I'm Sure This has Crossed Others' Minds...

[Luminal]

To this day, I do not know if this is a science or philosophy oriented subject. Most topics can at least be put in terms of science, even if science doesn't have the means to explain it in fine detail, such as the arts. We could put a piece of literature in terms of the neurochemicals it brings out in humans while reading, but we would be hard pressed to explain the nuances of a plot in terms of neural architecture. However, we do know that arrangements of neurons and chemicals are indeed the cause of such phenomena.

 

This subject is probably familiar to you by some name or another: "personal identity" or "personal continuity".

 

I've tried numerous times to squeeze the concept of who I am into a framework of the physical world. I'm unable to do it. Every time I think I've clued myself into a fraction of the answer, some possible scenario erases it.

 

First, let's get a "known" out of the way. Our bodies are constantly cycling out matter. Oxygen, phosphate, nitrogen, carbon, and so on. Within a year, your body will cycle nearly all matter out of it. I could cite this, but it's quite common knowledge if you've taken any entry level biology courses.

 

Now, let's inspect several of these scenarios that I mentioned:

 

1) The Gradual Transition of Matter Scenario - This one isn't hypothetica;, it is occurring as we speak. How much does matter... matter? Well, apparently it matters a great deal. Let's say that as I gradually cycled out matter, I stored it instead of letting it freely enter the environment (every breath, every drop of sweat, every hair, every dust particle, and so on).

 

Then, when the technology came around, I reconverted the matter back into an identical copy of myself down to every pattern. But wait! How can I call it a "copy"? It is me, and made of the exact same matter I was made of at a previous point. Who and where is my real self?

 

2) Gradual Transition of my Information Scenario - Instead of worrying about matter, let's think of our information (pattern) for a moment. Let's say that the neurons in my brain were altered relative position and genetic composition, one at a time, to reflect the neurons in your brain, over the course of a week or so. After a minute, you would have 0.1% of my information, and vice versa. After an hour, 1%. After nearly a day, about 10%. After 3-4 days, 50%.

 

Is my self lost instantly when the first neuron is repositioned? It is replaced once I cross 50%? Or is a unique individual created at every step in the process?

 

3) Gradual Shift of Both Matter and Information - Same as the previous two, except both are occurring. Actual pieces of our brains are gradually swapped. Does it even matter?

 

4) Time - This one is simple. Every particle in my body locks into its current position, and begins moving again at a later point in time. If one billion years passed, would that time pass instantly to my consciousness? Now, mix this with the first scenario. During the billion years I am locked, what if my matter is swapped out by an observer?

 

Would my consciousness be taken with the matter, and I would "awake" if the matter was used to reconstruct me elsewhere? What my matter was used to recreate another person? Where in the hell did my consciousness go in all of this insanity?

 

After I ponder these questions, I'm always left with the statement "There's no way in hell that my identity can even exist, yet here I am, and if a copy of myself walked up and claimed it was me, I would certainly have a different point-of-view (namely my own) from the copy."

 

I apologize for the ramble, but I struggle with this all the time. I want to know whether or not I've died multiple times during my life whilst my matter changed completely.

[bascule]

The question here is a philosophical one regarding identity.

 

Here's some simple counterpoints:

 

When did you start being conscious?

 

Where do you go when you're unconscious?

[Luminal]

The question here is a philosophical one regarding identity.

 

Here's some simple counterpoints:

 

When did you start being conscious?

 

Where do you go when you're unconscious?

 

Alright, if this is not a scientific topic, and is a philosophical one as you say, would that not imply that it was outside the bounds of science to describe, such as the supernatural?

 

I do not believe this is supernatural, or even philosophy. When something it too hard to explain with science, we shouldn't brush it aside as philosophy. For most of human history, our origins was a purely philosophical/supernatural topic. It did not remain that way.

 

I believe that consciousness most certainly can be described in natural processes alone.

 

Yet, those paradoxical scenarios remain. Is consciousness based solely on information (including memories, personality), solely on the matter, or does it require neither or both?

 

One would be inclined to conclude that consciousness cannot and does not exist, yet I sit here with my own 'point-of-view' of the world. If a copy existed of me elsewhere in the Universe, not only do I not have his point-of-view, I'm not even aware of his existence.

[lucaspa]

Luminal, the October issue of Scientific American has an article dealing with theories on the physical basis of consciousness. Since both are based in patterns of neuronal firing, they both deal with your "problem". Indvididual molecules can be replaced, even individual neurons.

 

So, it isn't the individual molecules (which are actually cycled and broken down to carbon dioxide, water, and urea) that is important, but the pattern of cells and how they fire.

[brian_dean20]

yes i am having the same problem,,, every once in a while i sink into my throughts, and try to define consciousness.

here is what i come up with, simple logic,,, if they were two things in the universe that were consciouse,,,, it would be u and me, and if they was only one conscious being than it would be you.

this also ends up latter on with the conclution that once i end this consciousness (death) i am either not going to exist (inwhich case no love lost) or i am going to find myself being conscious again ( i dont mean reincarnation, conscious in any part of the universe which have conscious being).

Next problem is the fact that i keep on trying to define the moment i became consciouse, since we keep on putting a heavy toll on memory when most of us try to do this,,, and try to remember the very first bits of memory that we can remember (sencery based memory) it is quite clear that those periods that date back to the first 18 months of onces life is not consciously considered in the same light as how memories from when one was 10 years old are. this could be due to weak memory of beign conscious as a baby or it could be that consciousness did not exist that that point. Either way the best referrences that i could give of being conscious is the point when i could string together a complete set of events, with emostional date and one that had a timeline which did not disappear to be the moment of first consciouseness.

Next problem,,,, if i along with my body and brain were to be copied exactly when i was asleep,,, would i have two consciousness when i woke up, or would i be exactly in the same brain and just clame that the other one is a copy but one which has spring up his own consiousness. And if i was to be distory after coping,,, would i end up being conscious in much the same way in that other copied body and not know a thing.

 

Wow, its differcult to even put stuff like this in words,,, i wonder if youll are even going to understand what i actually mean, but anyway it is weart the try and its nice to know the others are having the same problem.

[Edtharan]

After I ponder these questions, I'm always left with the statement "There's no way in hell that my identity can even exist, yet here I am, and if a copy of myself walked up and claimed it was me, I would certainly have a different point-of-view (namely my own) from the copy."

You are looking at our existence as a "thing". Instead, we are better described as a "process". In a process the composition can (and should) change, and the patterns can also change, but what is important is that there is change.

 

As a process, it solve all the problems you presented.

1) Gradual transition of Matter: Part of the process of any living thing is to move matter an energy around. So the fact that the matter that makes us up enters and leaves our body is expected. Also, as a process, it means that the specific particles of matter that makes us up is not important.

 

2) Like in scenario (1), change is part of any process. Processes can operate on matter, or on information (what do you think a computer is all about). Reproduction is part of life, and it is also a processing of information. The information contained in our genes is replicated, mutated and combined with our partners genes. All this is process applied to information.

 

When we learn something, the structure of our brains change. This is a process. It changes our make up and the patterns associated with us, but the process remains.

 

3) This is really covered by the first and second answer. The matter and patter/information that we are made of are engaged in constant change. This change is a process and it is the process that continues. The cycling of matter or information.

 

4) Time. What you are describing is the halting of process. Without process (neurons firing are a process) you would not have any awareness of consciousness. Those million years would pass by instantly to you.

 

What if all your matter was swapped out while your process was stopped (despite this it's self being a process). Well, for a start, we are getting into the "thing" mistake a gain.

 

Instead of thinking of "You" that had all their process stopped, what would occur if it was a computer. If you dumped every thing from RAM, registers and cache to a storage medium, then transferred that to a second, identical computer, then loaded that into correct places and turned on the power, could you operate the computer as if it was the original computer and you had not done a thing to it.

 

The answer is Yes.

 

If you save your position in a computer game and then copy that saved game to another computer running the same game, can you start playing the game form your saved game point? Again, the answer is Yes (I did this just a few weeks ago).

 

In all 3 cases (the body being frozen, copying the current state of the computer and the saved game all have one thing in common. We recognise their existences due to a process.

 

For the saved game is it the process that the computer runs to change the data (information/pattern) contained in the saved game file and the game data into what we see on screen.

 

For the case of the RAM, registers and Cache being transferred, the computer uses this data to determine what it's current state is and then how it move to it's next state. Moving from one state to the next is a process (in fact even the name we have for the piece of hardware that does this is called a "processor" ).

 

As with the body. Our cells process chemicals into other chemicals, or moves them around. Neurons fire and that can trigger other neurons to fire. All these are processes that cause us to recognise someone as an entity.

[pioneer]

If you look at the recycle and replacment of material in the brain, it works in a way so there is little interruption of services. The synapses are fairly large relative to molecular size, such that partial replacement won't affect service. For example, the membrane of the neuron is like a lipid sea. As new molecules are added, they float in the circulation of the lipid sea. The membrane stay full, with a steady state exchange taking place. It is sort of like hockey teams changing lines without any loss of play. The hockey teams try to change when there is a break in the action. The brain will try to make many changes while we are sleep, i.e., the neural regeneration theory of dreams??

 

If you compare a steady state thing like a rock, to life, which remains in constant recycle and regeneration, the advantage of regeneration, is that it is fluid and therefore able to react to constant real time changes. If one was building a model, once you glue, you are committed. But before glue, one can try many different combinations. If one tries to remember back to an event from their past, the essense remains, but the memory changes, over time, with an evolving point of view. The constant regeneration of that memory allows it to gain a living and evolving perspective.

[Luminal]

If you look at the recycle and replacment of material in the brain, it works in a way so there is little interruption of services. The synapses are fairly large relative to molecular size, such that partial replacement won't affect service. For example, the membrane of the neuron is like a lipid sea. As new molecules are added, they float in the circulation of the lipid sea. The membrane stay full, with a steady state exchange taking place. It is sort of like hockey teams changing lines without any loss of play. The hockey teams try to change when there is a break in the action. The brain will try to make many changes while we are sleep, i.e., the neural regeneration theory of dreams??

 

If you compare a steady state thing like a rock, to life, which remains in constant recycle and regeneration, the advantage of regeneration, is that it is fluid and therefore able to react to constant real time changes. If one was building a model, once you glue, you are committed. But before glue, one can try many different combinations. If one tries to remember back to an event from their past, the essense remains, but the memory changes, over time, with an evolving point of view. The constant regeneration of that memory allows it to gain a living and evolving perspective.

 

This is all well and good, but it does not answer the question at hand. You only display that it goes unnoticed by the human because it is a seamless process (which more or less adds to the conundrum rather than lessening or resolving it).

 

You or I have almost none of the same matter from 2 years ago that we have today.

 

As I posed in my first post, consider if all of the waste material from the cells in your brain (and whole body for the matter) was collected and recycled, creating a new human with your exact molecular information.

 

Would your point-of-view/consciousness/identity reside in the 'copy' constructed with all of your former matter, or with the seamlessly transitioned new matter?

 

That is the extremely difficult question we have at hand. Every opposing answer leads into a apparent breakdown of reason and logic.

 

----------------------

 

This question becomes more than a simple amusing hypothetical to think about in our free time, when we consider that our matter is being removed and distributed throughout nature constantly. Are we 'dying' constantly? Is a new consciousness created everytime our matter is completely recycled? Are we being reborn in whatever lifeforms reuse our former matter?

 

Before you answer "no" to the constant death notion, consider if a perfect molecular copy of you (which is exactly what you are after a complete transition of biochemicals) walked up and stabbed in you in the chest. The fact that the copy is made of different matter would be very significant to you as you lay dying on the ground.

[Edtharan]

because it is a seamless process

And this is my point. It is a process.

 

It doesn't matter what matter you are made up from, the only important thing is the process and matter replacement is part of that process.

 

This question becomes more than a simple amusing hypothetical to think about in our free time, when we consider that our matter is being removed and distributed throughout nature constantly. Are we 'dying' constantly? Is a new consciousness created everytime our matter is completely recycled? Are we being reborn in whatever lifeforms reuse our former matter?

This assumes that there is something "special" about the matter that makes up living creatures.. If the matter is only what the process works on, and it is the process that is the important thing, then all "conundrums" disappear.

[Luminal]

And this is my point. It is a process.

 

It doesn't matter what matter you are made up from, the only important thing is the process and matter replacement is part of that process.

 

 

This assumes that there is something "special" about the matter that makes up living creatures.. If the matter is only what the process works on, and it is the process that is the important thing, then all "conundrums" disappear.

 

Let me make sure I understand your position correctly: the information (or state) constitutes the entirety of the properties exhibited by the entity. Matter can be exchanged with no effect on the life-form, as long as its state (information) is unchanged.

 

I used to believe this, but yes, there is a problem with this concept. I only wish it was as simple as this.

 

Again, let's suppose that a molecular copy of you was constructed. Would you be seeing from the eyes of the copy or from your eyes? Common sense indicates from your eyes, as you wouldn't even be aware of the copy until you saw it.

 

That is the problem. Where does your "point-of-view" go as the matter changes? Using common sense, if a copy of you was made, then matter would be the only distinguishing factor, as the state/information of both entities would be the same.

 

Forget the words "consciousness" or "identity" and consider your point-of-view.

[Edtharan]

Let me make sure I understand your position correctly: the information (or state) constitutes the entirety of the properties exhibited by the entity. Matter can be exchanged with no effect on the life-form, as long as its state (information) is unchanged.

No. Information is part of the process. I am not saying that it is the Information, or the physical make-up, but the interaction (process) between the two. You can change the matter, or even change the information (within limits for both as you can't change them so much that it disturbs the process).

 

It is the process of Information influences Matter which Influences the information which influences the patter. It is this process that is important.

 

Again, let's suppose that a molecular copy of you was constructed. Would you be seeing from the eyes of the copy or from your eyes? Common sense indicates from your eyes, as you wouldn't even be aware of the copy until you saw it.

Well, since it is a different process, I would not be "seeing from the eyes of the copy". So this "Life as a process" hold with the expected outcome.

 

That is the problem. Where does your "point-of-view" go as the matter changes? Using common sense, if a copy of you was made, then matter would be the only distinguishing factor, as the state/information of both entities would be the same.

As matter is cycled out of (or into) the process it doesn't matter. Exchange of matter is part of the process. As is the change of information.

 

Forget the words "consciousness" or "identity" and consider your point-of-view.

Your "point-of-view" resides with the continuity of your process.

[Luminal]

No. Information is part of the process. I am not saying that it is the Information, or the physical make-up, but the interaction (process) between the two. You can change the matter, or even change the information (within limits for both as you can't change them so much that it disturbs the process).

 

It is the process of Information influences Matter which Influences the information which influences the patter. It is this process that is important.

 

 

Well, since it is a different process, I would not be "seeing from the eyes of the copy". So this "Life as a process" hold with the expected outcome.

 

 

As matter is cycled out of (or into) the process it doesn't matter. Exchange of matter is part of the process. As is the change of information.

 

 

Your "point-of-view" resides with the continuity of your process.

 

I cannot agree.

 

To make this thought experiment more rigid (and of course no physical laws or principles are being violated), let us take an individual and make this copy at the same time with the same biochemical processes occurring within nanoseconds of each other (close enough that your awareness could not distinguish the separation of time).

 

Place both in identical white rooms next to each other.

 

In one white room, the door is opened and another person walks in. In the other white room, nothing occurs.

 

This clearly establishes two different point-of-views with matter being the only variable. Thus, matter does matter.

 

If matter is not the cause, what could possibly be? The process is identical, the information is identical, even the environment is identical.

[Pepperjack]

Isn't there always true random-ness at the subatomic level so that there's no real chance of making your two people experience exactly the same thing? Or am I thinking of something else?

[Luminal]

Isn't there always true random-ness at the subatomic level so that there's no real chance of making your two people experience exactly the same thing? Or am I thinking of something else?

 

In any case, I do not think it is relevant because an extended length of time is not necessary to the consideration at hand. Even if one atom were to move in a particular way for a thousandth of a nanosecond, it would still qualify as a "process" that could be identical in a copy.

 

However, even if identical copies changed due to quantum effects, it only calls more attention to the problem: that the copies do in fact diverge in their point-of-view when all else is equal except the specific particles of which they are composed (i.e. matter).

[Edtharan]

The process is identical, the information is identical, even the environment is identical.

Yes, the process might be identical, but they are not the same process. No matter how "identical" you make it, there are definitely two distinct processes.

 

Think of the process as a kind of Meta-Matter (it's not really, this is just a "cheat" to help you understand what I mean). With normal matter, if you have two object, no matter how similar they are, they are never the same object, even if it was an identical copy.

 

Think of Process as Meta-Matter then each process is a Process "Meta-Object". You can have two identical process, but because there are two processes, then they are not the same.

 

(You can now discard the concept of Process as Meta-Matter - it was only for demonstration purposes )

 

Once you make a "Copy" of a process, it is no longer the same process. And as the point of view is a self referential aspect of a process, then it can not observe a different process as self (as it is a different, although functionally identical, process).

 

The key phrase here is "functionally identical". You can have two processes and they can be functionally identical, but they are two distinct processes and can never be the same process.

 

Isn't there always true random-ness at the subatomic level so that there's no real chance of making your two people experience exactly the same thing?

I don't think randomness is necessarily a part of it. I think it comes down to the fundamental concept of "Number".

 

If you have 1 object and then make an identical copy, then you have 2. It is this aspect of the Universe that is the important part. If you have an individual and make a copy, no matter how identical, then you have 2.

 

However, an object or information can not be self referential (have a point of view, a sense of self or individuality). A process can because observation is a process. Matter or information without process can not, therefore, be in the act of observing. As soon as it does, it is a process.

 

It is this aspect of observation (that it is a process) that allows for self observation. If the process of observation is observing a process that is observing it's self, then that is a self referential process.

 

Information and Matter can not observer it's self without the process of observing. If you took all process out of matter and information, then it would be inert and not observing. Without observing you can have no self observation, and so neither matter or information can ever be self referential, and thus no point of view.

 

Process, there fore is the most fundamental aspect of any concept of "self" (and you don't even need a conscious "self" - just a self referential "self"). This is confirmed by the fact that information, matter and energy can be exchanged in and out of a process, but the process it's self can not be exchanged out (as then that would be part of the process anyway).

 

There are more processes then "selves". Not all process leads to a "self". Only processes that are self referential can have any concept of self, and even then they must have a certain level of complexity.

 

I don't subscribe to any "élan vital". There is nothing "special" about matter, energy or information that makes it "alive" or "conscious". However, I do accept that with complexity the "Whole can exceed the sum of it's parts". That is certain behaviours can emerge from the components of a system that are not explicitly predicted by studying the components in isolation. Not that these emergent behaviours are mystical or non-physical. The emergent behaviours are completely explainable by looking at the components and process of a system.

[Luminal]

Yes, the process might be identical, but they are not the same process. No matter how "identical" you make it, there are definitely two distinct processes.

 

Think of the process as a kind of Meta-Matter (it's not really, this is just a "cheat" to help you understand what I mean). With normal matter, if you have two object, no matter how similar they are, they are never the same object, even if it was an identical copy.

 

Think of Process as Meta-Matter then each process is a Process "Meta-Object". You can have two identical process, but because there are two processes, then they are not the same.

 

(You can now discard the concept of Process as Meta-Matter - it was only for demonstration purposes )

 

Once you make a "Copy" of a process, it is no longer the same process. And as the point of view is a self referential aspect of a process, then it can not observe a different process as self (as it is a different, although functionally identical, process).

 

The key phrase here is "functionally identical". You can have two processes and they can be functionally identical, but they are two distinct processes and can never be the same process.

 

 

I don't think randomness is necessarily a part of it. I think it comes down to the fundamental concept of "Number".

 

If you have 1 object and then make an identical copy, then you have 2. It is this aspect of the Universe that is the important part. If you have an individual and make a copy, no matter how identical, then you have 2.

 

However, an object or information can not be self referential (have a point of view, a sense of self or individuality). A process can because observation is a process. Matter or information without process can not, therefore, be in the act of observing. As soon as it does, it is a process.

 

It is this aspect of observation (that it is a process) that allows for self observation. If the process of observation is observing a process that is observing it's self, then that is a self referential process.

 

Information and Matter can not observer it's self without the process of observing. If you took all process out of matter and information, then it would be inert and not observing. Without observing you can have no self observation, and so neither matter or information can ever be self referential, and thus no point of view.

 

Process, there fore is the most fundamental aspect of any concept of "self" (and you don't even need a conscious "self" - just a self referential "self"). This is confirmed by the fact that information, matter and energy can be exchanged in and out of a process, but the process it's self can not be exchanged out (as then that would be part of the process anyway).

 

There are more processes then "selves". Not all process leads to a "self". Only processes that are self referential can have any concept of self, and even then they must have a certain level of complexity.

 

I don't subscribe to any "élan vital". There is nothing "special" about matter, energy or information that makes it "alive" or "conscious". However, I do accept that with complexity the "Whole can exceed the sum of it's parts". That is certain behaviours can emerge from the components of a system that are not explicitly predicted by studying the components in isolation. Not that these emergent behaviours are mystical or non-physical. The emergent behaviours are completely explainable by looking at the components and process of a system.

 

You are putting too much emphasis on the process. I believe it is irrelevant.

 

If the body was destroyed (as in, demolecularized) for one second and reassembled with no change, the original process was destroyed, and the new process is only a "copy". However, the information and matter are exactly the same. Would you say the original person is gone?

 

Of course not. Nothing at all is different except a span of time in which their particles were separated from each other. The process "died" and person's point-of-view and identity were not affected whatsoever.

[lucaspa]

Let me make sure I understand your position correctly: the information (or state) constitutes the entirety of the properties exhibited by the entity. Matter can be exchanged with no effect on the life-form, as long as its state (information) is unchanged.

 

I used to believe this, but yes, there is a problem with this concept. I only wish it was as simple as this.

 

Again, let's suppose that a molecular copy of you was constructed. Would you be seeing from the eyes of the copy or from your eyes? Common sense indicates from your eyes, as you wouldn't even be aware of the copy until you saw it.

 

Luminal, you are inadvertently comparing apples and oranges. In terms of replacement of molecules in our bodies, it takes place over time. That is, not all the molecules are replaced in an instant. So there is always a mix of old vs new proteins, lipids, DNA, and RNA. At t = 10 years, the molecules in your body will be different from t = 0. But there never are 2 complete bodies existing at the same time.

 

You are postulating something entirely different. You are postulating something that doesn't happen naturally: duplication of every molecule in the body such that there are now 2 bodies where there was one.

 

Where does your "point-of-view" go as the matter changes?

 

Since there are now 2 entirely separate bodies, there are now 2 "points-of-view". The thoughts MAY, or may not, be identical in the 2 bodies, but you now have 2 bodies existing at the same time.

 

Using common sense, if a copy of you was made, then matter would be the only distinguishing factor, as the state/information of both entities would be the same.

 

Perhaps for the first Plank time, but immediately the information of both entities would be different. If nothing else, what Body A is seeing is different from Body B.

 

Forget the words "consciousness" or "identity" and consider your point-of-view.

 

When that is done, there are 2 points-of-view, because each body is occupying a different spot in space.

 

You are putting too much emphasis on the process. I believe it is irrelevant.

 

No, the process is critical, because the process produces different things. As it occurs in nature, there is always only one body at any given time. The process you imagine produces 2 bodies at the same time.

 

If the body was destroyed (as in, demolecularized) for one second and reassembled with no change, the original process was destroyed, and the new process is only a "copy". However, the information and matter are exactly the same. Would you say the original person is gone?

 

Of course not.

 

Don't be so hasty. You now have a second (or any smaller amount of time) where the individual did not exist. Therefore you can cogently argue that the original person is gone. What you now have is a copy that is VERY close to being the original, but is not quite identical because of the missing time.

 

This is all well and good, but it does not answer the question at hand. You only display that it goes unnoticed by the human because it is a seamless process (which more or less adds to the conundrum rather than lessening or resolving it).

 

It does answer the question at hand. Pioneer stated "If you look at the recycle and replacment of material in the brain, it works in a way so there is little interruption of services. The synapses are fairly large relative to molecular size, such that partial replacement won't affect service."

 

IOW, the pattern of firing of neurons is not affected because that firing involves tens of thousands of molecules. If you replace 10 of those molecules with molecules that are functionally and structurally identical, the firing pattern doesn't change. And, if you bothered to look at the October Scientific American, it is the pattern of firing of neurons that makes consciousness.

 

Perhaps an analogy that would make sense to you is that the functioning machine that is a car does not change because you replace one sparkplug. The firing of the sparkplugs into the cylinders to power the car continues to happen.

 

Would your point-of-view/consciousness/identity reside in the 'copy' constructed with all of your former matter, or with the seamlessly transitioned new matter?

 

That is the extremely difficult question we have at hand. Every opposing answer leads into a apparent breakdown of reason and logic.

 

It's not that difficult. A consciousness might reside in the copy, depending on whether you can get the neurons to fire or not. That consciousness would be, initially, VERY similar to mine, perhaps even identical. However, it is immediately going to diverge from mine because the pattern of neuron firing is going to diverge. Immediately the neuron firing associated with sense perception is going to change, simply because the copy occupies a different spot in spacetime than I do. Even if we are side-by-side, we are going to view objects from a slightly different angle. If the copy is made in a separate location, then the divergence is going to happen even faster.

 

This question becomes more than a simple amusing hypothetical to think about in our free time, when we consider that our matter is being removed and distributed throughout nature constantly. Are we 'dying' constantly? Is a new consciousness created everytime our matter is completely recycled? Are we being reborn in whatever lifeforms reuse our former matter?

 

No to all of those. And it's very simple why the answer is the way it is: consciousness is not located in the individual molecules. It is located at a higher order interaction between molecules: firing patterns of neurons.

[Edtharan]

If the body was destroyed (as in, demolecularized) for one second and reassembled with no change, the original process was destroyed, and the new process is only a "copy". However, the information and matter are exactly the same. Would you say the original person is gone?

By destroying the body then reassembling it without change you have only "halted" the processes that normally go on. If I could freeze a body so that there was no interaction of the matter (essentially halting all processes), but then thawing it out a few seconds later, this would be no different.

 

I had actually anticipated this line of questioning. If you re read the end of my post I state that I don't believe in any kind of "élan vital". That is I don't think that there is a "ME" above and beyond the physical (well information and process - but these interact with the physical). I don't think that there is a Me that exists beyond the halting of the self referential process.

 

If you take away all matter, then there is nothing for the process to work on. If you take away all information, then there is no organisation to the process. If you halt the process, there is no self-referential loop and so no self/me (once you start up the process again, then it is self-referential and so then there is a Me).

 

Of course not. Nothing at all is different except a span of time in which their particles were separated from each other. The process "died" and person's point-of-view and identity were not affected whatsoever.

Actually, the disassembly and reassembly are processes too. It is just that these processes interrupt the main process and then restart it again without change. In fact there is still a continuum of process, it is just for that short period the process is no longer self-referential.

[Luminal]

By destroying the body then reassembling it without change you have only "halted" the processes that normally go on. If I could freeze a body so that there was no interaction of the matter (essentially halting all processes), but then thawing it out a few seconds later, this would be no different.

 

I had actually anticipated this line of questioning. If you re read the end of my post I state that I don't believe in any kind of "élan vital". That is I don't think that there is a "ME" above and beyond the physical (well information and process - but these interact with the physical). I don't think that there is a Me that exists beyond the halting of the self referential process.

 

If you take away all matter, then there is nothing for the process to work on. If you take away all information, then there is no organisation to the process. If you halt the process, there is no self-referential loop and so no self/me (once you start up the process again, then it is self-referential and so then there is a Me).

 

Now hold on a second.

 

How is destroying a body and reassembling it any different at all (since you say that matter is not a factor) from making a copy of the process?

 

In both situations, a copy is made. However, in the first situation, the original is left intact and in the second the original no longer exists.

 

Actually, the disassembly and reassembly are processes too. It is just that these processes interrupt the main process and then restart it again without change. In fact there is still a continuum of process, it is just for that short period the process is no longer self-referential.

 

With this reasoning, the copy is part of the same process, and it was "interrupted" during the tiny amount of time it took to assemble its body and restarted as soon as the process was initialized (in the exact same way the in the second situation the body was destroyed and the process initialized after assembly).

 

I do not see how you can claim there is any difference in the two situations outside the fact that in one the original is left alive and in the other it isn't.

[foodchain]

To this day, I do not know if this is a science or philosophy oriented subject. Most topics can at least be put in terms of science, even if science doesn't have the means to explain it in fine detail, such as the arts. We could put a piece of literature in terms of the neurochemicals it brings out in humans while reading, but we would be hard pressed to explain the nuances of a plot in terms of neural architecture. However, we do know that arrangements of neurons and chemicals are indeed the cause of such phenomena.

 

This subject is probably familiar to you by some name or another: "personal identity" or "personal continuity".

 

I've tried numerous times to squeeze the concept of who I am into a framework of the physical world. I'm unable to do it. Every time I think I've clued myself into a fraction of the answer, some possible scenario erases it.

 

First, let's get a "known" out of the way. Our bodies are constantly cycling out matter. Oxygen, phosphate, nitrogen, carbon, and so on. Within a year, your body will cycle nearly all matter out of it. I could cite this, but it's quite common knowledge if you've taken any entry level biology courses.

 

Now, let's inspect several of these scenarios that I mentioned:

 

1) The Gradual Transition of Matter Scenario - This one isn't hypothetica;, it is occurring as we speak. How much does matter... matter? Well, apparently it matters a great deal. Let's say that as I gradually cycled out matter, I stored it instead of letting it freely enter the environment (every breath, every drop of sweat, every hair, every dust particle, and so on).

 

Then, when the technology came around, I reconverted the matter back into an identical copy of myself down to every pattern. But wait! How can I call it a "copy"? It is me, and made of the exact same matter I was made of at a previous point. Who and where is my real self?

 

2) Gradual Transition of my Information Scenario - Instead of worrying about matter, let's think of our information (pattern) for a moment. Let's say that the neurons in my brain were altered relative position and genetic composition, one at a time, to reflect the neurons in your brain, over the course of a week or so. After a minute, you would have 0.1% of my information, and vice versa. After an hour, 1%. After nearly a day, about 10%. After 3-4 days, 50%.

 

Is my self lost instantly when the first neuron is repositioned? It is replaced once I cross 50%? Or is a unique individual created at every step in the process?

 

3) Gradual Shift of Both Matter and Information - Same as the previous two, except both are occurring. Actual pieces of our brains are gradually swapped. Does it even matter?

 

4) Time - This one is simple. Every particle in my body locks into its current position, and begins moving again at a later point in time. If one billion years passed, would that time pass instantly to my consciousness? Now, mix this with the first scenario. During the billion years I am locked, what if my matter is swapped out by an observer?

 

Would my consciousness be taken with the matter, and I would "awake" if the matter was used to reconstruct me elsewhere? What my matter was used to recreate another person? Where in the hell did my consciousness go in all of this insanity?

 

After I ponder these questions, I'm always left with the statement "There's no way in hell that my identity can even exist, yet here I am, and if a copy of myself walked up and claimed it was me, I would certainly have a different point-of-view (namely my own) from the copy."

 

I apologize for the ramble, but I struggle with this all the time. I want to know whether or not I've died multiple times during my life whilst my matter changed completely.

 

Well, death typically only occurs once and has a rather solid physical description. People can be rived after death but in many cases permanent physical impairment can remain, such as brain damage.

 

I think biology in time may be able to put the pieces together better and better. My own personal description in individuality and so on is phenotypes don’t live the exact same copy of actions. So you have your own phenotype and your own particular environment to experience, which with a wave of the magic wand leads to an individual. If per say you are more on the quantum scale of things, well that treads off into various vague and deffinently hard to define terrains, of which I am no use in trying to answer things. I do know that for what its worth each second of time does continue to pass regardless of me, and reality existed before human or other consciousness as far as I know, deffinently for life on earth. Lastly I think all one has to do is look at drug use or such. Free will diluted on crack cocaine is deffinently a pointer to something. Another is space travel and the reality of combating the insanity that easily could attack a homo sapien on such. I guess what I am getting at is having for instance testosterone as part of your physiology has an impact on you as a human being as it does to all males of our species, if you are a guy that is, else is estrogen and progesterone I think. What I am getting back at here is that genotype phenotype thing and the environment. I mean a cat can show variance of behavior, but its only going to show so much, and I guess as much as cats happen to be cats, people happen to be people.