Tibbycat, your analogy is confusing, largely irrelevant and still makes it sound as if you’re describing consciousness as a tangible object, rather than a process.
Analogies are great fun - sometimes they’re even useful, but they do need to bear some resemblance to the thing being described, yours just doesn’t.
I would think my username is a pretty obvious indication that I believe no such thing.
Agreed, but there is always a physical link in any kind of duplication.
Putting aside the EPR experiments, let’s assume this is false for argument’s sake.
I’m still unsure precisely what you mean by this. Consciousness is dependent upon sorting sensory input into memory. If the same sensory input is sorted into the same memory, the consciousnesses cannot be distinguished.
No, because that sensory input in Florida is not being sorted into that memory in England.
Our past history of memories, which diverged at the moment of replication.
No there is not. The atoms and quarks themselves change: you are a different set of quarks to a few years ago. This is a crucial flaw in your reasoning.
It disappears, like the light from a broken lightbulb.
Then you are a different consciousness to your 2002 or 2008 duplicates.
No, there is a link in both cases, that link being the physical process of duplication at that point in history.
Then how did you duplicate him, exactly?
TibbyCat, I am a physicalist, and I consider the Computational Theory of Mind to be the only non-preposterous mode of explanation for consciousness (flawed and incomplete as it currently is). This position is, I think, everything you claim to be, except that you simply haven’t read much cognitive science yet. You can’t have a bucket of “consciousness” - it is not subject to some conservation principle or the like. Asking “where it goes” when some molecues enter your brain is like asking where the storm goes when the sun comes out, or where the computer game goes when you cut the power. It is a process, a temporal arrangement of particles. (And, unlike your tray of balls analogy, it is literally impossible to arrange the neurons such that exactly the same set of memories, and therefore consciousness, arises.)
I think this thread might be useful for you to read. Again, I say that we are our memories. I would wake up and wonder who cleaned the ink off my thumb while I slept.
Another way to attack this problem:
Suppose a revolutionary new medical treatment is developed; using NanoMcGuffinTechnology, it becomes possible to culture (or synthesise) fully-functional nerve cells in situ and attach them non-intrusively; initially, this treatment is used to rejoin severed spinal columns and restore full sensation to reattached limbs.
But one day, Joe technician gets curious and programs the NanoThings to replace one of his brain cells with an exact duplicate while he sleeps - this they perform dutifully and instead of the original brain cell, the scientist now has one that is exactly the same in function and in the way that it is connected to the rest of the system.
The next day, he programs the NanoThings to replace two brain cells.
The day after, it’s four, then eight, then sixteen, doubling the size of the experiment until sometime around a month later, when he reaches the point where the NanoThings are replacing his entire brain with an exact duplicate.
Now, it’s tempting just to say that the result for the complete replacement is that ‘he’ dies and ‘someone else’ wakes up in the morning, but is that really what is happening, consider:
-In precisely transcribing the pattern of connectivity from one brain to the duplicate, the NanoThings have transcribed all there is and all there ever could be of Joe into the new structure. - the new structure performs the ‘Joe’ process in exactly the same way as the old one - it makes ‘Joe’ to exist in the same manner and place as Joe existed previously.
-If not; if we must still, for some reason, accept that the ‘real’ Joe is dead and gone and the new Joe is just a clever fake, then when did it happen? - At what point during the ramping-up of the scale of the experiment (each night of which Joe went to sleep and still felt like he woke up the same Joe in the morning) did we actually discard Joe and replace him with a fake?
A minor point: While Joe may feel the same in the morning, I don’t believe he is the same as when he went to sleep, even if no cells are replaced. While you sleep there are processes that occur that affect your conscious mind though you are not aware of it at the time. This is why sleep is necessary.
Thus, even if all his cells were replaced the same night, Joe may be different in the morning from the Joe that would have been if they hadn’t been replaced, depending on how long it took and at what point in the sleep cycle it happened.
Indeed, but in the same way, Joe may be different in the morning because of any number of variables that may occur during the night (a fitful night’s due to noisy neighbours, for example). If Joe is still ‘actually Joe’ in the morning under normal circumstances, then so, as far as I can see, will he be in all of the cases where some or all of his brain is replaced by identical components.
Physicalist? Is that something you can get well compensated for in the porno trade? 
Just kidding. Really!
I did not yet have a chance to give your link more than a cursory glance (I will at a later date), so I don’t know what a physicalist is or believes. Mangetout, I get the impression that you are a physicalist as well, correct? (BTW, are both of you guy’s English? If so, and if, Mangetout you are a physicalist, is this something common in the UK?). I did see the term metascience (not sure if you consider that a derogatory term or not) used in association with it. If physicalism does incorporate metascience, then I assume that even though you may use scientific methodology and incorporate known scientific tenets whenever you can, you may believe that there are explanations for some things that are either contrary to known science, or go beyond the scope that science normally travels. If that is correct (and correct me if I’m wrong), then we may have to agree to disagree with regard to much of this line of discussion. If, for example, I have faith in science 100% of the time, and you have faith in science 90% of the time, there will be some things that we will never agree on. It would not be unlike the atheist and the creationists arguing God (nowhere near that extreme, I trust). That does not mean that I don’t want to hear your point of view, I do. And hopefully you are interested in mine as well. I’m sure that your faith in physicalism is based on sound reasoning (you’re obviously no dummy) and it must give you satisfaction. Ditto, my take on science. I’m actually agnostic, so I’m not averse to the possibility that something beyond the scope of science exists (I really hope that it does), but at least in this point in my life, I put my “faith” in pure science. Someday, perhaps I’ll be a deist, or a theist…or some other –ist.
That said, let me continue on my fact finding mission…
In my opinion: There is no real difference between matter and consciousness. You talk of consciousness as a process, I accept that. But, “matter” is every bit a process as consciousness. Both, at the most fundamental level, are composed of elemental particles (unless you know of something else). Science even understands the known forces as being expressions of particles (i.e. gravitons).So if matter is a process and consciousness is a process and they are composed of the same mix of elemental particles, then we can speak of them in the same terms. We can speak of matter *and *consciousness as simply being one thing: matter. Should we consider the consciousness “matter” and the brain matrix matter as two separate sets of matter that usually, but not always, coexist. Or, should we say that it is just one glob of matter? Well, we must ask, is the thing that we *see *as matter and the thing that we *feel *as matter ever separated? Can one exist without the other? Can the consciousness matter exist without the brain matrix matter. I do not believe that it can. You may have a very valid reason for believing that it can. I’d like to know your opinion.
Questions so far:
*Is consciousness matter?
Yes? Continue down.
No? Then I would like to learn your view on how it is fundamentally different than another object that you do call matter, say a chair? The chair is a “process” that flows from one instant to another. Each particle is in motion and in flux. Even the forces that keep the chair a chair are, at the deepest level, simply one type of particle exchanging information with another type of particle by way of, you guessed it, another particle (maybe you’re more of a string theory guy, but that doesn’t change the situation very much). The chair particles are in constant motion, constant flux, some particles mutate into other particles, some fly off, information is being exchanged between particles (like a ping pong ball being batted between two baseballs)…it’s a regular particle zoo. The chair is actually a very dynamic entity that flows…well, sort of like a stream of consciousness (nudge nudge). But, in 10 minutes time, it’s still going look like the same chair. If we had a quantum camera we could capture the blueprint of the chair at any given instant. In another instant, that blueprint will be different, but similar. Maybe it’s the same chair; maybe it’s a different chair-that can be your call. If you still believe that consciousness is fundamentally different than matter as I have just described it, then I would like to know in what way(s) you believe it to be different. Of particular interest to me would be for you to describe, as fundamentally as you can, what the substrate of consciousness is, what is the medium (or ether) and at what level and fashion is information exchanged?
(Note: I know that it is hard to tell what the attitude is of someone who types things on the Internet, emoticons only go so far, but trust me I’m not being flippant, facetious, or condescending in any of this post. I really do want to know your side, and this is the best way I know to get it.)
If you believe that consciousness *is *matter, does it have to obey the laws of physics, as they are presently known? If you believe that consciousness is matter and must obey these laws, proceed down. If you believe that consciousness is matter, but it *doesn’t *have to obey the laws of physics, I wish that you would elaborate. I would be interested to know if you or physicalism interpret the physical world differently that the general scientific community.
This will be a good place for me to break for dinner etc. I’ll wait until I hear your replies to this post and digest the information before I continue down this particular road again. I may respond to some other posts in the meantime.
Mr.Tibbs
Now, where were we? Gosh, it feels like a tomb in here. Where did everybody go? Was it my breath?
Announcement: I have come up with the answer to the riddle that I proposed earlier and that we have mostly disagreed on. The answer came to me in between my Greycliff cigar and my third glass of Merlot (I hope the answer looks as good to me when I sober up). Anyway, as I recall, didn’t we all agree to a $50 wager on this debate? Well, it turns out, I was right all along. Another way to look at this is to say that everyone who disagreed with me was wrong. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, I suppose.
My answer is actually rather long and drawn out, however. I would just as soon not have to go through the drudgery of typing it all out, and I would like to save you the weariness of having to read it. So, I propose that we all simply agree that I was right (or you were wrong). Is everyone OK with that? Good, now please put that $50 in an envelope and mail it to…
Hey, is anybody listening? It would be just my luck to have the answer to the problem, but no audience to hear me gloat. :smack: Let’s take roll call. Whoever is here, post an emoticon…
Hey, if you can’t joke around with your friends (you are my friends, right? I can pay you if necessary), then who can you joke around with, eh?
I do, actually feel that I have come up with the solution to my perceived paradox quandary. And it will take me a couple of posts to present it (to prevent writers cramp).
To recap: I don’t believe that you can ever be presented with a choice of two consciousnesses separated in space and have a vested interest in both. I used the example of splones to present the situation (but many other examples would suffice, and better). If, under any circumstance (short of a death wish), you would say yes to the split and say that it would not matter which splone lived, then my position is that if true, that is a paradox. My job is to make a convincing argument that it is false, and thus resolve the paradox. If I were a physicist/mathematician I’m sure that I would be able to present my argument succinctly with a few words and a couple of formulas, but I’m not. So I will most likely present it in an ass-backward, tortuous fashion, but hopefully with the same end result. We’ll see.
But don’t let me hog the thread. Talk. Discuss. Argue. Joke. I’ll be back. Gotta do a lot of “family” things this weekend. Danged wife and kids, they’re always getting in the way of my fun! 
Mr.Tibbs
TibbyCat, the time you spent typing those questions would have been better served actually reading some of the links I provided. Physicalism (also known as atheist materialism) is effectively as “scientific” a philosophy as one can get (although some philosophically-minded Dopers here might, justifiably, call me on that.)
It’s not the matter itself that is important. Like we keep saying, the atoms interchange with identical atoms. It is the arrangement. A spatial arrangement is an “object”, a temporal arrangement is a “process”. They are both physical things.
Sensory input and memory. Please read my past posts, and those links, again.
‘Consciousness’ isn’t the squishy, offally matter itself. It is the temporal arrangement of that matter. Arrangements still don’t violate the laws of physics, but sometimes appear to. For example, sweeping a powerful laser across the moon makes the laser spot look like it is breaking the speed of light, in contravention of special relativity. But the spot is not an “object” - it is actually only a temporal arrangement of photons, which could all hit the moon simultaneously just as a line of dominoes could all topple at once.
No, it doesn’t - you just look drunk. Which is fine, but I stay clear of Great Debates when I am.
Perhaps you could discuss the differences between the 2002-2005-2008 vs. inky thumb quandaries I’ve repeatedly set you? If your clean-thumbed duplicate isn’t “you”, then neither is the 2008 “you”, agreed? There is no continuity in the atoms or sub-atoms over time in either case.
I’m not at all sure that I actually am a physicalist, in terms of what I believe but cannot prove, but for the purposes of this discussion, it should be understood that I am debating from a view based upon only what can be empirically observed and demonstrated, that is to say, for the purposes of this debate, you may consider me a physicalist.
I am.
I don’t know; I would say that physicalism is the standard scientific view of consciousness, if that helps.
No, consciousness is something that matter does. - it is a process not a tangible object.
No, the chair is an object; when it falls over, or spontaneously explodes, that’s a process. When it just sits there not doing much at all, that’s also a process, just not such a complex one.
I know, but I have a large stack of Playboy magazines I have to get through first.
I get the impression that you think I keep asking the same questions over and over again. But I am simply trying to get certain basic information that will help me to better understand your position. You have given me some (and just recently most…maybe all-I’ll re-read) of the information that I need. Some of your answers have been a tad ambiguous.
My purpose: I’ve stated it in numerous posts, so I won’t bore you with the details again. In case you’ve forgotten, it is that nagging problem with my perceived paradox (you know, original to 2 splones, don’t care which dies…yadda yadda yadda). I do understand that you believe no paradox exists, so you have nothing to resolve (that makes your job a little easier). I on the other hand, want to either resolve the paradox or be convinced that I was mistaken and a paradox never existed. Admittedly, the burden of proof is more on me. Of course I can work this out myself or simply post my conclusions as I type them, but that isn’t as much fun as making this a give and take situation. Plus, if I’m going to resolve my paradox, I’ve got to close all the doors. Understanding your (anyone who believes no paradox exists) position will help me to identity as many doors as possible. I want to close those doors and if any of you feel sporty, you can explain why those doors should remain open.
In order for us to understand each other for the purpose of closing and opening doors, we need to have a common language. We need a model. Specifically, we need a model of consciousness, since that is what we are discussing. We need this model to be at a certain level of detail (zoom level). Since I see my paradox at the sub-atomic level that is where the model needs to be for my purposes. I can work on my paradox at the atomic level, and I can, for all intents and purpose, use a chair as my model. If I work this out on my own, that is the model that I will use. Why, because I believe that consciousness is matter, and the “process” of consciousness is simply matter expressed temporally. If you agree with that last sentence, then we can use my chair model, for all intents and purpose, to discuss your interpretation of consciousness as well. Having the same model to represent both of our interpretations of consciousness would be great. It will certainly simplify our process of comparative analysis. However, I still suspect that you do not agree with that prior question and perhaps you would not be happy using a chair as your model. If that is the case, then in order for us to compare apples and oranges, you need to give me a model for your oranges (you already have my model for apples). Otherwise, discussing your interpretation of consciousness may come down to something like this:
You: I’ve identified something that I call “glump”.
Me: Really? What is it?
You: It’s really cool.
Me: Is it a thing?
You: It’s a process.
Me: What sort of process is it.
You: It’s a temporal arrangement of something.
Me: Well, what is it like?
You: It’s like nothing you’ve ever seen before.
Me: I perceive that a paradox may exist.
You: Prove it.
To be fair, you have given me more information than that.
Re: Your last post. You mentioned that the *temporal *arrangement of atoms is a process, so I assume by that you mean the process of consciousness, correct? You mentioned the *spatial *arrangement of atoms is an object. I assume that you mean that they are the same atoms. Or, are they different atoms? You may be trying to say that the temporal atoms in the process of consciousness are different than the spatial atoms in the object. I can’t conceive how that situation could be possible, but maybe *you *can. Can we take an atomic picture of the atoms in the process of your consciousness? If so, can I assume that looking at a picture of the atoms of consciousness is meaningless because a static picture, by definition, halts the process? If you believe that the spatially arranged atoms of the object are different than the temporally arranged atoms of the consciousness, what is the object? The brain? Clearing this up for me will help me to understand whether or not you believe the original “processing” consciousness atoms can be physically separated from the “object”. If they cannot be separated, I can still conceive of ways to transfer the information of consciousness to another body. I just want to know which way to view it for the sake of a picturing a good working model.
Or, instead of answering all that, you can simply *describe *a working model if the chair won’t suffice. How about a quivering bowl of Jello?
Mr. Tibbs
Well, actually there is. But, only in one case.
Well, if you say so.
My only question: Can’t something change, yet still stay in contact?
That’s easy:
I Disagree
Your *imposter *woke up and wondered who had cleaned the ink off your thumb. *You *died.
Resolution of Paradox: Part 1:
The red herring is the word “duplication”
You are not duplicated over the course of a year, a minute or even a lifetime. Your brain regenerates. You confuse the word regeneration* with duplication** and that makes all the difference. The fundamental particles that comprise the cells of your brain are not *replaced *with different particles during the process of regeneration. The particles in the cells that regenerate may move around a little, some particles may transmutate into other types of particles that may be needed by the regenerating cells, some particles may sluff off with cells that die, and some particles may appear when new cells grow. The one thing that the vast majority of them never do, however, is to break a physical link with each other. From the time you gain consciousness until the day that you die (actually until you decompose), you have essentially the same fundamental particles in your brain and they are always in contact. At the fundamental level, the process of consciousness is a self contained, physically linked bunch of elemental particles doing their thing, nothing more. Can information be transferred from the process of consciousness into a different body in such a manner as to sync them in harmony thus creating two consciousnesses that appear the same? Perhaps, but it only *appears *the same, it is a different consciousness. Even then, the two bodies must be linked. The transfer of information is itself a physical link.
Duplication? That’s a different animal. Can you conceive of any sort of duplication method (in our single universe) that uses the exact same fundamental particles as the original? By definition, that is impossible. They cannot divide and they cannot be in two places at once.
A chair is an entity. You can have one original chair in space. You cannot have two original chairs in space at the same time.
A brain is an entity. You can have one original brain in space. You cannot have two original brains in space at the same time.
Whatever your definition of consciousness is, so long as it obeys the physical laws of the universe, there can only be one original in space at the same time.
Why can’t one consciousness have a vested interest in two separate consciousnesses (now or in the future)? Because that is a paradox and the universe won’t allow it.
I have identified a difference between an original body in space over time (i.e. me today v. me tomorrow) and an original body that is duplicated. As always, I believe that the original “process” of consciousness cannot exist separate from the original body from which it sprang. If one is a fake the other is as well. The burden of proof should now shift to those who feel otherwise.
*Synonyms for the noun regeneration: about-face, adaptation, alteration, born again, changeover, exchange, flip-flop, flux, growth, innovation, metamorphosis, metanoia, metasis, modification, novelty, passage, passing, permutation, progress, qualification, reclamation, reconstruction, reformation, remodeling, reorganization, resolution, resolving, reversal, switch, transfiguration, transformation, translation, transmogrification, transmutation, turning
**Synonyms for the noun duplicate: analogue, carbon, carbon copy, clone, companion, coordinate, copycat, correlate, counterfeit, counterpart, counterscript, dead ringer, ditto, double, dupe, facsimile, fake, fellow, flimsy, germination, imitation, knock off, likeness, look-alike, match, mate, mimeo, obverse, parallel, phony, photocopy, Photostat, pirate, reciprocal, recurrence, repetition, replica, replication, repro, reproduction, ringer, second, similarity, spitting image, stat, twin, Xerox.
Mr. Tibbs
All this talk of originals is great, but we’re quite a long way away from where you started; suppose the chair undergoes mitosis and turns into two identical chairs, each of which is an exact duplicate of the original (and derives all of its physical matter from the original) - which chair is the original?
And at what degree of occurrence does this kind of transformation render the results ‘no longer original’? - going back to my thought experiment above regarding the replacement of brain cells - what proportion of the brain would have to be replaced in order that the original ‘dies’ and what is left is ‘no longer the original’?
No, you’ve simply waved away the fact that tomorrow, or six minutes from now, your body will not precisely be the ‘original’ any more
I’m happy to discuss the chair but, as Mange said, the arrangement of sub-atomic particles (pedants: read “waveparticles”) in a chair is solely spatial - it does not change over time, and is thus not really a temporal arrangement (unless it does something interesting like catches fire or accelerates, in which case it becomes a process).
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.
I agree with the latter, not the former. The consciousness is not the squishy offal circuitry itself, but what it does.
It is like a storm, or a death, or a game, none of which is the raindrops or cells or pieces themselves but the arrangement in time thereof.
Yes. Spot on.
Which case? You are saying that there is one atom in the body which never gets replaced?
I can show so: Medical imaging often involves introducing radioactive atoms into the body, plotting their progress through it and ultimately out of it again, while a few such atoms stay in the body and replace other exiting atoms. We can literally see radioactive atoms replacing non-radioactive atoms.
Can an atom which has been replaced and headed out of your body off into the environment be said to be “still in contact”? No, I wouldn’t say so.
You are a different set of atoms to a few years ago. The splones are different sets of atoms.
They are. If I can convince you of this, will the paradox have been resolved?
The forces between atoms are not infinitely strong. One atom leaves a potential which is quickly filled by another. This is basic chemistry.
No, this is simply false. How could radioactive isotopes find their way through the cells of the body if their way was blocked by such intransigent atoms? I think you’d better study basic cellular biology again: cells cannot work without a flow of atoms. And how on Earth could a cell regenerate from the same atoms?
The reason duplication works is that atoms of the same element and isotope are identical. And regardless of whether or not this definition of ‘duplication’ is relevant here, it is simply not true of the human body.
The same game of chess can be played on different pieces.
No, it is not a paradox. I have a vested interest in keeping my memories from dissipating into the environment, so I’ll choose whatever method is available. Whether my consciousness resides in a different set of atoms as supplied by the duplicator or by natural ongoing biochemical processes over a few years makes no fundamental difference.
I hope radiology convinces you that you haven’t.
TibbyCat, it seems that the fundamental issue here is whether you are a different set of atoms to a few years ago. I assure you that you are. Would you agree that the paradox is resolved if you are a different set of atoms to a few years ago?
I think I may have missed that one. No, the above statement is not true for any living tissue; the mere fact of being alive and active makes the movment of materials mandatory.
Yes (with minor qualification).
I anticipate what should be an interesting debate.
But first, in case the game goes into extra innings, I want to make sure that we agree on the issue at large. I have distilled the issue into what I believe to be the most basic form:
*Position One: I have a point of view. Splone (s) will not have the same point of view.
*Position Two: I have a point of view. At least one splone will have the same point of view.
Assumption:
*We both agree with the following: The person that I am today has a point of view. The person that I am tomorrow will have the same point of view.
*I agree with Position One. You agree with position Two.
Do you agree with the above? If not, explain how you would like to reword it.
I take this position, insofar as a “point of view” is a flow of sensory information into a memory bank. Starting from exactly the same memory bank, two or more “points of view” will be just as much a continuation from the original as each other, therefore I wake up with a clean thumb, either tomorrow morning or in 2008.
Now, to business. Are atoms exchanged in the course of normal biochemical processes in the human body or not?
The term ‘point of view’ in your post above seems badly ambiguous; please could you clarify exactly what it means in the context used?
(That request was directed toward TibbyCat)