Am I the atoms that make me?

[Abe_the_Man]

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

Wow I hadn't thought of it that way. It's true of course. I can copy a blueprint without understanding what it is.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I've been wondering about these same things for years. Now even more so, since I cut back on drinking.

The question of the soul and consciousness are big ones in both philosophy and neural research. For as much as I've read about the topic the consensus seems to be (IMHO), except that thought is a function of the brain (duh?) and of all else, we have no bloody clue (yet).

Smart, but delusional people (again IMHO) have proffered answers in the form of myths and religions. It's nice to have answers, even though there is proof for the answers (not!).

I've been reading a lot lately about quantum theory. Perhaps the answers lies in some multi-dimensional reason. Perhaps we physically live in one universe, but think (exhibit consciousness) in another that's is currently undetectable. Who knows? Crack another beer and ponder.

Keep with the skepticism and atheism and hang in there. I hope something conclusive is found in my lifetime, and I ain't getting any younger.

Charlie (I stink, therefore I am) Monoxide

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

Then where is the consciousness? And why wouldn't a perfect simulation suck it in like a real brain does? What if I slowly replace the brain with electronic modules? When does the consciousness disconnect?

And, of course, how do I tell if someone else is experiencing what I think of as consciousness, except possibly by asking?

~~ Paul

 

[The_Animus]

You are not the atoms you are the pattern.

The wave is not the water.

Beautifully said. It is not the smallest particles of existence that matter, but the way in which they are combined.

Consciousness exists no more than the word speed does, it is a description of something, and in fact usually a lot of somethings.

One wonders how this forum thrives without consciousness.

 

[Puppycow]

There is no self only a series of discrete events.

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

You are limited to the interactions of a physical body.

It seems like that first statement is contradicted by the second. If there is no "self" then what exactly is limited to a physical body?

 

[Puppycow]

I think a better (i.e. more encompassing) philosophical question is, "Who am I?"

In the normal sense of the word "who," that is usually a pretty straigtforward question, no? The straightforward and complete answer being "I am [insert your name here]."
Is there more to "who" than that?

 

[Puppycow]

Have you heard of Dan Dennett's book, Consciousness Explained? It touches a lot on what you're asking.

I'll have to look into that.

 

[Puppycow]

It's nice to have answers, even though there is proof for the answers (not!).

 

[Tricky]

I'm afraid I've had similar experiences with people, especially myself after getting woken up by a phone call.

I have a sister who is into extreme sleepwalking. Sometimes you'll get up at night and she'll be wandering around the house. You can speak to her and she will reply, but her reply will usually make little sense. You are essentially intruding on her dream, but unless you are paying close attention, it may appear that she is responding with some sort of reasoning.

Is she conscious? She sure doesn't rembember any of it.

 

[Roboramma]

Dennett gives a good perspective on this. Here's the end of a cool lecture. Watching the whole thing would be even better, but I think you can get the point just by watching the end here:

 

[Complexity]

Dennett rocks. His work is well worth reading. Be prepared to think.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

In the normal sense of the word "who," that is usually a pretty straigtforward question, no? The straightforward and complete answer being "I am [insert your name here]."
Is there more to "who" than that?

I am my name? There are plenty of other people with the same name as me.

 

[Checkmite]

You can never be too sure. He might have had the Logical Goddess take over your gravitons.

Watch it - you don't want to end up in the Abyss, A-Theist.

 

[Michael C]

What if I slowly replace the brain with electronic modules?

An interesting idea. First, let's imagine that it's possible to make a robot that is exactly like me: it has the same mental and physical aptitudes, the same personality, it looks like me and it sounds like me. It would not actually be me: it would exist separately from me, like an identical twin. I could have a conversation with it. If we accept that the robot is conscious it will have it's own feeling of "me".

Now, imagine I am progressively replaced by robotic parts. We might start with limbs, then go on to body and internal organs, ending with the brain, which is slowly replaced with modules. At the end we will have a robot identical to the first one, but with one very important difference: this robot will actually be me. I will continue thinking, moving and talking with my robotic parts and electronic brain, keeping my sensation of being "me".

Could this work? We don't yet have the technology to do this, but I can't see a reason why it shouldn't be possible to develop it. Could I go on existing as a robot, or is there some indivisible part of the brain where "me" resides?

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Searle is an idiot. Consciousness is clearly an information process, because the only attributes it has are informational. Information processing is a physical phenomenon, because there isn't anything else in the Universe.

Searle (and other thinkers like him) only run into difficulty because they ascribe magical properties to consciousness. If you ascribe magical properties to anything, you're going to have as hard a time explaining it as Searle does with consciousness.

Take his Chinese Room example. Does the Chinese Room exhibit consciousness? Yes, clearly. It acts, by definition, just like a native Chinese speaker. Searle argues against the obvious by failing to locate consciousness when he takes the room apart - which is the fallacy of composition that Tricky pointed out.

 

[Puppycow]

Searle is an idiot. Consciousness is clearly an information process, because the only attributes it has are informational. Information processing is a physical phenomenon, because there isn't anything else in the Universe.

Searle (and other thinkers like him) only run into difficulty because they ascribe magical properties to consciousness. If you ascribe magical properties to anything, you're going to have as hard a time explaining it as Searle does with consciousness.

Take his Chinese Room example. Does the Chinese Room exhibit consciousness? Yes, clearly. It acts, by definition, just like a native Chinese speaker. Searle argues against the obvious by failing to locate consciousness when he takes the room apart - which is the fallacy of composition that Tricky pointed out.

Very interesting. So raw matter and energy can be considered information, can't it? In fact there might be some sort of consciousness (not like what we experience of course) in matter itself, and its organization into a brain is what makes that consciousness intelligent and sensible.

I've also wondered if individual cells might not also have a rudimentary consciousness. Again, nothing like ours, but a very tiny little bit of consciousness, unable to reason at a high level, but will some simple feelings.

 

[Dancing David]

Beautifully said. It is not the smallest particles of existence that matter, but the way in which they are combined.

One wonders how this forum thrives without consciousness.

The fact of somethings existance and the explanation given vary, some rationalizations are more valid than others. There does not have to be an over-construct of consciousness for communication to occur.

 

[Dancing David]

It seems like that first statement is contradicted by the second. If there is no "self" then what exactly is limited to a physical body?

The events conflated with the self.

 

[Dancing David]

An interesting idea. First, let's imagine that it's possible to make a robot that is exactly like me: it has the same mental and physical aptitudes, the same personality, it looks like me and it sounds like me. It would not actually be me: it would exist separately from me, like an identical twin. I could have a conversation with it. If we accept that the robot is conscious it will have it's own feeling of "me".

Now, imagine I am progressively replaced by robotic parts. We might start with limbs, then go on to body and internal organs, ending with the brain, which is slowly replaced with modules. At the end we will have a robot identical to the first one, but with one very important difference: this robot will actually be me. I will continue thinking, moving and talking with my robotic parts and electronic brain, keeping my sensation of being "me".

Could this work? We don't yet have the technology to do this, but I can't see a reason why it shouldn't be possible to develop it. Could I go on existing as a robot, or is there some indivisible part of the brain where "me" resides?

There in no 'me', you are not the 'you' of the prior moment , nor are you the 'you' of the next moment , the continuity is an an illusion of the process.

The real question is , does it matter?

You know that the body as such will exist in the future, the thoughts as such will exist in the futre, etc... therefore it is a good idea to take care of the body, the thought, etc...

 

[Big Les]

Thanks to lots of booze, mine aren't.

Even jokes get debunked around here (at least, mine do, so I'm spreading the love!). Alcohol (at least, drinkable alcohol) doesn't kill brain cells.