Stick Online Forums

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 PM

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.

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

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 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. 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 and Philisophical zombies. 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.

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.