Is humanity an evolution of data cloning ?

fredis said:

I am considering that humanity is taught to infants from birth and this information becomes stored data .

Click to expand...

"Humanity" isn't taught to infants. Culture is innately acquired by infants and also taught to children as they develop.

Infants learn by a combination of observation and experience. As they age into young children, their brains develop and this allows them to apprehend progressively more complex concepts.

Acquisition of some of these concepts is instinctive or structural. They are 'hardwired', for lack of a better term, into our genetic code and the expression of that genetic code in the physical traits of our bodies.

For instance, the acquisition of language is demonstrated to have a genetic component (the genes for language expression are even slightly different between language groupings). But, language acquisition also has a phenotypic component (largely brain structure).

It's a similar story for literacy and numeracy - there is a large (~50%) influence of genotype and phenotype on their acquisition by children. And, these genes are closely related to the genes for language acquisition.

However, environment also plays a strong role in the acquisition of these traits. A child with strong genetic predisposition to language acquisition will likely also have a strong genetic predisposition to rapid acquisition of literacy and numeracy. However, if you put that child in an environment where literacy and numeracy are not encouraged, then their acquisition may be frustrated or slowed.

As we get older, children are taught about following the mores of the society they live in. They also acquire a vast range of information about behaviours, attitudes, rules and unspoken codes that the society around them follows. This is culture.

Here's what's wild though - genes influence culture. And culture influences genes. Gene-culture coevolution has been happening ever since humans became a cultural species.

Humans haven't stopped evolving. And the culture you exist in is makes up a portion of your fitness landscape. Broadly speaking, people that are good at acquiring culture so that they behave as expected/appropriately are also more likely to have success at reproduction. People who are poor at acquiring culture, or move into sub-cultures that have a negative impact on fitness (say, incels or bigotry oriented groups), are less likely to have reproductive success.

fredis said:

I am also considering that this data is cloned data , repeat information time after time taught to infants .

Click to expand...

People learn through repetition. Some portion of learned information is passed on through successive generations. This is not a novel concept.

fredis said:

Thank you for the assist .

Yes , I serious believe our memories are our souls .

The biggest problem with our souls which I am trying to change , is that our souls are destructive to sentient beings including our own bodies .


Stephen forces the body he occupies to smoke and drink alcohol . Stephens body is innocent and does not choose to smoke or drink alcohol .

If Stephen the human didn't exist within Stephens mind , then Stephen wouldn't have control , mind over bodily matter .


To me , things like this are evidence of my secondary existence within the primary sentient host .

Click to expand...

You're probably aware that you are describing dualism. That there's a 'you' somehow that is separate from the wet meat inside your head. All Christians are bound to accept this and they consider the soul to be that 'you'. I'm not a Christian and I reject the concept for any number of reasons.

However, if we were to agree that there was no dualism then I would tend to agree with you that we are the sum of our memories. If I woke up tomorrow with all yours and none of mine then I would be you at that moment (I would gradually separate from whatever person you were as time went on as my genetic makeup would be different).

fredis said:

I disagree ,

''use a fork''

''don't do that''

''wash your hands''

A few examples of human actions that are taught .

Click to expand...

These are a part of culture, not a part of "humanity". They're a function of us being social creatures who share space and resources with other social creatures.

When I was living in Japan, it was "use chopsticks" instead of use a fork.

Dos and don'ts are specific to individual cultures, times, places and situations. I'm not going to ask for a bacon sandwich and a scotch in a bar in Tehran, but I would in New York. I'm not going to work on a Saturday in Hasidic community, but it was nearly mandatory when I worked in Japan.

Wash your hands is a learned thing that is taught culturally and varies between societies and times. If you told a Western doctor to wash their hands prior to the mid 1860s, you'd likely get laughed at. When I worked in China in the early 2000s, washing hands was almost non-existent among my colleagues.

Those things are not universals. While they are human actions, they're not examples of "humanity" but actions that are a result of the varied rules and expectations that develop within human communities.

fredis said:

We are taught words, all these words taught are human words

Click to expand...

Yes, because interpersonal communication is a inherently human activity (we're a social species). But people that can't talk are no less human than people who can.

In a hypothetical Tarzan scenario - where someone who is raised without any communication with other people - they're no less human than anyone else, they just lack some of the culturally acquired skills and attitudes of other people.

fredis said:

Being human is a set of rules and words taught that make us human .

Click to expand...

I fundamentally disagree. Humans establish rules for their societies, but whether you follow them or not doesn't make you more or less human. There's vastly more to being human than "words taught".

fredis said:

However , I am not sure that genetic makeup would imply a change to the mindset , I think it would be the opposite .

Click to expand...

I may be tall, you short. I may be easy going, you might be more intense. You might be a romantic, I more pragmatic. These are all characteristics that are genetically determined. All other things being equal (which they never are) they result in different people. So I might become you at the moment our memories are swapped but then 'you', with a different personality genetically determined, would not become the person you would have without the exchange.

fredis said:

That's not true , Stephen is a word , data . The data didn't exist until Stephen was labelled .

Click to expand...

No, Stephen is a person. 'Stephen' is a word. A label is not the thing labeled. The map is not the territory.

Bradskii said:

You're probably aware that you are describing dualism. That there's a 'you' somehow that is separate from the wet meat inside your head. All Christians are bound to accept this

Click to expand...

No, we're not. We're certainly not bound to accept substance dualism.

sfs said:

No, we're not. We're certainly not bound to accept substance dualism.

Click to expand...

But you accept the concept of a soul? Which is what I was referring to.

Odd way of looking at things.

It's like saying North America didn't exist in the Middle Ages because no one had given the continents those names yet.

Bradskii said:

But you accept the concept of a soul? Which is what I was referring to.

Click to expand...

The soul was a more or less scientific attempt by Greek thinkers to explain the behavior of living things. Or rather, souls were, since they came in multiple flavors (vegetative, sensitive, and rational is the traditional, Aristotelean breakdown). No, accept it as a useful description of anything.

sfs said:

The soul was a more or less scientific attempt by Greek thinkers to explain the behavior of living things. Or rather, souls were, since they came in multiple flavors (vegetative, sensitive, and rational is the traditional, Aristotelean breakdown). No, accept it as a useful description of anything.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised you don't hold to the concept. I can't recall any Christian rejecting the notion before. Unless we're talking at cross purposes.

sfs said:

The soul was a more or less scientific attempt by Greek thinkers to explain the behavior of living things. Or rather, souls were, since they came in multiple flavors (vegetative, sensitive, and rational is the traditional, Aristotelean breakdown). No, accept it as a useful description of anything.

Click to expand...

That's bssically correct. Technically, Descartes introduces the strict distinction between mind and body as two separate substances (thinking substance vs. extended substance), but the ancient Greeks laid the groundwork- Plato and Neoplatonismn in particular because they saw the soul as separable and ontologically superior to the body. Aristotle's hylomorphism held the parts together in a more unified fashion. What is peculiar to Xnty is the resurrection of the person in a spiritual body (an unembodied spirit is ubiquitous, which is a feature peculiar to God). The emphasis in Xnty is the person and not the disembodied soul. The separation between body and soul/spirit is not inherently Christian but Greek.

You guys are talking about soul in ways that is quite different than what I'm familiar with. Though the Aristotelean trajectory is familiar as it's something I've read about, but that's about it. We naturally break things down to duality in order to understand and explain things. But when exploring the soul/body/mind stuff and coming from a duality perspective, understanding will naturally come up short and incomplete. I think it's pretty hard, maybe even impossible for the mind to grasp the totality of that what's going on when it's broken up into parts, especially with soul/body/mind self awareness.

fredis said:

It is actually very easy to understand when explained in my science terms .

Dualism can be considered the miraculous creation of a secondary existence within a sentient animal hosts mind .

The formation of the secondary existence can be scientifically referred to has a neurological reference frame .

A reference frame constructed of abstract information that defines physical reality . What I mean by this is that a Cat for example isn't really called a Cat . The word Cat is an abstract creation used for the purpose of defining reality based on a localised neurological reference frame .

Click to expand...

It looks to me like your coming up short. The essence of a cat is what it is even without introducing my own "localized neurological reference frame ". Cats have their own soul/body/mind aspect of themselves. When left alone, cats will do cat things all on their own. They don't know how to do or be anything different than being what they are. The whole of the cat soul/body/mind aspects, all together, are what that animal is. Names are names. We can name a cat a dog, that doesn't change what they are in their essence.