# is materialism incompatible with "me"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2009, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-materialism-incompatible-with-me/508621 "2009-09-02T09:43:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 47
**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:** [September 9, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-materialism-incompatible-with-me/508621/47 "2009-09-09T18:44:03Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Well, I consider zombies to be as logically impossible as a multicoloured blank cinema screen, but you should also note that “self awareness” is also linked to [sensory memory](http://library.thinkquest.org/26618/en-5.2.2=sensory%20memory.htm) strongly enough to make separating the two impossible IMO. > Precisely! Each one’s claim to be “the real me” is as valid as another’s, since it will _feel just as continuous_ to each of them - they will simply wake up somewhere different to where they remember going to sleep (and I’ve done that plenty of times myself!). You can arbitrarily label the one with the oldest neurons “the one and only you” if you like, but it’s really an arbitrary label, and old Bill Ockham knew all about the perils of attaching significance to [arbitrary labels](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/#4.2). > > Incidentally, I think you’re right about the atoms of the [occipital-cortex neurons](http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2005-08/1123273958.Bc.r.html) not turning over, since the carbon 14 atoms would also be replaced. I’m happy to go with Frisen’s suggestion that this exception evolved because the configuration must remain more _stable_ than the configuration of other cells. But in our hypothetical Star Trek transporter, the configuration is recreated _exactly_ anyway. I still don’t see why there would be a qualitative difference in the experience of the duplicate wakers compared to that of the original, nor how such a position is less parsimonious. Remember, Ockham’s Razor is about _explanatory_ entities, not _physical_ entities. I’m proposing a _single_ explanation (“configuration”) which applies to both duplicates _and_ original. You are _introducing_ an explanatory entity (“atoms” **+** “configuration”) to distinguish the former from the latter. Not [Night-of-the-Living-Dead](http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/9660/notldremakewalltr9.jpg) zombies, my fine Cardiffian friend, [philosophical zombies](http://consc.net/zombies.html)! They may have no more basis in reality, but perhaps they are a bit more logical—and I hear they are more socially acceptable at dinner parties. And, as for arbitrarily labeling, I must heartily disagree. On the surface, I admit, my bone of contention, does seem to be nothing more than semantic shenanigans between the generic you and the specific “you”, but I assure you that it’s not. I simply believe that the diametrically opposed answers that we gave with regard to the question I posed 4 years ago, represents 2 philosophy of the mind sub-models, that, though seemingly minor, in actuality have quite divergent and profound implications. At least, I think so. If I may paraphrase and condense the thought experiment question that was posed, and your answer to it, it was essentially: \*You’re told that an exact duplicate of yourself will be made in 10 minutes and this duplicate will be given $1-million. Only one of you may survive post-duplication and you (the original you being asked the question) must decide which one lives. Assumptions: you like money; you’re not suicidal; you appeal to logic, not emotion. \* (The original question involved black socks on the original and I believe 3 duplicates, #1 receiving the $1-million dollars. SentientMeat chose the duplicate with the money): > [@I Gotta Split. Paradox?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-gotta-split-paradox/327391/154): > > 1, with the other three killed, so that I have £1M and no socially inconvenient identical twins running around. Because the **configuration** is important, not the particular _atoms_ which change over the years anyway. (SM, let me know if you believe your answer does not reflect your opinion on the question as rewritten above, I believe they are essentially the same). I chose the original “me” to live. The debate that followed involved appeals to occam’s razor; unique and continuous consciousness vs. stop and go consciousness dragging along memories; questions about the permanency of CNS cells…and much else. Things got a bit off track, but it was an interesting 280 post thread, in my opinion. At least we now both agree that there is some permanence at the atomic level of the CNS (though apparently we don’t agree on its significance with regard to self awareness…yet). I believe my premise is more logical; you believe yours is more logical. I think both models comply with a materialistic worldview, and either (or neither) may be correct. It’s just an odds thing, really. While proof either way is not at hand, and, both, I believe, qualify as non-falsifiable, all we really can expect to do, through debate, is shift each other’s % conviction of correctness one way or the other. I admit, that I had a _significant_ shift of conviction in the correctness of my model (a hearty 75% in the beginning), as a result of our prior debate. However, through sheer will and logic, you and Mangetout managed to shrink my conviction of correctness down to a paltry 74%…so, there you go, I’m open to new ideas and willing to renegotiate my belief system as needed. 😉 Anyway, despite the long debate, eventual exasperation on both sides and, ultimately, no conversion of allegiance at hand…I still believe there is something lurking beneath the surface of this thought experiment that has not yet been revealed, is not arbitrary, and is worthwhile to explore. (A 500lb gorilla sitting in your skull). I feel we came close to debating that which needs exploration, but as a quark is to a proton, we just didn’t get down to the right level. I’ll put the blame on myself for being unable to fully express the problem as I perceive it (and I think you may perceive it too, at times, when self-contemplation beholds you). It’s a very fleeting perception that I find quite hard to hold on to, let alone adequately express. It’s a position that needs to be backed in to, one formulated more by exclusion and of paradox avoidance. So, after a rethinking of approach, I now believe we just need a slightly re-worked thought experiment, one with a third choice, followed by analysis and debate! So as not to hijack this thread any longer, I’ll start a new one…pretty soon, when I get something typed up. SentientMeat, your participation in the new thread will be, as always, welcome. However, I suspect your time may be as constrained as mine these days, so whatever you can contribute will be appreciated. In fact, I really just plan to post the new thought experiment, followed by a little analysis, then read what choices and arguments others make. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-materialism-incompatible-with-me/508621)._