Identification of self

[Novotov]

Well, what of you is 'you?'

 

To think of it a different way: Suppose you had a friend and a pair of very very fine tweezers. If this friend pulled a single atom from your body with these tweezers, would that atom be 'you?' Of course not. Say he continues. He keeps pulling atoms off of your body until there is nothing left of you but some fine molecular dust. Where were 'you?'

 

IMHO, the only thing that should be identified as 'you' is the soul, which has no material counterpart. The brain? Use the same example. Brains are made up of nothing more special than neurons, and neurons are made up of nothing more special than atoms. Atoms behave predictably. Therefore, the brain will behave predictably, just in an intensely complicated way. It's not possible today, but I'm confident that some day the brain may be supplemented by computers, hardware, or even completely reduced to an algorithm.

 

Then, of course, the Ghost in the Shell problem presents itself. If your entire body and brain were replaced with an identical mechanical counterpart, are you still 'you?' I would say yes. After all, all you did was switch atoms. The function they serve is the same.

 

Thoughts? Comments? Medication?

[REASON]

If you were to remove a single atom of mine, or were to hack off my arm for that matter, you would simply be taking a part of my body. At some point, as you continue to tear away at my physical structure, it will no longer be able to function and I will die and lose consciousness. Consciousness, developed to the capability of self awareness and self contemplation, is the key to the "you" question you are asking. This requires an advanced brain, which cannot function without a critical amount of other fuctioning body parts to sustain it. "You" as a whole, are a complex compilation of matter and energy that over time has developed the ability to consider it's own existance and pose a question such as you have.

 

Now as for a soul; the notion of a soul is perpetuated among religious circles, the intent of which, I contend, is to provide a means for your consciousness to reside outside of, and disconnected from, your physical body once you die, and can assend to Heaven or be cast to eternal misery in Hell. A soul is what is needed if there is to be an afterlife. The desire for an afterlife or eternal life is understandable for any conscious creature capable of contemplating their death. It feels better to believe that we have a soul that can live on.

 

But what is a soul? What is it made of? Where does it reside in your body? Can it see? Can it hear? Can it smell? If so, why does it need a physical body at all? Does it walk or float? If you answer that question, how do you know? Did it exist before I was conceived, or created with my body? If you answer that question, how do you know? Does it have memory? If you answer any of these questions, how do you know?

 

I could go on and on with questions like these. The fact of the matter is: There is no way to prove or even show the existance of a soul. It is mearly conceptual in nature. It is another way in which we try and set ourselvels apart from nature and the natural world......because we don't want to be limited by natural law.....

 

.....and Death.

[ErlyRisa]

The 'Soul Algorithm' is a mixture of the 'Subconscience' and 'Unknown Data'....

 

Irobot highlights how it is the soul in constructed.

 

--When you cease to function, via Cell automata or Transistor Automata... you are hopefully able to convert to 'Universe Automata'...

 

The Matrix highlights how the Tranistor Automata (The Robots), realise with 'Higher Intellignece absolutness' that the only way to reach 'Universe automata' is to illicit the help of a 'Biological Automata' -> NEO.

 

...From Neo, the Transistor intelligence learns what it is to convert to intelligence floating in the universe.

[REASON]

The 'Soul Algorithm' is a mixture of the 'Subconscience' and 'Unknown Data'....

 

I robot highlights how it is the soul in constructed.

 

--When you cease to function, via Cell automata or Transistor Automata... you are hopefully able to convert to 'Universe Automata'...

 

The Matrix highlights how the Tranistor Automata (The Robots), realise with 'Higher Intellignece absolutness' that the only way to reach 'Universe automata' is to illicit the help of a 'Biological Automata' -> NEO.

 

...From Neo, the Transistor intelligence learns what it is to convert to intelligence floating in the universe.

 

Yeah, I like these movies too. They are very entertaining. It's amazing what they can do with computer graphics these days. It all seems so real.....

 

.....But it's not. :lol:

[Novotov]

Very good reply, albeit a cynical one. Even forgetting about the idea of the soul, however, what about the brain?

 

If the brain is the true and ultimate seat of consciousness, then we are nothing more than molecular machines that can experience and learn. Everything in the world can be understood, to therefore the human consciousness will inevitably be understood and figured out.

 

...so what if your cerebellum were replaced with a computer that simulated and perfectly copied the functions of that brain piece? The effect on your consciousness would be identical.

 

If you were to remove a single atom of mine, or were to hack off my arm for that matter, you would simply be taking a part of my body. At some point, as you continue to tear away at my physical structure, it will no longer be able to function and I will die and lose consciousness. Consciousness, developed to the capability of self awareness and self contemplation, is the key to the "you" question you are asking. This requires an advanced brain, which cannot function without a critical amount of other fuctioning body parts to sustain it.

So suppose it's the future. Your legs not working? Trade 'em in for an aftermarket model. Need a new spleen? Why not try a new HEPA-rated filtration liver? Getting new organs and body parts could be just as easy as(although more messy then) changing parts in your car.

In fact, a car is an excellent example. You can change a lot of things in your car, but to keep the engine running while doing it... that takes a bit of talent. But nevertheless, your engine (ie brain) is still made up of parts, just like everything else in your body.

[Pyrotex]

There is this book, The Mind's I http://www.amazon.com/Minds-I-Fantasies-Reflections-Self/dp/0553345842, by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett, that addresses this question head on in a fascinating, witty and instructive way.

 

Your example with the tweezers is done by a short story where a man is paralyzed and wills his living brain to science. He can't speak or do anything, but they have ways to confirming that he is alive and aware. They split his brain in two pieces and separate them, with all signals between the two halves being transferred by radio relays. Then they split each half. At the end of the story, the brain has been divided into billions of individual cells, each cell connected to a radio transceiver. Is the man still aware?

 

I highly recommend this book.

[Novotov]

..but what of neurons themselves? If the transmission between them is done by radio, there is still an element of 'magic' in the unknown functions or workings of the neurons.

 

I'll contend that neurons themselves are purely physical (of course) and therefore can be understood. At this point, there's no reason to simply replace the middlemen - replace a neuron itself. Or two, or four, or twenty... the connections between neurons have already been switched to radio signals, so why can't a radio-equipped computer be substituted for a neuron or twenty?

 

Eventually, following this, the entire brain could be replaced by a computer-radio grid.

[pgrmdave]

Novotov, you also have to remember that it is not the single neuron that is aware, but the interaction among large groups of them. That makes it much, much more difficult. Imagine studying a single molecule of hydrogen, and trying to learn from that how stars work. Knowledge of the individual does not necessarily lead to knowledge of a mass group.

[CraigD]

There is this book, The Mind's I, by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett, that addresses this question head on in a fascinating, witty and instructive way.

Like many people, the “Mind’s I” collection of essays and stories influenced me strongly. In the early 80s, I met dozens of students pursuing study programs with names like “synthetic psychology” and “cognitive computing”, largely due to the influence of this book, other works by its 19 contributors and many other writers of similar material.

 

In addition to Pyro’s recommendation, I’d add Minsky’s “Society of Mind”, and Penrose’s "The Emperor's New Mind" to any list of essential reading on the subject of “self”.

… Eventually, following this, the entire brain could be replaced by a computer-radio grid.

Novotov, you also have to remember that it is not the single neuron that is aware, but the interaction among large groups of them. …

More fundamental than this objection, I think, is Penrose’s claim that human (or other animal’s) thought depends importantly on a currently not-understood phenomena related to the very small size of certain features of nerve tissue. If Penrose is correct (personally, I don’t think he is), and sort of “artificial brain” will require structures of a similar size. Though this wouldn’t rule out the possibility of artificial brains, it would rule out the possibility of human-like “consciousness in silico”, a central plot element of many fairly hard science fiction stories.

 

PS: there’s a good bit of old discussion of these subjects on hypography. A search on various author’s names can provide some interesting reading.

[Novotov]

That makes it much, much more difficult. Imagine studying a single molecule of hydrogen, and trying to learn from that how stars work. Knowledge of the individual does not necessarily lead to knowledge of a mass group.

Diffidult being the operative word, not impossible. It actually is possible to determine, from knowledge of hydrogen, to get a good idea of how a star could function. It's just very difficult to do so, and requires a lot of analysis.

[Pyrotex]

Diffidult being the operative word, not impossible. It actually is possible to determine, from knowledge of hydrogen, to get a good idea of how a star could function. It's just very difficult to do so, and requires a lot of analysis.

Actually, no. Given only one hydrogen atom, the gas laws are not derivable. The fusion of hydrogen nuclei are not derivable.

 

Sorry. :)

 

Now, I don't mean, "you've only got one atom, but you know all about hydrogen from your chemistry or physics class." No. I mean, nothing is known of physics or chemistry, and you have been given one atom to study. There is only so much you can derive from it. The behavior of mass quantities of hydrogen under high pressure, high temperature is definately NOT apparent from one atom.

 

And you should take comfort in this. Think about it.

[REASON]

Very good reply, albeit a cynical one.

 

Thanks for the affirmation. I'm not sure why you would consider it cynical. I see it as realistic. Either way, I rely on cynicism and realism to guide me through the muck in my quest for understanding and truth. :eek2:

 

If the brain is the true and ultimate seat of consciousness, then we are nothing more than molecular machines that can experience and learn.

 

This to me is minimalistic, and as I interpret it, appears to be the crux of this discussion for you.

 

It's as if the idea of contemplative consciousness, being the result of literally billions of years of atomic interactions and energy, that led to the to the development of a star system, that contained an optimally placed planet that happened to have excellent conditions for the development of simple life forms, which over a tremendous amount of trial, error, and time, became more and more diverse and complex, to the point at which it developed a complex brain that enabled it to observe, experience, interact, feel, learn, consider it's own existance, and work toward a better understanding of the vast, natural universe from which it sprung........is somehow disappointing.

 

There has to be more, right? What more do you want?

[Boerseun]

We can simplify the example by using a soccer ball.

 

Taking one atom away won't change the nature of the ball. It'll be a perfectly usable ball. But if you keep taking atoms away, one at a time, at random places on the ball, at some stage it'll simply not be a ball anymore. There's no consciousness involved there, but what's the essence of 'ballness'? At what point did it stop 'being' a ball? It's a ball, it loses atoms, it's still a ball, it loses some more, and then it gradually stops being a usable ball.

 

It seems clear that when we refer to a pile of atoms in a certain spherical configuration as a 'ball', we're not specifically referring to the constituent atoms, but to the pattern created by them. A ball is simply the sum of its parts. Same with a human. We're referring to a human as the pattern created by its constituent parts. And like any other pattern, if you take enough of it away, the pattern collapses and won't be discernable anymore. Say you've got a line drawing of a star of David. As you take lines away, the pattern dissolves. But the pattern itself doesn't consist of lines, it consist of the sum of the lines. As with you. The recognisable pattern that makes you don't consist of atoms, but rather of the peculiar configuration of atoms.

[swampfox]

In order to speak of mind, consciousness, and self I believe "Emergence" is critical: mind emerges as a consequence of sufficiently complicated dynamics. In the case of biological substrates, it's neural assemblies. The dynamics give rise to the phenomenon I believe and therefore suspect mind, perception, awareness, consciousness, self is a dynamic configuration molded by the cutting edge of natural selection: When in New York, act like a New Yorker. How best to survive in a massively non-linear world? Develop massively non-linear dynamics via neural assemblies which mimics and reproduces this outside world. That synergy, between inside world and outside world is to me, the origin of awareness and self.

[clapstyx]

IMHO I could create a computer program or algorithm that models my thought process. You would probably say "well thats crap how could you be that self aware". The reason I believe this to be true (although I would have to master C++ and perish the thought of that) is because the logical framework that I have adopted to give me a "rationale" is modelled on a living system and I integrated that philosophy over a period of time to the point where I cant remember what my old thinking patter was. I documented the whole process and those documents would be enough for a computer programming assistant. Now lets just preseume for a moment that this is true and see what possibilities that would create. If you had a base program model (and it would be based on both simbiotics and the concept of a neural network where electrical impulses have multiple pathways to reach the same destination, travelling simultaneously along multiple paths of logic to divine the truth by traingulation) you could then develop that base "mindset". The computer version would grow with each "logic application" but so would the mindset of the people working on it because we would all understand logic on multiple levels that previously before we were not conscious of. For example I make some decisions based on the logical rules governing the creation of a successful simbiotic relationship which I worked out backwards from what was the ultimate point of seeking to be a party to one from the point of view of a flower and so its evolution to maximise the probability of pollination. The logic of perfect harmony is obviously a component of that in terms of maximising the degree of attractiveness and so pollination and so survival. From that point I suppose it becomes a matter of science fiction but I will continue because there is another permutation. Lets say we humans were in a survival challenge at some point in our future and the problem was so great that no person individually had an IQ great enough to cope with the scale of the problem. Theoretically we could use this approach to invent a way to create the possibility of solving the problem. At a conceptual level it works and I think that once we imagine a way foreward mankind has the ability then to harness the full potential of his mental capacity and imagination. Certainly if the people working on that project were half smart and could understand the logical template first off to the point where their logical understanding could expand then from that point it woould be super easy because you would just backsolve the model based on the decision rules. Once the computer model thought like me the model was stable and then you could add with certainty and we could try and keep up with its conceptualisation of the ultimate. I would make it a stand alone version though until you could be comfortable with it becuase it would almost certainly become self aware at some point and we definately do not want a Terminator scenario. For it to work you would need to have a solid understanding of symbiotic probability equations and as I understand it mathematical science has not developed the keystrokes required to represent the core ingredients to that. I may have but I am certainly not saying.:shrug:

[ErlyRisa]

It's so hard to keep UP with THE pace of scoiety today.

 

Especially -technology...

 

Especially so - human intereaction between the ED and not.. or more like what would pertain to be a 'class war'.

 

Untill we can ... smoothe the black line sine wave so that all are in concert... technoogy should at least be halted..

 

(Bill Gates is currently giving away PC's and solar PDA's in africa)

 

-our evolution has to be in control... not our son.

[HappytheStripper]

Medication I think.. and maybe a few thoughts..

 

Well, what of you is 'you?'

 

Most of us think we know who we are.. scientific discovery has discovered.. what we are made of.. and where we currently sit in the scheme of things.. however.. when science tries to define "what I am" or "what you are" or what any individual is.. it runs into that all too familiar shady grey area..

 

the only thing that should be identified as 'you' is the soul, which has no material counterpart.

 

This thread borderlines consciousness.. one thing the science of philosophy does not agree on.. so if we cannot agree on consciousness and what it means.. how do you think we will ever understand the what of who..??

 

Even if you identified it as me.. I think therefore I argue.. and I can easily say.. no mate .. thats not me.. try again.. ;)

 

Well.. that argument out of the way.. I am not really what you think I am.. what you think I am.. is only your perception.. and perception is that which the conscious mind thinks and knows..

 

Then, of course, the Ghost in the Shell problem presents itself.

 

Steven Pinker a Canadian born experiemental psychologist points out the "Ghost in the Shell" problem.. in Issue 13 of the Cosmos magazine..

 

Issue 13 | COSMOS magazine

 

One wonders if we can ever hope to find the "the seat of awareness in the cacophony of a hundred billion jabbering neurons called you or I"

 

If you wish to read his article let me know.. I will post it here..

 

Ashley