of what does EXIST ANYWAY ACTIVE OR NOT or ALWAYS ACTIVE IF IT IS ABLE TO INTEGRATE ANYTHING AT ANYTIME WHO CAN ATTRACT THAT ENERGY (in one peace or not) TO SURVIVE WITH IT IN ITS ACTUAL FORM (just like we breathe some air)
• 

  heathen

  I've noticed it does seem easier for people to accept the concept of instantaneous resurection to a heaven or hell . I find that to be interesting in respect to how people interpret the bible . The bible clearly isn't saying that , so why do so many people chose to see it that way? We know the human body is made of the most abundant material which is carbon , we also know that all of our inherited traits can be found in dna so maybe it's kinda like going to the grocery store and watching the cashier run groceries over the bar code then they know exactly how much to charge the customer . ( just a thought ) lol
• 

  Valis

  the only problem with the computer analogy is that even after a backup, if your files are corrupted to begin with, you will eventually have the same problem over again...just a matter of time. One would assume that in JWland Jehover would bring good little dubbies back to life in perfect physical condition, but with the same mental condition one had before. I mean otherwise why go through the trouble of all the meetings and crap, if you aren't going to remember any of it in the pair o' Dice on Earth?

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  AlanF

  logansrun said:

  : What is Beethovan's "Ninth Symphony"? Is it the actual notes written by the composer on a piece of paper? Is it the sounds caused by instruments playing the music? Is it the memory or impression made on human brains? Does it exist?

  It's all of the above in combination. So it's a poor analogy with a real, live, corporeal human being comprised of flesh and blood. The Ninth can be played simultaneously in a thousand concert halls. Ten thousand musicians can remember the notes and some can even play them in their heads. Nothing like that can be done with human beings.

  : To me, humans are nothing more than information recorded in our genes and our brains. The actual hardware is not important. If it were possible to download my consciousness into a computer would I still exist? I think so, but who knows.

  I understand what you're saying, but you're missing an important point: If you build a sophisticated computer and whatever associated object-manipulation hardware you like, and run a perfect "human program" on it, you'll have an instance of a cyborg. If you then let the cyborg run for awhile and accumulate experiences, you'll have a unique instance of this cyborg. If you build another identical instance and let it run for awhile and accumulate experiences, you'll have a second instance. If you then build a third identical instance, stop them all from running, copy all of the first cyborg's memory etc. into the third, place the third in the physical location where the first was and place the first in some other physical location, and turn them on again, what will you have? You'll have the third cyborg thinking it's the first, the second with no change, and the first cyborg rather confused. And if you leave the first where it was and place the third in some other location, you'll get exactly the same reaction from the first and third -- the first would think it was the first and the third would be confused. Here's the rub: in which case is the first cyborg really the original? The case where it stayed in the same place, or the case where it was moved? The answer is obvious, and that completes another demonstration that a copy can never be the original, no matter what sort of mental gyrations one goes through.

  : Is continuity really all that important as AlanF said? I think it's a good argument, but who really knows?

  Thought experiments such as the above are sufficient to determine this question. A copy, no matter how perfect, can never be the original. It's a matter of definition.

  : Since a "re-creation" has never occurred (to our knowledge) we have no idea how a perfectly copied being would react when told they are just a copy of someone (themselves?) who existed, say, a thousand years ago. Any answer given to the question by neccessity must have vast elements of pure speculation in it.

  Sure, but it's perfectly reasonable speculation. Suppose you were suddenly told that you're a copy of an original "Bradley". You'd say the person who told you that was nuts. If God made an identical copy of you and put it in exactly the circumstances you were in when the copy was made, and someone told the copy that it's just a copy, it would have exactly the same reaction as you did. If it didn't, it wouldn't be an identical copy. So the point is not how a copy would react, but whether the copy can ever be the original. Which it can't.

  AlanF
• 

  heathen

  I notice alot of the the bible writers state that a spirit does indeed return to God at death . Ecclesiastes 12:7 is a good example of how the old testament writers saw things . I think the WTBTS tries to convince people that the spirit mentioned is merely the last breath or vital force when it comes to the non anointed or 2nd fold of sheep . I don't see how statements such as the one in Ecclesiastes support that belief . The flesh is clearly stated as returning to the dust of the ground but yet there is a part that is reclaimed by God .

  Valis --- That is clearly argumentative as to what the dead will remember about the past life . The bible does say things that could mean they will remember somethings but I'm sure there are things that may be omitted , I think people suffer enough from their mistakes so why should they have to suffer eternally ?