Am I the atoms that make me?

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,133
Location
Yokohama, Japan
A question has been bugging me lately. I am an agnostic/atheist, and don't really believe in a soul or an afterlife.

But if there is no soul, I wonder why I have this subjective experience. I think the brain is probably what is having this experience, but what part of the brain? Are the atoms that make up the brain having this experience? I know the stuff that makes up our bodies gets replaced a lot, but what about the stuff that makes up the brain? Are most of the same atoms that made up my brain 20 years ago still in there? Is there some kind of potential consciousness in matter itself that becomes concious when it becomes a part of a living animal?

If not, then why should I be experiencing the life of this one particular person? If it's just the brain experiencing this, and the brain in turn is just a bunch of matter, then aren't those particular atoms somehow me?
 
You are not the atoms you are the pattern.

The wave is not the water.
 
Last edited:
Ocelot said:
You are not the atoms you are the pattern.

The wave is not the water.
Click to expand...

Interesting. But why do I experience this particular pattern and not yours, or a hornet's or a bat's or multiple patterns or all patterns in the universe?
 
Yes and no. Consciousness arises somehow out of atoms and energies out there in the real world. Hence a simulation of a brain would not give rise to an actual consciousness. At best you'd get a simulated consciousness, but it still wouldn't be "awake", so to speak.

Searle made this point clearly several decades ago. Consciousness is a very real, physical phenomenon. Therefore it cannot arise out of information passing, per se. Since we don't know how consciousness arises, a perfect physics simulation of the atoms and neurons would probably miss the part that is the consciousness itself.

Note that proposing some kind of religious-style spirit or soul doesn't solve this issue -- it merely introduces another realm where the physics may (or may not) be different.
 
Last edited:
Have you heard of Dan Dennett's book, Consciousness Explained? It touches a lot on what you're asking.
 
Henners said:
That is just flimsy speculation.

If it were a good enough simulation, how could you tell?
Click to expand...

Yes, very flimsy. In fact, all evidence points to the opposite conclusion, I would say.

The best illustration of why, I think, is the conversation in "Godel, Escher, and Bach" where the anteater explains the conversations it has had with an ant colony.
 
Beerina said:
Searle made this point clearly several decades ago. Consciousness is a very real, physical phenomenon. Therefore it cannot arise out of information passing, per se. Since we don't know how consciousness arises, a perfect physics simulation of the atoms and neurons would probably miss the part that is the consciousness itself.
Click to expand...

When you are chatting with someone online, do you consider them conscious? Yet your only interface to them is a little window that text appears in.

When you are asleep, are you conscious? Yet the atoms and neurons are the same ones present when you are awake.
 
Beerina said:
Yes and no. Consciousness arises somehow out of atoms and energies out there in the real world. Hence a simulation of a brain would not give rise to an actual consciousness. At best you'd get a simulated consciousness, but it still wouldn't be "awake", so to speak.

Searle made this point clearly several decades ago. Consciousness is a very real, physical phenomenon. Therefore it cannot arise out of information passing, per se. Since we don't know how consciousness arises, a perfect physics simulation of the atoms and neurons would probably miss the part that is the consciousness itself.

Note that proposing some kind of religious-style spirit or soul doesn't solve this issue -- it merely introduces another realm where the physics may (or may not) be different.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree. I think Searle is wrong.

I think that a perfect simulation would exhibit consciousness.

I think that consciousness is a phenomenon that can and will most likely arise in non-biological systems through an evolutionary process. Note that this does not require any understanding of what consciousness is.

I also think that consciousness will be understood by science someday sufficiently well to construct a system that exhibits consciousness.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
A question has been bugging me lately. I am an agnostic/atheist, and don't really believe in a soul or an afterlife.

But if there is no soul, I wonder why I have this subjective experience. I think the brain is probably what is having this experience, but what part of the brain? Are the atoms that make up the brain having this experience? I know the stuff that makes up our bodies gets replaced a lot, but what about the stuff that makes up the brain? Are most of the same atoms that made up my brain 20 years ago still in there? Is there some kind of potential consciousness in matter itself that becomes concious when it becomes a part of a living animal?

If not, then why should I be experiencing the life of this one particular person? If it's just the brain experiencing this, and the brain in turn is just a bunch of matter, then aren't those particular atoms somehow me?
Click to expand...

You have the complex interaction of all the parts.

Each part is replaced on a regular basis, there is the illusion of continutiy.

There is no self only a series of discrete events.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
Interesting. But why do I experience this particular pattern and not yours, or a hornet's or a bat's or multiple patterns or all patterns in the universe?
Click to expand...

Uh, hmm, are you someone else, are you a hornet or a bat.

You are limited to the interactions of a physical body.
 
Beerina said:
Yes and no. Consciousness arises somehow out of atoms and energies out there in the real world. Hence a simulation of a brain would not give rise to an actual consciousness. At best you'd get a simulated consciousness, but it still wouldn't be "awake", so to speak.
Click to expand...
A program that behaves as though it is conscious is conscious.
Searle made this point clearly several decades ago. Consciousness is a very real, physical phenomenon.
Click to expand...
No it isn't , it is a series of different events that get confalted as a single concept. Consciousness exists no more than the word speed does, it is a description of something, and in fact usually a lot of somethings.
:)
Therefore it cannot arise out of information passing, per se. Since we don't know how consciousness arises, a perfect physics simulation of the atoms and neurons would probably miss the part that is the consciousness itself.
Click to expand...
You need to study some neurology, there are a lot of seperate processes that make up consciousness, but it is not a seperate thing, it is just a word for a bunch of seperate processes. usually verbal cognition.
Note that proposing some kind of religious-style spirit or soul doesn't solve this issue -- it merely introduces another realm where the physics may (or may not) be different.
Click to expand...

There is nothing different, there is either one physics or dualism.
 
Last edited:
Complexity said:
I have to disagree. I think Searle is wrong.

I think that a perfect simulation would exhibit consciousness.

I think that consciousness is a phenomenon that can and will most likely arise in non-biological systems through an evolutionary process. Note that this does not require any understanding of what consciousness is.

I also think that consciousness will be understood by science someday sufficiently well to construct a system that exhibits consciousness.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree that a perfect simulation would exhibit signs of a consciousness but then you run into a new problem. Is this artificial simulation actually conscious? Or does it just appear to be conscious because that is how it is designed to appear? Some people I know 'appear' to be conscious but when they start talking I start to have doubts:D
 
The mind and the body are not one and not two.

Insert philosophical ramblings about things being greater than the sum of their parts and the emergent property.

I think a better (i.e. more encompassing) philosophical question is, "Who am I?"
 
Last edited:
Abe_the_Man said:
I tend to agree that a perfect simulation would exhibit signs of a consciousness but then you run into a new problem. Is this artificial simulation actually conscious? Or does it just appear to be conscious because that is how it is designed to appear? Some people I know 'appear' to be conscious but when they start talking I start to have doubts:D
Click to expand...


The perfect simulation would be conscious in exactly the same way that the original is conscious.

A perfect simulation is not designed, it is constructed to be a copy without the need for understanding how the original works.

I'm afraid I've had similar experiences with people, especially myself after getting woken up by a phone call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom