Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is a discussion forum topic for the November 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

The below question is in a way simply a variation of the opening question of the book, worded very differently.


If over the next 30 years, your body (including your brain) very slowly and steadily morphed into an atom-by-atom identical copy of my body (including my brain), would you still be you?

Would you also be me?


If we apply the concept of the 'Two Yous' from the book, which can then be extrapolated to include a concept of there being two types/meanings of me, then each of one above questions actually represents four different questions (the 2 of you multiplied by the 2 of me: 2x2=4). Of course, needless to say, those who read the book already know that the real you and the real me are one in the same, which answers most if not all of those four questions.

In at least one of the senses in which the question can be interpreted, the answer certainly is that you would also be me because you already always have been and always will be me (also). In other words, you always have been and always will be both me and you because me and you--in terms of the real us--are one in the same.

If it helps, re-read this entire post but read it as if it is not being written by 36-year-old Scott in Manchester, CT, but instead is being written by one of your infinite past or distant future selves to your current self. Imagine the 10-years-younger version of the human you see in the mirror wrote this to you, so that when I have written the word I or the word me, I am referring to the 10-years-younger version of the human you see in the mirror.

Feel free to write a version of this letter out in the first person addressed to your 10-year-older self, and read it in 10 years, so at that point in spacetime you don't even have to imagine it's from your past self: It will literally be from your past self at the point.



******
In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
View: on Bookshelves | on Amazon | on Barnes and Noble

[Richardkcaputophd009]

I suspect not - the environment that impacts the development of your-body-becoming-my-body differs from my body which is being transformed if it were even possible.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I suspect not - the environment that impacts the development of your-body-becoming-my-body differs from my body which is being transformed if it were even possible.

Thank you for your reply. I am not sure exactly what you mean. Do you mind elaborating a bit more?

[Richardkcaputophd009]

Analogously, think of two atom-by-atom-identical selves living apart in two different universes. The environment in each would be different, thereby affecting how each develops over time.

[Jkk67-]

I find the question nonsensical. Look at it this way. If a glass morphed molecule by molecule into another glass, would it be the same glass. And, what difference does it make. The body is simply a vessel for one’s life force (soul etc). From one point of view, the vessel matters little. What is most concerning is, how attached, mentally, philosophically etc, is a person to their body? That’s where the body can be trouble, yet even then it’s not the body’s fault, but the person’s

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Analogously, think of two atom-by-atom-identical selves living apart in two different universes. The environment in each would be different, thereby affecting how each develops over time.

That explains why in practice it's unlikely that you would randomly morph into an atom-by-atom copy of me.

Likewise, if you did, we could image that would require the environment in which you find yourself would likewise to have to have morph to a certain degree to also match the environment in which I find myself.

So please do imagine then that not only does your human body slowly morph into an atom-by-atom copy of my current 36-year-old body, but that your surroundings similarly morph at similar very slow into a nearly identical copy of my current surroundings.

This would mean after 30 years of gradual change that is unnoticeable minute by minute 'you' would eventually find 'yourself' in a body that is an identical copy of mine in an environment/surroundings that is at least nearly identical to mine.

Would you still be you?

Would you be me?

Would you simultaneously be both me and you?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Jkk67-,

Thank you for your reply.

I find the question nonsensical.

How is the question nonsensical exactly?

Which question(s) is allegedly nonsensical specifically?

The original post contained several questions:

(1) If your body very slowly and steadily morphed into an atom-by-atom identical copy of my body, would you still be you?

(2) If over the next 30 years, your body (including your brain) very slowly and steadily morphed into an atom-by-atom identical copy of my body (including my brain), would you still be you?

(3) Would you also be me?


If you are saying that all three are each nonsensical, can you explain individually specifically why each specific question of the three is nonsensical?

Look at it this way. If a glass morphed molecule by molecule into another glass, would it be the same glass. And, what difference does it make. The body is simply a vessel for one’s life force (soul etc). From one point of view, the vessel matters little. What is most concerning is, how attached, mentally, philosophically etc, is a person to their body? That’s where the body can be trouble, yet even then it’s not the body’s fault, but the person’s

Are the above ~6 sentences meant to be evidence/argument for your statement/conclusion that my original question(s) are (allegedly) non-nonsensical? Or are they meant as an answer to the question(s)?

Without that context, I'm not sure I can understand the above quoted ~6 sentences of yours.

[Jkk67-]

Both actually, evidence the question is nonsensical and as an answer to the question. No matter the length of the metamorphosis, 30 minutes or 30 years, my point is, without the essence of the person, it would simply be a clone. Most philosophies/religions have as one of their underlying tenets, non attachment to physical things, including the body. Which to my understanding renders a question of physical metamorphosis moot. Besides. Even if such a morphing could take place the cells would be copies not originals and therefore not the same. Even the new brain would not have the actual experiences of the one being copied. So, one might as well be looking in a mirror and wondering if the image in the mirror is real

[Maduabuchi Eze]

To further my previous point, I would still be me and I would not be you, not now, not ever. This is because our true identity, that is, the defining aspect of our true nature is spiritual and unique (even though, as you mentioned in your book, there are certain energies and aspirations we hold in common). The body, that is this outer garment, is unstable, deceptive, and volatile. If it were not, it wouldn't have even tried to morph into anybody's form. And as it morphed into yours so also can it morph into whatever else it feels like (say an atom-to-atom copy of a goat; hahaha). So, that kind of "material" is too unreliable to define our nature. And so, our ultimate nature are unique and yet connected. Your true unique self is self-reliant. Mine is too. You are there and I am here, only connected by the "common struggle."

[Silvo]

The brain, for instance, requires 100% of certain cells to function normally. I am not a guru in science, but I guess all these cells interact and share "information." So, if atom A in me is replaced with atom B from someone else, atom A will interact with my remaining atoms, bringing in new traits and at the same time absorbing new ones from his new environment. In the end, when all my cells have been replaced, they will have left a copy of their traits in the new ones. At the same time, the new cells will have inherited their traits from their previous host. Therefore, I think it's possible for me to still be me and also be you, but only if the cells were morphed gradually. 

The real Silvio Omutsiambo

[Dattatraya]

After reading all the posts ( as of now) it's my observation and conclusion, that the original question and the answers opinions/comments/discussion of the participants, are related/concerned (only ) about ' change in the body '.

Why we should not go and think beyond ' body ' ?! ( one member has rightly said: the body is not more than ' simply a vessel for one's life force ' )

The reader/anybody will be in a better position to think about and comment or give opinion, about the original question;
if ' I ' , ' Me '. ' you '. are defined completely .

And what is ' one's life force ' ?

[Dattatraya]

To further my previous point, I would still be me and I would not be you, not now, not ever. This is because our true identity, that is, the defining aspect of our true nature is spiritual and unique (even though, as you mentioned in your book, there are certain energies and aspirations we hold in common). The body, that is this outer garment, is unstable, deceptive, and volatile. If it were not, it wouldn't have even tried to morph into anybody's form. And as it morphed into yours so also can it morph into whatever else it feels like (say an atom-to-atom copy of a goat; hahaha). So, that kind of "material" is too unreliable to define our nature. And so, our ultimate nature are unique and yet connected. Your true unique self is self-reliant. Mine is too. You are there and I am here, only connected by the "common struggle."

I liked.
'So, that kind of "material" is too unreliable to define our nature. And so, our ultimate nature are unique and yet connected. Your true unique self is self-reliant. Mine is too. You are there and I am here, only connected by the "common struggle." '

I will request and be very happy to know more about " our ultimate nature "!

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Look at it this way. If a glass morphed molecule by molecule into another glass, would it be the same glass. And, what difference does it make. The body is simply a vessel for one’s life force (soul etc). From one point of view, the vessel matters little. What is most concerning is, how attached, mentally, philosophically etc, is a person to their body? That’s where the body can be trouble, yet even then it’s not the body’s fault, but the person’s

Are the above ~6 sentences meant to be evidence/argument for your statement/conclusion that my original question(s) are (allegedly) non-nonsensical? Or are they meant as an answer to the question(s)?

Both actually, evidence the question is nonsensical and as an answer to the question.

I suspect that is a contradiction. A nonsensical question lacks meaning and cannot be answered. If it is indeed truly nonsensical, that is. If you can (and do) answer the question, then therefore the question must be meaningful, answerable, and sensical.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

our true identity, that is, the defining aspect of our true nature is spiritual and unique (even though, as you mentioned in your book, there are certain energies and aspirations we hold in common).

[emphasis added]

Thank you for your reply, Maduabuchi.

On what basis are you claiming our spirit(s) are "unique". What evidence is there for that alleged uniqueness?

Is it possible you've accidentally committed the begging the question fallacy?

To better understand the context of your reply, may I ask what your answers are to the opening question in the book? (It's titled the "opening question", it's technically two questions.)

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The brain, for instance, requires 100% of certain cells to function normally. I am not a guru in science, but I guess all these cells interact and share "information." So, if atom A in me is replaced with atom B from someone else, atom A will interact with my remaining atoms, bringing in new traits and at the same time absorbing new ones from his new environment. In the end, when all my cells have been replaced, they will have left a copy of their traits in the new ones. At the same time, the new cells will have inherited their traits from their previous host. Therefore, I think it's possible for me to still be me and also be you, but only if the cells were morphed gradually. 

I agree. I would probably use the word 'relationships' instead of 'traits', since the qualities described are presumably extrinsic, not intrinsic, to any individual atom. I think the word 'relationships' implies that more clearly than 'traits', but that's just semantics and surely either word can work to denote the denotative meaning.