| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been dead the last three years, for tax purposes.
Oh, man... This is hard to explain. But let me try. I do not agree that memories are what define being "me" to ourselves. Rather, it is the simple fact that we see and hear what happens around us through these eyes and these ears. It is that we move this body, and not another. It is our own point of view that matters, the subjective sense of being. Many describe it as "'I' is what is sitting inside my head, looking out through the eyes". THIS is the point of view that I would call our consciousness. No matter if we lose our memories, the same point of view remains. No matter if we are hit by a stroke and can no longer talk, the same sense of being stays. It is what we lose when we are UNconscious, such as sleeping, during a seizure, or anesthesized, and what we regain when we come back. It is, simply put, the thing that defines what sensory input we get, and what body we can control.
THIS is what we can't "transfer" without treknobabble technology, no matter how many copies we make.
It is an entirely subjective sensation, very difficult to discuss, but probably, to my thinking, built up by continuous self-reference in understanding the world, finding one thing only remaining constant: Our own bodies. An effect of object constance, as we learn it.
I agree, without major advances in technology, this is all just hypothetical. The info dump into an artificial brain will still be you, just having undergone some changes. If we can rewrite/reorganize the brain, being in a physical body won't matter as much, as someone else could inhabit that body, annihilating the concept of the body as self.
It's closer than most of us think, but still a ways off in the future.
Also, just because a consciousness is stored digitally does not make it immortal either. At the moment there doesn't seem to be a method of storing digital information without degradation over long periods of time. CD's and DVD's and magnetic forms of storage all degrade significantly within 15-30 years.
One point towards identifying the self with the physical body, neuron cells are never replaced. Unlike bone, fat, muscle and even other parts of the nervous system, neurons are never replaced. The brain changes over the course of your life, but certain aspects are fixed at birth.
I've been dead the last three years, for tax purposes.
I'm already dead. I just haven't stopped moving yet.
So, has anyone read Zelazny's Creatures of Light and Darkness? Large parts of it are quite germane to this discussion. He seems to come down more on the Sissyl side of things than on mine, but maybe still more on ZN's than Sissyl's.
(I'm more in agreement with Masahiro Mori's stance, as outlined in The Buddha in the Robot).
No I haven't, I'll add it to my reading list.
Also I was wondering if you could elucidate your 'side' a little bit. Not sure I have seen/understood it, and given that your points of view in such discussions are often among the most interesting I read here, it would be cool to have a really clear idea of what you think and why you think it, with regards to this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also I was wondering if you could elucidate your 'side' a little bit. Not sure I have seen/understood it, and given that your points of view in such discussions are often among the most interesting I read here, it would be cool to have a really clear idea of what you think and why you think it, with regards to this.
I think that what we view as "self" is nothing more than a temporary physiochemical state resulting from brain chemistry, experience/memories shaping the neural pathways, and so on. In most cases, this forms a complex pattern that we take for granted as being "us," but it constantly changes in small ways based on all of the above factors, meaning that the "you" reading this sentence is slightly different from the "you" reading the next sentence. (Although it seems like major neural pathways are self-reinforcing and hard to reroute, new experience and pathways are constantly being made, and chemical states changing the way things work can certainly change, and physical trauma and/or simple cell death can take a toll, and these differences add up.) Our genes do provide some limits and tend to push things in certain directions, but they don't create an immortal soul or fixed personality.
So I don't really believe in "a" "self." That extends to the physical "self" as well as the mental one; I might look a lot like I did 20 years ago, but most of the cells are different ones now, so in essence I've swapped bodies as well as changing minds. There are other people that look a lot like me, and maybe some that look more like I did 20 years ago than I do now. There are other people with similar personalities to mine, and given 7-8 billion people on the planet, there may well be some that are more similar to what mine was 20 years ago than I am now.
The thing we keep clinging to is the overlap in pre-existing vs. new stuff, so we tend to consider the package as a "person" and call it "me." But I think that's strictly a viewpoint of convenience, reinforced by mythology about a "soul." I am not actually the same person as KG-20 (Kirth Gersen, age 20) any more than a group of young guys wearing similar suits and singing the same songs are actually the original Drifters.
Note that this in no way absolves a person of responsibility for "their" actions -- the "you" of tomorrow is similar enough to the "you" of today that, if you did something today to hurt others, you're more or less equally likely to do it tomorrow. Changing this pattern and/or making it known to others is basic common sense that in no way relies on you being the exact same "you."
Considering how often I think, "Good God, what have I become!?" I have to agree, Kirth.
(And now the serious bit:)
Are you familiar with the school of thought that regards consciousness/identity as an ongoing event within the brain, rather than a structure in or part of the brain? It's similar to what you've said in the post above.
Edit: When I say school of thought, I mean in neurology, not metaphysics and other such hippy pursuits. :P
Are you familiar with the school of thought that regards consciousness/identity as an ongoing event within the brain, rather than a structure in or part of the brain? It's similar to what you've said in the post above.
Honestly, I wasn't aware that there was another view that that, from a neurology standpoint. I mean, do some people think there's a fixed "personality lobe" next to the medulla or something, that "stores" your consciousness?
Reason not withstanding, the universe continues unabated. Its history is terribly long and awfully difficult to understand, even in its simpler moments which are, roughly speaking, the beginning and the end. The wave harmonic theory of historical perception, in its simplest form, states that history is an illusion caused by the passage of time, and that time is an illusion caused by the passage of history. It also states that one’s perception of these illusions is conditioned by three important factors: who you are; where you are; and when you last had lunch with Yellowdingo.
Opening of Episdoe 8 of H2G2, modified for relevance to this thread.
Are you familiar with the school of thought that regards consciousness/identity as an ongoing event within the brain, rather than a structure in or part of the brain? It's similar to what you've said in the post above.Honestly, I wasn't aware that there was another view that that, from a neurology standpoint. I mean, do some people think there's a fixed "personality lobe" next to the medulla or something, that "stores" your consciousness?
Not that I'm that familiar with the debate, but it seems to come down to arguments about nature vs nurture and animal consciousness. Also given the fair and balanced slant of reporting, I may be seeing people on the level of Intelligent Design proponents presented as reputable.
If political situation remains decently stable, perhaps around 60. If not, probably shorter.