Dollhouse: "Haunted" (1x10)

[Bishbot]

This is exactly what I mean - what happens if you're having an operation and you die on the table but get saved? Is the person that wakes up still you? Of course it is. What if that operation was to replace several of your major organs? Are you still you after transplants - of course you are. This is just the ultimate transplant.

But it's not a transplant. A transplant implies you're moving something from one entity to another; someone loses a kidney while someone else gains one.

This is a duplication. From my perspective nothing's changed. From Joe Transplant's perspective he's got my kidney.

Ok so its a transplant with a cloned kidney, although your example does work for the Dollhouse method, but we had been talking about an identical body, which is a bit off-topic for this episode, admittedly.

 

[Lindley]

That's not the same as just having a brief interruption in your consciousness.

*This* isn't the same as a brief interruption in consciousness. It's one consciousness ending and another, completely different, beginning.

From the second one's perspective, they'll remember it as a brief interruption, but the first one will never "wake up in a new body". They're just gone.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That's not the same as just having a brief interruption in your consciousness.

*This* isn't the same as a brief interruption in consciousness. It's one consciousness ending and another, completely different, beginning.

From the second one's perspective, they'll remember it as a brief interruption, but the first one will never "wake up in a new body". They're just gone.

Exactly. No one has answered this effectively, though one person kind of walked around it:

Someone identical to you walks up to you on the street one day. You converse, and they seem to know everything about you, including things you've told no one.

This person then points a gun at you and says they are going to kill you.

And you're all right with that, because as far as you know everything that makes "you, you" will be "alive in an identical body."

You can "record my consciousness;" you can make as many copies as you like (who'd want to? ) after I'm dead and I won't care. Because I'm dead.

 

[Bishbot]

You can "record my consciousness;" you can make as many copies as you like (who'd want to? ) after I'm dead and I won't care. Because I'm dead.

Well, from my perspective you were dead and now you live again.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You can "record my consciousness;" you can make as many copies as you like (who'd want to? ) after I'm dead and I won't care. Because I'm dead.

Well, from my perspective you were dead and now you live again.

As far as my mortality is concerned, my perspective is the only one I care about. That's what death is. I'm going away, forever, and I don't give a fuck what people do with my "replacement self" afterward. I will never know.

I'm not seeing anyone volunteering here to take a bullet from their "perfect duplicate's" gun.

 

[Bishbot]

I'm not seeing anyone volunteering here to take a bullet from their "perfect duplicate's" gun.

Well I answered that by saying that when your duplicate was created, his experiences from that point on would stop him actually being you. He'd be someone very like you, of course, but he wouldn't actually be you. I think that's a very different situation from simply having your consciousness transferred. Of course - you could ask the question "What happens if the first "you" dies and multiple duplicates are created?" and to that I would answer: "Shut up, I don't know"

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think that's a very different situation from simply having your consciousness transferred.

I suppose if one believes in cartesian dualism there's a "consciousness to be transferred" - but I'm an atheist.

Nothing's being "transferred," either immediately or three months or two centuries later - patterns are just being copied and recreated, same as any other recording. My consciousness dissolves with death; I will never experience anything again. The copy has its own experiences from the first instant - if we coexist, I look at him through my eyes and he looks back at me through his.

So no, saying that " when your duplicate was created, his experiences from that point on would stop him actually being you" isn't answering the question; it's just talking about something else altogether.

 

[Bishbot]

I think that's a very different situation from simply having your consciousness transferred.

I suppose if one believes in cartesian dualism there's a "consciousness to be transferred" - but I'm an atheist.

Nothing's being "transferred," either immediately or three months or two centuries later - patterns are just being copied and recreated, same as any other recording. My consciousness dissolves with death; I will never experience anything again. The copy has its own experiences from the first instant - if we coexist, I look at him through my eyes and he looks back at me through his.

So no, saying that " when your duplicate was created, his experiences from that point on would stop him actually being you" isn't answering the question; it's just talking about something else altogether.

Ok, I'm an atheist too, so I accept that its a copy, not something mystical - I just don't see why that copy isn't you. You copy everything that makes you unique as an individual. Why be bound by the original flesh you were created with? Why is that the sticking point? What if you could have your brain transferred alive into an entirely new body - that wouldn't be a new you, but if you copy the data from your brain - the stuff that makes you Dennis Bailey - and put it into an indentical vessel, suddenly it is?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I just don't see why that copy isn't you.

It may be from your point of view. It would not be from mine, because when I die I will no longer have a point of view - no matter how many copies of me might be hanging around my funeral saying how natural I look in the casket.

It doesn't matter - you clearly don't get or choose not to get what the essential issue is, so the conversation's no longer interesting.

 

[Bishbot]

It doesn't matter - you clearly don't get or choose not to get what the essential issue is, so the conversation's no longer interesting.

Harsh - of course I get what the central issue is. We just disagree over it. You've failed to convince me differently - and this really is just a matter of belief - so that shouldn't really surprise or annoy you. I don't mind agreeing to disagree, I was going to suggest it, but that's a pretty arrogant statement at the end of a friendly discussion.

 

[Ryan]

I suppose if one believes in cartesian dualism there's a "consciousness to be transferred" - but I'm an atheist.

Nothing's being "transferred," either immediately or three months or two centuries later - patterns are just being copied and recreated, same as any other recording. My consciousness dissolves with death; I will never experience anything again. The copy has its own experiences from the first instant - if we coexist, I look at him through my eyes and he looks back at me through his.

So no, saying that " when your duplicate was created, his experiences from that point on would stop him actually being you" isn't answering the question; it's just talking about something else altogether.

Ok, I'm an atheist too, so I accept that its a copy, not something mystical - I just don't see why that copy isn't you.

Because a copy can never be the original.

You're not sharing a consciousness with the doll. They simply have your personality and memories. They'll of course think they're you but they're not.

 

[Dionysis]

I suppose if one believes in cartesian dualism there's a "consciousness to be transferred" - but I'm an atheist.

Nothing's being "transferred," either immediately or three months or two centuries later - patterns are just being copied and recreated, same as any other recording. My consciousness dissolves with death; I will never experience anything again. The copy has its own experiences from the first instant - if we coexist, I look at him through my eyes and he looks back at me through his.

So no, saying that " when your duplicate was created, his experiences from that point on would stop him actually being you" isn't answering the question; it's just talking about something else altogether.

Ok, I'm an atheist too, so I accept that its a copy, not something mystical - I just don't see why that copy isn't you. You copy everything that makes you unique as an individual. Why be bound by the original flesh you were created with? Why is that the sticking point? What if you could have your brain transferred alive into an entirely new body - that wouldn't be a new you, but if you copy the data from your brain - the stuff that makes you Dennis Bailey - and put it into an indentical vessel, suddenly it is?

Actually transferring the consciousness would not make a new you, I agree.
Copying your consciousness will most surely make a new you, because it would essentially be a clone.

 

[Chris_Johnston]

Richard Morgan's "Takeshi Kovacs" books have the same conceit - that consciousness can now be seperated from bodies and transferred at will. You get people using the bodies of condemned criminals, or leasing out their own bodies, or using artificial bodies and the very wealthy back themselves up remotely and have banks of clones - living, effectively, forever. In fact the first book, "Altered Carbon" deals with a man who hires Kovacs to investigate his death, which has been ruled a suicide, because he does not think himself capable of suicide.

I actually expected, once it became apparent that she obviously couldn't remember anything between her last scan and her death, that in that time she would have discovered something that made her kill herself - which I think would have been a better ending than "the son did it".

THANK YOU!
The whole time watching the episode, I was thinking, "Somebody's been reading Richard K. Morgan! Adelle's friend has just been re-sleeved! And she's got the same kinda 'update lag' that Kovacs' client had!"

I posted about the Altered Carbon connection on FireflyFans.Net a couple days ago, but everybody ignored me.

 

[Bishbot]

THANK YOU!
The whole time watching the episode, I was thinking, "Somebody's been reading Richard K. Morgan! Adelle's friend has just been re-sleeved! And she's got the same kinda 'update lag' that Kovacs' client had!"

I posted about the Altered Carbon connection on FireflyFans.Net a couple days ago, but everybody ignored me.

Absolutely love that book, and the sequels - I'm glad I'm not the only one.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I actually expected, once it became apparent that she obviously couldn't remember anything between her last scan and her death, that in that time she would have discovered something that made her kill herself - which I think would have been a better ending than "the son did it".

That would have been a tad more interesting, yeah.

 

[Admiral2]

Did I mention that I want to do DeWitt? Add Sierra to the short list.

You can have all the supermodels. I would be all over November/Mellie, who is pretty and stacked!

As for the ep, it's an improvement over the ones I've seen, but I think this show is still Ridiculous Premise Number Two from the people who gave you Cowboys In Space Speaking Chinese. If it dies a premature death, i shall not mourn.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think this show is still Ridiculous Premise Number Two from the people who gave you Cowboys In Space Speaking Chinese.

Ridiculous premise number three at least: high school girl is a superhero who saves the world every season by staking all the vampires in a little town.

I don't suppose "Angel" even counts as having a premise other than maybe "high school girl's vampire ex plays Batman," which is pretty derivative.

Honestly, if "ridiculous premises" didn't intrigue me I wouldn't waste my time on sf/fantasy at all.

Well, if this is cancelled the number of hours of fiction television that I watch regularly each week will drop by one to...zero.

 

[Lindley]

I don't suppose "Angel" even counts as having a premise other than maybe "high school girl's vampire ex plays Batman," which is pretty derivative.

I describe it as "Good vampire seeks redemption by battling evil lawyers," myself.

 

[Velocity]

I don't suppose "Angel" even counts as having a premise other than maybe "high school girl's vampire ex plays Batman," which is pretty derivative.

I describe it as "Good vampire seeks redemption by battling evil lawyers," myself.

Angel wasn't particularly good. He betrayed everyone who thought they were his friends and then got them killed.

I've been enjoying all the discussion. This show is doing something right.

 

[Lindley]

Yeah, but that sort of thing doesn't fit well in a tagline.