For a while now, I've been contemplating certain philosophical and theoretical dilemmas in my head. I have yet to really voice any of these thoughts (maybe once or twice), but I do so now to see if I can reach some kind of conclusion or just a little more knowledge on the ideas I present. I also hope that this topic might spawn some healthy debate regarding these ideas, which no doubt have probably been shared by many of you too.
The first dilemma I face revolves around this question: What would it take to resurrect someone? Lets start with what we know. We know our mind is the result of millions of brain cells, comprised of neurons that fire messages along synapses to basically communicate very complex messages. These chemical reactions inside our brain create what we know to be as consciousness. So what exactly is consciousness? Why am I me and not you? Could we all be one consciousness trying to comprehend itself? If my consciousness exists now, whats stopping it from existing trillions of years in the future or possibly in the past? After all, energy never dies, only changes form. If you quantum entangled all the atoms in my brain, would I exist in two places at once? If so, would I be a single consciousness or two equally aware beings that make the same decisions. It's all very confusing, and at this point in time, impossible to really know the answers to these questions. Fortunately, I don't believe this topic is in vain, because I think there is ample room for exploration of these ideas through debate.
The idea that has plagued me the absolute most when it comes to understanding consciousness, is what exactly makes me me and you you? I'm not talking about personality, I'm talking about individual ID's of consciousness. If we were to take the right half of the brain, copy it atom for atom, then replace the original right half with the copied right half, would you still be the same person?
(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/89/brain2.png)
Your brain would be functioning exactly the same, but would there be a different ID of consciousness arising from inside that brain?
(http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/3227/brain3.png)
Now lets take the experiment a little further. What if we copied the left half of the brain, and replaced the original left half with the copied left half? Now the original brain is completely gone and in place you have a clone, yet at all times it has continued to function as the same person and the person holding that brain would never know they were a copy. Do the copied brains hold a new ID of consciousness that simply functions exactly like the old consciousness did, or is it the exact same ID of consciousness as it used to be? If they do hold a new consciousness, at what point does the old consciousness cease to exist?
I think I'll just leave it at that for today. I have many more questions that plague my mind, but posting all of them at once would bog down the topic a little too much.
Don't drink and drive..
Just smoke and fly... oh wait..
talk some rly unnessessary stuff in a forum where 90% dont know what a synapse is
Quote from: DNH on November 09, 2011, 03:36:34 PM
Don't drink and drive..
Just smoke and fly... oh wait..
talk some rly unnessessary stuff in a forum where 90% dont know what a synapse is
This forum is full of very smart people, otherwise I wouldn't even think of posting this here.
ok, ima follow this thread :)
But to be honest: Those questions.. I couldnt answer them ^^ Too phylosophic
Quote from: Jake on November 09, 2011, 03:33:33 PM
What would it take to resurrect someone?
Manual restoration of dead tissue. As soon as blood stops pumping, tissue begins to decay (well, technically it begins to decay as soon as blood flow is retarded, not when it stops outright). Decay enough and it fails to function which means death. Once you can reanimate or restore the dead tissue with live tissue so that it functions again, theoretically you can bring back life.
... Or at least that's what Mel Brook's Young Frankenstein taught me, and that movie was too damn funny to not be true.
In seriousness though, this topic delves into a certain level of neurology that even the world's brightest minds (no pun in intended) have been trying to discover for decades. Heck, we can't even justify sleep fully when it comes to the brain's natural requirement for it. I don't imagine anyone here is able to dissect the cause/effect relationship of consciousness. As it stands right now the different theories regarding copying of the brain isn't even a medical possibility at this point.
I like these topics!
If every single part of the brain was mapped perfectly to another person's, then theoretically they would be identical to another person's personality. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the "cloned" person is the same as the original. We are comprised of our experiences, which are then interpreted and logged into our brain. As soon as this "cloned" person has an experience differentiating from the original, he or she is no longer the clone of that person (which would be almost instantaneous, considering the very idea of being a clone as a novel idea that would change the circuitry of the neural network). In reality, who we are changes on a constant and daily basis. We aren't the person who were were a few years ago, and yet we are.
For example, take a candle to represent a human being. It's life is defined by how long it stays lit, and the wax drippings could be the physical recording of its experience (such as the specific arrangement of neurons in a human's brain). What you're proposing is to take those same wax drippings and reheat them back into the candle's original mold. Based on the size and shape of the candle it would burn more or less the same way it had before. However, due to changes in pressure in the room, temperature, and variations of wind would all cause different formations of wax drippings to form around the candle, akin to new "experiences" it's being subjected to.
I guess my answer would be both yes and no. Yes, you could have exact copies of a brain and say that both hold the exact same personality in each. But once you allow the brains to become subjected to new experiences, they would no longer be the same person.
The term person is extremely subjective. If you detached someones arm, is the arm the person or is the rest of the body the person? Why is this? The answer depends on what you consider a person.
You are not something. You are billions of somethings working together to produce what appears to be a single entity with a single purpose.
Nothing makes me you, and you me, they are just words to help us communicate. If you removed the head of a hammer in 2005 and got a new head, and then in 2006 you removed the handle and got a new one, is it still considered the same waepon?
It depends, it all depends. Humans just made up things like "you", "person", etc. to make sense of it all. They are just constructs and you aren't meant to look deep into it. That is dangerous thinking Comrade. I hope Goldstein hasn't corrupted your heart.
Quote from: Yankyal on November 09, 2011, 04:59:26 PM
The term person is extremely subjective. If you detached someones arm, is the arm the person or is the rest of the body the person? Why is this? The answer depends on what you consider a person.
You are not something. You are billions of somethings working together to produce what appears to be a single entity with a single purpose.
Nothing makes me you, and you me, they are just words to help us communicate. If you removed the head of a hammer in 2005 and got a new head, and then in 2006 you removed the handle and got a new one, is it still considered the same waepon?
It depends, it all depends. Humans just made up things like "you", "person", etc. to make sense of it all. They are just constructs and you aren't meant to look deep into it. That is dangerous thinking Comrade. I hope Goldstein hasn't corrupted your heart.
I hope you weren't replying to me, because this is more than apparent. Although words can be subjective, I'd hope that you at least understand my intentions when using the words "person" or "you" and "me". I am referring to the collection of brain cells that form our personality and thought processes. It helps to use a little bit of common sense when it comes to general meanings behind words, unless you're the kind of person that assumes someones arm has been cut off every time you hear a person dies on the news.
(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3861/armu.png)
Although in fairness, "person" can commonly be taken in three ways: Mind or body or both.
I understand if you didn't get my post. Sometimes it's hard to convey my thoughts into words. I'm trying to look at what really forms the individual consciousness. If we die, and the synapses and neurons in our brain quit firing, the energy from them gets transferred elsewhere. Recreating those same exact configurations of neurons and synapses would only make a copy of what I consider to be "me". My question is this, would one have to actually find the energy that dissipated from my body after death to recreate my individual consciousness? Or is the material that comprises our brain not important, but rather it's configuration?
Thanks for posting, Trogdor and Scott, A reply is coming when I get back.
I mean I cant really say for sure until we define
QuoteSo what exactly is consciousness?
So we can set the limits when something has it and when something looses it and more.
Based of what I think (make stuff up time for me) it is if I where able to copy people I would just guess that both of them would be different in consciousness as in they would not think the same things at the same time and do the same things. They would be two different minds that will act interdependently.
If I was able to copy a part of some ones brain and place in that copy instantaneously over the original I would also guess they would be the same consciousness.
If I was able to copy all of the brain and place in that copy instantaneously over the original I would also guess they would be technically a new consciousnesses by what I think but I believe their behavior after words would be the same as if it would have never happened.
Quote from: Jake on November 09, 2011, 07:32:21 PM
I hope you weren't replying to me, because this is more than apparent. Although words can be subjective, I'd hope that you at least understand my intentions when using the words "person" or "you" and "me". I am referring to the collection of brain cells that form our personality and thought processes. It helps to use a little bit of common sense when it comes to general meanings behind words, unless you're the kind of person that assumes someones arm has been cut off every time you hear a person dies on the news.
Although in fairness, "person" can commonly be taken in three ways: Mind or body or both.
I understand if you didn't get my post. Sometimes it's hard to convey my thoughts into words. I'm trying to look at what really forms the individual consciousness. If we die, and the synapses and neurons in our brain quit firing, the energy from them gets transferred elsewhere. Recreating those same exact configurations of neurons and synapses would only make a copy of what I consider to be "me". My question is this, would one have to actually find the energy that dissipated from my body after death to recreate my individual consciousness? Or is the material that comprises our brain not important, but rather it's configuration?
Thanks for posting, Trogdor and Scott, A reply is coming when I get back.
No you would not have to find the energy from the dissipated body. Atoms are identical. I'd say the configuration is what is important, because if the specific atoms are important, then everyone is technically not the same person they were born as.
Quote from: Scotty on November 09, 2011, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 09, 2011, 03:33:33 PM
What would it take to resurrect someone?
Manual restoration of dead tissue. As soon as blood stops pumping, tissue begins to decay (well, technically it begins to decay as soon as blood flow is retarded, not when it stops outright). Decay enough and it fails to function which means death. Once you can reanimate or restore the dead tissue with live tissue so that it functions again, theoretically you can bring back life.
Problem is, it'd be completely new tissue. Meaning the person that got revived would be completely different than the person that died. Even if the tissue was copied before death, it'd only be a clone of the person that died. That's why I'm trying to figure out exactly what it would require, however physically impossible, to reanimate the same exact person that died, even if it's only theoretical and we have no actual way of doing it yet.
I
Quoten seriousness though, this topic delves into a certain level of neurology that even the world's brightest minds (no pun in intended) have been trying to discover for decades. Heck, we can't even justify sleep fully when it comes to the brain's natural requirement for it. I don't imagine anyone here is able to dissect the cause/effect relationship of consciousness. As it stands right now the different theories regarding copying of the brain isn't even a medical possibility at this point.
Oh yeah, no doubt. My questions are under the the theoretical assumption that we can copy ones brain. Yes, it's completely implausible right now, but important for me to discuss none-the-less.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 09, 2011, 04:11:40 PM
I guess my answer would be both yes and no. Yes, you could have exact copies of a brain and say that both hold the exact same personality in each. But once you allow the brains to become subjected to new experiences, they would no longer be the same person.
I agree with your stance, but lets look at one brain in particular. Lets say we cloned the original brain to be used for parts. Every day, we take a part out of the original brain and replace it with a part from the cloned brain that does the exact same thing. After a long period of time, eventually the original brain would have 100% copied parts. The entire experience would be completely seamless for the person of the original brain, yet at the end, the brain would be completely different. At what point does the original individual cease to exist? Do they even cease to exist or would the individual comprised of the original brain simply occupy a new brain now?
Quote from: Yankyal on November 09, 2011, 09:54:36 PM
No you would not have to find the energy from the dissipated body. Atoms are identical. I'd say the configuration is what is important, because if the specific atoms are important, then everyone is technically not the same person they were born as.
Which is actually possible. You could be a completely different individual than you used to be, but you wouldn't know it because your memory says otherwise. Scary huh?
In fact, our brains could be making new instances of individuals to occupy it every single second, but the current individual wouldn't know because it has access to all the memories before it. During the writing of this paragraph, 50 instances of what I consider to be "me" could have come and gone, and each next instance would never even know. Jesus christ thats terrifying.
Quote from: Jake on November 09, 2011, 10:14:26 PM
Quote from: Yankyal on November 09, 2011, 09:54:36 PM
No you would not have to find the energy from the dissipated body. Atoms are identical. I'd say the configuration is what is important, because if the specific atoms are important, then everyone is technically not the same person they were born as.
Which is actually possible. You could be a completely different individual than you used to be, but you wouldn't know it because your memory says otherwise. Scary huh?
In fact, our brains could be making new instances of individuals to occupy it every single second, but the current individual wouldn't know because it has access to all the memories before it. During the writing of this paragraph, 50 instances of what I consider to be "me" could have come and gone, and each next instance would never even know. Jesus christ thats terrifying.
Look at monozygotic twins for a more visual reference of this. In some cases, they have been found to be near genetically identical. Despite being near clones of each other, the atoms and connections in the brain would create differently at random, causing major differences to form late life and yet next to no differences early life were present. At least, this is what I think you're getting at?
Quote from: T-Rok on November 10, 2011, 12:26:13 AM
Quote from: Jake on November 09, 2011, 10:14:26 PM
Quote from: Yankyal on November 09, 2011, 09:54:36 PM
No you would not have to find the energy from the dissipated body. Atoms are identical. I'd say the configuration is what is important, because if the specific atoms are important, then everyone is technically not the same person they were born as.
Which is actually possible. You could be a completely different individual than you used to be, but you wouldn't know it because your memory says otherwise. Scary huh?
In fact, our brains could be making new instances of individuals to occupy it every single second, but the current individual wouldn't know because it has access to all the memories before it. During the writing of this paragraph, 50 instances of what I consider to be "me" could have come and gone, and each next instance would never even know. Jesus christ thats terrifying.
Look at monozygotic twins for a more visual reference of this. In some cases, they have been found to be near genetically identical. Despite being near clones of each other, the atoms and connections in the brain would create differently at random, causing major differences to form late life and yet next to no differences early life were present. At least, this is what I think you're getting at?
Not in my last post. I was referring to the fact that your mind could essentially be dieing and creating a new you every second and you wouldn't even realize it.
Quote from: Jake on November 09, 2011, 10:07:36 PM
Quote from: Trogdor on November 09, 2011, 04:11:40 PM
I guess my answer would be both yes and no. Yes, you could have exact copies of a brain and say that both hold the exact same personality in each. But once you allow the brains to become subjected to new experiences, they would no longer be the same person.
I agree with your stance, but lets look at one brain in particular. Lets say we cloned the original brain to be used for parts. Every day, we take a part out of the original brain and replace it with a part from the cloned brain that does the exact same thing. After a long period of time, eventually the original brain would have 100% copied parts. The entire experience would be completely seamless for the person of the original brain, yet at the end, the brain would be completely different. At what point does the original individual cease to exist? Do they even cease to exist or would the individual comprised of the original brain simply occupy a new brain now?
If the experience was seamless and unrecognizable to the person having parts of their brain replaced by copies, then I don't see any reason why the exact same neural networks would act any differently.
This actually happens on a daily basis in nature. On average, it takes roughly a year to replace 100% of the atoms in our bodies. In this time we would have an entirely "new" brains. Even though neurons are never replaced, the atoms they're comprised of will eventually be replaced through periodic maintenance. Hell, right at this very moment in time you're not even 100% "you". A whopping 30% of your body weight comes from the colonies of bacteria, viruses, parasites, and other welcome or unwelcome tenants that inhabit our bodies. Even more surprising is that the bacteria living on and in our bodies outnumbers our own cells 10 to 1. If we were going for quantity over quality, we'd become the bacteria on the host that was once ourselves!
I suppose from where the notion of a Self manifests would be the basis of this argument. The way I see it, I believe our Self is simply the product of our own intricate web of neural networks that have been conditioned to react to certain environmental stimuli in more or less the same way. We identify who we are by the frequency of specific neural networks that are being engaged, and then reinforce that behavior in order to cultivate an easily identifiable personality that we can call our own.
Of course, a soul, spirit or other ethereal entity could influence how you act in your physical body. But that's an entirely different discussion.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 12:38:22 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 09, 2011, 10:07:36 PM
Quote from: Trogdor on November 09, 2011, 04:11:40 PM
I guess my answer would be both yes and no. Yes, you could have exact copies of a brain and say that both hold the exact same personality in each. But once you allow the brains to become subjected to new experiences, they would no longer be the same person.
I agree with your stance, but lets look at one brain in particular. Lets say we cloned the original brain to be used for parts. Every day, we take a part out of the original brain and replace it with a part from the cloned brain that does the exact same thing. After a long period of time, eventually the original brain would have 100% copied parts. The entire experience would be completely seamless for the person of the original brain, yet at the end, the brain would be completely different. At what point does the original individual cease to exist? Do they even cease to exist or would the individual comprised of the original brain simply occupy a new brain now?
If the experience was seamless and unrecognizable to the person having parts of their brain replaced by copies, then I don't see any reason why the exact same neural networks would act any differently.
This actually happens on a daily basis in nature. On average, it takes roughly a year to replace 100% of the atoms in our bodies. In this time we would have an entirely "new" brains. Even though neurons are never replaced, the atoms they're comprised of will eventually be replaced through periodic maintenance. Hell, right at this very moment in time you're not even 100% "you". A whopping 30% of your body weight comes from the colonies of bacteria, viruses, parasites, and other welcome or unwelcome tenants that inhabit our bodies. Even more surprising is that the bacteria living on and in our bodies outnumbers our own cells 10 to 1. If we were going for quantity over quality, we'd become the bacteria on the host that was once ourselves!
So is there a difference between somebody that has slowly replaced parts of their brain over time with copied parts, and an altogether copied brain? In the end, they both turn into the same thing, yet the arguments I've heard basically state that the copied brain would be having new experiences, therefore becoming a different person, while the original brain being replaced with copied parts would maintain the same person within it. If the end result is the same in both experiments, why do both brains now have different instances of people occupying them?
This leads me to my next question. If we agree that the specific atoms that comprise the brain are not important but rather the configuration of those atoms, then could you not copy your brain and kill yourself at the exact same time, and basically wake up inside the new brain as the same consciousness that occupied the old one? If that would not work, then you must also admit that the specific atoms that form the brain are actually intertwined with that specific form of consciousness.
QuoteOf course, a soul, spirit or other ethereal entity could influence how you act in your physical body. But that's an entirely different discussion.
Too often I believe that's a cop out, although I'm not denying the possibility.
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 01:46:52 PM
So is there a difference between somebody that has slowly replaced parts of their brain over time with copied parts, and an altogether copied brain? In the end, they both turn into the same thing, yet the arguments I've heard basically state that the copied brain would be having new experiences, therefore becoming a different person, while the original brain being replaced with copied parts would maintain the same person within it. If the end result is the same in both experiments, why do both brains now have different instances of people occupying them?
I think something was lost in the translation. I thought you were asking if a brain was cloned from another, but both were allowed to exist simultaneously, then they would no longer be the same brain. You're absolutely right about replacing parts of a brain with cloned parts over a period of time being equivalent to replacing the entire brain at once with the copy.
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 01:46:52 PM
This leads me to my next question. If we agree that the specific atoms that comprise the brain are not important but rather the configuration of those atoms, then could you not copy your brain and kill yourself at the exact same time, and basically wake up inside the new brain as the same consciousness that occupied the old one? If that would not work, then you must also admit that the specific atoms that form the brain are actually intertwined with that specific form of consciousness.
This is where things get sticky. I would have to say yes, the same consciousness would awake in the new one once the old one died.
Let me explain why I think this way. First off, we must consider that consciousness isn't exclusive to biologically living beings. A famous experiment called the Double Split Experiment more or less demonstrates that even subatomic particles, such as electrons, possess some level of awareness. I know, sounds far-fetched. In the experiment, an electron was shot through both a single slit plate and a double slit plate. Behind the plate was a thin metal sheet to detect where each electron had landed. When using the single slit plate, the electron behaved like a particle, and made a single stripe of spots where the electrons had landed - which is quite understandable. When using the double slit plate, the electron behaved like a wave and made interference patterns along the metal sheet, which only demonstrated the duality of an electron's ability to be both a wave and a particle. However, once a measuring device was implemented to track which slit each electron went through, it went back to behaving like a particle. The very act of measuring completely changed how the electron was acting. No other outside force was acting upon the electron, so it ultimately chose to behave differently. That's really the only explanation quantum physicists have.
If every particle possesses some level of awareness or consciousness, then the brain can be seen as the filter through which perception occurs. The brain isn't so much the seat of consciousness as much as it is the maestro that interprets and orchestrates the collective consciousness of the human body. The brain is merely the lens through which consciousness perceives, and like with any lens I don't see why it can't be replaced with an exact copy of another.
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 01:46:52 PMQuoteOf course, a soul, spirit or other ethereal entity could influence how you act in your physical body. But that's an entirely different discussion.
Too often I believe that's a cop out, although I'm not denying the possibility.
I'm the same way. I prefer factual evidence, but I also believe keeping an open mind is important.
Edit: I found a video to help explain the experiment I mentioned, since I'm not doing much justice to it by trying to explain it in words. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc)
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 03:04:30 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 01:46:52 PM
So is there a difference between somebody that has slowly replaced parts of their brain over time with copied parts, and an altogether copied brain? In the end, they both turn into the same thing, yet the arguments I've heard basically state that the copied brain would be having new experiences, therefore becoming a different person, while the original brain being replaced with copied parts would maintain the same person within it. If the end result is the same in both experiments, why do both brains now have different instances of people occupying them?
I think something was lost in the translation. I thought you were asking if a brain was cloned from another, but both were allowed to exist simultaneously, then they would no longer be the same brain. You're absolutely right about replacing parts of a brain with cloned parts over a period of time being equivalent to replacing the entire brain at once with the copy.
I apologize for creating that confusion. I guess I should have been a little more clear in what I was trying to convey, but it can be hard sometimes :p. Anyway, now that we have established that a brain with entirely copied parts is the same as a copied brain (I don't wish to use the word "established" as necessarily meaning it's true. This is simply for discussion purposes), at what point does the brain that's receiving new parts become a new consciousness? And if you do believe it creates a new consciousness, why does the simple act of aging not create a new consciousness. After all, I can not see the difference between our brains recreating itself and scientists replacing parts of our brain with copied parts. And if you don't believe it creates a new consciousness, then the idea that the copied brain and the brain that used copied parts over time are the same, is now a contradiction, because we have accepted that a copied brain functioning on it's own has a new consciousness. Now do you see my dilemma? At some point there's a contradiction, and I'm trying to find out why.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 03:04:30 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 01:46:52 PM
This leads me to my next question. If we agree that the specific atoms that comprise the brain are not important but rather the configuration of those atoms, then could you not copy your brain and kill yourself at the exact same time, and basically wake up inside the new brain as the same consciousness that occupied the old one? If that would not work, then you must also admit that the specific atoms that form the brain are actually intertwined with that specific form of consciousness.
This is where things get sticky. I would have to say yes, the same consciousness would awake in the new one once the old one died.
Let me explain why I think this way. First off, we must consider that consciousness isn't exclusive to biologically living beings. A famous experiment called the Double Split Experiment more or less demonstrates that even subatomic particles, such as electrons, possess some level of awareness. I know, sounds far-fetched. In the experiment, an electron was shot through both a single slit plate and a double slit plate. Behind the plate was a thin metal sheet to detect where each electron had landed. When using the single slit plate, the electron behaved like a particle, and made a single stripe of spots where the electrons had landed - which is quite understandable. When using the double slit plate, the electron behaved like a wave and made interference patterns along the metal sheet, which only demonstrated the duality of an electron's ability to be both a wave and a particle. However, once a measuring device was implemented to track which slit each electron went through, it went back to behaving like a particle. The very act of measuring completely changed how the electron was acting. No other outside force was acting upon the electron, so it ultimately chose to behave differently. That's really the only explanation quantum physicists have.
If every particle possesses some level of awareness or consciousness, then the brain can be seen as the filter through which perception occurs. The brain isn't so much the seat of consciousness as much as it is the maestro that interprets and orchestrates the collective consciousness of the human body. The brain is merely the lens through which consciousness perceives, and like with any lens I don't see why it can't be replaced with an exact copy of another.
I don't believe scientists are actually implying that individual particles have consciousness. Yes, they act very strangely at quantum levels, but there's no evidence to say they have any form of intelligence as far as I know. I've seen that video a year or two ago, and it never ceases to amaze me. The quantum world is very mysterious and exciting. I'm also glad you brought it up, because I think it supports the idea that space and time aren't what they appear to be and our consciousness is intricately entwined. Over the past couple of years, I've been trying to understand what it actually means to be conscious and how it works, and the more I learn about it, the more I realize that there's so much more to it than meets the eye. What if the configurations of atoms that form our consciousness act very similarly to a pointer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointer_(computing)) that is referring to data stored elsewhere in memory. Atoms would basically be the individual parameters of the pointer that are used to point to an individual consciousness ID that exists somewhere we are still unsure of. How else could consciousness warp from one brain to the next, through space and time, simply because it has the same configuration?
@Jake
Have you ever thought of applying cause your thinking of to any other piece of matter we consider non living?
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 03:04:30 PM
Let me explain why I think this way. First off, we must consider that consciousness isn't exclusive to biologically living beings. A famous experiment called the Double Split Experiment more or less demonstrates that even subatomic particles, such as electrons, possess some level of awareness. I know, sounds far-fetched. In the experiment, an electron was shot through both a single slit plate and a double slit plate. Behind the plate was a thin metal sheet to detect where each electron had landed. When using the single slit plate, the electron behaved like a particle, and made a single stripe of spots where the electrons had landed - which is quite understandable. When using the double slit plate, the electron behaved like a wave and made interference patterns along the metal sheet, which only demonstrated the duality of an electron's ability to be both a wave and a particle. However, once a measuring device was implemented to track which slit each electron went through, it went back to behaving like a particle. The very act of measuring completely changed how the electron was acting. No other outside force was acting upon the electron, so it ultimately chose to behave differently. That's really the only explanation quantum physicists have.
If every particle possesses some level of awareness or consciousness, then the brain can be seen as the filter through which perception occurs. The brain isn't so much the seat of consciousness as much as it is the maestro that interprets and orchestrates the collective consciousness of the human body. The brain is merely the lens through which consciousness perceives, and like with any lens I don't see why it can't be replaced with an exact copy of another.
Double Split Experiment is not so much as people make it out to be. If you understand the measuring device they use to find out it becomes quite obvious why the end results are different when you don't have the tool there. We have to interfere with it to detect it which in case changing its behavior. You can say the tool gets in the way. But most of the time it ends up worded as "it makes it decide" makes it seem like it made a choice.
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 04:23:13 PM
I apologize for creating that confusion. I guess I should have been a little more clear in what I was trying to convey, but it can be hard sometimes :p. Anyway, now that we have established that a brain with entirely copied parts is the same as a copied brain (I don't wish to use the word "established" as necessarily meaning it's true. This is simply for discussion purposes), at what point does the brain that's receiving new parts become a new consciousness? And if you do believe it creates a new consciousness, why does the simple act of aging not create a new consciousness. After all, I can not see the difference between our brains recreating itself and scientists replacing parts of our brain with copied parts. And if you don't believe it creates a new consciousness, then the idea that the copied brain and the brain that used copied parts over time are the same, is now a contradiction, because we have accepted that a copied brain functioning on it's own has a new consciousness. Now do you see my dilemma? At some point there's a contradiction, and I'm trying to find out why.
Oh no, the brain can still receive new parts while still maintaining the same configuration, and thus the same consciousness. That's all it really boils down to is how the neural network is set up. And aging doesn't create a new consciousness as much as it creates an evolved form of consciousness, from wisdom gleaned through learning and experience.
It's hard to pin down something as elusive as consciousness, because in spite of it appearing permanent in one's life, it's forever changing. Take a river for example. Even though a river may have been in the same geographic location for thousands of years, you can still never step into that same river twice. Consciousness is more of a stream of awareness than something as rigid as the confines of the human brain, but sadly that's the only physical evidence we have to work with. For argument's sake I'll just say that consciousness would be the same even after the brain has all of its components replaced with exact copies.
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 04:23:13 PM
I don't believe scientists are actually implying that individual particles have consciousness. Yes, they act very strangely at quantum levels, but there's no evidence to say they have any form of intelligence as far as I know.
I suppose it's strange to think that particles have consciousness. But if they don't, then where does it come from? We could argue it comes from the human brain, but the brain is just the collection of billions of neuron cells. These cells possess consciousness in order to carry out their functions, and react accordingly to their environment. Inside of these cells, smaller beings such as mitochondria and other organelles possess some form of consciousness to provide the cell at large with its needs.
Where does consciousness cease to exist, and from where does it manifest? If a particle lacks awareness, but mitochondria don't, what makes those specific arrangements of atoms suddenly become aware? You can't have something out of nothing, so it seems reasonable to say that some form of latent awareness must exist in even the most basic building blocks of matter in order to build up to the supercomputer that is the human brain.
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 04:23:13 PMI think it's definitely within the realm of possibility that the configurations that form our consciousness act very similarly to a pointer that is referring to data stored elsewhere in memory. Atoms would basically be the individual parameters of the pointer that are used to point to an individual consciousness ID that exists somewhere we are still unsure of. I'm still very obviously unsure of any of this, but it seems to be a necessity if the atoms themselves do not hold anything to do with the individual consciousness ID.
That's a very interesting theory. What would happen once those atoms were replaced by new ones, either naturally or artificially? Would it still be able to seek out the same ID?
@Art: Yes, I understand that argument hinges on the fact whether the device interfered or not, although even if it did I don't see why the electron wouldn't interfere with itself anyways and make a wave interference pattern. I'm just assuming that the physicists know what they're doing when they present their findings, and wouldn't suggest the electron behaving differently if they had, in fact, interfered.
Anyway I really want to know what you all think consciousness is. I see a lot of what you all think will happen to if it x happens but not so much of what it really is. Non the less I think we can get a different perspective if we thought about this with different pieces of matter. A computer for example.
Quote@Art: Yes, I understand that argument hinges on the fact whether the device interfered or not, although even if it did I don't see why the electron wouldn't interfere with itself anyways and make a wave interference pattern. I'm just assuming that the physicists know what they're doing when they present their findings, and wouldn't suggest the electron behaving differently if they had, in fact, interfered.
I'm not sure you fully understand whats going on there. Non the less I feel maybe you should use better models your can relate to support your points. (which i know is a little silly coming from a man who has a trollface in there sig :P and if anything do it just because of the idea of that)
I like reading about these topics, and reading what you guys have to say about them. Although I am not quite educated enough to understand all of this, maybe I can think of something to post about it in a bit. I don't really know anything about this sort of thing though.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 05:20:46 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 04:23:13 PM
I apologize for creating that confusion. I guess I should have been a little more clear in what I was trying to convey, but it can be hard sometimes :p. Anyway, now that we have established that a brain with entirely copied parts is the same as a copied brain (I don't wish to use the word "established" as necessarily meaning it's true. This is simply for discussion purposes), at what point does the brain that's receiving new parts become a new consciousness? And if you do believe it creates a new consciousness, why does the simple act of aging not create a new consciousness. After all, I can not see the difference between our brains recreating itself and scientists replacing parts of our brain with copied parts. And if you don't believe it creates a new consciousness, then the idea that the copied brain and the brain that used copied parts over time are the same, is now a contradiction, because we have accepted that a copied brain functioning on it's own has a new consciousness. Now do you see my dilemma? At some point there's a contradiction, and I'm trying to find out why.
Oh no, the brain can still receive new parts while still maintaining the same configuration, and thus the same consciousness. That's all it really boils down to is how the neural network is set up. And aging doesn't create a new consciousness as much as it creates an evolved form of consciousness, from wisdom gleaned through learning and experience.
Yeah I agree with that. My point with aging was that eventually the brain is going to be using entirely different atoms than it started with. It's not just evolving, but recreating itself all the time too. That, in my mind, opens up questions as to what is actually maintaining our single stream of consciousness. Is it possible that our brains are constantly getting new consciousness's to control them, but the current consciousness at the time would never know it wasn't always the one in control because it has all the memories of the consciousness before it. What you consider to be "you" could have just started existing two days ago but you would never even know.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 05:20:46 PMIt's hard to pin down something as elusive as consciousness, because in spite of it appearing permanent in one's life, it's forever changing. Take a river for example. Even though a river may have been in the same geographic location for thousands of years, you can still never step into that same river twice. Consciousness is more of a stream of awareness than something as rigid as the confines of the human brain, but sadly that's the only physical evidence we have to work with.
Before reading this, I don't believe I had really thought of consciousness as a stream of awareness, but that makes perfect sense.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 05:20:46 PMFor argument's sake I'll just say that consciousness would be the same even after the brain has all of its components replaced with exact copies.
So then why would consciousness be different in a copied brain, if both the copied brain and the brain replaced with copied parts are exactly the same?
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 05:20:46 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 04:23:13 PM
I don't believe scientists are actually implying that individual particles have consciousness. Yes, they act very strangely at quantum levels, but there's no evidence to say they have any form of intelligence as far as I know.
I suppose it's strange to think that particles have consciousness. But if they don't, then where does it come from? We could argue it comes from the human brain, but the brain is just the collection of billions of neuron cells. These cells possess consciousness in order to carry out their functions, and react accordingly to their environment. Inside of these cells, smaller beings such as mitochondria and other organelles possess some form of consciousness to provide the cell at large with its needs.
Where does consciousness cease to exist, and from where does it manifest? If a particle lacks awareness, but mitochondria don't, what makes those specific arrangements of atoms suddenly become aware? You can't have something out of nothing, so it seems reasonable to say that some form of latent awareness must exist in even the most basic building blocks of matter in order to build up to the supercomputer that is the human brain.
I feel like this is pushing back the question of consciousness further, rather than actually trying to find answers. Mitochondria aren't conscious. They're most likely alive, but that's different from being self-aware. If particles need awareness to create the conscious brain, what creates awareness in the particles? It's basically the exact same question we're already asking, but needlessly getting pushed back. What you're referring to right now is known as the Hard Problem of Consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness). Just yesterday I read about it for a few hours, and I find it interesting that scientists are addressing the same points in the article that I have often thought about. Unfortunately, they get about as far as I can in explaining qualitative phenomenon. The hard problem of consciousness can basically be summed up in one question: "Why should physical processing give rise to any inner life at all?". Some scientists believe consciousness arises from properties of the metaphysical universe. Physicalists (I believe that's the word) believe all qualitative experiences through consciousness can be fully described by the physical universe. I suggest everybody read about the hard problem of consciousness, as well as Qualia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia) and Philisophical zombies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie). All three articles are a very interesting and eye-opening read.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 05:20:46 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 04:23:13 PMI think it's definitely within the realm of possibility that the configurations that form our consciousness act very similarly to a pointer that is referring to data stored elsewhere in memory. Atoms would basically be the individual parameters of the pointer that are used to point to an individual consciousness ID that exists somewhere we are still unsure of. I'm still very obviously unsure of any of this, but it seems to be a necessity if the atoms themselves do not hold anything to do with the individual consciousness ID.
That's a very interesting theory. What would happen once those atoms were replaced by new ones, either naturally or artificially? Would it still be able to seek out the same ID?
Honestly, I can't even begin to say, out of possibly looking incredibly stupid. I just figured a pointer system makes some sense because it seems that our consciousnesses are defined through configurations of atoms, while the atoms themselves don't actually have any meaning. If our consciousness retains a single stream despite obtaining brand new atoms to run it all the time, I thought there might need to be some kind of constant somewhere.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 05:20:46 PM
@Art: Yes, I understand that argument hinges on the fact whether the device interfered or not, although even if it did I don't see why the electron wouldn't interfere with itself anyways and make a wave interference pattern. I'm just assuming that the physicists know what they're doing when they present their findings, and wouldn't suggest the electron behaving differently if they had, in fact, interfered.
I'm in the same boat as you. I got the idea that the measuring device wasn't in any way interfering with the particles other than observing them.
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 07:58:39 PM
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 05:20:46 PMFor argument's sake I'll just say that consciousness would be the same even after the brain has all of its components replaced with exact copies.
So then why would consciousness be different in a copied brain, if both the copied brain and the brain replaced with copied parts are exactly the same?
Because the brains are in different environments and thus act differently. They would not be exactly the same because creating 2 objects that have the same exact traits is impossible because their coordinates are not the same. If every single detail about the two brains were the same, they would have to be in the same place, so it would just be one object.
Honestly though, what definition are you using for consciousness? There are hundreds of interpretations on what it means to be conscious.
Quote from: Yankyal on November 10, 2011, 08:21:32 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 07:58:39 PM
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 05:20:46 PMFor argument's sake I'll just say that consciousness would be the same even after the brain has all of its components replaced with exact copies.
So then why would consciousness be different in a copied brain, if both the copied brain and the brain replaced with copied parts are exactly the same?
Because the brains are in different environments and thus act differently. They would not be exactly the same because creating 2 objects that have the same exact traits is impossible because their coordinates are not the same. If every single detail about the two brains were the same, they would have to be in the same place, so it would just be one object.
It's not the position of the brain in the world that matters but rather the atoms configuration relative to each other within the brain. That argument also implies that our own brains would no longer be the same after shifting coordinates.
Quote
Honestly though, what definition are you using for consciousness? There are hundreds of interpretations on what it means to be conscious.
Awareness, subjectivity, the relationship between mind and world, the ability to experience, the ability to experience qualitative phenomenons unexplained by the physical world.
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 09:06:11 PM
Quote from: Yankyal on November 10, 2011, 08:21:32 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 07:58:39 PM
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 05:20:46 PMFor argument's sake I'll just say that consciousness would be the same even after the brain has all of its components replaced with exact copies.
So then why would consciousness be different in a copied brain, if both the copied brain and the brain replaced with copied parts are exactly the same?
Because the brains are in different environments and thus act differently. They would not be exactly the same because creating 2 objects that have the same exact traits is impossible because their coordinates are not the same. If every single detail about the two brains were the same, they would have to be in the same place, so it would just be one object.
It's not the position of the brain in the world that matters but rather the atoms configuration relative to each other within the brain. That argument also implies that our own brains would no longer be the same after shifting coordinates.
I think that would be just reasonable as anything else suggested here. I have also been thinning the same thing he has also. For two things to be exactly the same it would have to be in the same place making it one object. And in a way something is no longer the same after you move it. This interests me. Maybe not just with moving but other factors that might seem unimportant.
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 07:58:39 PM
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 05:20:46 PM
@Art: Yes, I understand that argument hinges on the fact whether the device interfered or not, although even if it did I don't see why the electron wouldn't interfere with itself anyways and make a wave interference pattern. I'm just assuming that the physicists know what they're doing when they present their findings, and wouldn't suggest the electron behaving differently if they had, in fact, interfered.
I'm in the same boat as you. I got the idea that the measuring device wasn't in any way interfering with the particles other than observing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29
It explains the observation side a a bit more.
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 07:58:39 PM
My point with aging was that eventually the brain is going to be using entirely different atoms than it started with. It's not just evolving, but recreating itself all the time too. That, in my mind, opens up questions as to what is actually maintaining our single stream of consciousness. Is it possible that our brains are constantly getting new consciousness's to control them, but the current consciousness at the time would never know it wasn't always the one in control because it has all the memories of the consciousness before it. What you consider to be "you" could have just started existing two days ago but you would never even know.
That's exactly the predicament. Despite consciousness changing on a daily basis, we're still left with the remnants of its existence in the form of memories. Are we our memories, or are we the consciousness that was present at the time those memories were formed?
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 07:58:39 PM
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 05:20:46 PMFor argument's sake I'll just say that consciousness would be the same even after the brain has all of its components replaced with exact copies.
So then why would consciousness be different in a copied brain, if both the copied brain and the brain replaced with copied parts are exactly the same?
I don't think it would be different than the original brain. Both are interpreting the environment around themselves in exactly the same manner. The only way a brain and its copy could have differing forms of consciousness would be whether they were in two separate locations, like Yankyal and Art mentioned. Even our own brains wouldn't be the same as they were before moving, considering neural circuits are being created and broken to accommodate to the change in environment.
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 07:58:39 PM
I feel like this is pushing back the question of consciousness further, rather than actually trying to find answers. Mitochondria aren't conscious. They're most likely alive, but that's different from being self-aware. If particles need awareness to create the conscious brain, what creates awareness in the particles? It's basically the exact same question we're already asking, but needlessly getting pushed back. What you're referring to right now is known as the Hard Problem of Consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness).
Why would they not be conscious? By definition, every living being possesses some form of consciousness in order to interact with its environment. Of course they're not self-aware, but they still possess some form of awareness in order to carry out their function in a cell. It needs to obtain and then assess information about its surroundings in order to perpetuate life. I think what's tripping us up here is the notion that there's only one kind of consciousness. Even something as static as a tree possesses awareness, although on a totally different level than human awareness. It's aware of the position of the sun, the wind buffeting its branches, nutrient levels in the soil, etc. All of these factors would contribute towards how high or spread out the branches become, how deep the roots go, and so on.
The way I see it, both life and awareness are inextricably intertwined. The question here should be whether awareness is a product of life, or whether life is a product of awareness.
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 09:06:11 PM
Quote from: Yankyal on November 10, 2011, 08:21:32 PM
Quote from: Jake on November 10, 2011, 07:58:39 PM
Quote from: Trogdor on November 10, 2011, 05:20:46 PMFor argument's sake I'll just say that consciousness would be the same even after the brain has all of its components replaced with exact copies.
So then why would consciousness be different in a copied brain, if both the copied brain and the brain replaced with copied parts are exactly the same?
Because the brains are in different environments and thus act differently. They would not be exactly the same because creating 2 objects that have the same exact traits is impossible because their coordinates are not the same. If every single detail about the two brains were the same, they would have to be in the same place, so it would just be one object.
It's not the position of the brain in the world that matters but rather the atoms configuration relative to each other within the brain. That argument also implies that our own brains would no longer be the same after shifting coordinates.
Because it isn't the same after shifting coordinates. Gravity means every single particle in the universe has an affect on every other particle in the universe. The closer you are to something the more its gravity affects you. The difference is so small it's almost negligible but it can be used to argue that the two brains are not the same because their atoms would be affected differently by gravity due to coordinates. For them to be affected exactly the same by gravity, they would have to be in the exact same location.
relevant: does true randomness exists?
@Yankyal I think you kinda put your answer in the quote. :P
Quote from: ARTgames on November 11, 2011, 02:43:24 PM
relevant: does true randomness exists?
@Yankyal I think you kinda put your answer in the quote. :P
Fixed it! And also I don't know about true randomness, but I do know there are things that are unpredictable, like nuclear decay. There's probably truly random shit in quantum physics but I'm not going to try and talk about it when I know nothing on the matter.
Quote from: Yankyal on November 11, 2011, 03:39:56 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on November 11, 2011, 02:43:24 PM
relevant: does true randomness exists?
@Yankyal I think you kinda put your answer in the quote. :P
Fixed it! And also I don't know about true randomness, but I do know there are things that are unpredictable, like nuclear decay. There's probably truly random shit in quantum physics but I'm not going to try and talk about it when I know nothing on the matter.
I grew up in a religion where you are told that before you came to the earth, you were told everything you would do wrong, and everything that would happen. But yet you still have the choice to do what you want to do despite this. It's contradicting. But in that, true random does not exist according to it. Because you are told the choices you will make despite still having the choice to do so.
Lets move to the scientific side now. If you look at time as a circle, which you should do, everything that will happen has already happened and everything that has happened will happen. Time is a deception. As such, there is nothing random about it. If you were meant to get that LSB, no matter how many times you reverse time to try again, you will always get it. If we lived in the dimension of time instead of this 3rd dimension, we would see that, and this question of true random would not exist.
Jake, (and Art, and anyone else interested in the topic of "What is consciousness?") I recommend looking into the following: http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072
Not to get into the details (since I'm not completely familiar) but the idea is that our consciousness is formed on the structure of our minds. The very way our brain works determines our consciousness. Change it slightly, and our consciousness is altered.
Anyways, my take on this whole thing is that consciousness is fleeting. I think Jake touched on this a bit. We really could be new, speparate instances of our conscious every moment and it wouldn't make a difference. The question of whether the conscious would "transfer" to a clone or cloned brain really doesn't matter. I think a hint would be learned by the case where a perfect clone is made. It wouldn't be the same consciousness as the original. Not because it would start having new experiences or because the original still existed. The state of the original wouldn't have a bearing on the clone. It just simply wouldn't be the same consciousness. But, ultimately, what is interesting I think, is that from the clone's point of view it would be. So effectively, by creating a clone and killing the original, if neither of them knew what took place, it would appear that the consciousness had transferred into the clone (this is actually addressed in one of the story arcs in a webcomic I read called Shlock Mercenary. The main method of instant transportation actually makes a copy of the object travelling through the portal. There is a huge conspiracy because the creators of this portal capture the originals and destroy them. The effect is what I'm talking about here. It appears to the new version that they have just gone through a teleportation portal and they don't realize that they are actually copies. Of course, that's getting pretty scifi.)
It is similar with the idea of copying parts of the brain and ultimately replacing it. Since you wouldn't really be aware (given that the technology is in place for this) it wouldn't make a difference. You may ultimately be a new copy of your consciousness, but it wouldn't matter to you. You wouldn't perceive a difference. You might even say, you wouldn't be "conscious" of a difference. Eh?
I agree with what Lingus is saying.
It also makes me think about sleeping and waking up and how this comes into play.
Quote from: ARTgames on November 14, 2011, 04:40:33 PMIt also makes me think about sleeping and waking up and how this comes into play.
That's a good point. With a very slightly altered brain wave pattern you enter into a different state of consciousness. It is very interesting how the brain and the mind are interrellated. With slightly different brain chemistry, your personality can be greatly affected. It's little things like that that make it so difficult to understand.