Not really. Maybe some have those, probably the guys in charge, but not all of them. The pre-made Jovian Spy is the only one who doesn't have the Cortical Stack implant, besides the Infomorph.

Haxar wrote:

I too had the "but you're still dead" thought, while reading the opening fiction. Sava's existence will continue but the original Sava actually died while a new person just like them took their place. Even if Sava had transmitted their ego with the data, they would still be dead, and a copy of their mind would be running around instead. Same goes for people who switch morphs. But if you follow this line of thinking, it starts getting philosophical about the nature of the individual. And also very depressing when playing EP.

Well, I thought most people playing EP would have already gone along this philosophical route... When you get to sleep, you die. The person who wakes up is quite different from the one who fell asleep. At least they are more different than a resleeved character and the original one are. Every second that you live, experience changes you. It is like every second you upload yourself into the future. The idea that the continuity of self is important is just an habit we have. In some case it can be suspended, but forking (like resleeving from a backup) is something we are not used to, therefore we think of it as something wrong. If you find the whole idea depressing, think a bit more about what merging is about : getting back all the memories of a forked copy, exactly like you had lived two lives for a few hours. That can comfort someone that believes that the continuity of the ego is important. Anyway, I think the point of view you present must be prominent among Jovians and that they probably see us infomorphs and resleeved characters are mere ghost and avatars of the machines that led Earth to destruction. Can't blame them for it. That should probably be the biggest cultural war going on in transhumanity, to replace the old-fashioned religion wars.

browwiw wrote:

Wayfinder wrote:

Philosophically, except for "flats," everyone is dead. If you're playing someone that has been resleeved, you're already dead. You're not even real because you have no soul.

That would be 'theologically', not 'philosophically'. The 'soul' is just that song that the brain sings. Thought and personality are extant of the brilliant biochemical material between your ears. If you can record that song and play it on something with higher fidelity, all the better.

It may also be philosophical. Certain philosophies postulate a separate soul without a higher power involved. Of course, to say "philosophically", of "theologically" in either way is too broad to be really correct, since there are too many philosophies and theologies to cover. Personally, the idea of uploading is frightening to me. Continuity of self is everything to me. If you make a copy of my brain and put it in a different body, does the me currently experiencing cease to exist? I know that the new body will believe that the transition is seamless, but how could it tell if it's an exact replica? It's just a little scary to me.

Yogo Ted wrote:

It may also be philosophical. Certain philosophies postulate a separate soul without a higher power involved.

Well, I'm partial, but from my point of view, the philosophy branch that seems on the best track is the one who resolved the dualism by giving a name to the "matter" of which the soul is made of : information.

Yogo Ted wrote:

Personally, the idea of uploading is frightening to me. Continuity of self is everything to me. If you make a copy of my brain and put it in a different body, does the me currently experiencing cease to exist?

If you lose a leg and replace it with a prosthesis, does it impair your continuity ? If you lose one neuron (hint : you actually lose a lot more each day) but replace it with an artificial neuron, does it impair continuity ? If we replace 10% of your brain by a functionally equivalent circuit, does it ? How about 49% ? 51% ? 99%? 100% ?

Quote:

I know that the new body will believe that the transition is seamless, but how could it tell if it's an exact replica?

Last night, aliens subdued you and put back in your bed a clone with the exact same memories who awoke this morning. Prove me wrong.

Quote:

It's just a little scary to me.

http://www.sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2006-06-14.gif It is indeed scary. That is why Jovians are not such bad guys, they have a natural reaction to what happened to the universe.

I'm not saying I have the answer, just that it's frightening to me. And I suppose the concept of soul as a higher motivating power probably isn't part of a rational philosophy, but the concept of continuity of self can be. This is my knee jerk reaction to this concept, after thought I realize that it is just a knee jerk reaction and not probably my well thought out final opinion on the subject, but that said, as a knee jerk reaction it's probably fairly accurate to the way many people would feel. Not all or even most, but many. That said, at the same time the Junta aren't the good guys. They're still a repressive regime. I think one of the things to look at is that being bioconservative isn't necessarily a marker of villainy, just that the major bioconservastive group in EP not very nice.

browwiw wrote:

As a thinking culture, we're well past Platonic concepts like the 'soul'. Metaphysical handwaving and woo such as that was a crude place holder until we discovered psychology and neurology.

Yeah, [i]right[/i]. Because a scientific explanation is always more convincing than unsubstantiated supernatural -censored- -censored- -censored-. Ahem. So, as I was saying, magical thinking is frustratingly persistent.

Iv wrote:

Yogo Ted wrote:

I'm not saying I have the answer, just that it's frightening to me. And I suppose the concept of soul as a higher motivating power probably isn't part of a rational philosophy, but the concept of continuity of self can be.

Today (in 2009) it is but in 10 AF it is not anymore I would say.

Yogo Ted wrote:

That said, at the same time the Junta aren't the good guys. They're still a repressive regime. I think one of the things to look at is that being bioconservative isn't necessarily a marker of villainy, just that the major bioconservastive group in EP not very nice.

I am not sure I would say the Jovian Republic is so bad when you take their point of view : they see all non-flats as corrupted, as ennemies, mere TITAN-spawns. It is normal they try to keep them out. They see cornucopian machines as a potential terrorist weapon (and, well, it makes more sense than most of today's anti-terrorist laws) and yes, there is a fair amount of corruption/lobbying going but nothing that ever prevented a nation from being called a democracy.

Don't they also make a lot of their money through extortion?

My answer (shortly prior to vaporisation) would be "I'll accept that Jupiter is a Jovian Republic resource when you send one of your unmodified flats down to the surface and erect a flag." Do the hypercorps charge you for orbiting Mars?

Sir_Psycho wrote:

My answer (shortly prior to vaporisation) would be "I'll accept that Jupiter is a Jovian Republic resource when you send one of your unmodified flats down to the surface and erect a flag." Do the hypercorps charge you for orbiting Mars?

You think they don't? They probably don't charge for slingshotting around Mars but I bet they do have docking fees which include full records checks if your ship is going to be in orbit for any length of time. As to the question of Junta sovereignty of Jupiter, it lasts because they found the level of antagonism that gets them money without being enough to warrant retaliation. If they were to start blowing up asteroids wholesale, the debate would quickly become more than academic.

I guess I see it as a difference of degree, not kind. Its not that the Jovians are the "good guys" by any stretch so much as they are internally consistent. They're the good guys from their own worldview. Everyone in EP uses a carrot and a stick of some kind, its just a question of the size of each. "This concludes your Firewall orientation briefing. Please decide right now and forever whether or not you want to join. In the event that you decline, please step into the suicide booth provided and your next backup will be promptly activated."

fodigg wrote:

Wayfinder wrote:

Philosophically, except for "flats," everyone is dead. If you're playing someone that has been resleeved, you're already dead. You're not even real because you have no soul.

One of the core conceits of the setting is that your ego is your soul or that the concept of a 'soul' has been debunked--a belief held only by bioconservative flats. That--if there is something more that defines you--it would travel with your ego, even in infomorph, synthetic, or replicant morphs.

[/quote] I tend to lean to the latter, if only because the former is asking for trouble. After all, if your ego is your soul, does making an alpha fork create a new soul? Do AGI's (or seed AIs) have souls? These are great areas for exploration but my overall impression is that the society of EP heavily favors keeping a single copy of each person active as a way to avoid tackling those questions. Sort of like how cloning is limited to animals today.

I personally took the idea that the Jovians look upon the rest of transhumanity as abominations and ran with it. In my game the Junta are in the center position as outlined in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory] dependancy theory[/url] allowing them to subjugate the rest of transhumanity to an extent. However, as has been pointed out here, there a many differing philosophies regarding sleeving, so there is more than enough disagreement to support a rebellion. I have one player running a Jovian who has adopted the use of a cortical stack but still holds the Jovian philosophy that he has died and this new version is a completely new thing. This reminds of the movie "The Prestige" with Edward Norton's character who constantly dies. Regardless, I feel that a section in the book (or at least a supplement) outlining the predominant "belief systems" regarding this should be present and should be a part of the character creation process.

fodigg wrote:

From a legal point of view, I think all forks/sleevings count as one being. If your fork tries to kill someone you're responsible. That sort of thing.

Interestingly, this came up in the legal thread in this forum. It actually highlights the complex leagl fiction that is the new concept of identity. Given that there is no such thing as a soul. Given that you will never have more than one copy of yourself active at a time (for simplicity). Whichever copy is active is legally and culturally considered to be you. We know there may be copies of you, in fact there probably are. As long as you don't revert to one of those copies, you are legally accountable for your actions. You may decide to do something terrifically illegal. Let's take a single ego murder as the example. As soon as you hatch this plan, you quit making backups of yourself. Your most recent backup neither has the plan nor knows anything about it. You work out this rather complex plan, carry it off and shoot yourself in the head and self destruct your cortical stack. Zap! Now "you" are the backup. Depending on the particular legal system, it is entirely possible that this new you will not be criminally culpable. That's reasonable. After all, you never planned to commit a crime, that other guy did. However, you'll still inherit all of his property and rep just as if you had done it (any rep and cash expenditures to work out this murder are still gone). There's a legal continuity of a kind but its more in the manner of inheriting an identity than in a recognition that the backup is exactly the same being as the guy who shot himself in the head. When it comes to multiple simultaneous alpha forks it might get a bit trickier but the precedents above would make a good case against prosecuting forks not directly involved in the crime. On the other hand, multiple alpha forks would share a common legal identity and resource pool, sort of like a married couple only more so. As far as clones. . .I agree that its a bit disturbing. Then again, I find it disturbing that a hypercorp exec is restored from backup again and again when there are infugees waiting in line for a morph. And what about kids? Every child is using resources that someone with a previous claim on life doesn't get. Then again, those infugees are just backup copies of real people. Since birth is totally optional, who's got the better claim there? The closer you look at it, the stickier it gets. That works for me. I've never cared for easy prepackaged morality, regardless of the source.

I think that perhaps Anyone curious about this line of thought should read the Night's Dawn Trilogy by Peter F Hamilton, as it deals with something very similar to this.

Returning a bit to the origins of the post, I believe this would probably be the basic moral/philosophical/theological debate. But there are a couple things to consider. First, it says in the religion section that old religions fared rather badly with the appearance of morphs. Probably one of the focal reasons (and why hindu religion didn't fall) is that its doctrine didn't allow for a reborn soul to be transmitted to new bodies. So, I'd say people in the EP world have probably already decided mostly that the soul does transmit itself. Probably even way before the Fall. The question on identity is probably more problematic, and this is where I'd imagine most philosophers to be debating. Wether or not two people are or not the same. And it is a great and interesting puzzle. As for the Jovian Junta, I doubt they are evil just because they are a repressive government. From our modern, 1st World, democratic view, that is so. But probably not so much so far in the future. Morals have changed, and they are fighting a war for the nature of True Humanity. And war has always required sacrifices.

I've been thing about this and I came to a different conclusion then "your still dead" theory presented. Personally I think each body has it's own soul which is separate to the mind (or conscience). This is why when someone forks themselves they always diverge (the conscience is the same but the soul is different). Along these same thoughts, the reason people act differently in different morphs has to do with a different soul each time (or lack of a soul if your in a synth). If a morph is killed, that soul is dead but your physical self can still live on, like wise if a morph is resleeved to another conscience, the soul remains the same but the mind changes. This would explain why most people are weary about having someone else sleeve their morph, the mind gets use to that soul and is most identified to it. Since synths lack souls, it further enforces why people avoid them to other morphs. It would be like living in an abandoned warehouse, all cold and uninviting.

TBRMInsanity wrote:

I've been thing about this and I came to a different conclusion then "your still dead" theory presented. Personally I think each body has it's own soul which is separate to the mind (or conscience). This is why when someone forks themselves they always diverge (the conscience is the same but the soul is different). Along these same thoughts, the reason people act differently in different morphs has to do with a different soul each time (or lack of a soul if your in a synth). If a morph is killed, that soul is dead but your physical self can still live on, like wise if a morph is resleeved to another conscience, the soul remains the same but the mind changes. This would explain why most people are weary about having someone else sleeve their morph, the mind gets use to that soul and is most identified to it. Since synths lack souls, it further enforces why people avoid them to other morphs. It would be like living in an abandoned warehouse, all cold and uninviting.

What happens when one merges, then ? Both dies and a new soul arises ? Where do you draw the line between "conscience" and "soul" ? Informorphs and VR gives rise to the very interesting experiment of giving two identical forks the exact same stimulis. If they end up reacting exactly in the same way (and they most probably will, according to their descriptions), does this invalidate your theory ?

From my perspective, Eclipse Phase is sci-fi and has its own philosophy which is reflected in its world. All sleeving into a morph does is rebuild the *PHYSICAL* brain exactly as it was upon backup (regular or cortical stack). You have a physical body (morph) and you insert a copy of your physical brain into it. There is no mental or spiritual substance transfered. This relies on the idea that our entire existence is physical, a monist view. Your ego is essentially the result of your physical brain's configuration, not a soul or anything like that. your "mind" or "mental self" is akin to the image on your computer screen. It is the result of a physical entity, not a new type of substance.

Exactly, there is no soul. In truth there is nothing connecting someone to the result of their backup. There is no explanation available to explain how that would happen outside of a substance dualism which is pretty soundly debunked. Any attempt at rationalizing the existence of souls in EP are mental constructs that act as coping mechanisms for people who can't accept that there is no spiritual world.

Iv wrote:

Personally I believe we are divided into 3 distinct part : a blue chicken, a magic corkscrew and a herd of squirrel. I don't wish to sound offensive, but beliefs, while interesting, are not things that are easy to share without them explaining observations.

I'm not offended. Everyone is entitled to your own belief and opinion. I also don't mind others attacking my belief because I think constant questioning of your own beliefs is what is needed to progress and solidify your beliefs (otherwise your "building your house on the sand", to take the Biblical proverb).

Iv wrote:

Waitamoment. Infomorphs don't have souls ? How come ? A synthetic morph wouldn't have one then ? Basically it is just an informorph driving a vehicle... What about pods ?

No I don't think that synths have souls, as their body doesn't contain life and the anchor needed for a soul to interact with it. Pods are a grey area, they are part biological, but they are also twisted abominations of God (in a way) and as such would be a weak anchor for a soul. Infomorphs are just the mind (no body, soul or emotions, just thought) which is why they are the most alien existence for people to be in.

Iv wrote:

I would be interested in the evidences. My current personal belief (backed up with clues but short of hard evidences) is that there is no soul, and that notion of self is mostly an illusion.

I'll dig around and try to find it for you then. Granted everything I've said is just my personal opinion and not the view of CGL, or the majority of the people playing EP. I agree with the statements above that EP takes the stance that transhumans have no souls (as seen in the game's slogan, "your mind is software, program it"). If you read the works of Ray Kurzweil (one of the influences of EP) he goes on further to say that your identity is a pattern in your mind, and in time that pattern can be copied to a computer and then downloaded into a new body. We are this pattern and not the body that was left behind. As such you can consider yourself "human" while not fitting the current biological definition now.

TBRMInsanity wrote:

No I don't think that synths have souls, as their body doesn't contain life and the anchor needed for a soul to interact with it. Pods are a grey area, they are part biological, but they are also twisted abominations of God (in a way) and as such would be a weak anchor for a soul. Infomorphs are just the mind (no body, soul or emotions, just thought) which is why they are the most alien existence for people to be in. Granted everything I've said is just my personal opinion and not the view of CGL, or the majority of the people playing EP. I agree with the statements above that EP takes the stance that transhumans have no souls (as seen in the game's slogan, "your mind is software, program it"). If you read the works of Ray Kurzweil (one of the influences of EP) he goes on further to say that your identity is a pattern in your mind, and in time that pattern can be copied to a computer and then downloaded into a new body. We are this pattern and not the body that was left behind. As such you can consider yourself "human" while not fitting the current biological definition now.

That is not even slightly Kurzweil's idea, it is however established epistemological/philosophical/communications theory. It's just a very common idea on identity and how it's formed being presented in a sci-fi book. Something very important you missed. If you understand how computers work you understand that the copy is not the original. Transferring something is not transferring it, it is copying it and deleting the original. Under that idea as well, the person being put in the new body (the original) dies and a new copy of them is born. If you want a novel depiction of the sleeving process look into rudy rucker's "Software", the first book in his ware tetralogy. That has, so far as I am aware of, the only "sleeving" process where the potential for something like a soul exists. Another point you would absolutely need to address to make your theory sound. According to your statements, nobody who is in ANY morph has a soul. This is because ALL biological morphs are abominations as much as or more so, in several cases, than pods. What god would look down at a Novacrab with anything other than disgust (5 points if you said Cthulhu). We, (trans)HUMANS, made them and we made them better than any god EVER did. To address your superstitions regarding a soul. You suggest that the soul is a result of either a biological process, in which case the soul does not carry over, or a physical structure such as a gland (the "anchor"), in which case the soul STILL does not transfer over. You just have an exact copy of your old one (assuming it is in the brain). Assume the anchor scenario where the soul is just made up of some kind of non-physical drifty "soulstuff". If I understand correctly, you seem to believe that something in the body (biological only) acts as an anchor or homing beacon to this "soulstuff". Two problems with this. To act as you seem to suggest it would, this homing beacon would have to exist as a physical thing and at least partly as "soulstuff" but you can't do that. Part of our definition of soulstuff is that it isn't physical, thus necessarily creating the inverse of physical substance (that it is not soulstuff). Also if a person has two acting egos (not the waffles) which one would his soul go to? If you cannot answer these questions I think it may be time for you to reassess the validity of your position. You make these statements and take this position but you fail to establish any foundation for your claims. That's why people are interested in your essay the way they are, they don't want it as support for your statements and their not hoping to find it there. They don't want it as a thought provoking piece of intelligent literature. They want it to use as a fictional religious group who stratify what little is left of mankind into even smaller groups of those they accept or don't accept based on what they "feel" about the existence of a soul. This soul's existence cannot be proven or dis-proven so you essentially have a witch hunt in space. Actually that does sound like the makings of a great evil cult. I think I'll use it. These ideas you put forth are not actually "philosophies" of yours but more feelings or whims. Building a philosophy takes much more effort than that. Please, if you wish to call something philosophy, put some effort into it. Failing this, your statements amount to little more than noise. We all have the ability to reason, I implore you to exercise it.

Not suggesting that kurzweil's application of existing ideas into sci-fi wasn't original. In fact, I have added him to my (all too large) reading list. Simply suggesting that theory of identity as he seems to be using is not, in the slightest, new. Initially I thought that the idea of using morphs and resleeving would be a huge asset for eclipse phase, and maybe one day it will, but I just can't find it in me to abandon such a complete and solid game system/world as Shadowrun (where things are defined in a complete and useful manner) for a new born that still can't quite walk right, let alone run, like Eclipse Phase. The concept is mind blowing but the grey areas are too predominant. For example, the existence of a soul as we debate it here. There should be no room for this much interpretation. That is what house rules are for. There should be an entire supplement (read:profit) on the process of sleeving, instead we get little more than an outline, hints if you will. I may come back to this system in a few years, when it's had time to grow, but for right now simply that there is room for debates like this make it, to me, an incomplete product. Oh and about the cult. Ideologies like the one you outlined here are the roots of far too many tensions. "you don't have a soul because...." is asking to be hated. You are, from the perspective of the persecuted, dehumanizing them (poor word choice in context but you get the point) it seems a very conceited view of the world, very self centered. I would liken it to the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe in that rather than going out and establishing an objective definition of the term being explored you simply start with "I have a soul" and never prove that statement. Rather than basing conclusions on fact and reason you start with the answer you want and, as your signature says, replace reality with an abstract mental construct of your own.

TBRMInsanity wrote:

Speaking from a purely in game POV, just because your current morph doesn't have a body, doesn't mean are dehumanized. It just means your original body has your original soul and that is why you will feel the most comfortable in it. It also means that since your being is at it's most complete when you have all four parts (Body, Mind, Soul, and Emotions), you will feel the most incomplete when your an infomorph (and are only a Mind). This cult would play up the need for biomorphs and resleeving transhumans (to make them more complete). It would also take a stance on renting out your body to others as you can only truly be whole if your lucky enough to be in your original body (whatever type of biomorph that may be). The core rule book does state that the norm is for people to want biomorphs, and the ideas of renting ones morph out to others, and resleeving into synthmorphs is alien and only done when you have no option. There are groups (Barsoons, Exhumans, Scum) that buck this trend but the majority wouldn't see the cult's ideas as dehumanizing them. That doesn't say they would join, but they wouldn't persecute them.

This makes much more sense. My apologies, I seem to have made the assumption (perhaps drawn from use of emotionally charged language such as "abominations" and such) that things without a soul are to be held in lesser regard, rather than seen as disadvantaged. While I still do not understand your quadism, as you refer to it, I do grasp the idea behind your concept of soul (requiring at least dualism of some sort). It is sort of like a source of spiritual power that certain avatars that people adopt (infomorphs, synthmorphs, so on) can not access. You may consider introducing a sort of divine magic class/ability into the game (or maybe just psychic abilities) and use a balance method like shadowrun does, the more human means the more soul which in turn means more magic/power. Another interesting idea to help add much needed depth to an Eclipse Phase game.

Steeping into the firestorm with grenades. Its safe to say that misunderstandings and Lable-confusion occur in discussions, Especially with unclear definitions. 1=A (Ox) and 2=B(House) are Two Oxes a house? 1+1=2? A+A=B? In many religions the "spiritual/mythical" soul doesn't remember past experiences while living, The person isn't the same as his souls previous incarnation or future incarnation. since it can be said that the person is the sum of the experiences accumulated. Now, aside from religion bias. I believe that there exists a continues person -and that energy/ data/ discharges would be described as a soul also. Perhaps its currently reside in the discharges of electric synapses. I don' t believe its carried over into a replica. "Fax me up scotty", and the original is shredded. I wouldn't see the world from 2x2 eyes if the original was somehow spared. The original and the fax copy are two sheets of paper Even if they are to an outsider identical down to Molecular/nano/pico level. Ideal solution is of course to somehow transfer the continues "soul" without killing it. But some ideals are not currently possible. Since the "copy" will be a replica of the original. Its a better form of offspring and thus almost as good; as a continued existence. The Forks would be individually separate souls, regardless of its morph. To die while ensuring the offspring's success is not bad. Perhaps in the eventual afterlife "dead" forks would be merged. Forks arriving with desires of reclaiming stuff is interesting. Even if neither is the "original" or human. Lots of potential hilarity ensues. "What sort of joke is this? We have already given it to you" "Aren't you supposed to be on a vacation by now" "Not you again, Take a number and join that crowd (of you)"