Philosophical discussion - is a clone of you, you?

Had an interesting discussion earlier - is a clone of you, really you?

My viewpoint is that no, it is not - the clone may well be a genetically identical human with a copy of your memories (not unlike twins at birth) but you are separate entities.

The simplest way I can support my viewpoint is this: if you were to die, and the clone continued to live, you personally, would not see/hear/share/know about anything the clone does (because you are biologically dead). The clone's life may well continue, but it is just that - the clone's life, a life that undoubtedly has links to yours, but the clone's life nonetheless.

What do you think?

A clone would be genetically identical but would be a person in their own right.

It would only be you if it was born at the same time as you and had the exact same life experiences, in other words if it lived your life. If it was born 5 minutes later it's entire existence would be different and all it's brain synapses and neurons and all those other things that fire every time we move and speak etc would all have taken different pathways making you a new you altogether........

My brain hurts

Even identical twins with identical DNA, brought up in exactly the same way are not the same as each other. So how can clones be?

They aren't brought up exactly the same though are they, if you think about it they do a lot of things independently, they will wake and sleep differently, cry at different times, interact at different time, all those subtle differences as small as they are will make a difference to the way the brain develops ultimately leading to different personalities..

How many times can you put the word different in one post I ask myself

No more than clones could possibly be 'brought up the same way' exactly. Think about it. Every action in their life would have to occur at the same time exactly carried out by the same person or thing exactly.

So it's not unreasonable to liken it to identical twins. Or think 'nature vs nurture'.

As humans haven't been cloned, but animals have, it is relative to have a look at myths and misunderstandings about cloning animals

http://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/.../ucm055512.htm

I don't have that much more to add as I don't think the question has been phrased very well for 'debating' it has been phrased as if the 'clone' would appear at the same age you are now (clones are created as newborns). But also don't think there's all that much to debate about it. It's a YES or NO answer.

My answer to the question would it be 'me' is NO. It would be a human who would grow up to look very much like me in all respects (not even identical twins look EXACTLY the same as each other) but it would not be 'me'.

that's what I mean, they would have to be brought up exactly to the millisecond, so in theory it could be you, but in reality it never would be

Well the question was asked if 'you were cloned'. So that would only hold if you were cloned at the split second of birth. Ergo not much different from identical twins.

Now I am off to contemplate my belly button and ponder on the concept of 'self'.

As my twin and I are fraternal and not identical, even though we definitely were brought up exactly the same way you are absolutely correct. Apparently [and according to old photographs that I have] I walked at 10 months whereas my twin just sat and expected me to go and fetch whatever she wanted. And she not only grew up with the "gimmees" but somehow my daughter grew up to be almost identical to my twin, also with the "gimmees".

It actually got to the stage where neither Mother nor I knew who we were talking to at times, calling my twin by my daughter's name, and her by my twin's name, and when my daughter was in her teens there were many times that I did not know whether I was talking to my twin or to my daughter.

Am I supposed to count them?

I don't think a clone would be you because although genetically the same their personality would be different .