Science often inspires science fiction writers to explore fantastic scenarios that may be just round the corner. However, sometimes, science fiction can also be an inspiration for science. One such inspiration for me was The Prestige by Christopher Priest, subsequently adapted into a movie by the same name by Batman director Chris Nolan. In this atmospheric story, rival Victorian magicians Robert Angier and Alfred Borden (played by Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale) engage in a bitter struggle to perfect the best magic trick. Borden creates an illusion where he walks into one cabinet on stage and immediately reappears from a second cabinet some distance away, defying the fundamental laws of physics. Angier, determined not to be out-classed, seeks out Nikola Tesla, the real life Serbian-American genius inventor of AC electric current, who builds him a machine that can duplicate matter. Angier now has the means to duplicate himself anywhere in the theater, thereby upstaging Borden's illusion. Currently, such machines are science fiction but without giving the plot away, if duplication were possible, it does raise some interesting questions about the nature of minds, bodies and unique individuals.
What if it were really possible to copy the body perfectly, right down to its exact molecular structure? Would the duplicated body have the same mind? Logic dictates that if the mind is a product of the brain, then two identical brains should produce two identical minds. Or maybe the mind is separate from the brain and therefore not dependent on the material body, which is more akin to the notion of souls? Duplication of the body would not then duplicate the mind. These are the sorts of questions that scientists address in "gedanken," or thought experiments to investigate human reason and intuition.
Metaphysical ponderings concerning the nature of authenticity and uniqueness have been considered since medieval philosopher Duns Scotus proposed the concept of "haecceity" -- a property of an object that confers unique identity. The question of duplicated bodies and minds also depends on whether we think our minds are separate from our bodies -- more commonly known as mind-body dualism, as contemplated by French philosopher René Descartes in the 17th century.
Even though most of us may be unfamiliar with these concepts, many consider ourselves unique and feel that an identical copy could not possibly have all the same thoughts, feelings and memories. When does this reasoning emerge? As a developmental psychologist interested in children's cognition, these sorts of questions intrigue me. However, young children are not so good at answering thought experiments which is why, with my colleagues Thalia Gjersoe and Paul Bloom, we set out to investigate the nature of minds, bodies and individuals using a technique based on The Prestige.
In our recently-published paper in Cognition, "Do children think that duplicating the body also duplicates the mind?" we presented second-graders with a scientific-looking machine that had two metal boxes that were wired with dials, lights, and switches. Experiments began by opening each box to reveal that both were empty, placing a toy in the first box, closing the door and then "activating" the machine. After a delay of several seconds, the second box spontaneously buzzed. At this point the experimenter opened both boxes to reveal an identical looking toy in both. When asked what happened, children spontaneously answered that the machine had copied the first toy and that both toys were the same.
What about bodies? We could not use humans, so we used a pet. After witnessing the duplication event several times, the child was then introduced to a live hamster and told it possessed three physical properties that could not be directly seen. It had swallowed a marble that was in its stomach, it had a blue heart and it also had a broken back tooth. We then engaged the hamster in three activities to induce mental states. We whispered the child's name into the hamster's ear, we showed the hamster a drawing that the child had produced just before the experiment began, and we asked the child to tickle the hamster.
We then placed the hamster in the first box and enacted the duplication scenario again. When each box was opened, the child saw two identical-looking hamsters (both were siblings from the same brood). The question of interest was whether children would think that both hamsters possessed the same physical and mental states. We asked of each hamster in turn whether they had a marble, broken tooth and blue heart to assess physical properties. We also asked if each hamster remembered the child's name, seeing the picture and being tickled.
Over five sets of studies, a familiar picture emerged. One-third of children said that the machine had failed to copy the original hamster and that the second hamster possessed none of the original hamster's properties. The remaining two-thirds thought properties were duplicated but these were significantly more likely to be the physical properties than the mental properties. That is, children were much more likely to say that the hamsters' physical properties had been copied than its mental properties.
One might conclude that this is unsurprising, as it was the first hamster that had experienced these events. However, children didn't show the same bias when we duplicated a video-camera and showed it even more strongly when we drew attention to the unique identity of the first hamster by giving it a name. This explains why naming our animals and treating them as individuals changes the way we think and feel about them.
Our studies show that both notions of unique individuals and mind body dualism are present in 5-to-6-year-old children even though it is unlikely they have been explicitly tutored in these philosophical issues. Maybe this intuitive way of thinking about unique individuals is at the heart of some of our adult attitudes concerning new scientific technologies that threaten to undermine the integrity of the individual. For example, most of us think human cloning is wrong and it is banned in many countries. President Obama said cloning is "dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in society." One wonders whether the repugnance that many feel towards cloning is partly fuelled by the importance of the unique self that we believe constitutes the fundamental basis of human identity. However, as we move increasingly from science fiction to science fact, we are going to continue to encounter scenarios that challenge what it means to be human.
Follow Bruce Hood on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@profbrucehood
On the other hand, the only practical use for it would be to make a healthy copy of a person if they had contracted a debilitating disease and the original were to be destroyed.
What I can really see happening is designer humans. If we could make our prodigy stronger, smarter, and better in every sense, would that not be desirable? We've seen what humans can achieve, as child prodigies have shown us. The only problem is that if we create a super race, normal people will not be able to compete.
when it can be done safely it will be done, and when it is done often enough it's "weirdness" will fade.
the identical mind question is a bit more complicated and certainly more difficult to imagine, even digital copies have flaws, a ccd has a few dead pixels as a byproduct of the process that makes it, etc… but assuming the technology is available, and considering that there is no evidence that mind exists outside of the brain, it is safe to assume that the identical clone would be, at least initially, the same person in all but legally binding ways.
for example, if i commit a crime and then clone myself... my identical clone would also be the person that did the crime, but not the body that did the crime and should probably go free.
however, if my actions were premeditated and with malice, i'm thinking you better keep an eye on that me too...
The more those two organisms exist the more they will differ from each other. As long as there are two separate bodies they are exposed to be differently influenced by the surrounding environment. Tiny differences in exposure to external physical events will cause their bodies (including brains) to function differently. Accumulated different response will bring even more differences through the time of existence. Enormous amount of chemical reactions go on in any living organisms. The quantitative outcome of chemical reactions is not fixed. There will be differences depending on environmental impact. The differences will result in different body functioning. It is highly unprofitable to have perfectly identical separate bodies (including brains).
It seems nature dislikes perfectness even in terms of copying.
I don't think clones are in the future, I believe we will improve on our biology and that humanity will leave it's biology behind. Obviously, I am not a dualist, I think we will figure out exactly how the brain and consciousnesses work and what they are.
Comparing and observing true clones with memories intact would be a great way to study whether or not we actually possess free will or not, not that I think civilization is ready for the consequences if we don't.
even a perfect copy would begin to diverge at the moment of inception.
perhaps duplicating tens or hundreds all at once, each waking in an identical room with identical tasks to do?
even then wouldn't it only be a question of propensity, statistical probability that the grey matter works the same each time?
Even in a many worlds "multiverse," our future will be determined probabilistically, with every possible decision made and possible outcome realized.
Special relativity seems to rule out free will, although we enjoy the illusion of it.
------------------------------------------------------------
So much of an illusion that that it seems to have a direction or flow may be due to our limited perceptions. Time may actually resemble an immutable block of ice and we are on the same page as far as free will goes.
I like the multiverse model that you cite but keep in mind that that is only one possibility for the composition of the multiverse. A multiverse that is so infinitely huge that when you consider the limited arrangements of particles, this is not the only place/time where “we” are having this conversation. The next “we” may be 10^26 megaparsecs away but there most certainly is and/or has been and/or will be another.
Free will is an illusion, I agree with that hypothesis. We simply do not understand enough about life, consciousness, or death for that matter to understand why we feel the probable illusion of free will.
What I'm saying is that it might be possible that the Multiverse exists, not as separate universes, rather as one universe where all possibilities exists. Either way, as a single multiverse or multiverses... As we traverse through time we diverge into every possibility (perhaps infinite). Think of it like a tree diagram where each branch is unique. What we perceive as "now" is our awareness of where we are in the multiverse. There may be an infinite number of "nows" as we diverge.
Also, some believe that the Multiverse contains all possibilities and for all possibilities to exist, then so to are the number of starting points of these universes. Assuming that there is a beginning...
No one knows what reality is, but it's interesting to wonder. As for free will, I agree. Logic implies that it doesn't exist, but it surely feels like we have a choice.