Actually, “point of view” is much less ambiguous than the term “consciousness”, that is why I chose it (I will explain more in my next post).
This may help in the meantime:
If you believe that your splone will not have your point of view, you will not agree to mitosis.
Both Mange and I believe that the splone will have the same point of view of the person who stepped into the duplicator. (That still doesn’t mean we’d trust the thing to work properly, mind you!)
The term ‘point of view’ can just mean ‘opinion’ - I would expect a duplicate of myself to share my opinions (or it wouldn’t be a duplicate).
However, I expect you’re using the term to mean idea of person - the sense in which we perceive ourselves to have inner life.
Seems to me that the biggest problem in this thread is that you’re taking for granted the assumption that your consciousness is an inviolable, indivisible object. You are ‘you’ right now, but you are also only a being that happens to lucidly remember ‘being you’ yesterday. You’re an entity who has inherited the personality of your past self through stored memories and experiences; nothing else moved from the past into today but patterns of thought. That they happen to have resided in the same physical arrangement of matter is incidental.
No. You will understand better when I have time to complete my next post. I’m trying to write a few things at once here (where are my splones when I need them??).
In the meantime, let me try a different angle.
You and Sentient may share the same opinions, and you may even share similar points of view, but you each have your own POV.
Same opinion: You can see through each other’s eyes, figuratively.
Same POV: You can see through each others eye’s, literally.
I haven’t forgotten about the “Atoms”, but that post may not me ready till later…
OK, I’ll wait, but I still think you’re treating this ‘POV’ as if it is an object that can only ever remain in one instance, rather than a process, which can be performed by any suitable hardware.
You may consider POV a temporal process in (much) the same way that you consider consciousness as such.
I still get the impression that somehow, the point argued by myself and Sentient is slipping by you in some way. I’ll try restating it in different terms:
Right now, there is a largish assemblage of matter resting upon a chair in an office near Portsmouth; this assemblage of matter features functions for the acquisition, storage and processing of data; the performance of that function, right now, results in the stored and incoming data being processed in such a way as to generate a ‘point of view’ - the function has generated the ability to scrutinise itself and have some higher-level (and arguably, not literally accurate) notion of ‘me’.
The process creates ‘me’ afresh at every moment; the ‘me’ at this precise moment, having access to the stored data of the past, harbours the utterly compelling illusion that it is the same ‘me’ that was present at the time when that data was stored; it is both wrong and right at the same time;
-it is wrong because the ‘me’ is actually created right now and only right now by the performance of the function.
-it is right because that’s all that ‘me’ ever is and was - a momentary impression with the illusion of continuity.
If some freak slippage of time and space should occur and there should abruptly be two such assemblages of matter, and they are identical, then they will both be under the impression that they are ‘me’ - and they will be absolutely right in this impression - they will be every bit as ‘me’ as could be; they will also be under the impression that they are a continuous, rather than momentary ‘me’ and they will both be wrong about it.
Again, the ‘me’ does not go forward except in the form of memories, inherited by (and delusionally ‘owned’ by) the momentary ‘me’ that may exist at some point in the future. The person that is ‘me’ is not pushed forward through time, but rather, created on the fly, dragging memories of ‘me’ behind it.
“’Atoms’: Ok with qualification”. The reason I want a qualification is that I prefer, for simplicity sake to use the term “fundamental particles”. But, before you object, let me explain:
The whole purpose here is to find a critical physical difference between an original and a splone. If I am convinced that a critical physical difference does not exist, then I must admit that I was wrong and that no paradox exists. (if me over time is not a paradox, then a splone with my POV can not be a paradox).
What sort of critical difference, you ask? That a certain physical link (one that contains your POV) exists in the temporal original that does not exist between the original and the splone.
Actually, I do believe that atoms can be used successfully in my argument, but using the term “fundamental particles” actually makes it simpler to discuss in the long run. We want to simplify, not complicate. Using radioactivity, changing states of atoms, transmutations… and all other possible atomic phenomenon is complicating what can be a much simpler discussion. Otherwise we can spend forever discussing minutia.
What I am saying is that a critical mass of fundamental particles must stay in constant physical contact from the time we are born to the day we die. And, this you do not share with your splone.
I maintain that the POV (that which makes you feel like you) subset of your consciousness is dependent on a certain mass of particles that stay in constant physical contact. You do not need to retain 100% of your particles/atoms in order to maintain your POV. Example: you can lose a significant portion of your brain and still maintain your consciousness and your POV. This is why radioactive decay and any other situation that you may throw at me that results in the loss of particles is irrelevant. You may lose particles, but you will never go below a certain critical mass. If you do, you lose your POV.( I can lose a significant number of fundamental particles through my toenail clippings, epidermal sluff, losing an arm etc, but so long as I maintain the critical mass of particles needed to keep me alive, I will do so). By the same token, no amount of lost particles will ever contain my POV. (You can never pull a chunk of my brain off and have it retain my POV if my POV is also retained in what remains. Another interesting side argument may be: can the chunk of brain be conscious?)
The fact is there will always be a critical mass of particles that need stay in constant physical contact in order for you to retain your POV (interestingly, this may not apply to your consciousness…I’ll explain in a later post).
Can we agree on this, or should we continue with the “Atom” discussion?
BTW: Even if you agree to this, your Splone may still have your POV…I haven’t argued that point yet. This was more exclusionary: If a physical link exists in one but not the other, I have merely found a door. You can still argue to keep it open. If I could not locate a door, my position was wrong. If the door is found, it still need to be closed…and there may be more doors down the road…
I don’t see any reason to agree with anything you’ve said, especially this latest bit about critical masses - you’re just making it up.
But that is just demonstrably false. We can see atoms (ie. collections of quarks and leptons) being replaced by other atoms (ie. replaced by different entire collections of quarks and leptons) at a rate such that all of them will have been replaced within a given time. The burden of proof is on you to show that some atoms don’t get exchanged, and provide a mechanism for how they don’t if all the atoms we’ve ever looked at do get replaced eventually.
No, you are simply not understanding basic biochemistry. Please provide a brief paragraph entitled “What happens at the lung surface”.
We’re not talking about pulling bits off, which would irrevocably damage the organ as a whole. We’re talking about a flow of atoms through an organ, with those atoms gradually replacing others throughout the organ. This is what the atoms must do for the organ to survive.
There are a couple of exceptions (eg. tooth enamel) as I mentioned before, which don’t exchange atoms, but your ‘critical mass’ view is simply false for the other 99.9% of the body. (Unless you are suggesting that your consciousness is dependent on your teeth, or something. Smile, you’re conscious! :D)
We disagree, and it’s not really a discussion. You are just wrong about basic biology.
Trust me, I know a lot more about biology than physics. If you would like to debate biology or any other branch of science, I would be glad to do so- but, lets stay on topic right now and start another thread for the other stuff. Even though physics is not my forte (and if any physicists are lurking about, please correct any mistakes that I make) I want to keep this discussion at that level, because that is where it belongs at the moment. Please, try to stay focused. We are looking for a physical link at this point in the discussion, not a biological one. You can break the biological link and not break the physical link, Yes? No? But, is the opposite true as well? You need to keep focused at the correct level…it’s really not hard to do. I offer macroscopic examples for analogy only (not to be taken quite so literally). If you don’t understand the point of the analogy, fine. Or, maybe you choose not to understand the point of the analogy, that’s your business. I will keep pulling this discussion back to where it belongs (hint: physical link). You may choose to go all over the place if you want to prolong the debate-either way it will be fun.
Now, let’s try this from a different angle
As you recall, I asked that we refer to the tiny physical bits in the brain as “fundamental” particles. I chose not to go more macro than that, because it allows you to go slip sliding along (which you are very good at by the way). I want to get down to the level that *you *will agree is irreducible, the point at which no change or division occurs. Quarks, strings, superstrings…you name it. (Some may use the argument that at the most fundamental level, nothing exists…don’t go quite that far). Now what ever you pick as being irreducible, let’s just refer to that as the fundamental particle.
Now, a new question for you:
Since the moment you gained consciousness until right now, do you believe that more than 50% of the fundamental particles that started off in your brain crossed through your skull and went somewhere? No double-talk about changing states or exchanging atoms because we are deeper than that (re: the land of fundamental particles). If you answer “yes”, might I suggest that maybe your brain is more radioactive than it should be, and that is the reason you don’t “get” my analogies? 
Or, at least let me shift the burden of proof back to you.
If you answered correctly, “no”, then can we assume that the “more than 50%” of fundamental particles that remain inside your skull are linked in some form of physical fashion?
Exchanging atoms is not double-talk - in order to FUNCTION and LIVE, the cells of your brain are constantly exchanging the atoms OF WHICH THE CELLS THEMSELVES ARE COMPOSED with replacements circulated by your bloodstream. Yes, it’s entirely plausible that more that 50% of the fundamental particles (in the form of atoms) that comprised your original, first-conscious brain are now somwhere else, not in your skull.
And if we wanted to perform a rather gruesome experiment, we could drill a hole in the top of your head, insert an egg whisk and blend the contents of your skull to a smooth puree; I’m sure that this could be done without removing anywhere near 50% of the fundamental particles. I’m also certain that this would bring your consciousness to a craching halt. The particles only make the consciousness by pure virtue of their arrangement and activity, not who they are as particles.
Why would anyone infer such?
Schizophrenic?
MPO?
Fulluhabuhl?
Um, I’m a little uncomfortable with your typing “your” in the above quote. Could your re-type it with “my” or “Sentientmeat’s” or some other name?
The vote tally so far:
Whole Brain: Tibby
Half Brain: Mangetout
Sentientmeat: still undecided
Atoms are no longer considered fundamental particles, but I’ll let that one slide.
Again, we must stay focused. This is a multi-step process, and you are jumping the gun. The purpose of this step is only to identify whether or not a difference exists between:
The step that we are on now is this one:
I said yes, but I preferred the term “fundamental particle”. “Atoms”, still works, but it would be less obvious to you. Always simplify if you can, it makes things easier for everyone.
Therefore, the purpose of this step is to convinced me that I am a “different” set of fundamental particles (or atoms) to a few years ago. We are not talking about an “altered” set of atoms (though for the record, they’re not) or a set of atoms that wiggled or waggled or did anything else at this point, so long as they remained in physical contact. I assumed that by agreeing to a “different” set (and actually, it was Sentientmeat who proposed it, I simply agreed), you understood what it meant and why it is important. I would rather not have to re-type the reason for this step. Maybe Sentientmeat would do the honors, unless I have to explain it to him as well.
I can make my point without this step entirely, but it is more interesting if we keep it.
Mr. Tibbs
This is just ridiculous semantic posturing; the particles of which our bodies are composed are constantly being exchanged by new ones; I have not, as you suggest, admitted to only possessing half a brain at this moment in time, I have merely said that during the natural course of biological processes, I find it not at all implausible that half of the original matter in any part of my body has been replaced by new (but similar) matter with equivalent function.
Silly dodging; I don’t care what level you’re talking about; cells are made of molecules are made of atoms are made of protons and electrons are made of quarks etc - the PHYSICAL MATTER from which your body, my body and SentientMeat’s body, including the brain in that body, is constantly being exchanged with new matter of equivalent function.
I’m not sure whether to bother with this any more; I’m 80% convinced you’re just yanking our chains.
C’mon, this ain’t brain surgery…it’s rocket science!
(why that is funny: In America, two expressions that are often used when trying to say that something is really not that hard to understand are: “It ain’t brain surgery” or “It ain’t rocket science”. I’m not sure if you use those expressions in the UK. This discussion is kind of like both: consciousness/brain and physics/rocket science. You can invert that sentence and it’s still funny. At least I think so. (if ya gotta explain then…)
Ok, let me try to be a little more specific as to what we are trying to determine. I would really like for us all to be on the same page with this. If we get on the same page and you still take the opposite position from mine, that’s all right. At that point we can either give cites to support our claims or we can just agree to disagree and move on to the next step. The debate can continue without this step, but, if anything, it’s more to your advantage if we don’t skip it: if you convince me that I am wrong at this step, I must admit that my whole position was wrong; if I convince you that you are mistaken at this step, it doesn’t necessarily mean that your whole position was wrong, it just means that we must continue to the next step.
Let me try a different angle:
One thing that we can all agree on is that it is impossible for both splones to have more than 50% of the “exact” same fundamental particles as the original. If you think that it is possible, please re-read the sentence a few times. If you still think that it is possible, I’ll try to explain it a different way.
Now, if the you of today has 51% or more of the “exact” same fundamental particles than the you at birth, then that shows a difference between you and your splones. A difference is all that we are trying to determine right now. The meaning of the difference can be discussed later. If there was no difference, I must be wrong.
This time, let’s put you into deep space (it’s your job to sustain life). Now, if 51% of the fundamental particles in your brain shoot through your skull and go someplace else, how are they replaced? You have only two choices: 1) they are not replaced; 2) the particles that left did a U-turn and went back inside. If you choose #1 then your brain is less than half the size it was at birth. If you choose #2, then you must at least admit that a physical link was broken between the U-turning particles and those that remained in your brain.
If you and Sentientmeat don’t want to carry on with this step, let me know and we’ll go in another direction. I still think we’re having fun…
How is this so hard for you to grasp? Particles leave your brain all the time without ‘shooting through your skull’ or leaving it smaller than it was; by simple virtue of being alive, cells exchange atoms with (in the case of humans) the fluids in the bloodstream; so at any time, atoms(made of 'fundamental particles) in your brain are leaving - they may end up somewhere else in your body, or they may exit through your kidneys; this doesn’t leave you with an atrophied brain because they were replaced with new ones that arrived in your bloodstream; they got into your bloodstream from your digestive system, having originally entered your body as food.
In order to live and function, cells MUST exchange chemicals with their immediate environment; this is primary school biology.
Lets take just one example of a changing cell. One cell diving in two. Were any fundamental particles lost in that process? In this example I maintain that you have a biological change, but no loss of fundamental particles.
After due consideration, perhaps I shouldn’t have gone quite as micro as I did. In an attempt to simplify this step, I may inadvertently have made it more ambiguous. Got a bit carried away. Sorry.
Restatement: I’m looking for a physical link that the original has over time that is not shared between the original and the duplicate.
We can keep it at the cellular level. The brain loses a large number of cells during its lifetime. Those cells are not required to maintain consciousness. Of those cells that remain, many or all of them will change in some way. Brain metabolism will bring material to and from the cells. There is even evidence that some new cells are created. The matrix of the brain is dynamic. But, of the cells that remain and evolve, what they have in common is that there is a cohesive physical bond that exists over time. Consciousness is maintained within this physical bond of ever changing cells. I would venture to guess that if all of the cells were “altered” in the same way all at once, consciousness may be extinguished, however, the cells change and evolve at different rates. I believe that your duplicate would have the same cohesive bond of ever changing cells as well. However, I believe that the link is broken during the process of duplication between the original and the duplicate, whereas the link is maintained between the early original and the later original. If this is true, then that identifies a difference between the original and the duplicate.
Can we agree on the above statement?
My conclusion: As you age, the cohesive physical bond that never breaks allows you to keep your point-of-view (POV). Your duplicate will have a POV, but it will be different from the original’s POV. The reason the duplicate can not inherit the original’s POV is because its pipeline (the cohesive bond) is broken at the point of duplication. The same pipeline is not needed for the inheritance of consciousness, however.
You may not agree with my conclusion. If that is the case, we should continue to the next step.