Ultimately, I think this is up to opinion. The idea of self is too abstract to really put in objective terms. I personally don't think it is the same person as far as the individual who is teleported is concerned, but to everyone else, you would be the same person. So the teleported individual dies and doesn't come back but the cloned individual has all of the dead person's memories and therefore is indistinguishable from the original to their friends, family, and colleagues. I believe they say over every seven years, every cell in your body is replaced. Are you the same person you were seven years ago? Everyone else seems to think so, you in the present seem to think so, and you in the past would probably say so. — TogetherTurtle
It's like the ship of Theseus in a way. A ship is docked, and every so often a storm comes in and damages a part of the said ship. If every part is replaced, is it still the same ship?
I believe the answer is in the general consensus. If everyone thinks that it is the same ship, then it is the same ship. Really, everything in the universe is comprised of matter and energy, and therefore everything that isn't defined as "microwaves" or "Helium" (as examples) has been given an identity by us. Everything we define is also comprised of these things. So "Dogs" or "Chairs" don't exist unless a human mind classifies them as such, but the carbon in a dog's body or the iron used to make the chair will exist regardless. — TogetherTurtle
This topic is on whether the transporters in Star Trek kill people — Echarmion
So, the answer to your speculative question is:
A fictional transporter can kill fictional people, if there is a problem with said transporter.
Scotty is not a murderer. How very dare you :naughty: — Amity
Arguably, what you consider your self is down to opinion. Nevertheless, it should be possible, given your personal opinions of what "self" is, to identify the meaningful change that happens. — Echarmion
I think the answer to the "Ship of Theseus" dilemma is not consensus but just context. To answer the question, you have to know why the question is being asked. Do you ask because you want to cross the sea? Then the origin of the planks if of no interest to you. Do you ask because you want to touch the same wood Theseus has touched? Then the origin of the planks is all that matters, and whether or not the planks even come in the shape of a ship is irrelevant. — Echarmion
The implications of this debate for something like mind uploading might someday be relevant though. — Echarmion
I am beginning to think I shot myself in the foot by making the Star Trek references so overt :wink:.
The implications of this debate for something like mind uploading might someday be relevant though. — Echarmion
I would simply be glad that I could be put to some use after death, even if the consciousness isn't continued. — TogetherTurtle
This reminded me of organ transplantation. It is about continuing the function of the organ in another body. What would be the point of your mind being uploaded to someone else if consciousness wasn't continued ?
The organ in question would be the brain. I am not sure that the original mental states would transfer over. However, it could continue to function with awareness but 'as new' ? — Amity
I think that is my problem. I don't think any meaningful change happens at all. It's my belief at least that life doesn't have any meaning besides what we give it, so therefore, if we give the person the value that another once had, they might as well be that person. Same with the ship. The value or identity given to the ship has everything to do with what we think and nothing to do with inherent value in the real world. That changes when you have belief in a god or deities, but I don't. I do, however, acknowledge that there is no way to 100% prove god either way, so I think that it is an opinion, but that's just my opinion. — TogetherTurtle
It's all interconnected in a way, but none of it has anything to do with the outside world other than how we interpret it. Identity lives inside our minds unless god is real is essentially my viewpoint. — TogetherTurtle
As for just a brain transplant, it would be useful if someone had information that you needed but their body couldn't go on living, so you transfer them to another body. If the brain is where all experiences and knowledge is stored, then it only seems logical that the memories would be present in a new body. — TogetherTurtle
I think consciousness, specifically the part that constitutes identity (inclinations, memory, whatever that one considers as an essence) is a pattern of matter-energy.
If the transporter can replicate this pattern perfectly then death hasn’t occured [...] I believe that if the transporter could preserve and then reproduce the pattern that constitutes a personal identity then death hasn’t occurred. We’ve simply been transported as it were. — TheMadFool
'...To Searle, the reason computational logic patterns can’t be causal explanations of mind/brain behavior is that they are simulations. He points out that simulating a hurricane on a computer may tell you some things about the hurricane, but it doesn’t constitute causing a hurricane. And the simulation has no causal power to make the hurricane do anything, such as change course or grow less powerful. Likewise, simulated fires don’t burn anything, and simulated car crashes don’t bend any metal. Simulated logical patterns don’t cause mental states or influence brain states. Searle accuses the Strong AI people of confusing their virtual reality with the real thing... — Amity
The putative conflict with transitivity arises when we consider a case in which both of the separated hemispheres of A's original brain are transplanted to separate bodies resulting in what certainly look to be distinct individuals. Suppose, one of A's brain hemispheres is transferred to B's body, resulting in a person PB, and the other to C's body resulting in a person PC. It flouts transitivity to say that PC is identical with A, and that A is identical with PB, but deny, at it seems we should, that PC is identical with PB.' — Amity
...Clark shifts the philosophical emphasis from analysis of the brain to analysis of a human’s kinesthetic interaction with an ecological and social space. He points out that large-scale social projects, such as a building project or a disaster relief effort, occur across a considerably extended space and through the intersection of many people’s minds, and are not limited to neuronal firings in any individual brain. — Amity
I really don't understand much of this. It is all highly speculative in any case.
Remind me why are we so concerned with the issue ? — Amity
But you did say you don't think it's the same person so far as the individual is concerned. But I don't see why I would not consider a copy "me" as well. So I wonder what your initial perspective was and where it came from. — Echarmion
Does not everything live inside our minds, with the exception of the mind itself, and whatever is it's object? — Echarmion
I am interested in why you think that consciousness is a pattern of matter-energy. And what does this even look like ? How can something as nebulous as inclinations be included ? — Amity
I am interested in why you think that consciousness is a pattern of matter-energy. And what does this even look like ? How can something as nebulous as inclinations be included ?
— Amity
Well, death is my proof. There’s no difference between me alive and me dead in terms of structure - everything (cells, tissue, organs) is in the same place. As it’s consciousness and identity I’m concerned about let’s stay with the brain. So, no structural difference between a dead brain and living brain. Yet one has consciousness and the other doesn’t. My theory is that what’s missing from the dead brain is a particular pattern of activation and interaction within itself (neuronal and regional) - which is consciousness and identity. — TheMadFool
I think the difference between a virtual fire and a virtual mind is simply in function. Sure, a virtual fire can't burn anything in the real world, but it also isn't meant to. A virtual mind, however, can interact and manipulate the real world if given the right tools to manipulate them with. — TogetherTurtle
If the human brain only uses electrical signals and chemicals to transfer its messages, then there is really nothing differentiating it from a computer anyway. — TogetherTurtle
It actually brings up an interesting idea in biological computers, essentially growing a brain that is good at whatever task you need it to be good at. If you could get the contents of a human mind to fit in that, while also adding some synthetic components, you essentially have the same idea discussed above but even under skepticism like that above it works because where the human mind is transferred to is biological and technically not a simulation. — TogetherTurtle
.Computers communicate through the internet all the time. I think that would be the equivalent of the interaction with social space. To experience the ecological world, they could simply have cameras for eyes and speakers for speaking. That is how they would interact kinesthetically with their environment. — TogetherTurtle
Does not everything live inside our minds...? — Echarmion
I think the question is not "Does not everything live inside our minds...?" but "Can we even know?". How do we know that we aren't in a simulated reality? How do we know that we aren't something else having a dream of our existence? It reminds me of a part of the Cthulu mythos about the father of all the gods who sleeps and dreams of our existence. In the event that that is true, would our brains be real at all? Is there a way to reach outside of our tiny perspective of the universe and see what is true? — TogetherTurtle
If it's consciousness and identity you are concerned with, then there are varying levels of consciousness which can be researched to try and explain what it might be. Also, cases of brain damage which affect a person's identity; memory and behaviour. It is too simplistic to say 'death is my proof'. It explains nothing about what identity is other than that if there is no subject alive there is no identity. It tells us nothing about e.g. the subjectivity of inclinations - that part of my question you didn't answer.
It seems like you share Dennett's view ( of which I know very little I admit ) when he said that only a theory that explained conscious events in terms of unconscious events could explain consciousness at all: "To explain is to explain away".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained
I enjoy reading Dennett but can't agree with this reductionist view.
I do think that any real or substantial findings will not come from philosophical speculation but a variety of disciplines - neuroscience allied with social and behavioral sciences perhaps being the best bet. — Amity
Well we cannot know any specifics because, as you say, we cannot leave our own perspective. Since we are affected by things that are not out selves, there must be something that's not identical to our minds. Even if we are all dreams of a god, that god is still not us, it is more than us, and thus (partially) outside of us. I think therefore something thinks. — Echarmion
I have no idea what a virtual mind is. I understand that there are models of a virtual brain out there in science world which can be manipulated to assess changes in structure to behaviour. Not sure about current research. Can you give me examples of how a virtual mind could change the real world, thanks. — Amity
Really ?
A computer does not have nerve endings to receive data. It would never say 'Ouch ! That hurts. '
It is not connected to muscle fibres which act on information. Avoidance of pain.
It does not become conscious of itself or how it fits into the world. — Amity
Interesting. Where is the information on biological computers ? — Amity
I don't think that computers experience anything. They might be able to interact via technology. However, there is no sense in which they are experiencing the human concerns re those situations mentioned above: — Amity
Thanks for the link. I guess I was trying to explain consciousness in physical terms. How does one explain brain damage and the subsequent loss of mental capacity in non-physical terms?
What is argument for a non-physical consciousness? — TheMadFool
So you identify as a physicalist and a nominalist. I am not sure what that entails. What does this mean to you, when and how did you decide ? Did it change your way of life ?In my view, as a physicalist and a nominalist who doesn't buy genidentity (identity through time) — Terrapin Station
I find it strange that some people cannot see what I can. But perhaps that indicates the point I am trying to make. We may all have the same brain structures but there is a difference in our level of awareness and subjective assessment of the world and ourselves. And that can affect our objectivity and sense of identity over time.
I think it common sense that humans are more than just skin, bone, and connections. Why do philosophers give themselves such a hard time... — Amity
So, a neural network is essentially a computer program that tries to mimic consciousness in one aspect by modeling itself after how neurons fire — TogetherTurtle
Our current machines are not outfitted with such things, but they can be. However, I think the question quickly becomes "should we?". Is it ethical to make a machine feel pain? We only feel pain because it is a necessity. If you start bleeding internally or eat something poison, then pain is the only way you will know. A machine might not need to feel pain to work and may, in fact, benefit from not feeling pain. If I were you, I would rather have a virtual mind help me shut down a failing reactor rather than complaining of the heat coming off of it. — TogetherTurtle
The first part is another philosophical argument which does not concern me. I doubt the value of such speculation. However, I know that others become quite activated and enthused by it.how do we even realize that all of this is real, how are we aware?". — TogetherTurtle
We just have to know that we're doing the best that we can. — TogetherTurtle
Can you kindly tell me how is it that you believe in a non-physical mind. Share your insight. It could help me a lot. Thanks. — TheMadFool
No. I think I have explained it to the best of my ability. If you don't understand what I have said then I can't take it any further. Thanks. — Amity
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.