I Gotta Split. Paradox?

Great Debates
61

Mange, I agree with nearly everything that you and Sentientmeat (and most others) have posted recently…always have. You have been arguing points that I am already in agreement with.

I don’t have to refute that, I’ll even agree to it. It is merely a different way to look at something. Not a problem. It is not germane to my point, however. Why? Because a physical link exists between the tibby that died last night and the tibby that awoke this morning.

I agree with that statement and it actually bolsters my point. Yes, adult mitosis will never actually occur. It is biologically impossible. We agree. However, so far as I know, it does not violate any physical laws of nature. Since my position is that consciousness resides in the realm of the subatomic world, it is only the physical laws of nature that I am concerned with and that I must not violate. (Going back to Einstein’s thought experiment of riding on a wave/particle of light. He, of course, was aware that riding on light was “biologically” impossible. His mission was to not violate laws of physics). In our “imaginary” splones I agree that you would “disrupt everything about their arrangement”. That’s my point. That’s why “your” consciousness would not survive the split.

I agree with that. I would be stupid not to, since it is a long-known fact. It is not germane to my point, however. Why? Because, during the process of “exchanging”, there is a continuum. A link exists over time. I am concerned with the propagation of consciousness in unlinked bodies.

Yes, I agree that consciousness is an electro-chemical function. But, I maintain that the continuum of consciousness can be broken at the subatomic level. Mess up the elemental particles and you mess up the electro-chemical process.

I could go on with more of your points and arguments that I agree with, but it really doesn’t add much to our discussion.

My point and prime area of inquiry, however, is very narrow focused and concerning a single point of view (you, before being split. No other point of view concerns me or is germane to my point). Why is this narrow focused, single point of view area my only concern at the moment. Because it is here that I percieve a physical paradox to exist. I want to understand if it does exist, and if so, how to resolve it.

Mange, I suspect that you agree with the point I am really trying to make, but you don’t realize it yet. You replied (somewhat circuitously) to my question thusly:

If I am reading your reply correctly, then we are in perfect agreement. Even if I were assured that the splones would be conscious, I would not do it for the exact same reason that you stated. My only addendum is to say that your fear is justified and your reason to refuse is rational. If you agree with my addendum, then you and I agree explicitly. That is my one and only argument of concern, everything else is just fluff.
You may or may not agree with the reason I was making the point (to address a perceived paradox) and you may or may not agree with the conclusions I draw from the point (that it resolves the paradox), but those can be an argument for another day (or today, if you wish).
To further illustrate my area of focus:
*Ask my spouse or anyone else if they can tell any difference between the me before being split and the me after being split and they should answer “no”. Their point of view does not concern me.
*Ask my splone if he is glad that to have been split and he may reply, “split? What are you talking about, I feel the same as I always did…I did feel a little woozy for a moment, but so what.” His point of view does not concern me.
*Ask me before being split if I want to be split and I will say, “no”. That is the only point of view I am concerned with.
In sum toto: the only person in the entire universe who should have any stake in my being split is me before being split. (well, there is that little problem of there being 2 of me all of a sudden…)
Mr. Tibbs

62

If I understand you, you’re saying that the splone’s consciousness is by definition not continuous because its memories were accrued all at once rather than gradually (like in the original).

If that’s the definition of a “discontinuous” consciousness, then I cannot but trivially agree. I would only say it was rather an irrelevance in terms of meaningful distinction.

63

But, if the component parts are created gradually, why would not the function(s) they perform begin in a similar manner? If consciousness is indeed (and I, too, will avoid going metaphysical here) simply a subatomic process, how can it be whole and completely functional until the elements it relies upon for its existence exist?

To offer what I hope is a valid analogy, if we were to apply the mitosis process to, say, a lit incandescent bulb, how could that bulb, being gradually reproduced and with only a partially-formed filament, glow as brightly mid-way through the process as it would when whole?

The bulb analogy troubles me even further. Even if that same bulb were to be sploned and charged instantly, we know from physical science that emitted light (which would correspond with consciousness re: the splone) becomes visible (aware) only when its constituent particles accelerate to a rate sufficient to emit electromagnetic radiation in the visible frequency / wavelength. Since physical science also precludes the creation of an object in motion, wouldn’t the time it takes for those particles to accelerate from at rest to the speed required to emit light correspond with what we would normally describe as “awakening” with regard to the splone’s consciousness?

Obviously, I’m in the dark.

64

Do you have a cite for how physical science precludes the creation of an object in motion? Unfortunately I didn’t take Filament Sploning 101 back when I was a physics major.

65

That analogy sounds more tortured than an Abu Ghraib Cathar, Dishfunctional.

I think it would be useful to consider a silicon computer called Chip who, for the sake of argument, is conscious. One day, Chip is turned off and his entire circuitry is replicated perfectly. Upon being turned on again, there are two conscious computers who both think they’re Chip.

There is no fundamental difference in their waking experience, agreed?

66

Captain, if that is the question, I say thy both have equal claim to be “you”.

67

Close, but not quite. Let me put it this way: I’m trying to ascertain whether the original person’s consciousness is continuous into a splone. If it is continuous with one splone, it must be continuous with both splones. If that is the case, then both splones do not have an “illusionary” past, they have a “real” past (because an illusionary past is not needed if true forward/backward continuity exists). A tiny distinction? Yes, but one that can give us a glimmer into the true nature of consciousness. If they have a real past, then they have true backward continuity of their consciousnesses. If they have backward continuity, then they must have forward continuity as well. How can we (hypothetically) test for forward/backward continuity? The only way that I can conceive of doing this is by being able to tell whether or not the original persons consciousness continues past mitosis. The test itself is impossible to do for two reasons: 1)adult mitosis is impossible and 2)even if it we could do the mitosis, the original consciousness would have no way to communicate to us that it has died (unless they continued into an afterlife and spoke to us as a ghost). It is of no value whatsoever to ask the splone, since he will perceive backward continuity either way. He will not be able to distinguish between a real past and an illusionary past. So we have a thought experiment with no true way to test the hypothesis. We can only make educated guesses. I think a gut reaction to the situation is a good place to start. Hence, I asked the question: “Would you agree to be divided under any circumstance?” No”, then I surmise that do not believe that you will remain conscious after being split. Your gut is telling you that there is no forward/backward continuity. “Yes”, then I surmise that your gut is telling you that there is forward/backward continuity. Sometimes your gut knows more than your brain.

A very small distinction, I agree. Trivial and irrelevant, I don’t agree with.
Why would I like to know if forward/backward continuity exists?:

*If it does not exist, then consciousness can be explained in simplistic physiological terms: it is as one with the matter from which it derives. The biologists, physiologists, neuroanatomists, psychiatrists etc. are all that we need to understand human awareness.
*If forward/backward continuity *does *exist, then I perceive a paradox of physics exists (I can elaborate if you would like). If a paradox exists, it must be resolved (true paradoxes cannot exist in the universe). It means that there must be some other explanation for the nature of consciousness, an explanation without a paradox. In my opinion (and I may be wrong), the only way to resolve this paradox is to come up with an alternate explanation for where consciousness comes from and how it works. It would have to transcend matter in some manner. If this is the case, the ramifications are great. It opens the door for the existence of an afterlife, God etc.

Personally, I believe that forward/backward continuity of consciousness does not exist, but I hold out some hope that it does. I guess that makes me agnostic, eh?
Mr.Tibbs

68

Mr. Tibbs? She?

I don’t like to brag about myself, sir, but I will tell you that my splone is a quite well-endowed macho man! :smiley:

69

As indeed, arguably, would there be a physical link between both of the hypothetical ‘splones’ and their progenitor.

I disagree with your analysis of my argument; I don’t think my reluctance to step into the duplicator is at all rational., but anyway, this whole issue can be resolved, I believe, by your answer to a simple question (in two parts):

If I administer a general anaesthetic to you, rendering you utterly unconscious, where do ‘you’ go? When you recover consciousness afterwards, where did ‘you’ come back from?

70

For the record, my answer (remembering that I am trying to adopt a fully naturalistic viewpoint for this thread) is that ‘you’ don’t go anyywhere during the unconscious interval; you cease to exist. On recovery, you begin existing again - but the fact that this has taken place in more or less the same physical structure is irrelevant; that you remember your own past is something any instance of ‘you’ could do with complete ease and transparency. Any and every connection between the two instances of ‘you’ is arbitrary or illusory.

71

I propose (see my earlier post) that the delicate web of consciousness is broken at the subatomic level thereby essentially breaking the physical link. Right or wrong, that is my position.

I feel like saying: “Then stop being coy, and tell my why!”…but, I won’t :rolleyes:
If my analysis was wrong, and you believe that your reluctance to step into the duplicator is irrational, can I assume that, even though you harbor some fear, you believe that your consciousness **will **continue into your splone (s)? If yes, great. You have given me what I want. My mission is to gather peoples gut reactions to that question. Think of this as a poll: there is no right or wrong answer. Your answer is different than mine, but that is my gut reaction as well. As a matter of fact I hope that a lot of people feel that their consciousness will continue into the splones, because that may help me to sway my agnostic position toward the more interesting side (see last post). More heads (or guts) are better than one, so keep you answers coming. If my new analysis of your argument is incorrect, then I must conclude that you are simply playing games or you have no opinion one way or the other. If that is the case, you’re vote is invalid in my poll. :slight_smile:
You have given me the answer to my “poll”(I think). Time to move on. If you want to analyze or criticize the conclusions that I draw, or the validity of my logic on this topic, fire away. Even though I may be a little more touchy about those, the debate would be interesting. As a matter of fact, there are at least a couple of logic break-downs in my posts that I am aware of (but I won’t admit to them until they are found). They are more from laziness (I could find the logic if I dug a little deeper) than anything else, and they don’t really invalidate my premises.

Ok, I’ll bite. I believe that my consciousness has many different states. It can sometimes be agitated with lots of electrical activity. When this occurs, I often feel hyper-aware. It can often be in a state of minimal electrical activity. I can’t tell you how I feel when I am in this state because I am hypo-aware. When I sleep, or when general anesthesia is administered to me, I believe that I am in this latter state, although there are many states in between. Where did I go? Nowhere, my consciousness was simply in a different state. If I didn’t go anywhere, I have nowhere to come back from. This is somewhat analogous to saying, where do the water molecules go when the puddle freezes?
…now, how does this resolve the issue?
Mr. Tibbs, Mr. Tibbs and Mr. Tibbs (me and my clones)

72

I don’t believe ‘continue’ is the right word; certainly the splones would acquire it in the same way I do every time I wake up.

This is wrong, or at best, a badly flawed analogy. When water freezes, the molecules are still observably present, but consciousness is a process, not a physical object. When unconsciousness is induced, the process of consciousness is completely halted; there is no consciousness during that time. There is no ‘you’ during that time.

73

Of course I don’t, and it’s too bad you missed the class. I believe that was the one where they covered those goofy guys, Newton and Einstein, both of whom, IIRC, felt that, here on earth, the natural state of an object is at rest. I suppose I could go look that up for you if you insist. To be honest, I was only auditing the class so I could hang out with this hot Swedish foreign exchange student. I have no claim on being a physics major, but she sure could perform some major physics.

As for the “creation” part of my assertion, which is what I suspect you most take exception to, I guess I just got carried away with the postulation in the OP and accepted the mitosis as possible, but subject to the known laws of physics. If we accept that an object can be “sploned”, then wouldn’t it remain at rest until it was acted upon by a force, possibly the next object to be sploned in this gradual process, thus putting it into motion? And when an object changes from a state of rest to a state of motion, couldn’t that change in its velocity be described in terms of acceleration? And isn’t acceleration the rate at which that object’s velocity changes over time?

If all of this is true, then “time” is the element that I was attempting to introduce into the discussion of whether or not a splone’s initial awareness of his own consciousness would be similar to waking up. It would be gradual, I argued, rather than instantaneous, because of the time it takes to get all the wheels in motion, so to speak.

I’m certainly not insisting that I’m right on any of this, just indicating how it appears to me.

Now, having said that, let me ask you: do the laws of physical science not preclude the creation of an object in motion? I’m sure as hell no physics major, but this would still be fascinating to me.

74

Let’s just go a little deeper: Can we agree that consciousness is a “process” that exists within a physical matrix, the matrix being the matter of the brain? Yes? Then think of the process of water freezing and thawing (H2O “consciousness”) as being the motion of atoms within the matrix of the water molecule. When the atoms slow (and crystallize), water freezes; when they speed up, it thaws. Water sleeps at 0 degrees C; it gets boiling mad and agitated at 100 degrees C; it plays golf somewhere in between.
To say “the process of consciousness is completely halted” is a matter of semantics (a poor choice of semantics, in my opinion). Tell me what exactly is halted in the process of consciousness when you sleep or are anesthetised?
And to say, “there is no “you” during that time” just seems a little too new-ageish to me. :smiley:

75

But not as badly as an Auschwitz Jew?

I’ll admit it was a reach, but as I said in an earlier post, it was an attempt to introduce the element of time into the process, which I felt would cause the splone’s awareness of self to be more like an “awakening” than Mangetout’s more immediate arousal.

Agreed. Except turning the computer off varies from the premise that the “original” would remain conscious throughout the process. That’s why my gnostic light bulb was lit in the analogy. If Chip is never turned off, then there is a difference, no?

76

It depends on your definitions of creation, object, and motion. The laws of physical science do preclude a light bulb filament to spontaneously create a copy of itself, moving or not. When a cell divides, it becomes two cells, each with half the mass of the original. Matter can’t come from nothing. Matter and energy are equivalent and cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form.

When a high energy photon comes near the nucleus of an atom, it can transform into an electron and positron. When the particles are “created” they both instantaneously share the energy of the photon in excess of their rest mass as kinetic energy. They can be born moving at very high speeds, and this happens all the time. I would say that practically speaking, the answer to your question is yes.

77

Setting aside the “sploning” premise of this thought experiment, I understand and accept as fundamental that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, and I truly appreciate your response. I also accept that sub-atomic particles are routinely created as you’ve described, hopefully only in linear accelerators. The only issue I might press, however, would go to the matter of motion. It seems to me that if these particles, the electron and the positron, are in motion from the moment of their creation, would not that motion have had to begin somewhere at some point in space and time?

It would seem that if something were created in a state of motion, and that motion began at a precise point in space and time, before it was at that point it didn’t exist, so it had no state – neither at rest nor in motion. But once it was at that point, for the duration of the time it was there, before it was at the next point in its existence in this state of motion, was it not at rest?

78

To be able to answer that properly, we’d have to fully understand what consciousness is, which, AFAIK, isn’t the case. However, unconsciousness is defined as the lack of consciousness; it is not necessary to fully understand how something works in order to notice that it is absent.

You’re joking aren’t you? You honestly think there’s nothing metaphysical-sounding about your side of the argument?

Do you at least agree that consciousness is a process?
If so, what exactly is the difference between an implementation of that process and another implementation that is a precise duplicate?

79

No, I believe I would remain conscious after being split because they would both be equally “me”. My gut merely tells me that the process might be dangerous (such that neither “me” survives) and that a long lost identical twin suddenly appearing might be socially inconvenient.

Well, the copying process (whatever it is, like copying a hard drive) might make Chip feel a bit weird, and then both Chip I and Chip II would have a memory of feeling weird to go with all the rest of Chip’s memories, but again there would be no fundamental difference in their experience, agreed?

80

By way of explaining my reluctance to step into the duplicator, it’s exactly the same as I would feel about walking over those glass floors in tall buildings; intellectually, I know there is nothing to fear and no good reason not to take the step, but my gut (which I don’t believe in either case is telling the truth) is screaming “don’t do it, you’ll die!”.