rate my essay

<p>the teleclone topic</p>

<pre><code> The ultimate philosophical quandary, pondered by thinkers since before the days of Socrates, is the question of the existence and nature of the human soul. To some, we are merely complex biological machines, no more than smart monkeys whose consciousness is solely the construction of what is physically measurable inside our brains. Others insist there exists something more inside of us, something eternal—our self, our greater consciousness, the perennial spirit that sits behind the controls of our physical body. Our soul. We humans like to believe that we are not ephemeral. The thought that death is truly the end of us, and that we, along with our thoughts and memories, rot in the grave along with our bodies, is very disconcerting. Pondering the idea of an eternal and final end too deeply can bring about a full-fledged panic attack, so its no surprise that there exist a multitude of different theories as to what we are beyond our bodies. What would happen to an astronaut that steps into a Teleclone Mark IV depends entirely on whether or not a soul exists, and, if it does, the nature of that soul. While it is obviously impossible to determine for sure what would happen, it is possible to outline the different possibilities.

One advantage we have over the Socratic philosophers is our advanced scientific knowledge of the human brain. While our brains do not yet fully understand their own inner workings, we do know that what we think, value, and remember is measurable and quantifiable in electrical or chemical terms. Thus Socrates’ argument to Cebes about knowledge amounting to the soul’s recollection of eternal absolutes holds less weight today because we know that our knowing is not some abstract, spiritual quality, but holds firm ground in the physical world. Suppose for this example that no soul exists. If the Teleclone used preexisting atoms on Earth to produce an exact copy of the astronaut on Mars, the new brain would contain the exact same balance of chemicals as the old one, and therefore the same thoughts and memories. The brain of the Earth-astronaut would remember stepping into the Teleclone, closing his eyes and crossing his fingers, and would then experience opening his eyes on Earth. The Mars-astronaut, however, was destroyed. The brain of that body would experience destruction as the switch was thrown. Thus, if no soul exists and we are nothing more than our physical brains, the original astronaut is killed and a new one is created. But the new one wouldn’t “feel” like he was just created. His brain remembers being on Mars a few seconds ago, so he would believe the teleportation was a total success. He would insist that he was the original astronaut, and so would everyone else who knew him. But in actually, he is a new consciousness separate from the original, since the old one was destroyed back on Mars. As conscious beings, we live solely in the present—what we consider the past is a construction based on information stored in the brain.

But suppose that our consciousness is not just the sum of the chemicals in our brain, and that we have some sort of “soul” that we do not yet have the technology to measure or quantify. What would happen in this case depends on the nature of the soul. If the soul is somehow grounded in the physical realm of three dimensions, then we could assume the Teleclone would be capable of interacting with it along with the rest of our bodies. Consequently, the soul would be “destroyed” and “created” along with the rest of the body. In this case, the result would be the same as in the previous instance: the old person would be killed and a new one “born.” However, since in this case the machine is tampering with a soul and not just a body, it is possible that the new astronaut would be spiritually unbalanced. He might, subconsciously and intrinsically, know that he is not truly the original astronaut but has been created in an instant by a machine. The new astronaut would likely suffer deep psychological trauma for the rest of his life and be plagued by demonic hallucinations. As Victor Frankenstein learned, humans aren’t meant to tamper with that unknown force that animates the inanimate. If a Teleclone is created that is capable of destroying and creating souls, the results could be terrible and terrifying.

Or, perhaps the soul cannot be destroyed or created by the Teleclone. What would happen in this case depends on the way our soul is linked to our body. If our soul is “inside” or somehow permanently tethered to our body, then Mars-astronaut’s body is destroyed but the soul is left behind, and it goes wherever souls go when the body is dead. A new body is created on Earth, but it has no soul, and it immediately collapses into a lifeless heap. The teleportation appears a failure.
</code></pre>

<p>Or, perhaps our souls either exist in another plane or are not permanently linked to the body they inhabit. In this case, it is likely our souls would “know” our body by some sort of physical blueprint or serial number. The new body on Earth would be an exact copy and thus have the same “serial number.” So, the soul would think its body was dead for a moment, but then suddenly realize that its body was on Earth and retake control of the reigns. The Mars-astronaut and the Earth-Astronaut would then be the same person, soul, and consciousness. The teleportation is a success.
As for the updated Teleclone Mark V that doesn’t destroy the original body, the results would be similar. In a world without souls or with physical souls, it would be a simple cloning machine that produces two distinct persons. In the case of tethered souls, the new body would be lifeless. In the case of souls that are capable of moving into the new body there are two possibilities. One possibility is the new body would be lifeless. Or, it is possible that since the two bodies had the same “serial number,” the soul would believe them to be the same body, and thus, it would take control of both bodies and the person would be two people at once. Or at the very least, two different people with the same soul. </p>

<pre><code>I do not know which of these scenarios would be the one that actually takes place in the event that someone were to actually construct a Teleclone Mark IV. What I do know is that grads at UChicago will be the first ones to build it, and I sure as hell don’t want to be the person to test it out. Perhaps some Ivy students can be tricked into being the test subjects.
</code></pre>

<p>haha, i like the ending. i also like your thoroughness and structure–the essay looks like you spent time on it, which is great. the one section i might rethink would be the opening, which sounds a little typical, a little “in a galaxy far far away,” etc. i think you could just introduce your argument or your point, rather than re-introducing the topic itself. all in all, it certainly seems chicago-like to me : )</p>

<p>Overall, I’d say it’s a good essay. My one piece of constructive criticism: it’s a bit dry. To me, it reads like a science lab report in the middle. Still, that’s just me; it’s a solid essay.</p>

<p>yeah, that’s my main problem with it. i approach the topic in a mostly non humorous way. but i had a pretty funny twist at the end, so i think that makes up for it.</p>

<p>We humans like to believe that we are not ephemeral. what about existentialists?</p>

<p>lol well they are definately the exception</p>

<p>I can’t pretend to be an expert, but I find this wordy and didn’t really grab me in. In fact, I only skimmed much of it. The ending is hilarious though.</p>

<p>the point of my earlier post was that it’s better to not make broad generalizations. I wrote an essay along basically the same lines as this, but I took more of a stand and spoke from my perspective. neither of us can presume to know another human experience.</p>

<p>“…we do know that what we think, value, and remember is measurable and quantifiable in electrical or chemical terms.”</p>

<p>Really? I don’t think so. Human thought processes are a lot more complex than chemistry and electricity. If what you say is true, then, given that human thought progresses logically, chemical reactions and electrical flow would also have to progress logically. They don’t, at least not as well as I can think.</p>

<p>123, Chemicals and electrons in your brain are not by themselves thoughts. It is the complex combination of chemicals, electrons messages through neuron connections that determine our thoughts and memories. </p>

<p>But of course science cannot prove/explain every aspect of human conscious yet, so any empty spots are left to be filled by your own beliefs.</p>

<p>Yeah, I understand that, but I still don’t see how it could work. </p>

<p>Human thought is INFINITE, because new ideas will always be thinkable. Chemistry, on the other hand, is not infinite. There is a FINITE (but very large) number of possible chemical reactions that can occur in the brain. Not even electricity is as diverse as human thought. Nothing infinite can be determined by anything finite. </p>

<p>Also, chemical combinations and electron messages don’t progress logically as human thought does. If thought were truly based on chemistry and electricity, there would have to be an electrochemical system parallel to this post, to every book ever written, and to every idea ever thought. Impossible.</p>

<p>Is human thought really “infinite”? (Let’s not even try to defined infinite right now)</p>

<p>Can you picture a four dimensional cube in your head?
Can you picture nothingness?
Can you picture God?</p>

<p>Our mind cannot think beyond the level allowed by the number of neurons in our brains. (Although the number of neurons in our head does allow us to think on a very abstract or intelligent level; better than any animal on earth.)</p>

<p>Even if you follow the belief that our consciousness is something beyond flesh or the physical, you still experience its limits. For instance, your brain cannot possibility be able to compete with the calculation speed and accuracy of the modern computer. </p>

<p>Maybe in the future through evolution, technology or acts of the supernatural we will be able to think beyond our limits.</p>

<p>can you imagine transparent milk? wittgenstein’s question, not mine.</p>