Racism in Jewish Law and Practice

I want to introduce this article with a few points. For the purposes of this article, I'm only discussing Orthodox Judaism. A story that has been in the news recently is the arrest of my old rabbi, Rabbi Barry Freundel, for placing a camera in the mikvah, or ritual bath, to get pictures of women while they were naked, usually women who were attempting to convert to Judaism or who had recently converted. This has brought attention to the sexual abuse of female converts to Judaism, and I want to add my own experiences to this discussion. I don't want you to walk away from this article with the belief that all Jews are racists. That is not true, and is not the point. Jewish apologists often respond to the points in this article with the phrase "Judaism is not a race; people can convert!"

While it is true that people are able to convert to Judaism, if you ask any convert about the process, they will tell you that it is long, it is hard, and at the end, they are still not equals. Converts to Judaism are frequently the victims of the racism of other Jews; ask any black or (God forbid) Arab convert--and even those born Jewish with black or Arab ancestors. Converts are not equal under Jewish law. They cannot be in positions of authority over other Jews, they cannot marry certain people, even the people they are legally permitted to marry will often refuse them on the grounds that they have an inferior yichus (lineage).

Prospective converts cannot form relationships with Jews while they are in the process of converting--again, conversion is a long process, and frequently takes upwards of two years, and sometimes as many as ten; and during this entire time they must be single, or married to a non-Jew. They cannot get married to a Jew, they cannot have children, even with a non-Jew, because this child's conversion will not necessarily be automatic when theirs is complete, and even if it is, the child will have the same disadvantages as any other convert. Then there is the fear of your conversion being retroactively declared void and your post-conversion children bastards, sometimes not even because of your actions, but because of the actions of your converting rabbi.

But these complaints do not strike at the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem is in the Talmud itself. An uninitiated person may think that the Talmud is of little significance, being as it is simply a set of explanations of the laws of the Torah, and the Torah is believed to be the revealed word of God Himself. This is not true. In fact, the Talmud is more important in dictating day-to-day activities than the Torah, and is believed to contain a record of the Oral Torah--the part of the Torah that was not committed to writing by Moses.

The importance of the Talmud is best described by the story of the Oven of Aknai, which describes an incident where one Rabbi, R. Eliezer, ruled that an oven was ceremonially clean, while the rest ruled it was unclean. R. Eliezer brought many arguments to prove his point, and finally in frustration called out to God to speak on his behalf. A voice from heaven said: "'Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah (religious law) agrees with him!' But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: 'It [the Torah] is not in heaven.'  What did he mean by this? — Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline." R. Eliezer was excommunicated for his insolence, and all the items he had declared clean were ordered destroyed. The voice of God Himself was ruled not as important to Jewish law as the consensus of the rabbis of the Bet Din ha Gadol (Sanhedrin), which later was written down to become the Talmud.

Incidentally, if you scroll down to the bottom of the page linked to above, you find the following gem in the Talmud: "It has been taught: R. Eliezer the Great said: Why did the Torah warn against [later edit: the wronging of] a proselyte in thirty-six, or as others say, in forty-six, places? Because he has a strong inclination to evil." If you read the two sentences without the later edit of "the wronging of" into them, they make a much more coherent statement which happens to be quite racist against the person who has already completed against his conversion. Why would the convert's being evil have an effect on whether or not he should be harmed by others? (Even if it does, the passage is saying that the convert is evil.) Whereas if you read the passage as warning against a convert, because he is evil, it makes much more sense.

So what does the rest of the Talmud say about the non-Jew? This passage is from Yebamoth 98a:
"Raba stated: With reference to the Rabbinical statement that [legally] an Egyptian has no father, it must not be imagined that this is due to [the Egyptians'] excessive indulgence in carnal gratification, owing to which it is not known [who the father was], but that if this were known it is to be taken into consideration;  but [the fact is] that even if this is known it is not taken into consideration. For, surely, in respect of twin brothers, who originated in one drop that divided itself into two, it was nevertheless stated in the final clause, that they 'neither participate in halizah nor perform levirate marriage'. Thus it may be inferred that the All Merciful declared their children to be legally fatherless, for [so indeed it is also] written, Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [semen] is like the issue of horses."

So the children of non-Jewish women (the passage specifically mentions Egyptians, but this is a stand-in for any non-Jew; because the Sanhedrin spent so much time under the rule of foreign governments, they tended to use a nation that wasn't currently in power as a stand-in for all non-Jews, in case the document was seized by those in power, who wouldn't like what it said about them, as we will see later) are considered to not have any legal fathers. And the only reason even alluded to is that this is because of the rampant promiscuity of non-Jewish women.

This is why if a Jewish man has a child with a non-Jewish women, the child is not Jewish:  the child is legally fatherless. The Jewish man has no legal responsibility according to the halachah to care for the child. And the reason for this, if you ask most Jews, is the reason that is alluded to in this passage: because non-Jewish women are promiscuous. Even women who are attempting to convert to Judaism will often be quizzed, both by the converting Rabbis and by other Jews, about their sexual history. After they convert, when they want to get married, they will often be quizzed by prospective husbands about their sexual history; whereas women born Jewish do not face this humiliating ordeal. I'm not saying that this will happen to every woman trying to convert to Judaism, and I'm not saying all men born into Orthodox Judaism will do this. But this kind of thing happens far more frequently than anyone will admit.

This belief that non-Jewish women are all promiscuous is so pervasive that women converting to Judaism may often, in my experience, be coerced into sexual relationships that they are not a willing participant in by Jewish men, who threaten to tell their converting rabbi that the woman "seduced" them if the woman does not comply with the man's demands. In my own experience, not only was I coerced to do things I was not comfortable with by this threat, I was also told that it was of my own initiative, as I was promiscuous. I was told things like, "I knew I liked you for a reason, you are kinky." As an anti-sexual asexual this could not have been further from the truth. I have a deep seated fear of physical intimacy based on my early childhood experiences and on my own disgust at the concept of sexual attraction, and I absolutely did not initiate anything in any relationship I was ever in. Unfortunately, because of my lack of healthy relationships to base what a new relationship should look like off of, I was easy to manipulate and take advantage of.

I hope that in the wake of the Rabbi Freundel arrest, this issue can be discussed openly and honestly, and the root problems can be dealt with by the Orthodox Jewish community as a whole. One of the things Judaism does well is coming together to solve problems internally; although this often results in the problems being swept under the rug, I sincerely hope that this time, this issue can bring attention to these issues and they can be addressed and resolved. It will take time, and it will be a painful process for many, but I hope that the future can be made better through what has happened.

Academic Papers

So, I have decided to publish the papers I wrote in college getting my Bachelor's of Social Work (junior and senior year level). I got A's and B's on all of these ones. Don't try to turn them in as your own, they are publicly searchable, meaning they can be found by teachers or software searching to see if you are plagiarizing. But you can read them; and they all have their references done properly (if you ever need to do references, absolutely go to bibme.org, it will save hours of headaches). So these would be helpful starting points for further research. Note that these papers were written in the Fall 2010-Spring 2012 school year, so some of the information may be out of date depending on when you are viewing this. The only edits have been redaction of personal information and a quick glance over for grammar and spelling errors. Most of the papers done for my degree contain such large amounts of personal information on myself or others that complete redaction is not feasible; these have been omitted from this list.

Bipolar in College Students
The Role of Social Factors in Therapy: Do socio-economic differences impact the quality of therapist-client interactions?
Zitkala-sa Brief Bio
Real Women Have Curves (Movie Review)
Darkness Visible (Book Review)

These three are based on a set of papers brought together in the same book (sometimes numbered for clarity):
Social Status and Hierarchies in Society
Self Identity and Social Status
Gender Inequality Throughout Life

Culturally Religious, Part 2

In my last post, I explained what the specific social causes were that motivated me to identify as a culturally religious Muslim. It is hard to tell how much of the history of Islam I was presented with is actually factual. Both Muslims and anti-Islam activists are pushing a particular agenda when presenting a history of Islam, the one to support Islam's claim of being the best model of morality and the other to portray Islamic history as cruel and barbaric. Both sides exaggerate to stress the accuracy of their presupposed position, and it is difficult to look back and find what parts are exaggerated and what parts are factual. This post will deal with why I no longer choose to identify with Islam, and some of the problems I have with it.

One factor was a growing realization that my values and beliefs about the way society should function were not based in religion, but were based on my democratic socialism. As I became more confident in my own ability to decide using logic and rationalism what makes things moral, I became less dependent on religion to provide a moral compass. This was a difficult process, having been raised from birth to believe that I was evil. (My parents both suffered psychotic breaks from reality and were convinced that I was the incarnation of Satan, as evidenced by behaviors caused by my bipolar disorder, which has been severe since early childhood.)

I developed beliefs about how society should ideally be run, and was presented with a historical narrative that said this was how Islamic society had been run in by-gone eras. There were things in the narrative that troubled me, but I believed it was simply because I did not understand them well enough, or was not moral enough to have their goodness become understandable. So I embraced this version of Islamic history that had been presented to me and worked to restore this vision of Islamic society.

One of the things that troubled me about Islamic ideology was the belief in hell. Although I know that some Muslims do not believe in an eternal hell, others do, and I find the concept of eternal hell immoral; why should a human being who cannot even fully comprehend the concept of infinity be punished for an infinite amount of time for crimes committed during a finite existence?

Also, I believe that most people try to live a moral life to the best of their knowledge and ability. Some people, due to psychological conditions, are unable to control their impulses to behave in ways that are detrimental to others, or do not understand that their actions are harmful to others. Islam does teach that the mentally ill are not to be punished for crimes outside their ability to control or understanding, but this seems like a small comfort when most criminals are not considered mentally ill, even when they clearly are.

Most of the punishments mandated by Islamic law are either slight improvements on or exactly the same as existing legal codes indigenous to the area, or are more harsh. Physical, permanently damaging punishments, like flogging, amputation, and capital punishment are particularly cruel and immoral. Surely a moral code that was meant to be superior to all others for all time could have conceived of more humane punishments, such as community service, rehabilitation, mental health treatment, and, for the worst offenders, isolation from society (incarceration). Why couldn't a petty thief be given a job to pay back those he defrauded? And while we're at it, why couldn't a supremely wise and moral being give us a way to effectively treat psychopathy, something that does not exist to this day?

Another thing is the difficulty in determining what actually constitutes Islamic law. Very little legal code exists in the Qur'an itself, so most jurisprudence comes from the hadith. Everyone agrees that not all hadith are authentic, but no one can agree on which ones are inauthentic. Even if we assume that everyone had a perfect memory and none of the people who transmitted the authentic hadith had misheard or mis-remembered even in the slightest (which we now know is pretty much scientifically impossible), there is still the fact that none of the collections were compiled until decades or centuries later, and some inauthentic ones slipped in.

Even the Qur'an itself is of questionable historicity. It is known that it was not compiled until the time of Uthman. Although I do not believe the anti-Islam propaganda that Uthman intentionally banned and destroyed passages he didn't agree with, there is still the point that there were an unknown number passages that were claimed to be authentic parts of the original Qur'an that did not make it in to the final product, because they were not vouchsafed by the mandated number of sources deemed reliable. The fact that we know such criteria existed means that there were passages that did not meet the criteria, and we do not know what those said.

Of the ones that did make the cut, most of the narratives to explain their historical and socio-political significance in the time and place of their writing sprung up much later. Thrown together the way they are, they often seem disjointed, jumbled, and even contradictory. The claim that you must be an expert in ancient Arabic to fully understand the Qur'an is perplexing to me. Even Orthodox Jews do not make this claim about their texts (although they do commonly complain about Christian mistranslations--a complete list of words that get mistranslated by Christians, with their real meanings, can be found in Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed, Volume 1). Surely, if an all-knowing God wanted to give a supremely wise message to all humanity for all time, he would do it in a language that could be easily understood and learned. Or better yet, why couldn't an all-powerful God simply give us all the direct knowledge of what he wants from us?

And there are things that are immoral that are not forbidden in the Qur'an. The Qur'an does order people not to force their slave girls into prostitution; but it does not forbid the owning of slaves. Although it does advocate freeing slaves, and nearly 40,000 slaves are said to have been freed by either Mohammad or his family and companions, the owning of slaves is still allowed, and men are allowed to have sexual relations with their female slaves.

There is also the subject of consent to sexual intercourse. Neither a wife nor a female slave has the right to deny intercourse to her husband or master. Although in theory a woman had the right to deny a marriage proposal, in actual fact, this right has not always been given; and even if it is, there is nothing to tell a woman before marriage if her husband will want more sex with her than she is comfortable with. A slave girl does not even have this meager right. A woman may put in her marriage contract that she does not permit her husband to take a second wife; however, this often is ignored, or women are forced to accept other wives through blackmail and threats, and slave girls are not legally counted as wives.

Although initially, Islam did encourage men to marry women who had been divorced or widowed, this is now no longer in style. A woman's virginity is often viewed as a commodity, and men wish to "own" it, and if a woman is "damaged goods", they will refuse to marry her, or at the very least make it known to her that she is "worth less" in dowry than an "intact" woman. This problem is not in any way exclusive to Islam; I have seen it in Jewish and fundamentalist Christian men as well. What most people fail to realize is that the intact condition of the hymen is not necessarily a guarantee of virginity; hymens can be restored surgically, and can be damaged through normal (non-sexual) activities or missing entirely. And this demand for virginity is not reciprocated; a man may be promiscuous before (and sometimes even after) marriage if he wishes, without consequence, but a woman is not to explore her sexuality.

[Although the topic of sexuality does not directly affect me, as I am an anti-sexual/sex averse asexual, it does impact society, and the treatment of people in society. As a member of human society which I must accept will probably always be primarily full of sexual people, I must campaign for ethical treatment of the other people in human society.]

There is also the treatment of prisoners of war. Although this is not an issue that affects modern society as much as it did ancient societies, if Islam is truly meant to be a moral code for all time, it must be mentioned. Prisoners of war were often executed after capture or enslaved. Neither of these are particularly good pieces of moral guidance. After someone is in your custody, killing them becomes an act of unnecessary aggression. Slavery is also not a good way to treat people, and once people were slaves, there come up the problems listed above of sexual abuse.

This is not a complete compendium of things I found immoral in Muslim law and history, but it is a sampling of some of the things that I found the most troubling.

Culturally Religious?

In my last article I touched on having felt culturally religious. I want to go into more detail on what that means, and why I chose it as a label for myself. Growing up in a family where most of the members were only culturally Jewish, I was very familiar with the concept of identifying not with the religion, but with the culture.

Most culturally religious Jews know little of the history or laws of Judaism. They may have gone to a weekend or after-school Hebrew school as kids, or maybe a Jewish summer camp, but they might not have even that much background on Judaism. They are more likely to be what in Christianity is described as "Christmas Day and Easter" believers; that is, they make an effort to celebrate the Jewish holidays somewhat (although usually not following all the strict rules of the various holidays), and even though they are usually atheists or agnostic, they prefer to tell people that they are Jewish.

The reasons for describing yourself as culturally religious are varied, but usually center around feeling a camaraderie with those who have suffered in the past and wanting to perpetuate the culture of a people who the person feels are or have been unfairly marginalized or oppressed. Many of the Jewish holidays commemorate the Jewish people being subjugated or oppressed (and the subsequent slaughter of whoever was oppressing them--e.g. Purim, Passover, and Hanukkah).

The reason I chose to identify myself as a cultural Muslim had to do with a deep respect for the Golden Age of Islam and sympathy for the plight of innocent Muslims being slaughtered around the world. While I do not support terrorism, I do understand that there are complex socio-econonomic and political factors influencing it beyond simply "They hate our freedom." I also understand that terrorism is not isolated to one culture or religion. Many of the perceived acts of terrorism around the world are reactionary, and are in response to real or perceived injustice. Indiscriminate slaughter--such as the bombing of civilian homes, schools, and hospitals--will lead to more terrorism, not less. (This report discusses many of the nuances involved in the specific case of Gaza regarding the Israeli claim that such civilian installations house Hamas weapons.)

One particular issue that I was often questioned about was how I could support Islamic governments, when they are so violent and repressive. My answer to this was that there are no true Islamic governments in the modern world. An Islamic government is a caliphate, and operates under a specific set of laws. Even the new Islamic State (formerly ISIS) is not a true caliphate, because the self-proclaimed caliph was not selected in any of the ways that are historically valid, and he does not possess the qualities of a true caliph.

During the caliphate of Umar, there were a great number of reforms made that laid out the qualities of a leader. For a very, very long series of lectures (over 200 lectures, 30-60 minutes each) that explain in great detail what was expected of a Caliph, and what the moral views of the early caliphs were, from an Islamic perspective, listen to the lectures here. The lectures are primarily in English, with some Urdu and Arabic, and have been partially transcribed, with an appendix of the Arabic (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman).

During Christian Europe's Dark Ages, the Muslim world was flourishing, and was the center of what would later become the Enlightenment. The arts, science, history, and math all reached great heights. Muslim countries were incredibly socially progressive. Women could own wealth and property, were respected for their knowledge, were guaranteed equal pay for equal work, were entitled to child support and primary custody, and much more. People of every religion, including those who were termed "doubters" (what are now usually called atheists or agnostics), were welcome and accepted as members of society. Homosexuals were also welcome, and were celebrated in art and literature; in fact, homosexuality was decriminalized by the Ottoman Empire.

So what happened? In a word, Colonialism. Two particularly poignant examples are the Saud family, who the British made the kings of Arabia when they left, and the Taliban, created by the American government to fight the U.S.S.R. The Saud family were actually not rulers pre-British colonialism; they were a mafia. They are now spreading a particularly damaging form of fundamentalist Islam, Wahhabi Islam, throughout the world, setting up many schools, mosques, publication companies, and more to spread their message. And their students, and students of their students, have become leaders of most of the worst examples of fundamentalist Islam (like Osama bin Laden or al Baghdadi).

The Taliban was funded, trained, and nurtured by the Americans during the Cold War. Afghanistan was one of the many third-world countries that became proxy fighters recruited into the silent war between the world's two super-powers, like Cuba and Vietnam. The Americans and the Soviets did not want to risk a direct confrontation, so they both armed and trained people in other nations to fight guerrilla warfare for their cause. Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are just two of the countries where Western colonialists set up puppet governments that eventually bit the hands that put them in power. The Western governments deposed the more progressive Muslim governments, and put in power right-wing extremists. They shot the mongoose, and wonder where the cobras came from.

So what I meant to do, in presenting to the world as a cultural Muslim, was to pay homage to the Muslims of old, who shared values and causes that I could identify with. The culture that I wished to be a part of was that of a more historical, progressive version of Islam. I wanted to express my support for things like publicly-funded hospitals, schools and universities, orphanages, multi-cultural trade, studies of sciences and mathematics. I wanted to be a voice for equal rights for everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or skin color. Those are the values I wanted to express; and I can express them equally well with or without religion. I do not need a religion to be moral.

Maintaining Religious Rituals After Faith

I have only within the last few months come to the realization that I no longer have any religious beliefs, and have been struggling with the issues surrounding this realization. The word "atheist" has certain negative connotations for those who have grown up in religious families, and the generalizations and stereotypes you have learned from childhood do not go away quickly; and even if you do overcome your sense of distaste for the word, others around you will not automatically change just because you have. So even though I do not hold any religious or spiritual beliefs, I do feel a bit timid about using the word atheist to describe myself. I expect that over time this will change, and my emotional connections to religious rites and rituals will also change, becoming less important to me.

There is also the fact that for several years now, I have only felt connected to religion in a cultural, rather than a religious, way. I felt a connection to what in Islam is called the "Ummah", roughly translated as nation, which is the concept of brotherhood between all Muslims. Judaism has a similar concept, embodied in the phrase "kol yisrael arevim zeh bazeh" from the Talmud (Shevuot 39a), meaning "all of Israel are responsible for each other." Christianity lacks a strong sense of this concept; perhaps this is why there has been so much fighting between Christian sects throughout Christianity's history. In fact, Paul (in 1 Cor. 5:11) advocates the opposite, a full exclusion of those who are guilty of even seemingly minor transgressions, including being greedy or being a gossip. This type of full exclusion, without even sharing food with such a person, is now usually called "excommunication."

So my involvement in religion has for some time been centered more on my sense of community, wanting to be a part of something larger than myself, and being a part of a social group, than it has been on my connection to a deity. I wished to be identified by others as a Muslim, because of my sympathy for the plight of Muslims in certain countries today and my admiration for the scholars of the golden age of Islam. Now that I can no longer delude myself into believing that I am somehow culturally religious, I am questioning my choice of clothing and my desire to partake in certain religious rituals.

Changing my entire wardrobe is a daunting prospect, due in large part to financial considerations (overhauling your entire wardrobe is an expensive proposition for almost anyone). There is also the consideration of the fact that others in my community have seen me wear one type of clothes (hijabs and abayas) for several years; if I suddenly changed my entire wardrobe, I might be asked questions I do not wish to answer.

Another factor is that I wear a hijab in part to cover up my being bald. I have alopecia areata, a general term that probably refers to several distinct diseases. It means that my hair falls out in circular patches for no discernible reason. Because it is neither a communicable disease nor a deadly disease, and it does not affect a large percentage of the population, the pharmaceutical community has little interest in researching a cure. My hair has been falling out in some areas and growing in in others since I was about 5 years old. There are no treatments that are effective.

The smallest amount of hair I had was when I was about 12-13, and I had about 15-20% of my hair; now I have about 40-45% of it. But even what I do have I keep shorter than an inch. I have no interest in growing out my hair. I faced much criticism when I was younger for going out in public so nearly bald; people considered it appalling and scandalous, and many told me I should wear a wig. I would probably face the same criticisms now. I would rather be perceived as religious than as trying to make some kind of statement. I would rather face questions about Islam than about why I am bald.

I also have some rather strange and illogical emotions about certain days of the year and what I want to happen to my body after my death. I feel emptiness around the time of the death of my grandmother (one of the few people who ever understood me). I feel a longing towards religion near certain religious holidays, and want to be a part of the festivities, but not because I believe in the concepts behind the holidays. I don't believe in the need to fast or pray, but I do like bonding with others over the meals that are often associated with the end of a fast or are a part of another holiday.

I have a strong desire to be buried in a traditional Muslim way, or the very similar Jewish way, but not in a Christian way. Similarly, I would not want Christian funeral rites, but I would want Muslim or Jewish ones. I do not want an open casket funeral and I do not want to be cremated. There is no tangible reason I can point to for these things. The closest I can come to an answer as to why this matters to me, considering I will not have any knowledge of what is happening to my body after my death, and I do not believe in an afterlife, is that this body has been my only tool for interacting with the world. Everything I have ever experienced, good and bad, has been experienced through this body. My sight, my smell, my sense of touch, my hearing, etc, have been the stimuli sent to my brain that became my experience of the world. So I wish to treat my body with a certain level of respect after it has ceased to function.

I also want my body to return to being a part of the cycle of life, decomposing to become a part of the ecosystem which nourished me throughout my life. A simple casket, or being wrapped in cloth without a casket, will allow the fauna that are nourished by decomposition to absorb nutrients more readily, allowing them to return the nutrients in my body to the soil to feed the plants, which will in turn feed larger animals. Life in all its many forms will continue, and the matter that comprised my body will be incorporated into new life.

Transferring Consciousness to a Computer

So, a lot of sci fi, real science, and related shows have dwelt a lot on the possibility of transferring your consciousness into a computer. It seems rather straightforward; our brain is a machine, computers are machines, if we could transfer information from one to the other, we could make the computer a version of us that can outlive our physical bodies, and could potentially live indefinitely. But what are the essential components of "you" that the computer would need to have to be you?

• Memories. This is pretty straightforward. You experience things, you remember things, although not perfectly. Of course the computer would be able to remember things too, and would have the ability to gain new memories, which would be less prone to being corrupted than human memories.
• Personality. Personality is basically just the way you respond to stimuli, and so can be reduced to a set of if-then commands, albeit a very long and complex set of commands, with more caveats than the average current program. For example: If child is screaming, then tell them to calm down. Except: If child is screaming IN PAIN, then provide assistance. With time, I'm sure we could reduce every response to stimuli to an if-then command, and develop an algorithm to determine what to do in an unforeseen situation by assessing the aggregate collection of if-then commands that are already available and basing an action on them, which is what we humans do in a new situation.
• Emotions. This one isn't as straight-forward. Emotions are how we perceive a complex interplay of neurochemicals. Robot You could bungee jump off a bridge, and could respond with "Emotion: excited", but without the rush of adrenaline and dopamine, is it really feeling an emotional response to the stimuli? And if it isn't experiencing your emotions, is it really you? If you could no longer feel love for your partner or your children, or hatred for your worst enemy, or happiness at holding a kitten, or disgust at a criminal act, would you still be you? Take for example a person in the late stages of Alzheimer's. They no longer have emotions towards anyone they ever knew, because they can no longer remember them. They don't know what makes them happy or what makes them sad, and can respond only to stimuli in the present. If nursing home staff abuse them, they will react to the pain, but when the abuser leaves the room, they won't know who hurt them and won't fear them when the person returns. How do their loved ones respond to this? They say "This person isn't the person I knew. The person I knew is dead." And we don't say they're wrong. So if you could transfer your memories and personality to a machine, but the machine could not experience emotions, would the machine really be you, or would it be a clever AI?