Is evolution cyclic, or linear?

[thesometimesaint]

Krose:

I never said evolution didn't come with drawbacks.

[bu11fr0g]

The mistake is thinking that there is a directedness to natural selection. Natural selection has no aim. It is simply that the characteristics of those that survive become more prevalent in subsequent generations.

Evolving back makes no sense. There are some types of "cyclical evolution" where a characteristic helps under some circumstances but doesn't under others. The color of the moths compared to the trees is a classic example of this. Also population dynamics between wolves and deer are indirectly the same.

When evolution occurs based upon an ability to fill a niche, if the niche disappears, the animal/plant normally cannot compete on a broader front.

So, if humans cannot live they become extinct, they do not evolve back into something else. The bacteria that are still around can do that themselves. If the river dynamics of a small fish changes, that fish becomes extinct it does not evolve back into the other species that are already around that can thrive in the new environment.

That being said, the creation of completely new environments allows all kinds of species to evolve to fill the new niches (the Galapagos islands are an example of this, as are many other islands and mountain tops.

Since I most enjoy on here discussing, or watching intelligent people discuss "materialism" vs "spiritualism" topics, I thought I would open another.

I would prefer this not devolve into another "merits" or proof of evolution debate, or a sectarian debate, but rather thought experiment on where eternal evolving could take us.

Since I am of the camp that existence can not be explained simply by the mindless interactions of intelligence-less particles following evident laws-of-motion. That an explanation of existence must include some form of intelligence or self awareness interacting, if not creating particles objectively. (since we certainly do subjectively)

Does anyone have any thought experiment that could suggest that following materialism and evolution from a beginning? to an end?....... creates paradoxes?

Here is a quote of an anon. poster on an insignificant site;

"The fossil record shows that our period of rapid brain growth is over? Excuse me? Is there some directing hand in evolution all of a sudden that dictates a preferred outcome? Strictly speaking, there is absolutely nothing in evolutionary terms that is preventing us from evolving back into bacteria. After all, they are the most successful organisms on the planet at copying their genetic material."

What could be the next step in the evolution of human intelligence, larger physical brains? A.I.?

I would think that materialism require evolution to be cyclic and not linear. But why would intelligence once achieved allow itself to devolve?

Could the life span of a hospitable Eco-system be what limits eternal evolution? Or the possibility that the life span of the universe limits it. An advanced intelligence could find a way to seed a new Eco-system, but could it survive through the universe imploding?

Maybe this topic could at least drag "Tarski" out of hibernation. Does anyone else miss T when he is not posting?

Curt

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Rob Osborn,

Sorry, but I just have to say this. Your demonstrated lack of understanding of science, and especially evolution (as well as basic history, I might add), is nothing short of astounding. Others on this board have advised you to take a Biology 101 class at BYU. From what I can see, you could benefit from a freshman biology and history classes in high school.

If you insist on remaining willfully ignorant of even basic science and basic history then, for the sake of your own credibility and as a courtesy to others here, I would suggest that you stick to pointing out what you think the scriptures say on the subject matter at hand and refrain from claiming that qualified scientists who post here are in error.

In your blind religious zeal, you seem to have no idea how ridiculous some of your claims appear to non-LDS who may be visiting this site out of curiosity as to what Mormons believe.

Wow.... You scientific types are the most arrogant, condescending people around. How obnoxious.

[semlogo]

Wow.... You scientific types are the most arrogant, condescending people around. How obnoxious.

Leave out the name calling. Was anything he said incorrect?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Leave out the name calling. Was anything he said incorrect?

And his insults are perfectly fine?

Just because someone doesn't agree with what you deem to be the truth doesn't make them an ignorant fool, and certainly doesn't give you the right to speak to them as such.

[Nemesis]

Tone it down people. Next time we have name calling from either side we will need to remove people from the thread.

Nemesis

[krose]

From a female perspective, I would hope the human brain would not grow larger until the female pelvis evolves likewise...

Hasn't the pelvis actually narrowed over time to better support upright walking?

[44Foxtrot]

And his insults are perfectly fine?

Just because someone doesn't agree with what you deem to be the truth doesn't make them an ignorant fool, and certainly doesn't give you the right to speak to them as such.

We are not talking about matters of opinion here. We are talking about facts vs. fiction - solid, reproducible, peer reviewed, science based evidence vs. unfounded belief.

My well intended advice for Rob Osborn was to go ahead and make his statements based on his belief in the scriptures, but to be careful to indentify them as such (as he sometimes does).

I further suggested that he take a few minutes to learn some of the facts about the science with which he claims to disagree.

You are correct in that one is certainly free to "disagree" with science. For example, one could disagree with electromagnetic theory. One is free to claim that magnetic forces are simply a manifestation of magic, and that science really does not understand anything about electromagnetism.

Problem is that such a statement would not be true. When one makes such as statement they simply appear foolish and can (as well they should) lose credibility and even become an embarrassment to their fellow travelers.

I was merely trying to give some good advice to one who could really use it.

No doubt, Rob Osborn believes that I am a scientistic and hell-bound individual. He has even indicated that I should change my ways before it is "too late". I am sure that Rob Osborn was trying to be helpful in his advice to me and that it was not intended as an insult. It was not taken as such.

[Rob Osborn]

We are not talking about matters of opinion here. We are talking about facts vs. fiction - solid, reproducible, peer reviewed, science based evidence vs. unfounded belief.

My well intended advice for Rob Osborn was to go ahead and make his statements based on his belief in the scriptures, but to be careful to indentify them as such (as he sometimes does).

I further suggested that he take a few minutes to learn some of the facts about the science with which he claims to disagree.

You are correct in that one is certainly free to "disagree" with science. For example, one could disagree with electromagnetic theory. One is free to claim that magnetic forces are simply a manifestation of magic, and that science really does not understand anything about electromagnetism.

Problem is that such a statement would not be true. When one makes such as statement they simply appear foolish and can (as well they should) lose credibility and even become an embarrassment to their fellow travelers.

I was merely trying to give some good advice to one who could really use it.

No doubt, Rob Osborn believes that I am a scientistic and hell-bound individual. He has even indicated that I should change my ways before it is "too late". I am sure that Rob Osborn was trying to be helpful in his advice to me and that it was not intended as an insult. It was not taken as such.

You make incorrect conclusions. You claim I have no history knowledge or scientific knowledge. But based off what? Just because I do not believe the unproven theories of some men you think I am an idiot? I was trying to give you some advice back in my first post to you. You gave a number but were uncertain if it be a hundred million years or a billion. I stated that it seems odd that one couldn't be sure and be off by such a substancial amount of time- that isn't science- that's imagination.

I also questioned your statement regarding abiogenesis with RNA replication. It's junk science! They have gone nowhere in developing RNA theories or testing a valid hypothesis that would indeed show proof of chemical replication leading to life. All they keep on saying "were one step closer". But closer to what? It's not going anywhere. Abiogensis is a dead science- it hasn' panned out at all.

It may surprise you to know that this is a LDS forum where content is usually given from a belief system background. If you don't want religious tones go to a stricly science site and debate there.

[katherine the great]

Hasn't the pelvis actually narrowed over time to better support upright walking?

I don't think the female pelvis has narrowed (maybe the male's has) but it hasn't grown enough to comfortably acommodate our babies' huge heads. I think we're maxed out in that respect unless men start selecting the women with the biggest hips.

[tana]

I would think that once a civilization moved gestation into the lab, natural selection would become extinct.

Since to the materialist/naturalist consciousness is a product of brain function, isn't it feasible that an advanced civilization could replicate brain function in synthetic circuitry, and then take it further by somehow encoding it on a medium, say, magnetically....or even at the atomic level?

And if technology was able to encode this brain function on a yet to be discovered medium, and this separate little packet of information could survive through Eco-system and universe cataclysm, for all intents this packet would appear as if it were indeed an eternal soul.

[katherine the great]

I would think that once a civilization moved gestation into the lab, natural selection would become extinct.

Wow. I reeeeally don't see that happening. Humans LOVE sex almost as much as we love food. Maybe when we stop eating we will be ready to stop reproducing naturally.

[Rob Osborn]

I would think that once a civilization moved gestation into the lab, natural selection would become extinct.

Since to the materialist/naturalist consciousness is a product of brain function, isn't it feasible that an advanced civilization could replicate brain function in synthetic circuitry, and then take it further by somehow encoding it on a medium, say, magnetically....or even at the atomic level?

And if technology was able to encode this brain function on a yet to be discovered medium, and this separate little packet of information could survive through Eco-system and universe cataclysm, for all intents this packet would appear as if it were indeed an eternal soul.

It's my own opinion and all, but... the brain to me is just a device- a machine, it doesn't make decisions. I honestly belive that the engine that drives the brain is the spirit. You do bring up an interesting point regarding eliminating natural selection through lab work. Perhaps we do not know just how much human civilization and interfarences have changed natural selection over the years. Adam and Eve were told to cultivate and work the garden. From the beginning of time, man has had his say on what changes and what doesn't to some degree. As for humans I don't think there is much natural selection happening at all. Evolutionists talk of females looking for someone who can protect them, provide hunting (working skills) skills, etc. But, humans basically hook up over sometime the most interesting of all ways. I have known couples who hooked up after they were both drunk and woke up with each other. I have also known couples who hooked up because it was just a matter of conveience and not much physical or emotional attraction. Personally I do not see any instincts at play that evolutionists say we have and are a part of this "natural selection". So, if this natural selection exists, people and civilization can disrupt it and even get rid of it altogether.

[tana]

Wow. I reeeeally don't see that happening. Humans LOVE sex almost as much as we love food. Maybe when we stop eating we will be ready to stop reproducing naturally.

Hey Katherine the Great, I don't believe we've met yet. Thanks for the input!

Since evolution threads tend to be a dime a dozen on here, with this thread I was trying to play "stump the naturalist" through thought experiment.

As Rob Osborn also notes, if "natural selection" were to become obsolete when a civilization reaches a certain level of intelligence, then what?

In attempting to hypothesize from a naturalist's perspective, Of the countless civilizations that must exist in the universe, perhaps at some point some of them; still engage in sex, but leave the baby making to the lab. Perhaps some have eliminated food and find their energy elsewhere, through photosynthesis maybe.

And then taking it further, it doesn't seem that much of a stretch to think that the packet of thoughts that some say describe our essence, could be encoded on a yet to be discovered medium, at the sub-atomic level.

Science is developing this as we speak, sending information through FTL, Quantum entanglement.

If thought patterns do describe the person, and if science one day learned how to reassemble those thought patterns from that persons DNA, Wouldn't that then be the same person from the materialist point of view?

How much information would it take to reassemble an individual thought pattern? One strand of DNA?

Since all the substance of the universe was compressed down to occupy the area of a grain of sand just before the "Big Bang", all the information of existence was in there too. It seems possible that this packet of information wold survive through countless contractions and expansions of the universe.

So, my question to the naturalist is, Once this packet is assembled and recorded, couldn't it feasibly have the appearance of an eternal individual awareness?

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

I see plenty of people running around as if they are brainless.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

So, my question to the naturalist is, Once this packet is assembled and recorded, couldn't it feasibly have the appearance of an eternal individual awareness?

I think the question itself is a very complex one - and needs some unpacking.

For example - it's one thing to say a 'thought' becomes eternal.

It's another thing to say an entire consciousness exists as it once did when the human brain that used to 'host' it was alive and active.

People sometimes imagine a human brain 'sitting in a jar', where the person is still conscious but without a body.

It could be proposed that the 'person' the brain belongs to would be the same person, even if it is a brain in a jar. That while they have no body to move or do other normal physical things, they could still 'think' as they used to.

But I'm not so sure. Just one thing to think about - our brains are affected by whatever hormones happen to be coursing through our veins.

The brain can itself trigger changes in hormone levels, leading to feedback loops of various kinds.

If those hormones are no longer present for the 'brain in the jar', then the brain will behave differently, and therefore the person would 'think' differently. Presumably the very experience of thinking would be distinctly different from being in a real head and a real human body.

I suppose it's possible to imagine such outside conditions as hormones being simulated etc. But then how much bigger would such issues become to simulate if theorising about 'thoughts' existing without even the original human brain!

In short, I have real trouble imagining our human personalities existing outside of our physical brains. At least existing as they were, without significant alteration.

I have a feeling that our 'minds' are very heavily tied to the physical medium they exist in (or are 'generated by' - however you want to think of it). Even with the most crazily advanced technology (or magical power) - and we understood exactly how the brain worked, I can't imagine something wouldn't be 'lost in translation'...

That's from a 'materialist' perspective of course. Once you entertain the notion of all-powerful god(s), then all bets are off I suppose...

[bu11fr0g]

There is a popular misconception that DNA dictates thoughts. Or that a clone of someone will be identical to the person from whom the clone was derived.

Common DNA only means that they are identical twins genetically. And all of us who have known twins know how different their thoughts and actions can be.

[tana]

Hey RenegadeOfPhunk, and bu11fr0g, thanks for your input!

I'm going to attempt to speak above my station again and pretend I'm a genetisist. From what I can tell, the reason a clone isn't an exact replica is....

"In molecular biology and genetics, mutations are changes in a genomic sequence: the DNA sequence of a cell's genome or the DNA or RNA sequence of a virus. They can be defined as sudden and spontaneous changes in the cell. Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.[1][2][3] They can also be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation."

But, if an advanced intelligence could overcome this mutation syndrome, then to recreate the exact biological organism, right down to the last synapse, would seemingly create the same individual....from the materialist's standpoint.

The only issue then to overcome would be to somehow encode this DNA information so that it is secured intact indefinately.

Since DNA is made up of molecules, and molecules are made up of atoms, and atoms are made up of elementary particles....which in some instances appear to retain memory.....

"In 1959, physicist Richard Feynman pointed out that all the words written throughout the history of the world could be contained in a cube of material one tenth of a millimeter wide - provided those words were written with atoms. Now, scientists have done just that, creating an atomic-scale memory by using atoms of silicon in place of the 1s and 0s that computers use to store data. Scientists at the University of Wisconsin at Madison have been able to read and write at room temperature to a memory unit that uses a single atom to store a bit. The memory density of this memory unit is comparable to the way nature stores data in DNA molecules. How much information can an atom store?"

[tana]

That actually brings up another relevant point for this thread. If an advanced intelligence could overcome genetic mutation, wouldn't that effect evolution theory, and natural selection?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

From what I can tell' date=' the reason a clone isn't an exact replica is....

[/quote']

It isn't just genetics that make a person what they are - regardless of genetic mutation.

It is also their environment.

Right from the point of conception, different conditions in the womb would make two people with the same genetic information 'different'. (Think of it as two different houses ending up getting built from one set of blueprints, because each set of builders did it slightly differently)

And after they're born, a persons environment will continue to affect their development - in a way that is completely independent of their DNA.

Also, DNA information doesn't contain 'life experience'.

For example, none of the memories of my life are 'stored in my DNA'. So if somebody were to take some of my DNA right now, and made a 'clone' of me, the 'clone' would have none of my memories. And so it would be hard to see how my clone could be seen as 'identical' to me.

It really would be a very different person. It would probably look very similarly to me, and have a lot of my personality traits etc.

But it will be a different person...

I don't know how much of this is obvious to you. I'm just trying to be as clear as I can...

[tana]

Foxtrot posted in here earlier that his odds of consciousness existing outside of the material are 99 to 1, against. So was just seeing if I could come up with a scenario where I could improve those odds, for....consciousness.

Since I seem to now be stuck with this platform.

The question you and I are debating is whether or not a perfectly, recreated biological organism would, for all intents be the same person. Every cell and synapse identical due to overcoming genetic mutation.

You bring up nurture, as nature has been overcome.

A few reactions in that regard. The brain has billions of neurons. It's been said that there are more possible connections than there are atoms in the universe. (hard to believe, I know) Some studies have shown that memories are not site specific to areas of the brain.

Some consider the "Amygdala" to be the emotional center of the brain. Some people with disconnected or small Amygdala have been shown to exhibit sociopath tendencies.

Is it possible that there is a biological core center of the organism that isn't altered thru learned experience and "nature".....which is similar to my theory that spiritual awareness must have a core.

If a person had

thru head trauma, and had no ability to hold long term memory, would he still be the same core person?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

The question you and I are debating is whether or not a perfectly, recreated biological organism would, for all intents be the same person. Every cell and synapse identical due to overcoming genetic mutation.

OK - well, let's take this idea in steps.

...first, let's repeat the above statement and take off the bit about genetic mutation for the moment...

"The question you and I are debating is whether or not a perfectly, recreated biological organism would, for all intents be the same person. Every cell and synapse identical"

OK - so ignoring how you would make a 'perfectly recreated biological organism' (i.e. forget about genetics for now)...

...my answer to the above question is 'Yes - they would be the same person'.

If you somehow copied - one for one - every atom in my body (including all the atoms in my brain of course...) and arranged them together into a new body, but in the same manner they are arranged in my body, then you would have a person that is identical in every way to me.

It would not only look like me, act like me - it would also have all my memories. It would remember things just as I remember them etc.

But now - lets be clear about this, and bring back in 'genetic mutation'...

You could NOT make this level of 'perfect' copy with only DNA information. That would be impossible. The only way to make such a 'perfect' copy as just mentioned above (complete with life experiences, memories etc.) is to copy literally every atom in my body - NOT just my DNA.

But now - let's consider copying just genetic information, and see what's possible...

Let's imagine that genetic mutation is completely avoided - as you say. But also let's go one step further and imagine that 'conditions in the womb' for two genetically identical babies are 'perfectly identical' too.

So - in effect - at the point of birth you could say that both babies should be 'completely identical'.

Let's call these two babies 'Person A' and 'Person B'.

From that point in, I think you could make this claim:

Person A and Person B should re-act in exactly the same way to their external environment if they were inter-changed.

For example, lets say Person A is born in London, England.

And lets say Person B is born in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Let person A and person B grow up into adulthood.

They may have been 'literally identical' at birth, but being born in different places, with different external environments and influences around them, they will then grow up into distinctly different people.

But now, go back in time and swap the babies over.

Person B grows up in London, England. (Exactly same address, same parents / guardians etc.)

And Person A grows up in Salt Lake City, Utah. (Exactly same address, same parents / guardians etc.)

I'll make this prediction about that situation - person A will grow up to be exactly the same person that person B did the first time round.

And person B will grow up to be exactly the same person that person A did the first time round.

Now - let me be clear - I wouldn't say that result is assured from a materialist perspective. I would say it depends how much Quantum Indeterminacy is involved in the operation of the brain. But I certainly think it's very possible they would end up living exactly the same lives, having the same thoughts, 'being the same people' etc.

Is it possible that there is a biological core center of the organism that isn't altered thru learned experience and "nature"

Hmmm. Do you mean specifically in the brain, or are you thinking of any part of the human body...?

If a person had sever amnesia thru head trauma, and had no ability to hold long term memory, would he still be the same core person?

... I guess you could say they are still the same 'core person', but always living in the moment...

[bu11fr0g]

Again, there are multiple misconceptions here. If people have the same DNA sequence, they are twins. There are some things that are deterministic from an environmental standpoint, but most are not. For example, two people might be similarly predisposed to risk-taking behavior, and both might enjoy solo mountain climbing, but only one ends up needing to cut off his arm with a pocket knife when a boulder falls on it.

Similarly, all the interactions we have with other people are highly variable. All the interactions that we have with the environment around us is highly variable. (i.e. two people might be equally predisposed to getting skin cancer and have identical sun exposure, but only one gets skin cancer).

In short, who we are is a component of our genetics, epigenetics, environment, stochastic events and choice. Genetically recreating someone only creates twins.

Atom-by-atom creating someone at the one cell stage only creates twins. Atom by atom creating someone that has been alive for 40 years would still not make them the same person, but they would have the same memories. When we talk about atom by atom creating someone, a whole bunch of philosophical questions arise like 'can we really choose or are our choices predictable?' The real answer to this is that we don't make as many 'free' choices as we may think, but I believe we do really have free choices.

Then there are all the happenstance things, like whether it will rain or not, which can determine whether we will slip in a puddle, and break a leg, and meet a nurse who changes our life in some profound way. (For want of a nail .....) These will separate people immediately after reatomic constitution because they don't occupy the exact same space.

There was an interesting movie about something similar where people made copies of themselves that timewalked, I can't remember what it was called.

OK - well, let's take this idea in steps.

...first, let's repeat the above statement and take off the bit about genetic mutation for the moment...

"The question you and I are debating is whether or not a perfectly, recreated biological organism would, for all intents be the same person. Every cell and synapse identical"

OK - so ignoring how you would make a 'perfectly recreated biological organism' (i.e. forget about genetics for now)...

...my answer to the above question is 'Yes - they would be the same person'.

If you somehow copied - one for one - every atom in my body (including all the atoms in my brain of course...) and arranged them together into a new body, but in the same manner they are arranged in my body, then you would have a person that is identical in every way to me.

It would not only look like me, act like me - it would also have all my memories. It would remember things just as I remember them etc.

But now - lets be clear about this, and bring back in 'genetic mutation'...

You could NOT make this level of 'perfect' copy with only DNA information. That would be impossible. The only way to make such a 'perfect' copy as just mentioned above (complete with life experiences, memories etc.) is to copy literally every atom in my body - NOT just my DNA.

But now - let's consider copying just genetic information, and see what's possible...

Let's imagine that genetic mutation is completely avoided - as you say. But also let's go one step further and imagine that 'conditions in the womb' for two genetically identical babies are 'perfectly identical' too.

So - in effect - at the point of birth you could say that both babies should be 'completely identical'.

Let's call these two babies 'Person A' and 'Person B'.

From that point in, I think you could make this claim:

Person A and Person B should re-act in exactly the same way to their external environment if they were inter-changed.

For example, lets say Person A is born in London, England.

And lets say Person B is born in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Let person A and person B grow up into adulthood.

They may have been 'literally identical' at birth, but being born in different places, with different external environments and influences around them, they will then grow up into distinctly different people.

But now, go back in time and swap the babies over.

Person B grows up in London, England. (Exactly same address, same parents / guardians etc.)

And Person A grows up in Salt Lake City, Utah. (Exactly same address, same parents / guardians etc.)

I'll make this prediction about that situation - person A will grow up to be exactly the same person that person B did the first time round.

And person B will grow up to be exactly the same person that person A did the first time round.

Now - let me be clear - I wouldn't say that result is assured from a materialist perspective. I would say it depends how much Quantum Indeterminacy is involved in the operation of the brain. But I certainly think it's very possible they would end up living exactly the same lives, having the same thoughts, 'being the same people' etc.

Hmmm. Do you mean specifically in the brain, or are you thinking of any part of the human body...?

... I guess you could say they are still the same 'core person', but always living in the moment...

[bu11fr0g]

and this in turn brings up all the questions about what is chance and if there was perfect knowledge of everything could someone determine where things would go which itself perhaps cannot exist because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Again, there are multiple misconceptions here. If people have the same DNA sequence, they are twins. There are some things that are deterministic from an environmental standpoint, but most are not. For example, two people might be similarly predisposed to risk-taking behavior, and both might enjoy solo mountain climbing, but only one ends up needing to cut off his arm with a pocket knife when a boulder falls on it.

Similarly, all the interactions we have with other people are highly variable. All the interactions that we have with the environment around us is highly variable. (i.e. two people might be equally predisposed to getting skin cancer and have identical sun exposure, but only one gets skin cancer).

In short, who we are is a component of our genetics, epigenetics, environment, stochastic events and choice. Genetically recreating someone only creates twins.

Atom-by-atom creating someone at the one cell stage only creates twins. Atom by atom creating someone that has been alive for 40 years would still not make them the same person, but they would have the same memories. When we talk about atom by atom creating someone, a whole bunch of philosophical questions arise like 'can we really choose or are our choices predictable?' The real answer to this is that we don't make as many 'free' choices as we may think, but I believe we do really have free choices.

Then there are all the happenstance things, like whether it will rain or not, which can determine whether we will slip in a puddle, and break a leg, and meet a nurse who changes our life in some profound way. (For want of a nail .....) These will separate people immediately after reatomic constitution because they don't occupy the exact same space.

There was an interesting movie about something similar where people made copies of themselves that timewalked, I can't remember what it was called.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

bu11fr0g,

You say there are 'misconceptions' in my post, but I'm not actually sure what we disagree on...

When I was talking about copying a person 'atom for atom', I know that after that there are two different organisms occupying different spaces.

So - in that sense they are 'not the same person'.

What I meant was that at the point one was copied from the other, they would be indistinguishable from each-other. Without prior knowledge, you would have no way of knowing who was the original, and who is the copy. In that sense they 'would be the same person'. I meant it in that sense.

Of course they will then go on and live separate lives, because they will experience different things from that point...

Do you agree with the above?

Let's start with that for now, and then we'll maybe get on to some of the other things you mentioned...