Personality and Copies

[Ferguson]

Maybe I should stay 'stop' and 'start' then.


I think consciousness is a process, not a thing. It is something the brain (and possibly other things) does. I think it can stop and start.

Yes it is something the brain does, and something the brain stops doing when it is destroyed.
Creating a new brain based on the old one will allow for a new consciousness that has the same memories and behavior (at least initially).
That there is someone out there with your memories does not bring you back to life. It brings someone who appears to be you to life.

 

[SOdhner]

I think consciousness is a process, not a thing. It is something the brain (and possibly other things) does. I think it can stop and start.

A process is a thing. Processing is an action. We're balancing on a fine line between relevant distinctions and pointless semantics, so let me just point at this other post:

Yes it is something the brain does, and something the brain stops doing when it is destroyed.
Creating a new brain based on the old one will allow for a new consciousness that has the same memories and behavior (at least initially).
That there is someone out there with your memories does not bring you back to life. It brings someone who appears to be you to life.

What he said.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Yes it is something the brain does, and something the brain stops doing when it is destroyed.
Creating a new brain based on the old one will allow for a new consciousness that has the same memories and behavior (at least initially).
That there is someone out there with your memories does not bring you back to life. It brings someone who appears to be you to life.

What is the difference between me and something exactly like me in every way?

 

[Ferguson]

What is the difference between me and something exactly like me in every way?

The difference is that one is "you" and one is "like you."

Without a teleporter, say I grow four clones of the same man. They are "exactly the same" but as result of their being four physical brains, there are four independent consciousnesses.
Will it be of any benefit to one of them, as I put the gun to his head, that there are three others "exactly like him in every way" out there in the world? Will his soul somehow be shared amongst the remaining "him"s out there?

 

[Third Eye Open]

The difference is that one is "you" and one is "like you."

I don't understand this difference.

Without a teleporter, say I grow four clones of the same man. They are "exactly the same" but as result of their being four physical brains, there are four independent consciousnesses.
Will it be of any benefit to one of them, as I put the gun to his head, that there are three others "exactly like him in every way" out there in the world?

I don't see how 'growing clones' relates to this thought experiment. And if all the clones are conscious, then after the instant the become conscious, they are different than each other, because they have had different experiences than each other.

Will his soul somehow be shared amongst the remaining "him"s out there?

I don't believe in a soul.

How about this: Using some kind of 'stasis' machine, every particle in your body is frozen in place, nothing is moving, no messages are sent between neurons, nothing. Then, a day later, you are unfrozen, and your body continues working as if from the moment it was stopped. Are you still 'you' in this case?

 

[SOdhner]

I don't understand this difference.

I don't understand how you don't understand. The idea that this distinction could be lost on you boggles my mind, and therefore it is difficult for me to explain further.

How about this: Using some kind of 'stasis' machine, every particle in your body is frozen in place, nothing is moving, no messages are sent between neurons, nothing. Then, a day later, you are unfrozen, and your body continues working as if from the moment it was stopped. Are you still 'you' in this case?

Awesome question! For certain purposes it would be more accurate to refer to this as the same person than it would for the new thing in the teleportation scenario, and for others it would be as much a new person. In the sense that is closest to the aspect of it that we have been talking about, I would have to say that it is not the same person, although I wouldn't be shocked if someone can convince me otherwise for any given real-life example.

If I woke up in a lab somewhere and was told that all brain activity had fully and truly ceased for some measurable amount of time, I would say that this is now the start of a new consciousness although since the body is the same and the memories are as valid as ever I would not press the issue, instead laying awake at night once in a while in the throes of a metaphysical crisis that I would never share with my friends and family. To say "he died" rather than "I died" would be more correct, but would serve only to worry people. In the teleporter example I would be more likely to say "he died" and argue the point with people.

 

[rocketdodger]

If I woke up in a lab somewhere and was told that all brain activity had fully and truly ceased for some measurable amount of time,

But this isn't what we are saying.

We are saying your brain activity is put in stasis -- it can't be said to "cease" because it can't be said to do anything. That is the definition of stasis. It is in a bubble isolated from the rest of causality and doesn't change at all.

 

[Third Eye Open]

I don't understand how you don't understand. The idea that this distinction could be lost on you boggles my mind, and therefore it is difficult for me to explain further.

If there were two exact copies existing at once, then I guess it would mean something to say they were not the same thing but only 'like' each other. But if you have one thing, then it is destroyed, then you create something that is exactly the same as it, how does it mean anything to say that it is not that thing? Is it missing some kind of 'essence of originality'?

Awesome question! For certain purposes it would be more accurate to refer to this as the same person than it would for the new thing in the teleportation scenario, and for others it would be as much a new person. In the sense that is closest to the aspect of it that we have been talking about, I would have to say that it is not the same person, although I wouldn't be shocked if someone can convince me otherwise for any given real-life example.

If I woke up in a lab somewhere and was told that all brain activity had fully and truly ceased for some measurable amount of time, I would say that this is now the start of a new consciousness although since the body is the same and the memories are as valid as ever I would not press the issue, instead laying awake at night once in a while in the throes of a metaphysical crisis that I would never share with my friends and family. To say "he died" rather than "I died" would be more correct, but would serve only to worry people. In the teleporter example I would be more likely to say "he died" and argue the point with people.

Interesting. Do you consider yourself to have died whenever you are put unconscious under anesthesia, and just wake up in a hospital room hours later?

 

[SOdhner]

But this isn't what we are saying.

We are saying your brain activity is put in stasis -- it can't be said to "cease" because it can't be said to do anything. That is the definition of stasis. It is in a bubble isolated from the rest of causality and doesn't change at all.

Ah. Well then no, that's fine and still the same person. Magical no-time bubbles are neat.

Interesting. Do you consider yourself to have died whenever you are put unconscious under anesthesia, and just wake up in a hospital room hours later?

No. You seem to be confusing consciousness (the state of being awake) with consciousness (the self, the overall thought processes that make up the mind). I think at this point in the conversation it should have been clear which one we were talking about - you can't transfer "the state of being awake".

 

[Third Eye Open]

No. You seem to be confusing consciousness (the state of being awake) with consciousness (the self, the overall thought processes that make up the mind). I think at this point in the conversation it should have been clear which one we were talking about - you can't transfer "the state of being awake".

I don't see the difference. Either you are conscious or not. When you are put under anesthesia you are obviously not conscious. Parts of your brain are still active, yes, but not the parts that make you conscious. The parts of your brain that make you aware of your surroundings, and able to act on them, that allow you to experience things, to react to things... these parts are all turned off, then turned back on later.

How is this above scenario different than the stasis scenario? Is it because in the stasis scenario you stop breathing and your heart stops? I am not getting it.

 

[SOdhner]

Parts of your brain are still active, yes, but not the parts that make you conscious.

Clearly we disagree on what parts of the brain are required for this.

 

[Cainkane1]

Teleportation will never happen because atoms don't stay still. The technology simply (probably) can't happen. Taking a person apart on an atomic level and then reassembling them is almost impossible. I can't imagine it ever happening. It will have to be a technology we can't imagine.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Clearly we disagree on what parts of the brain are required for this.

Have you ever been put under for surgery, getting teeth pulled, etc? How can you possibly say you are conscious in that state? What would that even mean?

 

[SOdhner]

Have you ever been put under for surgery, getting teeth pulled, etc? How can you possibly say you are conscious in that state? What would that even mean?

That is an altered state of consciousness, yes. I promise, my brain is still working when I'm asleep or otherwise not aware of my surroundings.

Do you seriously think you cease to exist when you go to sleep?

 

[rocketdodger]

That is an altered state of consciousness, yes. I promise, my brain is still working when I'm asleep or otherwise not aware of my surroundings.

Do you seriously think you cease to exist when you go to sleep?

When you are unconscious you are unconscious. It isn't an "altered state of consciousness," it is no consciousness. We aren't talking about a dream state here, or a comatose state, we are talking about completely out of it. As in, when someone does a brainwave scan or an MRI or whatever, there is zero activity resembling what is going on when you are conscious or in REM, etc.

This happens to people all the time. Every night, in fact, because nobody dreams the whole time they are asleep.

 

[SOdhner]

As in, when someone does a brainwave scan or an MRI or whatever, there is zero activity resembling what is going on when you are conscious or in REM, etc.

The stage of sleep where your brain waves are the furthest from where they are when awake is also the stage where most sleepwalking and sleep talking happens. Interesting, huh? Your brain never shuts down, it just... shifts gears.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Have you ever been put under for surgery, getting teeth pulled, etc? How can you possibly say you are conscious in that state? What would that even mean?

That is an altered state of consciousness, yes. I promise, my brain is still working when I'm asleep or otherwise not aware of my surroundings.

I would have to agree with Third Eye Open here: during deep sleep or anesthesia it is generally considered that the brain is ‘unconscious’ (or that there is a ‘loss’ of consciousness) – not simply an ‘altered’ state of consciousness.

Do you seriously think you cease to exist when you go to sleep?

I think this depends on how you ascribe identity: If by ‘you’ you mean the body, then the answer is no (the body continues); if by ‘you’ you mean the subjective sense of “self”, then you actually cease to exist during moments of unconsciousness (because there is no subjectivity in those moments).

Simply there being brain processes does not equal that of conscious processes (or consciousness). We can actually begin to study how these processes differ. Here’s one interesting study: Brain Responses During Anesthesia Mimic Those During Natural Deep Sleep

From the article:

Based on a theory about how consciousness is generated, we expect to see a response that is both integrated and differentiated when the brain is conscious,'' says Tononi, professor of psychiatry. "When there is a loss of consciousness, either due to sleep or anesthesia, the response is radically different. We see a stereotyped burst of activity that remains localized and fades quickly.

 

[westprog]

Maybe I should stay 'stop' and 'start' then.


I think consciousness is a process, not a thing. It is something the brain (and possibly other things) does. I think it can stop and start.

And there is the crux of it, and the whole point of this thread.

It's based on the idea that consciousness is a computer program. Not analogous to, the very same thing. And that there is a total equivalence between instances of that computer program, such that running the same program twice is pointless - meaningless even.

And that personhood - in every respect - is simply the running of this computer program. The physical world simply doesn't matter to someone's personhood. If there's a single instance of the same configuration in the brain, then that is all that's required, and having a second copy is as meaningless as running two identical copies of FreeCell with the same moves. The two people at either end of the transporter aren't different people with the same mind, they are the same person, because a person is solely the configuration of his mind.

If you think that all of the above is true, then you will be quite happy to be disintegrated. If you think that it involves a huge amount of guesswork and assumptions, then you will probably not wish to be disintegrated.

 

[westprog]

Teleportation will never happen because atoms don't stay still. The technology simply (probably) can't happen. Taking a person apart on an atomic level and then reassembling them is almost impossible. I can't imagine it ever happening. It will have to be a technology we can't imagine.

If I understand it correctly - it's sufficient to duplicate the essential functioning of the computer program running in the brain - which happens at a macro level. Provided that is exactly copied, then nothing important is lost.

However, it's basically a thought experiment, not a practical proposition.

 

[Third Eye Open]

And there is the crux of it, and the whole point of this thread.

It's based on the idea that consciousness is a computer program. Not analogous to, the very same thing. And that there is a total equivalence between instances of that computer program, such that running the same program twice is pointless - meaningless even.

I don't really know enough about computer programs or how brains work to say that consciousness is like a computer program. And I don't think I even need to make that assumption. All you need to assume is that your consciousness is caused by your brain, and that there is not some 'essence of you' that goes away if your consciousness stops; that you ARE your consciousness, and if it comes back, YOU are back.