# I Gotta Split. Paradox? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 22, 2005, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391 "2005-10-22T04:09:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/201 "2005-11-04T13:03:13Z")
> [@TibbyCat](#): > > SM keeps calling me a liar for calling cells in contact a “physical bond”. No, I categorically do not call you a liar. I think that you are _mistaken_, not mendacious, and that a little more perseverance on your part in asking yourself what you _really mean_ by this curious phrase will make you realise your mistake. > [@](#): > > Like I said, I believe that POV can be thought of as a thing, as opposed to a process, therefore not very much real estate is needed for it. Do **dead** brains have a POV? If not, why not? They’re the _same atoms_ as when the brain lived (if death is recent). > [@](#): > > Maybe it would be better for you to think of POV as being your identification card. Where exactly does it reside? As far as I know, no one knows yet. Cognitive science says that it is in your _memories, ie._ those **arrangements** of cells/atoms in your brain just as the memory of a computer lies in the arrangement of magnetic domains in the hard drive. > [@](#): > > If I were to venture a guess, this POV “thing” is within the DNA of certain or all cells of the conscious brain. So presumably it still had the POV when it _wasn’t_ in your brain for those billions of years before your birth? That sounds like [pansychism](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/) to me, which I and cognitive scientists in general consider utterly ludicrous. > [@](#): > > There is one fundamental particle in your brain that is your identity. Maybe you can share the processes of your mind, but you can’t share that particle. Any problem with that? Only that it is a completely _unnecessary_ entity. Why bother keeping it at all, if setting it aside will bring you into full agreement with us both? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/202 "2005-11-04T13:05:19Z")
Sorry, but my eyes start to glaze over halfway through these rambling analogies; there is no difference between a system performing a process and an absolutely exactl duplicate of that system performing an identical process; by _ **definition** _ there is no difference, because the duplicate is exact. If consciousness _ **is** _ the totality of that system and process, then there is nothing to lose in the process of stopping it in one place and resuming it in another. Nothing at all. But you still seem to be arguing that there is some entity that is responsible for consciousness that resides _outside_ of the set of things described as ‘the system and the process it is performing’ - your ‘fundamental particle’ - yes, I have a problem with it; the problem is that its existence is pure imaginative speculation on your part. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/203 "2005-11-04T14:45:40Z")
> [@tibbycat](#): > > Originally Posted by TibbyCat > Why? According to you, my lungs are going to die tonight and I’m going to asphyxiate before I wake up! > [@SentientMeat](#): > > This is called “building a strawman”, _ie._ misquoting or misrepresenting an opponent in order to find a position you can argue with because your having trouble with the genuine one you _can’t_. > I want to see you describe the atom exchange takes place at the lung surface, and the difference between life and death which depend not on the atoms themselves but their _arrangement_. I answered your question. Please answer mine. Let’s be more precise: I built a strawman in order to avoid being suckered into a huge diversion (aberration, alteration, deflection, departure, detour, deviation, digression, divergence, red herring, stutter step) that would undoubtedly lead to another 2 pages of minutia that has no bearing on the argument at hand. Simplifying issues as best you can to substantiate your positions is the better way to go, trust me. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > I want to see you describe the atom exchange takes place at the lung surface, and the difference between life and death… I want to see you recite all the plays of Shakespeare backwards, while chewing gum and skipping rope… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/204 "2005-11-04T14:50:55Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Only that it is a completely unnecessary entity. Why bother keeping it at all, if setting it aside will bring you into full agreement with us both? Unnecessary in whose eyes? Obviously, I was being facetious when I said “one fundamental particle”. It would be more than one atom, and it would most likely be in the nuclear DNA. Why bother keeping it at all? Dunno. Sure, it doesn’t seem like something that I would bother keeping, and it probably doesn’t seem like something that you would bother keeping, either? So, in our eyes, it may seem like an “unnecessary” entity. But, we’re not the force that got the ball rolling in the first place, are we? I may not see any reason to keep a dollop of manure in my pocket; you may not see any reason to keep it in your pocket either. But, maybe someone…a gardner, perhaps…may find it important. It doesn’t really matter if you or I think that it is necessary, or even stupid. For whatever reason, the driving force of evolution decided that it was important to propagate DNA (and in my opinion, it carries an identification card). So, there may very well be a few or many particles that remain unique that the “eye” of evolution “bothers keeping it at all”. Why? Who knows why? Why does it bother propagating DNA in the first place? Why is it important to push DNA into the future? What is the end game? If I knew why it is important to carry DNA into the future, then maybe I would know why a few particles are important. But, no one really knows, do they? The reason that I did not want to spend so much time down this particular side street of the topic at large is because in the end, it comes down to faith in ones philosophy: 1. I believe that your identity is unique and cannot be shared. I believe that this identity is attached to or is something that is unable to be divided. 2. You believe otherwise. We should all have guessed that the end of this argument would result in our holding on to our own beliefs. It is un-testable. And logic will only go so far so long as there are so many variables. I have my reasons for believing that everyone has a unique identity. There is no argument you can make that will alter my belief that there are certain constants in the universe, and a unique identity is one of them. If you could have convinced me that “nothing” remains constant in the human brain, you had a shot at making me reconsider my position. You should have anticipated that you would not be able to do so. I did anticipate that I would be unable to convince you that 1) a constant does exist in the brain AND 2) that that constant contains a unique identity. There is simply no way for me to logically convince you of those two things. That argument was not worth having. Since I did anticipate this outcome, I, as you should recall, originally (and many times after) tried to attack this problem of multiple identities from a different angle: the angle of a perceived paradox. That is an argument that has a better chance of not ending in a stalemate. I would argue the position of why a paradox exists; you would argue the position of why a paradox does not exist. I’m still game for that. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/205 "2005-11-04T15:00:20Z")
> [@Tibbycat](#): > > Unnecessary in whose eyes? > Obviously, I was being facetious when I said “one fundamental particle”. It would be more than one atom, and it would most likely be in the nuclear DNA. So you appear to be absolutely convinced that thing entity exists, just completely unsure as to what it is. How are we supposed to take this seriously? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/206 "2005-11-04T15:10:18Z")
> [@](#): > > I built a strawman in order to avoid being suckered into a huge diversion **TibbyCat** , a suggestion. Above, you are responding to a post already a couple of days old. I have no idea why you didn’t simply reply back _then_. So, calm down. Allow yourself a good half hour, and _read this whole thread again_. Every post, and every point, and even as many of the links as ou can. Don’t skip over things in your haste to respond to the previous point. Just read it _all_, completely and carefully. If you do this, I think you’ll see we’re all largely saying the same thing. We are all _scientists_ here (or, at least, consider science to be a useful epistemology), and all seek some scientific explanation for our consciousness and sense of identity. Now, this might ultimately require you to admit (even if only to yourself, not explicitly on this message board) that your intuition regarding this scenario was _mistaken_. This is no easy thing to do, and requires great courage. I have on many occasions on this board been forced to re-evaluate my position and change my mind (heck, when I arrived here I thought Oliver Stone’s “JFK” was a serious film!). In fact, I changed my mind on [precisely this issue](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=183441) here. I started off thinking as you do, and by carefully examining the assumptions that position was based on, came to realise that I was mistaken. Hope this helps. Anyway, to address your other points… > [@](#): > > For whatever reason, the driving force of evolution decided that it was important to propagate DNA (and in my opinion, it carries an identification card). _All_ of your cells contain your DNA. We’re back to considering whether your teeth or hair have a Point Of View, which I consider ludicrous. > [@](#): > > 1. I believe that your identity is unique and cannot be shared. I believe that this identity is attached to or is something that is unable to be divided. > 2. You believe otherwise. Actually, I believe your identity _is_ unique because there is **no way to replicate human memories** in reality. > [@](#): > > If you could have convinced me that “nothing” remains constant in the human brain, you had a shot at making me reconsider my position. You build another strawman here. As I have said in excess of 10 times now, memories or arrangements are not **nothing**. > [@](#): > > That is an argument that has a better chance of not ending in a stalemate. I would argue the position of why a paradox exists; you would argue the position of why a paradox does not exist. I’m still game for that. A paradox does not exist, because “your” identity is contingent on a unique string of memories encoded in the arrangement of your neuron-atoms. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/207 "2005-11-05T14:28:07Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > What Mange and I are suggesting is that we are biological computers Ok, lets go with computers. I see it one of two ways: 1) Consciousness cannot be transferred to a duplicate 2) Consciousness can be transferred to a duplicate. 1. You have a Dell Computer. You have a CD-Rom titled “Consciousness” in your CD drive. The drive’s tray is stuck in the “in” position. 2. You have a Dell Computer and a Gateway computer. The drive tray is in working order and you put the CD-Rom in the Gateway. The Dell computer’s “sense of self” resides in the processor (or the hardrive, or the Windows OS, if your prefer). The Dell is conscious and feels like a Dell; the Gateway is conscious and feels like a Gateway. But computers aren’t biological. They are things and they don’t exchange atoms over time. So, let’s make the computers more “biological”. 90% of the atoms in the computer will be exchanged with other like-atoms. A lower percentage of atoms exchange in the processor: perhaps only 80%. The atoms will be exchanged at different rates, but in 1 month, 90% of all original atoms will have been replaced. Result: I believe that the Dell will still be in working order, and it will still feel like the same Dell. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/208 "2005-11-05T14:31:11Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Allow yourself a good half hour, and read this whole thread again. Every post, and every point, and even as many of the links as ou can. Don’t skip over things in your haste to respond to the previous point. Just read it all, completely and carefully. Ok, Pop. But, then can I have dinner? > [@SentientMeat](#): > > Now, this might ultimately require you to admit (even if only to yourself, not explicitly on this message board) that your intuition regarding this scenario was mistaken. Can I confess it to my Priest (if I were Catholic, that is)? > [@SentientMeat](#): > > A paradox does not exist, because “your” identity is contingent on a unique string of memories encoded in the arrangement of your neuron-atoms. You seem quite definitive and unwavering about that. But I would still like to address the paradox thingy at some point in the near future. I’m keeping an open mind in saying that even though I believe strongly that illogicality exists with the concept of 2 exact identities co-existing simultaneously, I’d like to explore it a little more and get from all of you who believe it not to be a paradox, your perspective on why you believe it not to be. One of the best ways to accomplish this will be for me to pose some perceived paradox questions and have them discussed. I’ll pose one soon (as soon as we can put the “identity thing” issue to bed for awhile) ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/209 "2005-11-05T15:04:38Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Do dead brains have a POV? If not, why not? They’re the same atoms as when the brain lived (if death is recent). > [@SentientMeat](#): > > So presumably it still had the POV when it wasn’t in your brain for those billions of years before your birth? That sounds like pansychism to me, which I and cognitive scientists in general consider utterly ludicrous. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > All of your cells contain your DNA. We’re back to considering whether your teeth or hair have a Point Of View, which I consider ludicrous. Yes, yes…and, ah…yes. They all have a POV. They just don’t all have a “conscious” POV. As I have admitted before, I’m no physicist, but I believe “frame of reference: FOR” may be a more appropriate term to use for a non-conscious POV. And the same particles can be involved in more than one POV depending on the context. Example: 100 particles in a particular array may have a certain group POV (i.e. consciousness); the 100 particles also have separate ungrouped POV’s (unconscious). The loci of the ungrouped POV’s would be within each particle; the loci of the group POV would be within the spatial arrangement of the group. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/210 "2005-11-05T16:59:17Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > So you appear to be absolutely convinced that thing entity exists, just completely unsure as to what it is. How are we supposed to take this seriously? Well, I’m not claiming that it exists only because it “could” exist (this would not be unlike my asking you to disprove my claim that there is a magical Easter Bunny that exists in an alternate universe…{although, there really is, you know}), and I’m not even saying that it exists because I necessarily “want” it to exist (having it not exist opens up many more interesting possibilities, not the least of which is immortality). I believe that it exists because it “has” to exist. I don’t believe that you can have 2 unlinked beings with the same identity in our universe. I believe that it breaks physical law. If you want to shake my belief the “thing entity”, the best way to do it will to argue against what I believe to be the paradox. Like I said in a recent post, I don’t think it is productive to continue down this avenue of arguing about identity in terms of: a) does a physical constant exist, and b) whether it contains our unique identity. Or, at least it is putting the cart before the horse (disprove paradox first, then describe the mechanics). Discussing only the mechanics of the existence of a unique identity, in the end, may simply come down to faith… …But, SM did (indirectly) pose an intriguing question with regard to DNA. So, I couldn’t resist having a go with that one: The problem: If we use DNA as the unchanging bonded physical continuum, it must be realized that the DNA in each cell/nuclei contains unique atoms – different in each cell, and from each cell. Therefore, you could take any similar atoms and arrange them in similar fashion. The result would be the same, and you could justifiably conclude that no unique identity could exist. The solution: Again, let me simplify and analogize (i.e. I know it doesn’t really happen this way). \*We are only concerned with the n-DNA within those cells (the bare minimum) that are necessary to sustain consciousness. We may disregard all other DNA in the body. \*We will disregard the cells and all biological processes and speak only about the nuclei. We need, let’s say, 1000 nuclei to initiate and maintain consciousness. \*Our DNA model will be viewed as a branching array of atoms. Each double helix contains 1000 unique atoms. \*The “process” of consciousness is an electrical current. \*The atoms are little metal balls. Timeline: - Cheap prophylactic. \*You are conceived. - You develop. - The necessary 1000 nuclei are finally present and in proper array. - The “electrical current” of consciousness is turned on. - The current courses between all the nuclei and “imprints” on all 1,000,000 atoms. - “You” are born. Result: You have the “process” of consciousness bonding with the “thing” of consciousness forming a unique conscious being with its own identity. At this point, the thing and the process are singular and inseparable. Perhaps you can garner that same current and electrify another array of 1,000,000 similar atoms, but it will be a different set of 1,000,000 atoms. They will have a separate identity. (On second thought, maybe I should be glad that you guy’s kept me on this track as long as you have…I’m starting to like the scenario I just described…maybe it has possibilities. It certainly seems to give me wiggle room out the reductio ad absurdum fundamental particle panpsychistic dilemma.) But, I digress… Anyway, here is my question: Could the “array of unique atoms” described in the above scenario (obviously with more meat and realism) be the vessel that contains our unique conscious identity? Not “is it”, or “should it”, but simply “could it”. If you answer “no”, please provide me with your reason why. If you answer “yes”, then we can continue with the “is it” and “should it” questions. Me and my Tibby ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/211 "2005-11-05T22:12:59Z")
> [@Tibbycat](#): > > Anyway, here is my question: Could the “array of unique atoms” described in the above scenario (obviously with more meat and realism) be the vessel that contains our unique conscious identity? Not “is it”, or “should it”, but simply “could it”. > > If you answer “no”, please provide me with your reason why. If you answer “yes”, then we can continue with the “is it” and “should it” questions. > > Me and my Tibby ‘Could’? Monkeys ‘could’ fly out of my arse, they just won’t, because there’s no reason for that to happen, but on some hypothetical other planet, it _could_ be quite a common occurrence. So yes, there’s probably some absurd way in which an array of unique atoms _could_ constitute consciousness, on an imaginary planet where things just happen to work that way, but I would argue that there’s simply no reason to suspect that this _could_ be how things work for mortal humans here on planet Earth. If you _ **precisely** _ duplicate an apparatus and the process it performs, then you’ve got the _same thing_ somewhere else; if you precisely duplicate me and my pattern of thoughts and memories, you’ve got _another me_. The paradox you’re grasping for simply doesn’t exist outside of your own imagination. I’m not even sure if it even exists there - certainly what you’ve been describing so far doesn’t actually sound like what could honestly be defined as a paradox at all, just a complex puzzle. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/212 "2005-11-05T23:48:56Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > ‘Could’? Monkeys ‘could’ fly out of my arse, they just won’t, because there’s no reason for that to happen, but on some hypothetical other planet, it _could_ be quite a common occurrence. > So yes, there’s probably some absurd way in which an array of unique atoms _could_ constitute consciousness, on an imaginary planet where things just happen to work that way, but I would argue that there’s simply no reason to suspect that this _could_ be how things work for mortal humans here on planet Earth. Hmm…OK (a simple “yes” would have sufficed). \*\ You mean I’m the only one who has monkeys flying out of his arse? I thought it was common knowledge that flying monkeys make good colonics… \* Actually, there is a point to be made here: just because you don’t know the reason, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. Someone recently brought that to my attention. I don’t remember who it was… :smack: oh, yes…I remember, now… > [@Mangetout](#): > > I don’t think anyone was actually claiming that it does make it true, only that the counterintuitive nature of something cannot be used as a definitive criterion in deciding to dismiss it as untrue, and yet that’s what you have been doing. …it was you! 😃 You have to understand the mind of that which puts something in motion (i.e. evolution) before you can understand all the reasons. I have a good reason to believe that something like this must occur (to resolve a paradox). What is your good reason for believing that something like this does not occur? > [@Mangetout](#): > > If you _ **precisely** _ duplicate an apparatus and the process it performs, then you’ve got the _same thing_ somewhere else; if you precisely duplicate me and my pattern of thoughts and memories, you’ve got _another me_. The paradox you’re grasping for simply doesn’t exist outside of your own imagination. I’m not even sure if it even exists there - certainly what you’ve been describing so far doesn’t actually sound like what could honestly be defined as a paradox at all, just a complex puzzle. I have not even explained the paradox yet (we’ve been arguing unique identity mechanics all this time), so how can you be so sure that it does not exist? We’re putting the cart before the horse again.I’ll keep an open mind, if you will too – it’s the scientific way. Recap: \*I believe that a “unique identity” must exist in order to not violate physical law. You can get me to reconsider my position by explaining why it is not in violation. (I’ll elaborate on the paradox tomorrow, promise) \*You have just alluded to the fact that a “unique identity” could exist, but doesn’t. You should discuss the reasons that you believe that it does not exist (is it simply because it sounds bizarre, or is it for a deeper reason?). Then I will be able to discuss that point as well. _\_ I’ll be back… the Tibbinator 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2005, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/213 "2005-11-06T19:47:27Z")
> [@Tibbycat](#): > > Hmm…OK (a simple “yes” would have sufficed). > > \*\ You mean I’m the only one who has monkeys flying out of his arse? I thought it was common knowledge that flying monkeys make good colonics… > \* > Actually, there is a point to be made here: just because you don’t know the reason, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. Someone recently brought that to my attention. I don’t remember who it was… :smack: oh, yes…I remember, now… > > …it was you! 😃 Not even sure what you mean by all this. Honestly, I think this entire argument would dissolve were you to read, learn and inwardly digest the principle of Occam’s Razor; i.e. don’t invent an unnecessarily complex explanation when a simple one is entirely sufficient. > [@](#): > > You have to understand the mind of that which puts something in motion (i.e. evolution) before you can understand all the reasons. > I have a good reason to believe that something like this must occur (to resolve a paradox). What is your good reason for believing that something like this does not occur? You don’t need a good reason to _not believe_ something. You keep trying to shift the burden of proof, but I’m afraid it rests squarely upon your shoulders; you’re the one arguing for all kinds of special phenomena and circumstances. When come back, bring evidence. > [@](#): > > I have not even explained the paradox yet (we’ve been arguing unique identity mechanics all this time), so how can you be so sure that it does not exist? We’re putting the cart before the horse again.I’ll keep an open mind, if you will too – it’s the scientific way. > Recap: > \*I believe that a “unique identity” must exist in order to not violate physical law. You can get me to reconsider my position by explaining why it is not in violation. (I’ll elaborate on the paradox tomorrow, promise) This all feels very familiar. I predict you will just come back with another rambling and tangentially relevant analogy. Forget it. > [@](#): > > You have just alluded to the fact that a “unique identity” could exist, but doesn’t. You should discuss the reasons that you believe that it does not exist (is it simply because it sounds bizarre, or is it for a deeper reason?). Then I will be able to discuss that point as well. > _\_ I’ll be back… > the Tibbinator 🆒 Unique identity exists in the real world right now because there is no real-world process capable of accurately duplicating it; it may be that no such process will ever exist, but that doesn’t change the fact of what’s happening. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2005, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/214 "2005-11-07T10:21:49Z")
We are beginning to repeat ourselves yet again. Once more unto the breech, and then I’m afraid I will have had quite enough. Please, _listen_. > [@TibbyCat](#): > > 1. You have a Dell Computer and a Gateway computer. The drive tray is in working order and you put the CD-Rom in the Gateway. The Dell computer’s “sense of self” resides in the processor (or the hardrive, or the Windows OS, if your prefer). The Dell is conscious and feels like a Dell; the Gateway is conscious and feels like a Gateway. OK, now ask yourself: What, _really_, makes a Dell a Dell, and could a Gateway _become_ a Dell? It is not just the name on the box - that is rather like a human’s tattoo or clothing tag, and as easily transferable. One could point to the amount of RAM or the chip speed, or some other difference in hardware. But those items are just as easily transferable also. In fact, any computer can be made to [simulate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation#Simulation_in_computer_science) any _other_ computer: this is not speculation as in our human case, but a [scientific thesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesis) as demonstrably true as any other. So, since a Gateway could become a Dell via appropriate upgrades, let us ask: What identifies _your_ Dell as being distinct from _my_ Dell? They both came off the same conveyor belt, and any faulty part could be replaced by an identical part (_ie._ an instant 100% atom exchange rather than a 90% exchange over whatever time period). The answer is _not_ the hardware, nor any silicon atom in the chip. What distinguishes your computer from mine is the **memories** stored in your computer: the **arrangement** of magnetic domains or microswitches in the chips and drives. If I copied your entire computer memory onto a different computer straight off the conveyor belt, you _would not be able to tell_ (save for the odd ‘scar’ or ‘tattoo’ perhaps - the equivalent of the inky thumb identifier). Whatever program you were running, from a game of chess to a full 3-D Doom lifetime, could **continue, _unaffected_, on the other hardware**. > [@](#): > > Can I confess it to my Priest (if I were Catholic, that is)? You see, this makes me doubt whether you bother to read _any_ of the links I provide. Just to set my mind at rest, could you tell me what the number of the post was on which I had clearly fundamentally changed my mind in the “Schwarzenegger Continuation of Consciousness” thread? > [@](#): > > I believe strongly that illogicality exists with the concept of 2 exact identities co-existing simultaneously Again, listen to what I _am_ saying and what I’m _not_. I have stated several times that two exactly identical consciousnesses **cannot** exist, since the moment they become conscious again they will be **forming new, distinct memories** from different locations in space. The only time they could be said to be identical was when their memories were identical and **no** new sensory input was causing new memory formation, _ie._ immediately after **un** conscious duplication. > [@](#): > > As I have admitted before, I’m no physicist, but I believe “frame of reference: FOR” may be a more appropriate term to use for a non-conscious POV. I _am_ a physicst, and you are using Frame of Reference completely inappropriately. You seem to be just talking about their _location_. Yes, every particle has a location in spacetime (let’s not introduce QM complications here) - that’s what _we’re_ telling _you_. > [@](#): > > And the same particles can be involved in more than one POV depending on the context. Example: 100 particles in a particular array may have a certain group POV (i.e. consciousness); the 100 particles also have separate ungrouped POV’s (unconscious). The loci of the ungrouped POV’s would be within each particle; the loci of the group POV would be within the spatial arrangement of the group. I’m sorry, but this is just gibberish unless you are suddenly _agreeing_ with us that the **temporal** arrangement is what distinguishes a “conscious” brain from a “dead” one. > [@](#): > > If you want to shake my belief the “thing entity”, the best way to do it will to argue against what I believe to be the paradox. We _have_, several times. I will ask again: if I start a game of chess on some pieces, then cross the Atlantic and continue the game on a different set of pieces with you, has **something** crossed the Atlantic? If so, could you describe what it was which crossed the Atlantic, and why human consciousness is different? (Remember that, as in the case of the laser spot on the moon, arrangements might _seem_ to violate physical laws but actually don’t). > [@](#): > > If we use DNA as the unchanging bonded physical continuum, it must be realized that the DNA in each cell/nuclei contains unique atoms –– different in each cell, and from each cell. But even in DNA, atoms are exchanged: that is essentially the mechanism for **aging** in the first place! So yet _another_ analogy of yours falls to basic life science. > [@](#): > > Again, let me simplify and analogize: But your simplifications and analogies are just plain _wrong and misleading_. I might as well say “let us analogise the Earth as a flat disc”. > [@](#): > > Could the “array of unique atoms” described in the above scenario (obviously with more meat and realism) be the vessel that contains our unique conscious identity? Let me put the question back to you: Could the array of **exchangeable** atoms be the **arrangement** which yields our conscious identity? _Why_ do you think that impossible? > [@](#): > > If you answer “no”, please provide me with your reason why. I have told you time and again why there is no such thing as “unique” atoms: since they are _identical_, then two atoms can swap places and the temporal process continue unaffected. Now, please provide me with _your_ reason why “your” identity **could not** be a unique string of memories encoded in the arrangement of your neuron-atoms. Note that I have also explained numerous times why temporal arrangements like this **don’t** violate physical laws, even though they might _appear_ to. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/215 "2005-11-07T16:23:16Z")
Imagine a googolplex of Tibbycats spread throughout the universe. No matter where you went or where you turned, there I would be. Resistance from Tibby is futile. All of “me’s” would hound you with inane SD-type questions and poke you until you answered, forever. Can you imagine such a world? _\ 😃 All right, granted, it would be a very good world – an ideal world, actually. But, let’s continue…_ > [@SentientMeat](#): > > Again, listen to what I am saying and what I’m not. I have stated several times that two exactly identical consciousnesses cannot exist, since the moment they become conscious again they will be forming new, distinct memories from different locations in space. The only time they could be said to be identical was when their memories were identical and no new sensory input was causing new memory formation, ie. immediately after unconscious duplication. The _“only time they could be said to be identical was when their memories were identical and no new sensory input was causing new memory formation”_. In other words, they have the same past. For all intent and purpose, they were identical people…_in the past_. I never argued that point. It’s a given. In the “mitosis” and “black socks” experiment, however, we are not talking about their past, we are talking about their future. And we are talking about the future only from the perspective of the original. You will most likely point out that ones future is an abstract illusion, or that it could go in any number of directions, or that it is unbound to a physical body because there is no physical permanence or whatever other spin you want to put on it. But, let’s look at it in practical terms: When I go to bed, I have a high degree of confidence that “I” will wake up in the same bed that I went to sleep in (I would say same _body_, but then we will go down that “it’s not the same body” road again). I have a very low degree of confidence that I will wake up somewhere else. If someone were to make the following offer to “me” before going to sleep: “I will give you 1-$ million when you wake up”, I would be very happy. I would be happy because I feel that “I” have a future in that person who will wake up in my bed and that money will be mine. If the person who wakes up in my bed bumped his head during the night and lost his past memories, I would still feel confident that “I”(granted, an altered “I”) would be receiving the money in the morning, not someone else. If they were to offer the money to my duplicate, I would be somewhat happy that someone who looked like me and remembers things as I do would be getting money, but I would not think that it would be me. If I were to answer the “mitosis” and “black socks” questions the way that you did, I would have to believe that I had a future in the duplicate (s). I have no interest in the past (what’s done is done). My only goal is that “I” want to survive into the future. Question: Do you agree that you must believe that you will have a future in the duplicate for you to have answered the way that you did? In order to have a future with the duplicate(s), I believe that one of the following must apply: 1. Your future will be in one duplicate. 2. Your future will be in “original you + duplicate(s)”, or in “multiple duplicates”. In other words: you will have more than one future. If you chose #1 above, then how could you feel you have no future in your original body if you remain alive after duplication? If you chose #2 above, then I believe one of the following must apply (if even for an instant): a) Some form of consciousness sharing (a neural network). b) Alternating consciousness. (?) Question: If you believe a) or b) above, please describe the mechanics. Let’s take a more extreme example for better clarification. We agree that in both the “mitosis”, and “black socks” experiments, the duplicate(s) will have completely unique particles from each other and from the original. There really is nothing special about the mode of duplication. There should be no reason why the duplication process could not take place at a distance. The result will be the same. (Agree or disagree?) Example: The Distance Duplicator (DD): This will assemble you by recipe – Take 10 quintillion “up” quarks, 15 septillion “strange” quarks, 5 quadrillion bosons…point them and spin them in the same direction as the original…put it in the oven for 35 minutes…, and out pops your duplicate. Let’s put the DD on a habitable planet around a star 100 light-years away. (Adjust clocks for jet lag time dilation 😃 ). 10:00 am: You are walking down the street in London. 10:01am: Your duplicate is assembled on planet Penis (brother planet to Venus). 10:11am: An alien monster kills and eats your duplicate. Questions: 1. Were you (on Earth) aware of anything unusual, or different occurring in between 10:01 and 10:11? 2. Besides the disconcerting feeling of finding himself at one moment walking down a London street and the next being chased by a hungry space alien, would your duplicate feel any effect from you on Earth? Let’s analyze the Duplicate: He is created at 10:01am on an alien planet. His future begins with a monster chasing him. The last thing that he remembers is walking down the street in London. Was he physically in London 1 minute ago? No, he was not assembled yet. The person whom he remembers as himself before 10:01 was in a different physical body. He has an illusionary past and a real, but unique future. Let’s analyze you on Earth. 1. You are walking down the street at 10:00. At 10:01 you feel or experience nothing out of the ordinary. At 10:11 you feel or experience nothing out of the ordinary. Your duplicate was born and died with absolutely no effect on you; while your duplicate was alive, you had no effect on him. If you died at 10:02, would you feel instantly transported onto the alien planet, the same way that your duplicate felt transported 1 minute earlier? 2. You are walking down the street at 10:00. At 10:01 you feel or experience something. What is it? Are you sharing consciousness with your duplicate? Is this some form of neural network? If so, where is the locus of the network, in between the two planets? A big part of consciousness is perception of ones environment. Do you see, hear, smell, taste or feel anything from the alien planet? If the choice is #2: While you are both alive, you each have two simultaneous futures and/or a shared consciousness in real time (at least for, in your words _immediately after unconscious duplication_). What is the mode of information exchange/transmission? What is the physical link that will allow you to exchange information instantaneously 100 light-years apart? Hyper-lightspeed tachyons? If the choice is #1: You have two beings with absolutely no effect on each other. You have no future in the duplicate. You would not say “yes” to the mitosis or “black socks” experiment. As far as you on Earth are concerned, your duplicate may as well be the Easter Bunny. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/216 "2005-11-07T16:45:08Z")
There were 6 direct questions in my last post, **TibbyCat**. I will answer all the questions in your post, but I’ll expect answers to mine which are as full as mine to yours. [quote=TibbyCat] Do you agree that you must believe that you will have a future in the duplicate for you to have answered the way that you did? [/quote}Yes. I believe I equally have a future in _both_ of the individuals who wake up with the same memories, _ie._ option #2. > [@](#): > > If you chose #2 above, then I believe one of the following must apply (if even for an instant): > a) Some form of consciousness sharing (a neural network). > b) Alternating consciousness. (?) > > Question: If you believe a) or b) above, please describe the mechanics. You believe incorrectly: (a) or (b) is a false dilemma. The third option is that the _number of separate consciousnesses has been increased_, **both** of which are equally “you”. > [@](#): > > There should be no reason why the duplication process could not take place at a distance. The result will be the same. (Agree or disagree?) Agree. > [@](#): > > 1. Were you (on Earth) aware of anything unusual, or different occurring in between 10:01 and 10:11? > 2. Besides the disconcerting feeling of finding himself at one moment walking down a London street and the next being chased by a hungry space alien, would your duplicate feel any effect from you on Earth? No. The consciousnesses are separate (but _both_ equally “you”, and let’s ignore whether the actual minute comprising the duplication process “feels weird” for either version). > [@](#): > > Was he physically in London 1 minute ago? No, he was not assembled yet. **Yes** , because “he” **is** his memories, _ie._ the _arrangement_ of atoms, not the atoms themselves. > [@](#): > > The person whom he remembers as himself before 10:01 was in a different physical body. Irrelevant, IMO. > [@](#): > > He has an illusionary past and a real, but unique future. Then _both_ versions have an illusionary past. > [@](#): > > If you died at 10:02, would you feel instantly transported onto the alien planet, the same way that your duplicate felt transported 1 minute earlier? I disagree that the duplicate “felt transported”. His consciousness continued from his memories - that’s all there is to it. > [@](#): > > Do you see, hear, smell, taste or feel anything from the alien planet? No - my choice is #1, but with the clarification above. > [@](#): > > What is the mode of information exchange/transmission? What is the physical link that will allow you to exchange information instantaneously 100 light-years apart? Hyper-lightspeed tachyons? Yet again, consider the **chess game** and the **laser spot on the moon** , and the **falling dominoes**. No _object_ is “travelling”. An _arrangement_ is initiated elsewhere. > [@](#): > > If the choice is #1: You have two beings with absolutely no effect on each other. Agree. > [@](#): > > You have no future in the duplicate. Disagree. “My” future is in **both** arrangements, just as different endgames of the chess game can continue from the same halfway point. > [@](#): > > You would not say “yes” to the mitosis or “black socks” experiment. Yes I would, because the duplicate is equally “me” despite being different atoms, just as my arrangement 3 years ago was equally “me” despite being different atoms. Now, my 6 answers in full, if you please. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/217 "2005-11-07T18:52:30Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > There were 6 direct questions in my last post, TibbyCat. I will answer all the questions in your post, but I’ll expect answers to mine… Don’t have time to answer all at once, one at a time will have to do. I’m not sure if you consider this one of the “big 6”, but it seems important to you… > [@SentientMeat](#): > > Yet again, consider the chess game… > [@SentientMeat](#): > > I have a better suggestion: A game. Specifically, a chess game to begin with, and then a First Person Perspective computer game like Doom. > Imagine that I have just played a chess game on my personal board here in Cardiff. The game is not the pieces - I could play exactly the same game with different pieces. Indeed, I could start the game with some pieces, write down the moves, and then travel to Florida and finish the game on different pieces with you. Do you see what’s happened there? I have arranged one set of pieces in time, then duplicated that arrangement of pieces halfway through. The game could then continue on either set of pieces, and neither end-game could be said to be any more or less based on the arrangement at the half-way point. > > Now, let’s take the analogy further. Instead of chess, imagine a game of Doom, every move and pixel of which is stored in a hard-drive. The “memories” of the First Person Perspective player could at any point be duplicated onto another computer, and the game continued. Just as in the chess game after duplication, neither player could be said to be the player. They both have equal claim to be continuing the original game. > > What Mange and I are suggesting is that we are biological computers playing “real life Doom”. At any point, it is not the computer itself but the game - the arrangement of neurons comprising our memories, just like the written moves or the hard drive - which distinguishes one person from another. We are our memories. (Of course, it is still impossible to copy human memories in this way.) > > Thus, like the laser spot on the moon, it seems like something is crossing the Atlantic. But it is not. There is only a copied configuration: the atoms themselves are completely different ones. This is simply the same tired scenario with new clothes. My Point: It is fully dependant on: through whose eyes you are speaking?. 1. Through your eyes (POV)? : You are playing chess in Cardiff. At different points in time, the chess pieces have different arrangements. We will equate the temporal arrangement of pieces to the process of consciousness. Now you leave those chess pieces behind, travel to Florida, open my chess set, arrange the pieces exactly as they were in Cardiff, and continue to play. Is there any difference in the game (process of consciousness) through your eyes? No. No difference whatsoever. 2. Through the eyes of Mange and all other observers?: Ditto. No difference whatsoever. 3. Through the eyes of the king’s rook on the set you left in Cardiff?: It makes all the difference in the world. He is no longer playing the game. He is no longer conscious(not that he ever was, but you get the point). 4. Through the eyes of the queens bishop in Florida?: Yes, he found himself suddenly in the middle of a game in process. If I were any chess piece in Cardiff, I would feel that I have no future in Florida. The game goes on, but without me. This is simply another example of confusing what I call the “generic process of consciousness” with “identity”. The “game” is consciousness. The “game pieces” are separate identities. In reality, do I believe that there is a “generic process of consciousness” and that it is separate from “identity”? No, I believe that there is only “consciousness” (identity is included). They can not be separated, and it can’t be duplicated. There would be no difference in the game of Doom. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2005, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/218 "2005-11-07T18:57:12Z")
> [@TibbyCat](#): > > The game goes on, but without me. But what if you **are** the game? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/219 "2005-11-07T18:59:30Z")
> [@](#): > > In reality, do I believe that there is a “generic process of consciousness” and that it is separate from “identity”? No, I believe that there is only “consciousness” (identity is included). They can not be separated, and it can’t be duplicated. So you **agree** that consciousness is a process (_ie._ a temporal arrangement)? And if identity cannot be separated, then _that_ is an arrangement as well? ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2005, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/220 "2005-11-07T22:00:33Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > But what if you are the game? …What if I were a leprechaun? Take your pick: 1. I am not the game. 2. I am the game but the game must stay put. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > So you agree that consciousness is a process (ie. a temporal arrangement)? And if identity cannot be separated, then that is an arrangement as well? The proper question is: an arrangement of what? To you it is an arrangement of non-permanent elements. To me it is an arrangement of a set of at least partially permanent elements (and only for the life of the conscious organism, not necessarily for all of eternity…big distinction there). I have illustrated a model in post #211 (the imprinted array of 1,000,000 atoms). I can’t say it any better than that. Well, I could, but I don’t want to. 😛 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391.md?page=12)