[Spoiler Alert] About the endings

[LeKill3rFou]

3. It's not really a matter for Engram V because I'm pretty sure that the Meat V is dead after Engram V is created. He/she is only resurrected when Alt puts the Engram back in the body.

For me at least, it seem pretty clear that during all the part in Mikoshi with Alt and Johnny, "meat V" is a simply piece of meat (like a steak) linked by a cable to Mikoshi.
In "cerebral death" state, if I can say that
After to know if when V back to the body it's the same as before... It's not the exactly the same, because during the process V have new memories added in Mikoshi (all the conversation with Alt/Johnny)

 

[JohanLindh]

Ehhhh....

1. Except the Engram has a body in the cyberworld while the meat body doesn't and needs equipment to live there. They have a separate living existence beyond meatspace.

2. The original has budded into two beings. It is dead the moment the Engram departs it and two new beings exist. Meat V has no more claim to be the original than Engram V.

3. It's not really a matter for Engram V because I'm pretty sure that the Meat V is dead after Engram V is created. He/she is only resurrected when Alt puts the Engram back in the body.

1. Since Engram-V is not a (perfect) copy of the Original-V (lacking a body amongst other things), the two are not comparable.

2 and 3. The Original-V died when shot by Dex. V2 has incorporated some of Johnnys memories (and has lost brain functions due to the relic) and dies again at Mikoshi.
What ever Alt copies at this point is not Original-V. The extent of the damage is not known plus some of Johnnys personality has transfered over (excluding what could be considered normal transfer between persons in a conventional relationship).

For me at least, it seem pretty clear that during all the part in Mikoshi with Alt and Johnny, "meat V" is a simply piece of meat (like a steak) linked by a cable to Mikoshi.
In "cerebral death" state, if I can say that
After to know if when V back to the body it's the same as before... It's not the exactly the same, because during the process V have new memories added in Mikoshi (all the conversation with Alt/Johnny)

Exactly.

Even less than the same, since the copy was imperfect (as per earlier reasoning).

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Exactly.

Even less than the same, since the copy was imperfect (as per earlier reasoning).

This is the whole difficulty of knowing if an imperfect copy is still "me". And who is food for thought
Now imagine (yes, imagine) that I have a stroke and I die for a few minutes (really, scientifically, I'm dead. No pulse, no brain activity). Then I wake up miraculously (it has happened before, I think). But I lost a small part of my memories (a small part, like all my adventures on Cyberpunk). So actually, I am an "imperfect copy" of the "me" before.
Am I still me ? Am I a different person ? Or we don't care about this stupid question ?
Honestly if that happened to me, I think I would agree with Johnny. Whatever if the LeKill3rFou from before is really dead (and somewhere else), I don't care I'm "me", no doubt

 

[CTPhipps]

This is the whole difficulty of knowing if an imperfect copy is still "me". And who is food for thought
Now imagine (yes, imagine) that I have a stroke and I die for a few minutes (really, scientifically, I'm dead. No pulse, no brain activity). Then I wake up miraculously (it has happened before, I think). But I lost a small part of my memories (a small part, like all my adventures on Cyberpunk). So actually, I am an "imperfect copy" of the "me" before.
Am I still me ? Am I a different person ? Or we don't care about this stupid question ?
Honestly if that happened to me, I think I would agree with Johnny. Whatever if the LeKill3rFou from before is really dead (and somewhere else), I don't care I'm "me", no doubt

This is personally amusing because this happened to me in RL.

I had a neurological condition as a child and died a couple of times before being resuscitated. Hence, I tend to take the view a bit less seriously than most.

 

[JohanLindh]

This is the whole difficulty of knowing if an imperfect copy is still "me". And who is food for thought
Now imagine (yes, imagine) that I have a stroke and I die for a few minutes (really, scientifically, I'm dead. No pulse, no brain activity). Then I wake up miraculously (it has happened before, I think). But I lost a small part of my memories (a small part, like all my adventures on Cyberpunk). So actually, I am an "imperfect copy" of the "me" before.
Am I still me ? Am I a different person ? Or we don't care about this stupid question ?
Honestly if that happened to me, I think I would agree with Johnny. Whatever if the LeKill3rFou from before is really dead (and somewhere else), I don't care I'm "me", no doubt

No, you are not an imperfect copy. You are what remains of what was you before. You are less, not whole and there is no original you running around being more than you are.

Yes, a lesser you but still. Very possibly and affecting certain areas of the brain, very probably. If it's stupid, why do you ask it?

You wouldn't have much choice, would you?

 

[Ayinde_Palmer]

Oh, that's science. But since my experience of this forum is that neither science nor logic seems in high esteem, I'll refrain from going too deep into this subject here. In short: Descartes did not have access to the medical equipment used today. If he had, he probably would have come to the same conclusion. (This is not a statement about the existence of a soul, nor what happens at or after the time of death, it's about the inseparability of body and soul).

Yes, but the goal of a game (usually anyway) is to beat it and at "the end" (conclusion if you will) is where the player and MC goes separate ways. In this game the story is inconclusive and the player loses agency well before that.


I'm not discussing consciousness, nor self awareness, but soul and its inseparability from the body. The brain is not only a set of neurological pathways but also integral with an endocrinal system working in conjunction.

The supernatural still needs rules and the game uses several sets of rules depending on unknown requirements (the relic grants Johnny a new body but does not let V re-inhabit his/her own), which is quite distasteful.

Science is what we can prove, believing or wanting, it is not.

science is what we assume based on what information we have, its actually extremely connected with belief. Scientific models are always changing based on new information, theories or perspectives. Science doesn't represent immutable facts, the closest thing we have to that is observation. But though science is based on observation, thats actually not the point of it.


as far as the soul, first off, soul is poorly defined concept, so making any scientific claims about it is difficult.

second, even current science as whole does not claim to have a deep understanding of consciousness, much less the soul. At best right now, science has theories

 

[LeKill3rFou]

second, even current science as whole does not claim to have a deep understanding of consciousness, much less the soul. At best right now, science has theories

Like what it happen in the center of a black hole. Some "scientific" theories are assumed, but no one really know
(yes that's a question I ask myself... But what's going on in there ! probably I would never know...
Little fun quote (for those who recognize it).

500 years ago everyone was sure the earth was the center of the universe, 200 years ago everyone was sure the earth was flat, 5 minutes ago you were sure we were alone in the universe... Now, imagine what you will be sure of tomorrow...

 

[Ayinde_Palmer]

1. Since Engram-V is not a (perfect) copy of the Original-V (lacking a body amongst other things), the two are not comparable.

2 and 3. The Original-V died when shot by Dex. V2 has incorporated some of Johnnys memories (and has lost brain functions due to the relic) and dies again at Mikoshi.
What ever Alt copies at this point is not Original-V. The extent of the damage is not known plus some of Johnnys personality has transfered over (excluding what could be considered normal transfer between persons in a conventional relationship).


Exactly.

Even less than the same, since the copy was imperfect (as per earlier reasoning).

so by your definition, a person with brain damage isn't the same person. What about people whom disease has changed their endocrine systems? people with transplants or prostetics?

What about the theseus ship idea? and how that translates to humans whose brains eventually have every cell replaced?


Also, I think the issue is, some people are defining the soul differently than you. In an analogy, they would consider the soul of a painting not to be the actual painting, where as by your understanding the soul of the painting can't be separated from the paints and the canvas.

or another analogy, a game. Is the game cyberpunk defined by the DVD and the PC, or is it the information, design, and processes, and the dvd/pc is just the engine created to express those designs

Post automatically merged: Jul 26, 2021

No, you are not an imperfect copy. You are what remains of what was you before. You are less, not whole and there is no original you running around being more than you are.

Yes, a lesser you but still. Very possibly and affecting certain areas of the brain, very probably. If it's stupid, why do you ask it?

You wouldn't have much choice, would you?

even with your concept, why would you be a lesser you? Brain damage could actually lead to greater you, or at the least a different you. The goal of the brain is not necessarily to remain pristine, but to take in new information and adapt to it. A stroke is a very drastic form of interaction, but the brain can destroy, and alter itself as part of its design. After a stroke the brain often changes its neurological structure. This can at times be advantageous

 

[JohanLindh]

science is what we assume based on what information we have, its actually extremely connected with belief. Scientific models are always changing based on new information, theories or perspectives. Science doesn't represent immutable facts, the closest thing we have to that is observation. But though science is based on observation, thats actually not the point of it.


as far as the soul, first off, soul is poorly defined concept, so making any scientific claims about it is difficult.

second, even current science as whole does not claim to have a deep understanding of consciousness, much less the soul. At best right now, science has theories

Exactly. Therefore anything not observable is false and even some things that are.

Yes, scientific models change with new facts, not with new beliefs. And though observation is a part of it, it is not all.

Ergo. Any observation regarding the soul is false, since it is not provable. Except what "we" do know, that the body is part of the brain due to neural and endicrinal communication.

And again, my comment was regarding Descartes duality, not whether we have a soul or not.

so by your definition, a person with brain damage isn't the same person. What about people whom disease has changed their endocrine systems? people with transplants or prostetics?

What about the theseus ship idea? and how that translates to humans whose brains eventually have every cell replaced?


Also, I think the issue is, some people are defining the soul differently than you. In an analogy, they would consider the soul of a painting not to be the actual painting, where as by your understanding the soul of the painting can't be separated from the paints and the canvas.

or another analogy, a game. Is the game cyberpunk defined by the DVD and the PC, or is it the information, design, and processes, and the dvd/pc is just the engine created to express those designs

Post automatically merged: Jul 26, 2021

even with your concept, why would you be a lesser you? Brain damage could actually lead to greater you, or at the least a different you. The goal of the brain is not necessarily to remain pristine, but to take in new information and adapt to it. A stroke is a very drastic form of interaction, but the brain can destroy, and alter itself as part of its design. After a stroke the brain often changes its neurological structure. This can at times be advantageous

No, they are not. How could they be? Everything we experience changes us to a bigger or lesser degree (A game reference is the Arnold Cyberdoc).

The Theseus ship paradox is not applicable since we do not actively nor consciously replace anything.

If some people choose to define something that it is not, there is not much I could do about it. Unless of course they say that the "soul" of a painting equals the soul of a human. Then I could correct them saying the painting has neither consciousness nor self awareness (and that I think many would consider a requirement of a soul). The same goes for CP2077 and any other game.

I think you confuse my use of lesser with some kind of definition of intrinsic value. At the moment of loss, you are less than you were. Be it losing an arm or "dumping a chunk of long term memory". What happens after that is another thing. This loss could help us evolve in new ways due to the limitations we now face...

 

[Iosephus]

Science fiction often simplifies the idea of what it would be like to transfer your mind somewhere else. I don't think a lot of people realize just how much of your personality is a sum of the complex interactions of your brain, cells, hormones, body chemistry, experience, and so on, that you've accrued in your lifetime, and it's dependent on that body.

When drugs are able to alter someone's thoughts and emotions in their own body, we can only imagine how that mind would be altered by transplanting a "copied" version of it somewhere else.

Even if we had the technology to fully remove someone's entire nervous system and successfully attach it to a new body, we really don't know how much the mind of that nervous system would change.

 

[Ayinde_Palmer]

Exactly. Therefore anything not observable is false and even some things that are.

Yes, scientific models change with new facts, not with new beliefs. And though observation is a part of it, it is not all.

Ergo. Any observation regarding the soul is false, since it is not provable. Except what "we" do know, that the body is part of the brain due to neural and endicrinal communication.

And again, my comment was regarding Descartes duality, not whether we have a soul or not.


No, they are not. How could they be? Everything we experience changes us to a bigger or lesser degree (A game reference is the Arnold Cyberdoc).

The Theseus ship paradox is not applicable since we do not actively nor consciously replace anything.

If some people choose to define something that it is not, there is not much I could do about it. Unless of course they say that the "soul" of a painting equals the soul of a human. Then I could correct them saying the painting has neither consciousness nor self awareness (and that I think many would consider a requirement of a soul). The same goes for CP2077 and any other game.

I think you confuse my use of lesser with some kind of definition of intrinsic value. At the moment of loss, you are less than you were. Be it losing an arm or "dumping a chunk of long term memory". What happens after that is another thing. This loss could help us evolve in new ways due to the limitations we now face...

science changes with new evidence, but also new perspectives on the same evidence.

and science doesn't "prove" things it tests whether certain understanding line up with current known facts

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

If you are saying that within your thought model, everything changes us, then are we are never the "real" version?

then why is the consciousness from the body the real V(or the one with the 'soul', and the digitized consciousness not the real V (or not the one with soul)

re: theseus
Also what does actively or consciously replacing things have to do with theseus ship? The fact remains that every part of your body and brain are not original, and are copies of a design, so why does the biological copy have more claim to being the actual V than the digital V?

re: the soul of a game/painting
yeah, those were analogies, but I accept that some aren't fans of analogies as illustrative tools.

re:descartes
Descartes idea was that it would be possible for the mind and body to exist separately because they do not intrinsicly need each other to be what they are. I don't think knowing what we know now would change that premise, though it would probably change his theories on how a mind and body could interact with fundamentally different natures. (note he acknowledges that for a human, they are intertwined interacting systems)

the cyberpunk situation is even less ambitious, because it doesn't quite suppose the mind/soul is completely formless, but rather asks if it can be translated to a different type of 'body' and still be 'itself'.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

science changes with new evidence, but also new perspectives on the same evidence.

Science attempts to explain things via empirical evidence. The fundamental crux of the process itself hasn't really changed since it's inception. Understanding and conclusions from it do. The methodology and the way it's employed may have evolved over time as well.

and science doesn't "prove" things it tests whether certain understanding line up with current known facts

Prove without a doubt? No. If a mountain of empirical evidence points to the same conclusion it's reasonable to view that as the way of it though. Unless something comes along to contradict that evidence. In which case the conclusion, or understanding, should be shifted to follow suit.

A good example there would be physical laws. They are labelled laws because all evidence supports them. The moment evidence comes along to contradict those laws is the moment they cease to be a law.

That's kind of where the issue is when it comes to a soul. Is it part of the body or a separate metaphysical thing? If it's the former then it needs to be quantified. Aka, defined, supported with evidence, etc. If it's the latter it presents a bit of a pickle from a scientific perspective. How do you find supporting evidence in observable reality for something external to it? This is why the metaphysical viewpoint tends to be founded in belief or faith.

In terms of the game and what Alt says.... Alt can say whatever she wants to say. It doesn't mean she is fully correct. For instance, she says the copying process isn't able to transfer everything. She might claim that lost part constitutes the soul.

To take a slight tangent there.... As soon as she made those comments my immediate thought in game was to take a step back and consider how my V views the world. Does that character believe in a metaphysical soul? Do they think it's more in-line with the Easter bunny? Do they think some physical aspect of any given person can be quantified as a soul? Which it was would determine how they would react to that news.

Getting back to the game.... CP has quite a bit of content where what the player is told or information they find isn't something the player character can blindly accept. The source of that information could be misleading, flat out lying, pushing an agenda (had many suspicions in-game this one here has a role with Alt specifically) or otherwise unreliable. I don't see how Alt's take on her little pet project is any different in this regard. It's up to the player which part, if any, their version of V believes to be reliable.

 

[Ayinde_Palmer]

Science attempts to explain things via empirical evidence. The fundamental crux of the process itself hasn't really changed since it's inception. Understanding and conclusions from it do. The methodology and the way it's employed may have evolved over time as well.

Prove without a doubt? No. If a mountain of empirical evidence points to the same conclusion it's reasonable to view that as the way of it though. Unless something comes along to contradict that evidence. In which case the conclusion, or understanding, should be shifted to follow suit.

A good example there would be physical laws. They are labelled laws because all evidence supports them. The moment evidence comes along to contradict those laws is the moment they cease to be a law.

That's kind of where the issue is when it comes to a soul. Is it part of the body or a separate metaphysical thing? If it's the former then it needs to be quantified. Aka, defined, supported with evidence, etc. If it's the latter it presents a bit of a pickle from a scientific perspective. How do you find supporting evidence in observable reality for something external to it? This is why the metaphysical viewpoint tends to be founded in belief or faith.

In terms of the game and what Alt says.... Alt can say whatever she wants to say. It doesn't mean she is fully correct. For instance, she says the copying process isn't able to transfer everything. She might claim that lost part constitutes the soul.

To take a slight tangent there.... As soon as she made those comments my immediate thought in game was to take a step back and consider how my V views the world. Does that character believe in a metaphysical soul? Do they think it's more in-line with the Easter bunny? Do they think some physical aspect of any given person can be quantified as a soul? Which it was would determine how they would react to that news.

Getting back to the game.... CP has quite a bit of content where what the player is told or information they find isn't something the player character can blindly accept. The source of that information could be misleading, flat out lying, pushing an agenda (had many suspicions in-game this one here has a role with Alt specifically) or otherwise unreliable. I don't see how Alt's take on her little pet project is any different in this regard. It's up to the player which part, if any, their version of V believes to be reliable.

I agree with most of what you said.

id make the distinction that science tries to understand empirical evidence in order to make accurate predictions. Its not only the collection of facts, its looking at facts and trying to understand more about the world with those facts, and reasoning to go beyond just the empirical.

that may not disagree with what you mean/wrote there, just pointing it out.

but yeah, I also took a step back, it was interesting because it was a bit unexpected for Alt to be the one to make that statement. I felt like it tells us more about Alt as a character than lore. V, upon hearing it not only has to choose whether the believe Alt, but also, as you say, what V believes in general.

But yeah, in game, it seems like only the clearly religous, and Alt seem to mention/care about a soul at all.

I guess a fair amount of science used to be about trying to understand the possible nature of a 'soul' or spirit, but that has fallen out of fashion in science.

 

[CTPhipps]

I suggest you check out Chalmers and Penrose for different takes on the mind-body issue.

But yeah, in game, it seems like only the clearly religous, and Alt seem to mention/care about a soul at all.

Yes and no. It's just that a lot of the rich just accept Arasaka's digital substitute. We have those families thinking they're talking to their dead relatives when our encounter with Jackie in the Arasaka ending show's its just a con job.

 

[Ayinde_Palmer]

I suggest you check out Chalmers and Penrose for different takes on the mind-body issue.



Yes and no. It's just that a lot of the rich just accept Arasaka's digital substitute. We have those families thinking they're talking to their dead relatives when our encounter with Jackie in the Arasaka ending show's its just a con job.

well, I wonder if Jackie represents what they sell to the public, or something else since they got him after he was already dead. Basically is the corpo telling his kid about visiting grandma in the relic getting a Jackie engram, or a johnny?

Which is also interesting, because that npc is still visiting a columbarium even if they believe in relic. I wonder why?

 

[CTPhipps]

well, I wonder if Jackie represents what they sell to the public, or something else since they got him after he was already dead. Basically is the corpo telling his kid about visiting grandma in the relic getting a Jackie engram, or a johnny?

Which is also interesting, because that npc is still visiting a columbarium even if they believe in relic. I wonder why?

To be fair, that guy was telling his daughter they couldn't afford to get her mother resurrected and it was her friend who did that.

 

[Ayinde_Palmer]

To be fair, that guy was telling his daughter they couldn't afford to get her mother resurrected and it was her friend who did that.

ahh, I was wondering if I was forgetting a key facet of that convo

 

[CTPhipps]

ahh, I was wondering if I was forgetting a key facet of that convo

Weird fact: This may be a reference to Max Headroom the show that was actually a decent scifi cyberpunk series. One episode had a fake church scamming parishioners with "Brain Uploads" that were actually just vaguely happy imitations of dead loved ones repeating some of their catch phrases.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

I think in all language we say that : "The eyes are the mirror of the soul"
So, take a look :

Alt before:

Alt - AI :

Maybe she's right, something is lost
In any case, in my opinion, if anything was lost during the process for Alt (or forgotten during his years behind the Dark Wall), it's those emotions and empathy in particular

 

[JohanLindh]

science changes with new evidence, but also new perspectives on the same evidence.

and science doesn't "prove" things it tests whether certain understanding line up with current known facts

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

Some say that mathematics is the only true science, since it is only there you actually can find proof.

But I'm merely pointing out that in the light of new technology, Descartes was wrong.

(The site you are linking to is aimed at children still in their teens doing it's utmost to not dissuade them entering fields where proof actually is required).

If you are saying that within your thought model, everything changes us, then are we are never the "real" version?

then why is the consciousness from the body the real V(or the one with the 'soul', and the digitized consciousness not the real V (or not the one with soul)

We are the real us in every now. Hence a copy will deviate from the original in some way just by time passing alone.
Then there is that two object can not occupy the same space...

re: theseus
Also what does actively or consciously replacing things have to do with theseus ship? The fact remains that every part of your body and brain are not original, and are copies of a design, so why does the biological copy have more claim to being the actual V than the digital V?

Everything. If the ship is a living entity reinforcing itself where it fails, the paradox is moat.

re: the soul of a game/painting
yeah, those were analogies, but I accept that some aren't fans of analogies as illustrative tools.

I like analogies, but they need to be correct.

If the observer perceives the innate object to have a soul, then the soul resides in the observer. Not in the object.

re:descartes
Descartes idea was that it would be possible for the mind and body to exist separately because they do not intrinsicly need each other to be what they are. I don't think knowing what we know now would change that premise, though it would probably change his theories on how a mind and body could interact with fundamentally different natures. (note he acknowledges that for a human, they are intertwined interacting systems).

But they do. Descartes was wrong.

The cyberpunk situation is even less ambitious, because it doesn't quite suppose the mind/soul is completely formless, but rather asks if it can be translated to a different type of 'body' and still be 'itself'.

As stated before. Loss of data is inevitable. A copy can not match the original unless it is perfect, and it can not be...