Brain Copy and Paste ....

As the method I'm going to mention here is closely connected to the brain and computer Interfacing so I decided to talk about it here in this forum .
Simply I classify it in following steps and I'm sure many people have suggested similar methods but I think I have some new points to talk about :
1 - First of all we should prepare a copy of the information in the brain .
2 - Then a clean body with clean brain which is empty of any information should be dfeveloped in any way just like clonning , etc .
3 - The information copied should be pasted in the new brain .
4 - Finally the old body and brain should be annihilated and the new one will be switched to work .

I know that there are many questions and problems in proceeding this procedure but they should be removed one by one and according to priority and importance .
I wait untill the problems are mentioned by you or I will start to talk about them and then I'll begin to tell my ideas for fulfilling the four steps of this procedure ...

What you want to talk about is like the whole subject which is very comprehensive, I think you should be more spesific since we have the whole forum to discuss the whole branches...
It would be more correct to separate all the subjects you want to talk about to a number of topics in my opinion, since some are founding themselves more interest in some spesific subjects and not in the others, but your choise, just trying to make it easyer...

Yours
~Infernity

Amordaad,

About your signature:

(( All Human Knowledge Must Begin With Sensory Experience ))

I think it is true for the most part, but as you probably know, people's ability to smile is something purely instinctive. Babies start doing it after a few weeks, and I believe they do not learn this from their parents (it's been some time since I read the article on this). It's a instinctive thing we are all born with.

I'm not sure if this counts as knowledge, becauase a smile is a very spontaneous thing. It just sorta happens without actively thinking about it. But if it does count as knowledge, then, apparently, we are born with a small set of predefined, primitive knowledge.

But hey.... I'm not exactly Eliezer Yudkowski, so I might be completely off here.

Wrong Jay, and his signure is kind of unnecessary since it is not "must" it is simply the way it is. What called *you* is actually self development of the YOUR brain by knowledge, knowledge that is actually sensory experience which is singular only to you, since no one in the whole cosmos couldn't have the same life exactly, that is why no one is like you, and you are one of a kind.
It'd be more smart to say (( All Human Knowledge Is A Sensory Experience )) in my humble opinion...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Amordaad,

In truth, I don't think the method you describe is reasonable as it clings to the belief in a "soul" or some kind of shared bond between physical objects that hold your conciousness that defies physical distance and time. A copy is a copy: it is not and can never be the original. At the instant you copy all the information stored in the brain you are simply creating an exact replica. Meanwhile the original, you, is destroyed forever. To every other person the copy seems exactly like you, but for you the original there was a break in the continuuity of your conciousness. There is no force to transport that continuuity from one being to another over the distance between. You and your copy exist in different places in spacetime, you are different beings.

In order to preserve the original, the original must BECOME the copy. Piece by piece, bit by bit, the old brain must be changed into the new brain. This means that, if you wanted your mind to remain in vivo you would slowly replace each neuron in the old brain with a new neuron, keeping it in exactly the same place and structure. But by this method we are not restricted to remaining biological beings. In the same way, all the properties of a neuron could be transfered to a piece of computer hardware. Instead of copying on the macro scale, think of it as copying on the micron/nano scale. The process is done so slowly that the brain is continously adapting to its new pieces until they are considered no different from the original neurons. Eventually, every nerve cell has been replaced by an electronic cell and all the brain's encoding is done in computer language (adapted to the same way the brain communicates, however). Once this is done, while your mind is not indestructable it is certainly much less susceptable to the wears and tears of a biological existance. A power failure might knock you out, but since all your information is hard-coded you could be woken up again. A much different thing would happen if the brain ran out of oxygen.

Infernity,

That would be an incorrect assessment as well. New ideas are not the refabrications of input, they are wholly original. Though they may begin with old knowledge there is somewhere in them a spark of something unique. Else you could day that there is no idea not already somewhere in nature waiting to be precieved.

Even though there are several things we don't need to be trained to do, I would classify those under instinct whereas knowledge is based on cultural exchange through language. Thus, I think Amordaad's statement rings true even if it is somewhat limited in scope. Though knowledge must begin from the senses, the human brain has a remarkable ability to abstract that information into something our senses never could precieve, like the vastness of distance between stars.

kraemahz,
Language is also knowledge which is catched up with by self-experience, all we do actually is based on it since this is all we know and all is what importent. Also the reason death is total oblivion. And we re total egoistic.

Now, for case Susma gets to see this,- that was BEQ, but I did it in assuming we all are knowing about what we are talking about and that all here have background knowledge. Usually, I write DHL since I'm writing in assuming that also people with no background knowledge are reading it. Hope he gets to see this...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Wrong Jay

In order to be able to be wrong about something, one first has to have made a solid statement.

The mind is a terrible thing to cut and paste.

Why would you want to destroy the original brain and body? After all, when that's destroyed, you'll be dead. Face it. You are not your clone. At the best, such a procedure could be done for its own sake (for the robot's sake) but yourself would still die. The robot would only be like your twin. However, I still wonder if robotics could replace the brain itself, like in the movie "Ghost in the Shell", and still retain who the person essentially is. Would that robot still be one's soul/self or would the person just become a walking dead robot? Could a brain copy record memories?

Edited by amar, 27 February 2005 - 07:49 PM.

Jay,
I am so sorry, I don't know what's wrong with me lately, I shouldn't say it like that.
I'm sorry.

amar,
Don't you think it would be great to have the possibility to make people realize *you* and all your reasonings and perspective?
I'd love it...
You won't have to be destroyed, but simply let others know you.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Don't worry about it.

More about me: I'm 25 years old. I'm a poor man on SSI. I recieve SSI because of a mental illness years ago; I thought I became a vampire and tried to impale myself. I became empty inside my heart and was just very depressed. I've had jobs to do sometimes because I feel socially obligated to work a job. Right now, I might be getting a job as a gardener. Then I may save up for college, but I'm not sure what I'll become. I'd like to become something artistic and/or literary. I'd like to write a book about a sci-fi messiah that parallels our own world and teaches how we can heal our worldly problems. That could help shake up the status quo. Environmental problems can be helped by smarter, purer machines and purification machines. The experts say that global warming is irreversable, but fifty years down the road, I'd like to think that they might give a second opinion. Warfare can only be solved by changing the hearts of a lot of people. Poverty can be solved by sharing the world's resources. In a world of plenty, billions starve every day. I don't know how mortality can be solved. Maybe simply by changing our minds. We think we are mortal, therefore we are. If my attempts at immortal life fail, I must accept death.

Sorry to be late ...
Thank you all for your useful comments . Ok , First I try to write briefly about your comments and then I start to talk about my idea more and post by post It will be lead to the Brain-Computer Interfaces as topics in this forum should be and also my hypothetical procedure is closely related to it , I think , and I will begin some new topics may be in other forums for different aspects of it . I agree with infernity in second post of this topic that this whole subject should be broken down to more specific ones . [thumb]

Jay the Avenger ,
I think knowledge is defined by what we all know as human beings and it makes what we do , just like crying as you said , stand out of the scope of knowledge ; when we know something it means that there is some information stored about it in our mind ofcourse never it may not be perfect .
Ok , I think the data should be gathered through our sensory observations and ofcourse it could be analysed in our mind based upon any other information gathered the same way.

belief in a "soul" or some kind of shared bond between physical objects that hold your conciousness that defies physical distance and time. A copy is a copy: it is not and can never be the original.

I do insist that the procedure I'm talking about is one which is based on throwing out the concept of soul or anything like that . You talked about a copy won't never be the original and I agree with you but it doesn't matter if the copy has some differences with the original person I think , as you know we are changing all through thhe time . your mind and your body are not the same as even yesterday they were but today still you say "I" and you think that is constant self of you but I think that changes in our whole existance does not affect our personality until a specifc amount and importance of total changes is reached . So I think a few subtle changes in mind and even major differences in body won't make the personality of the original man differ .

amordaad,
It is true that the personality does not change, at least not so fast, but after creating the copy- even one picosecond after the process is done- you are changing, and changing alot! it is simply having different experiences than the copy, we can say that we are not real and the copy is, but since you shall always prefer yourself, we shall say that the copy is not like us and not that we are not like the copy. I think that the copy shall say he is the real thing and the real you is actually his copy, since copy means the same you (at least in the first moment after producing it), only those who were witnesses shall really know who is the real one and who is the copy. Well, you shall also know that you are the original, but since the copy shall think exactly the same- only a documentation by videotaping shall prove him he is wrong although it will be very hard to make him believe anyway.
From the moment that the copy is done- both people (the original and the copy) shall have totaly different lives. It is reasonable that they shall be very good friends since they kinda don't have much things to disagree on each other (only time shall make it), but if the two shall live in different places with a way different education- they may even become the greatest enemies...
I believe that uploading for example- you have to do once in a while if you want it to be reliable since you are changing so much in no time. I am looking forward to have the possibility to upload myself. making a copy is less in my mind, since it shall kinda take away my singularity, which I don't want.

Yours
~Infernity

Edited by infernity, 01 March 2005 - 10:55 AM.

Infernity :

since copy means the same you (at least in the first moment after producing it), only those who were witnesses shall really know who is the real one and who is the copy. Well, you shall also know that you are the original, but since the copy shall think exactly the same- only a documentation by videotaping shall prove him he is wrong although it will be very hard to make him believe anyway

Thank you very much infernity .... this is a very important point and I think exactly the same . But I mentioned in the procedure that the original should be dead at the beginning of the new copy's life .
I repeat what you told to pinpoint what agreement there is between we two ...
.... copy means the same you .....
since the copy shall think exactly the same .....

Edited by amordaad, 01 March 2005 - 03:09 PM.

Amordaad,

The point Infernity was making is that from the moment of his conception a copy becomes a different individual from the original. He may believe he is the original, he may seem like the original to others, but he is not the same individual. To destroy the original would be to destroy a different person than the copy. I often like to reference this story: http://www.imminst.o...&t=80 for clairity because it doesn't deal with any of the emotional and philisophical things we tend to surround ourselves with.

It is best to think of the mind not as a concious entity that exists within the body and can be transfered. That is the "soul" idea. A mind is nothing without its constituent parts, each neuron adds to the sum of the greater whole. The brain as it stands is not like a computer hard drive, no instead its very structure - the ways in which each component are connected and interact - is a major factor in the information it carries. Hard drives all look the same inside, brains do not. Let's say that, instead of the brain, I make a copy of your liver and put it in someone else's body and then destroy your original liver. Will that new liver help you in the slightest? Is that new liver a piece of you? Of course not! The same goes for the brain, it is not different than any other organ in that respect. Making a copy of your brain and putting it somewhere else has no effect on the original. Destroying the original is destroying you.

Or, let's say I make a copy of your brain, remove your old brain and put the new one in your old body. Has your mind, the original mind, survived? Same answer: no, and it's for the very same reason that one would argue that an original and a copy are not the same person if both are left alive: it's the distance between them, the time that seperated their creation, and the different experiences that led up to them being the person who they are at that moment. The same thing is true for objects like we would describe an organ. You couldn't very well argue that if I had a block of wood, cut another block of wood exactly as the first and then threw the original in the fire that the new cut block was the same block. But that is, in essence, what you are trying to argue about a copy. What I'm getting at here is that while in function a brain and a block of wood are two very different things, philosophically they aren't that far apart. Any situation I can propose for my block has an analog to what one can do with a brain. We ascribe too much emotional baggage to the container of our conciousness (as a point, what I said right there), it's much easier to think about wood.

amordaad,

The point Infernity was making is that from the moment of his conception a copy becomes a different individual from the original. He may believe he is the original, he may seem like the original to others, but he is not the same individual. To destroy the original would be to destroy a different person than the copy. I often like to reference this story: http://www.imminst.o...&t=80

Refer to this (kraemahz's words)...
I mean, it is true that copy is the same you in the first moment after it is done, but it is like not the exact same person since it doesn't have in it the exact same knowledge because both are having changes from the moment there are two.
I can tell you that if I had a copy- I wouldn't mind too much about dying because this is still like me and it shall develop in the same way I would, she shall have only a different life experience which means she shall not be the same, but it is good enough... Of course I'd prefer that the copy will die and not me since I shall not be anything, I will still be nothing so nothing will really matter. but at least I know *now* that all my goals are in good hands- my copy. Since I do not believe in destiny- the only reason I prefer my self on my copy is the fact that nothing shall be existed if I die anyway. Heh although I trust my copy to find a way to bring me back (play in time or cryonics etcetera) as I would have done to my copy because I know how important is the me to myself and so the self copy of me to herself...
So after all- if I had a copy I'd be kinda safe because she shall save me one day- and don't tell me how should I know, heh this is pretty obvious.
When I think about it I would love to have a copy, I simply trust it, it shall bring me better chances to live forever- I die- she saves me- she dies- I save her.
Moreover, since there is no destiny in my opinion- I prefer myself just because I *know*, and I *am* *now*...
Am I clear to you? because it is a pretty hard thing to understand... at least I know I am speaking with such a wise community and not like my class members for example which are having problems of understanding things whom are so simple. Heh "where are the atoms? what do you mean they are everywhere? even water? that's not possible... what is exactly the atom? what? then there are electrons turning around us?..." lol, sometimes I can really go mad about these questions when I am exactly in the middle of some sophisticated calculation, I mean I just want to inject myself to shut them up... lol

kraemahz, yeah I think you got me.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

infernity and kraemahz ,
I know what you say but I think you are missing an important point here . When I talk about the brain copying I just mean that there are some patterns in our mind that are made of our experiences during our lives . You are right brains of people are different and unique to any body but there are to aspects that make these differences :
1 - The patterns made at any brain ;
2 - The abilities of each brain in processing data and transfering it to different parts and at all we can say the functionallity of the brains .
Ok which one makes the "me" ?
I think the first one . The second one is the medium to make the patterns in our mind according to our experiments .
Ok I 'm trying to give just short replies just to be more clear ...
I will continue later on ...

Ok which one makes the "me" ?

Well the *you* is just the first one since you are talking about yourself and if you will create a copy of yourself than still your body were talking and you are the one you were talking about not anyone else, including your copy.
Both of you two, are actually the same person because there is no such thing destiny so you can say that your life is what contains the real you as you can say that the copy's life is what contains the it, but *you* as you know- will be just you. So for the copy- the real *him* will be the real one, as for him you are the copy and shall always be, even if he shall know it is not so, he knows what you did...
All that is like two atoms of the same element (which are not isotopes) that from the moment they were created- they are the same, but assuming that each of them has been created separately a molecule with different atoms, than they now have a different life experience! They are not the same anymore. Like one of them can also divide earlyer even if they were created at the same time.
But still they have the same attribution, as they do have the same base...

Yours
~Infernity

1 - The patterns made at any brain ;
2 - The abilities of each brain in processing data and transfering it to different parts and at all we can say the functionallity of the brains .

There's a third thing you're missing:
3. Continuity that led up to what that brain is at that moment.

And actually, it's all three.

In order for a object to be classified as the same object it must follow temporal continuity. A copied brain doesn't satsify this. You are you due to every event that has occured to you. A clone is you insomuch that it's existance can be traced directly back to you - the events that led to its existance can be traced back through yours - however the clone's existance has no effect on your existance, because there is nothing about the clone's existance that affects yours. That the clone exists or doesn't exist will in no way cause a change to you.

Whether the cloning is done with or without your knowledge and you are killed or not upon its creation has absolutely no effect on the fact that you and your clone are two unchangeably distinct individuals who exist in completely different places in spacetime. Let's say I make a clone of you perfect in every respect and then kept him in stasis. After his creation, I regularly update his brain with all the information you have gathered so that he remains a perfect likeness. At no point are you aware of his existance. Is that clone you? If you die do you think you - your mind - would experience 'waking up' in a strange laboratory? Or will it be someone else? From your argument, you're saying that no matter on location someone with the same pattern as you is you. Let me try another example then: very same scenario, except I'm now taking every impulse and brain pattern you ever had and printing it out on reams of paper. Is that you? If I decided one day to put those in a brain, would you suddenly 'wake up' in that new body?

Okay, philosophically these might be sticky questions. I never put much stake in philosophy though. That's why I suggest thinking of things as blocks of wood. Philosophy applies an added "special" element to brains that is nonexistant. A brain is a piece of meat that happens to be important to us. If I copy all the atomic states in a block and then someday remake that block, is it the same block? Our natural intuition would say no, physics says no (even quantum entangled particles that have the same spin no matter where they are are considered different particles!), so I'm going to have to go with: no. If I make two blocks that are exactly alike are they the same block? Still no. If I take a block and carve it into a statue is it the same block? It's not in the same form but it is still physically the same block. This is how we change our minds, not by making new blocks, but by carving them into something new.

Ok my friends , I think there is some fundamental differences in my point of view to the concept of "I" or "you" ; I think these are some conceptions like any other conception in our mind just like the conception of our car or a tree near our house ... and I think the conception is an mental pattern kept in our mind ; You've been trying to covince me about the difference of time and place between the "original" and the "copy" that I do accept it but about the conception of "me" , I do not agree with you ; I think that all of our minds are somehow like the others and ofcourse there are differences in functionality but it is just like the PCs different models.
If it took long to reply these comments of you it was because of a very interesting case hat in these days I changed my pc with a newer one and what I did to have my own computer was the copy and paste of the data on the old one . Now I think that I do have my Pc but upgraded with the same usages and some additionals ...
If you think about the "I" or "you" in this way that it's just a menta conception than there will be no need or continuity . A piece of music is a good example of it . Whenever and at any place when u hear the tones of " Four Season " immediately say : Hey this is the masterpiece of four season made by Antonio Vivaldi and you do he same toward it as the previous times ; Do you know why ?
because it is the same patterns recorded as Antonio has written some day . And the important pont is that this pattern is frozen ... it is the same all along the time . It does not change ...
Ok so I think the point is the changes not the place or time so I think the exact procedure should contain the death of the original at the exact time of the start of the copy ...

If you die do you think you - your mind - would experience 'waking up' in a strange laboratory?

Yes I think it depends on wether we have made our minds to do it or not . Before this procedure starts you should prepare your mind that there will be a reincarnation and you will open your eyes to a new life ...
And just imagine if this procedure is done for one of us , ofcourse based upon the presumption of "I" is just a conception , then :
As the copy sees the original's mother , will show his/her emotions as before and says to her "Hi mom " ,
The copy will go to the same address to work as the original ...
The copy will be in love with the same soulmate the original was...
and I think after a while the ohers will toward the Copy as they used to do with the Original ...
Thank you all .

amordaa,

As the copy sees the original's mother , will show his/her emotions as before and says to her "Hi mom " ,
The copy will go to the same address to work as the original ...
The copy will be in love with the same soulmate the original was...
and I think after a while the ohers will toward the Copy as they used to do with the Original ...
Thank you all .

Well but the two shall not walk in the exact same place, not in the exact same time, not breath the exact same air, not see the exact same people, not lots of things! That is also self expirience which you are not considering because you take it all for granted.

About the PC thing - you can have too computers with the same information, but if you'd use both- you'd probably not do it in the exact same time and do the exact same things which still means there will be differences... If you'd use only one computer- there still are going to be differences...

~Infernity

Yes I think it depends on wether we have made our minds to do it or not . Before this procedure starts you should prepare your mind that there will be a reincarnation and you will open your eyes to a new life ...
And just imagine if this procedure is done for one of us , ofcourse based upon the presumption of "I" is just a conception , then :
As the copy sees the original's mother , will show his/her emotions as before and says to her "Hi mom " ,
The copy will go to the same address to work as the original ...
The copy will be in love with the same soulmate the original was...
and I think after a while the ohers will toward the Copy as they used to do with the Original ...
Thank you all .

Amordaad,

I think what you wrote here shows you're missing the main point we've been arguing entirely. It does not matter how the copy acts, it does not matter that others won't notice a difference, it doesn't matter that others might treat the copy as the original, it does not even matter that anyone knows a copy was made. These things are all completely irrelevant. No preperation would make the outcome any different because you cannot be reincarnated. You're still clinging to the soul mythology that says that there is some undefineable portion of a human that causes them to be who they are and that this conciousness defining "thing" is irrestricted by space and time. It's just not true my friend. But I think I can help you work through this confusion. Think about why you're insisting that both the copy and original not exist at the same time. What you're suggesting is that the copy becomes the original upon the moment of the original's death. But why would the original have to die for that to be true. If pattern is, indeed, all that matters are they not BOTH the original at the same time? If I made 100,000 copies of you, told them all the Earth was destroyed and sent them all in different directions in a space ship, would you still be arguing that every time the "original" died your conciousness would jump between them? Weren't the clones always concious? If pattern is all that matters, why then are you arguing the original has to die? Consider that carefully.

This computer confusion, I think, is a good example of why perception is irrelevant. To you, your data seems the same, all the words are there, all the pictures look alike. But that's not the original data. It's a copy. The same in every way, and yet written on a different plate. To you it's the same, but that metallic plate that held your old data still holds it (even if you deleted it off your old computer actually - I'd have to explain this if you want to hear about it). If we were to say it were concious, it wouldn't know about any of the new copied data you made on a different metal plate. It would only know about its own information. If a copy does not change the original, it does not affect the original, and the original remains the original. Computers, however, are a complex example, because I believe that once someone is "uploaded" to a machine it would be possible to move them from machine to machine with much less difficulty, but I'd have to explain why this is so in great detail and I just want to get the basics settled with you first without adding another large level of complexity to this issue.

Kraemahz I frankly agree with your general assessment here but I want to add one minor point; I suspect the reason that they want only one copy of *me* to exist is a warped association of property rights attached to the ego.

Each copy becomes the original, becomes the continuation diverging in experience but threading these back to a common origin. However for many people IMO it is exactly as you suggest a confusion over the soul.

It is *my* soul and no one else's and as there is only one to go around then it can't exist in two places at once so one must be eliminated.

I do not believe this, however I think many do.

BTW I have tried this exercise before and this sounds like a good place for it again.

Please everyone try and describe any tangible properties of the soul that are not coincident with how we describe the mind?

I am not talking about spiritual intangibles that are not supported by fact, only qualities of how we understand the soul that could be identified clearly without resorting to mysticism.

Which is exactly the answer I was looking for, thank you for making that clear Lazarus.

Well but the two shall not walk in the exact same place, not in the exact same time, not breath the exact same air, not see the exact same people, not lots of things! That is also self expirience which you are not considering because you take it all for granted.

Infernity, why are you forgetting about the underlying assumption that the Original should be destroyed and therefore your questions will no more be valid .... because there won't be any body else than the Copy to make these comparisons ...
And more , why you are trying to find the "exact" features in the Copy ? Let me ask you :
Are you the exact person of yesterday ?

Kraemaz ,
I really want you forget about the soul and mythology and so on ... I think that today intellectuals like these members here in this community have got some predefined reactions that I call it mental Macros in their mind that immediately after they hear some special words one of these is activated and they begin to deny or accept some ideas , the same you are acting in this arguement that when I say "reincarnation" you say immediately hey this is not true and there is not any soul or ghost etc.
But I really want you to pay attention that this is not the reincarnation you think ; I do not believe in SOUL, Once I had a topic in a Persian forum that ghosts are just some explanation of ancient man for some phenomena they experienced and I know what I say is not related to these mythological conceptions ;

But why would the original have to die for that to be true. If pattern is, indeed, all that matters are they not BOTH the original at the same time?

and :

why then are you arguing the original has to die?

When a copy is made , at the time=0 , I mean at the very first of copying the original and the copy are the same but as our mental patterns are as product of anybody's unique point of viewing and relating to the world , afterward the two person will be more and more different so this is a mandetory to destroy the Original ....
And furthermore you talked about "consiousness" and "computers" and "the way a man or a computer is reacting to the world" ; I know that there might be no consiousness for the PCs but there is for men but its not very hard to understand the real meaning of consiousness ; and this is a very important point of difference between our different views to this issue .You told:

To you, your data seems the same, all the words are there, all the pictures look alike.

so you pinpoint the importance of the others's attitude toward the copy but as I got it , you think it is not enough that just others think that the copy is the same and himself too should think that he is the same as the original...
Ok , I think the self-consiousness is of the same type of the others mental conception about us ...
so when the others think that the copy is the original , why himself may not have the same feeling ?

Amordaad,

I really want you forget about the soul and mythology and so on ... I think that today intellectuals like these members here in this community have got some predefined reactions that I call it mental Macros in their mind that immediately after they hear some special words one of these is activated and they begin to deny or accept some ideas , the same you are acting in this arguement that when I say "reincarnation" you say immediately hey this is not true and there is not any soul or ghost etc.

Not an uncommon idea, in humanities circles the common reaction to an idea is called a trope. That's not where my argument against this particular brand of reincarnation is coming from however. My objection to that statement was that you said that the outcome would be different somehow if we "prepared."

But I really want you to pay attention that this is not the reincarnation you think ; I do not believe in SOUL, Once I had a topic in a Persian forum that ghosts are just some explanation of ancient man for some phenomena they experienced and I know what I say is not related to these mythological conceptions.

Nor did I suggest you did. However, socially defined tropes can affect you even if you are not aware of it. I bring up the word as a point of emphasis to show you the mirrors in belief that you might be drawing, simply because they were basic assumptions you hadn't questioned yet. That is, indeed, the biggest problem of a trope. When it becomes an intrinsic portion of our belief system when discussing things of this nature it becomes hard to ignore and pops up in the most unexpected ways. What I'm saying is: even if you disregard a belief you may still be drawing from portions of it to describe things. This is what I mean when I said "clinging to the soul mythology," not that you believed it, but you had not completely disregarded every portion of it whether conciously or subconciously.

When a copy is made , at the time=0 , I mean at the very first of copying the original and the copy are the same but as our mental patterns are as product of anybody's unique point of viewing and relating to the world , afterward the two person will be more and more different so this is a mandetory to destroy the Original ....

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your argument. If they are indeed capable of becoming different individuals, does that not make them different individuals in the first place?

so you pinpoint the importance of the others's attitude toward the copy but as I got it , you think it is not enough that just others think that the copy is the same and himself too should think that he is the same as the original...
Ok , I think the self-consiousness is of the same type of the others mental conception about us ...
so when the others think that the copy is the original , why himself may not have the same feeling ?

No, perception is irrelevant as a whole. I was talking about knowledge and affect when referring to machines. I have not disagreed that the copy would think he was the original if he was not told he was a copy, but you cannot percieve something into the truth just like you can't believe something into existance. We shouldn't even be talking about the copy though, he is unimportant to this discussion. What is important is the original. What I have said is that the copy's existance has no effect on the original. If we made a dozen copies all at the same time and killed the original you'd have a dozen different individuals and one dead original (you). Making a copy simply makes another individual. The original is not affected by this proceedure until the end at which he is abruptly slain. It's akin to copying a file onto a diskett and then smashing the computer to pieces. Someone would ask "Why did you do that? That was a perfectly good machine." And you'd say "I only wanted one file."

(Laz, I'll try to get to your suggestion in my next post)