The afterlife of an aborted Einstein

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

The afterlife of an aborted Einstein
or
The second life of an aborted Einstein

NOT A DEBATE ABOUT ABORTION

For me this is another debate about wisdom ~ kind of from a god perspective.

Short question; If we put Einstein in a different body, would he still be Einstein?

Now most of you wont read even all of this, indeed some will probably reply thinking it a debate about abortion ~ having only read the title, so you will forgive me if I keep it as short as possible.

Firstly I presume there is a transcendental qualia remaining after every aspect of ‘you’ is copied, so if a perfect copy of you was made there would be; [’I’ = self/‘you‘] ‘I’ 1 + body 1 X ‘I’ 2+ body 2. yet the ‘I’ which is you is you and not the copy even though it would think it is you.

Given that there is a transcendental qualia that is ‘you’, then we may presume it is duplicated as soon as the foetus begins its life.
If not then we have to ‘invent’ some mechanism by which a soul [or spirit or self by any name] may enter the body, when there would be no further causal opportunity for it to do so. Let us try as we can to keep to our friend Mr Occam [Occam’s razor] and keep it to the simplest thing.

If we presume that as the ‘soul’ [let us call it; ‘TQ’ ~ transcendental qualia] is not material even though it is brought into being by living things, then my question is;

What happens to a TQ [soul] once created but the body has died?

Would an aborted foetus grow up in ‘heaven’ [given otherworld] and become the same person it would have become?
Would a copy of Einstein be Einstein? Or would Einstein even become himself?

Let us imagine that the transcendental qualia is Einstein I.e. has also the qualia of who he is. If we put Einstein in a different body, would he still be Einstein? Equally if we put someone else into Einstein’s body, would that someone else become Einstein?

In short; is it about who we are, or is it all about what we inherit [the human form]? Or both?

If Einstein had been aborted as a foetus, would his soul still become that of Einstein.

Would wisdom denote that he must be, if so how?

2

Sorry, haven’t read the rest of it, but;

No. If the stereotype of Einstein was placed into another body at any other time or place, that would NOT be Einstein, but not for the reason you probably think.

Einstein only became what you know him as due to his exact circumstance in society. Today, he would not be recognized at all and might even be disreputed into oblivion so as to keep his opinions quiet. Most of humanities most brilliant men have no record remaining of their brilliance. Such is the state of Man’s insanity and its assurance.

3

For sure, but would he not still be a genius and that type of Einstein person, maybe relativity would not have happened?

if another transcendental qualia had been in his body, would that be einstien still? hmm probably yes, which means basically that anyone can be anyone, and no great person is great etc.

4

:smiley:

Jesus Christ.

Okay, say I have a really horrible accident with a combine harvester and a steamroller. I’m all fucked up.

They cut off my legs.

Am I still me…?

They cut of my arms.

Am I still me…?

They cut off everything below the neck.

Am I still me…?

After languishing in a cheerfully paisley-themed vat of liquid nitrogen for a few years, medical science catches up with me.

They fit me a new torso, only moreso.

Am I still me…?

The screw on some new and improved arms and legs.

Am I still me…?

My face and skull are still a bit mushy from the accident. So Dr. Travolta fits me with some new ones.

I’m better looking, but am I still me…?

In fact, my brain’s been through the wringer - so screw it, I splurge and have almost all of it regrown from a bunch of stem-cells I squirrelled away earlier.

Am I still me…?

you answered your own question in the OP. If you put a pencil in a different pencil-case, would it still be a pencil…?

5

Tab

Good set of questions. :slight_smile: Well any change apart from my brain would mean I am still me - the personality I have cultivated over the years. A change of face, given a different life on the other side of the planet etc, then I guess that would change my personality just as incrementally all changes do.

All of which I would still see as the expression of you but not you. For example we all go through a lot of changes in life but I still think I am the same ‘essential’ person.

Let us say that I lived a whole life, died and was reborn, the transcendental qualia [initially ‘0’] would have experienced all I was in that past life. Thence when reborn that is the inner self I would be, but my new vehicle/body would have different DNA and environment etc. would I grow to be me? I think I would but I would have a different personality to the onlooker and I would probably be a different outer person to myself as compared to the me of the previous life. However I would still be me just as with smaller changes I remain so, otherwise where exactly do we draw the line?

The simplest [Occam’s law] answer would surely be that the transcendental self would always remain the same ‘you’, extraneous circumstances may change outer elements even in the extreme degree, but these things are complications of what is essentially the most simple thing and perhaps the only thing we truly know; that you are you.

6

I think that the ‘quintessential self’ - whatever set of properties you wanna push onto that - is not really much except continuity. You are you, and remain so - however many new faces you may wear or new personas you evolve - simply by virtue of being continuously aware of always having been you (at least I have yet to experience the actuality of not being myself, or being another person). I am not the child I was, but I remember being so, intimately, if not particularly factually.

It’s the old ax-blade / ax handle conundrum - change both, is it still your ax…? The answer of course is, yes, because the property of being ‘your ax’ is different from the property of being “a particular ax”.

Einstein, as long as the continuity of ‘Einsteiness’ is preserved, remains Einstein. It does not follow however that anyone can be anyone, as this situation would completely negate any indivduality. You are you mainly not from any particular unique-and-special-flower syndrome, but rather simply by virtue of not being anyone else, if you see what I mean.

7

Yes, the ‘child you’ is ‘you’ in a less mature vehicle perhaps. The ‘quintessential self’ is the transcendental qualia + all it knows and experiences imprinted upon it over time. …As we can duplicate everything [in this thought experiment] that is you with you remaining, there is essentially a transcendental qualia with an initial value of ‘0’. that ‘entity’ is not physical but is the driver of the physical vehicle. …well that’s the conclusion I draw.

Or a car that has every part changed over time, is that still the original car. I would say no, and yet if there is an extraneous qualia that remains throughout the transformation, then yes it is the same car?

I see, good point. You are duplicated in the copy of you even the transcendental qualia is, thus I would think that qualia has to have a value of zero initially, but once existent within a vehicle it has a value of the given vehicle. Your exact copy would then have a value initially the same as yours, which for me acts as a levelling platform. I take your point though, that once you, you are you.

8

Hi Tab,

I missed you! My daughter is taking a collegiate freshman course in Biology this year; and “Survival of the Sickest” is required reading. Thanks.

I am sorry to disagree with you, but if Einstein, whoever he/that was, was placed in a different body, his sensory input would be changed. Assuming that we are formed, at least in part by our environment, translating these changes to whatever impact they have our brain would, using the best models we currently have, require solutions to very complex (non linear) differential equations. This is practically the ideal situation in which chaos theory provides the best model. This is to say that I believe the outcome would be very different.

Hi Quetzalcoatl,

You wrote “maybe relativity would not have happened”.

My opinion is completely subjective conjecture, but …

Regarding Special Relativity, the Lorentz transformation existed before Einstein adapted them to an etherless space. Additionally these concepts were relatively popular (Poincare was practically codeveloping this concept) at this point in time. My guess is that within a relatively short period of time 1 – 5 years someone else would have come up with that theory. However General Relativity was a more stellar accomplishment. Thinking that mass could define space was, to the best of my knowledge, very novel. But it was Grassman, initially, that framed the problem in terms of Differential Geometry, and Hilbert who actually solved the “Einstein” field equation. Hilbert who first solved these equations taking just 30 days where Einstein’s efforts took over 8 years, and Einstein had Grassman’s efforts to get him started. (The independent publications took place within days of each other). Still someone had to think of space as a function of mass. (Technically it turns out to be that space is a function of energy). Anyway, I think that General Relativity it might have been done – 30-50 years later maybe.

Ed

9

Ed3, hi

Thanks for the info, and yes I agree. There may be thousands of people out there whom given the same location and similar environments and influences as Einstein, would have arrived at general relativity. Perhaps even in the same time frame. After all, a brain is kind of similar to a new computer when born, so put someone else in Einstein’s shoes then maybe they become what he was within certain perimeters. Though perhaps it was more about the science environment than the person environment.

In short, it may make abosultely no difference if you exchange/replace one person for another.

10

Hey Ed, how’ve you been. Best of luck to your daughter. Survival of the Sickest is a good book. Co-evolution works in mysterious ways. :laughing: Find her a good book on epigenetics too - evolution in four dimensions is good - though perhaps she should only skim the bit on symbolic transmission.

Yeah sure, he’d be a different Einstein, but still Einstein. If I hadn’t picked up the right newspaper 15 years ago, I’d be a completely different me. But, I’d still have the property of being me.

And anyway, do you somehow become a different person whenever you put on your glasses…? Or pull on a pair of gloves to keep out the cold…? You know, altering those sensory inputs an’ all…? :slight_smile:

Semantics aside though - you are right, we are what we percieve and how we percieve matters. Garbage in, garbage out.

11

Excellent OP, thought-provoking. But it seems like we’re talking about a couple of different scenarios here -

seems to me to be a different question than

The former assumed the fetus is - pardon me Tab - a blank slate, in which case I agree with Ed; different nurture = different person.

The latter assumes the so very important continuity that Tab brings up, and once you have that, you’re “you” no matter what your vessel is. You don’t even need all of the replacement parts to prove it; if I remember correctly (and I’m sure I don’t), doesn’t the human body fully shed all of its cells within 7 years (different cells at different rates), or something like that?

12

Hah, yes I’d forgotten that, I’m Tab#6 as of this year. [Damn, I just told you how old I am].

13

Yes, but we’ve seen you, Tab#6, and trust me, you’re aging very well. :wink:

14

So anyway, how many duplcate selves have you loofered off and washed down the plug hole…?

Only kidding. Not looking so bad yerself there lady.

15

I feel bad continuing to sidetrack this thread - which deserves better - but also feel compelled to answer lest I be accused of evading [or is it avoiding? I never know] the question. :slight_smile: I’ve exfoliated the same number of selves as you, Tab - I keep hoping for a better one to emerge but as of yet no such luck…

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming (sorry Quetz!).

16

AnitaS, hi

Is it not like the acorn of the oak? Most of what you are is in your DNA. In addition the transcendental qualia - if we can show there is one, could potentially be one that has lived before and hence has qualities it has experienced from a former life. Rather than that I would ask if the whole you is within the context of the transcendental qualia ~ like a singularity of you.

Continuity ~ an unfurling of that singularity, and its continuation? As on a universal scale the universe is entirely in its singularity ~ that’s everything including non physical qualia such as the colour red etc.

Tab

:smiley:

I see your point in terms of miscarriages, but not for simple cells, that would be no different to how all the other cells in the world work. Good point though, and yes if the singularity or acorn of self can be shown at least in terms of the thought experiment, then an abortion or miscarriage is no different to any older person dying.

17

Your basis, what you are composed of, your mother and father’s cells, the energies and natural laws which condensed, the fruit and vegetables, your school, your friends, these things are not yourself but they combine somewhat and interact, and from that comes the nonsense of individuality.

Your questions are based on misunderstandings and flawed concepts.

There is no Einstein.

The short answer is : reality is so fucked that you come up with insectile concepts of time, space, being, ego, self, choice, etc. And that’s as far as you get.

18

maybe, but that doesnt answer what ‘you’ are, but only the mechanistic and expressed version of what you are.

I got this question at another forum on the same subject which I think helps us toward one particular crux of the matter…

quoted from another forum;

‘Data’ for me fails because it has no TQ, it is a machine just as our human form is without us being present.
There may be an argument if it was made of biological components or partly so. Its an interesting idea because we have to ask if there is a point where a machine has TQ, if e.g. it has a quantum computer then it is not purely part of a causal chain it may interact and thence universals like consciousness can come into play. I feel that the ability to interact is fundamental to life and consciousness, so once universal consciousness can make an effect [its that ‘free will’ thing again] then it partakes in its being and then we have life and consciousness.

19

Existence of any sort is a culmination of the interactions and relations of natural forces.
This is always so. Now from this we make separatory concepts such as, oh, this is a person, this is not a person, this has a soul, this does not, this is a machine, this is a man, etc. Ignoring the extreme atomic sameless of culminations, in favor of forms and especially images. If you had different parents, you’d be different. If you were born in a different era or culture, you’d be different. Whatever and whereever you’re at, it effects “you”, because “you”, especially in the human sense, is pure effect and no cause. “Self”, to be real, requires that it be truly causal, and truly something in and of itself other than a combination of things that are not self. But because we are atomic structures, and so is everyone else, well, the way they organize can be “different”, but at the root, it’s all the same, and it’s not a self. It can be taken apart, and reorganized any way. Hopefully you understand, at least a bit.

20

all existences are the vehicles of the prime reality ~ reality is greater than the universe etc.

That we can [in theory] extrapolate everything of the person and copy it, and yet ‘you’ are left remaining means you are a TQ. That electro-magnetism and chemical interactions cannot perform the act of ‘knowing’ [unless you can show they do?] means also that the mechanistic nature of the brain does not account for that act and hence is also part of the TQ. Surely the atomic sameness adds towards this.

If you can show that absolutely anything is ‘effect’ without ‘cause’ then you can say that, but you wont be able to. The ‘you’ that you’re describing is secondary to the case, as we have already described that such changes take place in your everyday life, and yet you pass through them. There is the continuance factor [and also the actor and his part factor ~ personas may be manipulated].