But he has shown no basis for the belief that the brain “reboots” under anaesthesia. He has a misunderstanding of what happens to a sedated brain, yet he doesn’t seem to want his ignorance fought.
Communication between segments of the brain still occurs during sleep, implying a sort of consciousness. You can hear things in your sleep and they will be incorporated into your sleep. This is not the case under GA. Your brain is in a non-communicative and responsive state under GA.
@ The guy who said there is never really a “me” to begin with, I’m not sure if I really follow your argument because I’m stupid and philosophically illiterate, and need to read things over and over again before I comprehend it due my intellectual inferiority. God I suck.
How does that support the notion that the brain “reboots” after anaesthesia? At no time does brain activity cease while under anaesthesia; just exactly when does this “reboot” occur?
Not true. EEGs done on anesthetized individuals show activity in various areas of the brain, including the auditory cortex in response to sound.
Several people have posted citations that show this isn’t true. What additional information do you need to accept that you are wrong about this?
I did. 5 hours of surgery including two on hear bypass.
I see a lot of references to “he” believes this and “he” believes that. And since I’m the one referenced in the OP, I fear the “he” under discussion may be referencing me. If that’s the case, I wish to clarify a few misconceptions.
As I mentioned up-thread, I never said, nor ever believed that general anesthesia will kill you. I do, however, believe that having ones brain torn apart at the sub-atomic level, then re-built elsewhere will indeed “kill” you.
And, I never maintained that a brain can be “rebooted.” I use that term loosely only when discussing computers as an analogy for the sentient brain.
I also don’t claim that my mine is the only valid philosophy of mind, because, last time I checked, the scientific jury is still out on this debate. I can’t say I see a lot of open-mindedness on those with alternate philosophies, however. Statements like “our whole idea of “continuity of self,” or perhaps even “self” itself, is complete and utter dog’s bollocks” is said as though it is a proven fact. It’s not.
I believe the “sense of self” and the “sense of continuity of self” is as it appears to be and as it feels to be with everyone reading this thread: real; not an illusion. There is no reason to invoke a different, no doubt more complicated, mechanism for our sense of continuity other than: it feels continuous because it is continuous. There is no newly discovered physical law that I’m aware of that precludes real continuity of consciousness in an aging brain. And, if you can’t rule out the simplest explanation (which I believe this is), Occam’s Razor makes that a prime candidate for it the being the correct explanation, right?
There is a continuous link between a single conscious mind over time. There is no rule that says that link can’t change over time…only that it can’t be broken (alright, maybe that’s just my rule, but it’s a good rule that can’t be falsified at our present level of understanding).
People often try to bolster their “continuity is an illusion” argument by citing the constant regeneration of somatic cells over time (you’re not the same person you were yesterday…etc.). What they fail to cite, however, is that neocortical neurons remain remarkably un-regenerated throughout the life of a conscious mind. I don’t believe that’s an evolutionary coincidence. Some say they think with their stomachs, some with their penises, but those are just sayings—you think with your brain. Period.
Lower and higher order consciousness are emergent properties of brain matter. I don’t think anyone here refutes that premise, including me. I’m not attempting to add a soul or homunculus into the equation, it’s not needed. Lower order consciousness emerges from the CNS neurons; higher order consciousness is an emergent property of lower order consciousness.
From what level does consciousness emerge? I believe it’s safe to say that it emerges at the molecular level, not the quantum level. So what if some subatomic particles are replaced in the cortical brain over time? Continuity exists at the molecular level and that should be all that’s needed to maintain conscious continuity.
How does an uninterrupted brain over time differ from two identical but separate brains? The former has a link (as I just discussed); the latter does not.
I really don’t understand the reluctance many people have to the idea that two things can be identical, but are not the same. Take two toasters identical to each other down to the sub-atomic level. They are certainly identical to each other, but are they the same toaster? Of course not, there are two toasters, not one. They occupy different spatial coordinates—therefore not the same. No physical law is broken.
Take this to a higher level: two identical non-sentient brains (conscious, but not self aware). They are identical in every way, but they are not the same brain, and there is no physical link between them, so they are two separate beings, not one.
Take it to the next level: two identical sentient brains (conscious and self aware). Why the reluctance to treat this any different from the toasters or the lower order consciousnesses? Treat them the same. If you have two separate but identical sentient brains you have two separate but identical personal identities—emphasis on “separate.” Just because they think the same does not mean they are the same.
To further illustrate the point, imagine two identical people next to each other. I don’t think we break any physical law if we imagine that these two beings are in perfect synchronicity as far as not only the arrangement of their particles, but also the motion of particles over time (we don’t need a real mechanism of action here, just that it is theoretically possible, even if by shear coincidence). IOW, they are identical beings, building identical memories in real time (as though they were sharing the same sensory organs, but they are not). You can’t get more identical than that. But, are they the same person with the same sense of self awareness? Would it matter to either of them which one was destroyed? Perhaps not (but, I think it should).
Now, break the synchronization of the CNS particles between the two. I think most of you will now agree that, since they are no longer laying down the same memories, they are no longer the same person, and they will now care very much which one you destroy, correct?
So, they went from being the same person with the same SA/PI to being two separate people in one instant? All because the motion of some particles changed direction? I don’t buy that premise. I don’t think you should either.
Conclusion: your mind over time = the same; your mind torn apart and put back together = identical, but not the same.
…Alright, looks like there’s something else I need to nip in the bud before one you jokers gets all up in my ass about it. Scanning some old posts, I noticed that I may have [allegedly] discussed “rebooting” human brains. But, c’mon, that was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…
And I wish to assure LifeSucks (by all accounts a happy-go-lucky sort of chap) that he’ll live long and prosper so long as he avoids transporters, wooden nickels and brain transplants from donor gorillas (its been done, the National Enquirer doesn’t lie).
There is no need to prove that insubstantial ideas are nonsense. They are nonsense because they claim nothing, either scientifically or otherwise. The reality of our concept of self is such an idea: it predicts nothing, and there is no way to distinguish between a universe in which it is true and a universe in which it is false.
Our concept of “self” is very much the same as our concept of “toaster,” really. We define it according to our convenience: it has no reality of its own. (Unless, perhaps, you’re a hardcore platonist who believes that somewhere, inaccessible to our senses or our reason, exists the abstract Toaster of which all machines that singe bread are the reified echo.) We can say that selfness seems continuous, which it certainly does, except when we’re asleep. We can say that it arises from certain mechanical processes, which it does. But to tie the apparent continuity of experience to the continuity of any mechanical process is an unjustified equivocation.
Which is wonderfully bemusing, since “identical” and “the same” are (?) synonymous. But that’s the joy of “replicating machine” thought experiments: they compel us to re-define words that we thought we knew.
LifeSucks, I cannot help but notice that you have neglected to answer my question about your purpose in starting this thread. I am tempted to conclude that you would rather be afraid than admit that you’re wrong.
Actually guys, I think we’re better off just telling him the truth: you’re absolutely right. Once you go under general anasthesia, your conscience dies. You’re completely blank, and your back-up hard-drive takes over.
It’s all true. You’ll be a clone in your own body. It’s been nice knowing you. I look foreward to meeting the New You.
(Oh, and please don’t tell anyone about this. I could get in real trouble, since They told me not to tell.)
Yeah, well…wait…what!?!
I don’t know about your toaster, but mine is real—real enough to burn my fingers each morning when I snatch my English Muffin from it’s hot, gaping twin maws. We also discuss existentialism after breakfast, but that’s a private human/small appliance matter that I wish not to discuss.
Well, Mr. Persnickety-Snickerman, why don’t you just grace us with the correct terminology for our “equal, but separate being” thought experiment, eh!?! :D… And, while we’re at it, I’m not too enraptured with some of your linguistic choices either, buddy-boy. I don’t mind being an object of your “amusement”, but “bemusement”…that gets my dander up! :mad:
Actually, I’m a bit concerned that LifeSucks may refuse a life-saving surgical procedure in the near future because he misunderstood the ramifications of our mind musings. I’ve absolved myself of any responsibility in this matter, so if any “shuffling off this mortal coil” stuff happens to the poor fellow…we’ll blame you for that.
The thing is, it seems nothing we tell him WILL convince him his fears are all bullshit. He’s determined to believe it, no matter how absurd it is.
(Question – can you dream during “conscious sedation”? When I had my wisdom teeth out, they had me on IV sedation, but I dozed off and I remember sort of dreaming and then waking up)
Dude, trust us – you’ll be FINE.
Huh? Are you actually pissed, or just taking the mock? I agreed with you, and you call me out on it with some rude names. I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking, or angry. Ironic dudgeon works best if it’s clear it actually is ironic.
Welllllll, mebbe I’m going out on a limb. I readily admit that it’s possible I’ve got the wrong idea about your idea. You could prove me wrong by demonstrating just how your argument for the reality of the self produces any distinguishable predictions. You don’t even have to prove that they’re true, just that it would be possible, in some conceivable way, to tell the difference between their being true and false. I invite correction.
With great rhetoric comes great responsibility. 
(Yes.)
I saw the MRI scans of brains that are going through sleep and brains that go through GA. It’s very different. The pulses are slow and non-communicative under GA, whereas in sleep, there is still full communication between different segments of the brain, albeit much slower. Dreams only occur when the effects of GA are beginning to wear off. There should be no capacity to dream if GA is fully functioning.
I’m around 30% convinced my consciousness will die after going under, but whatever, my life sucks anyway, so I’ll just see what happens.
Where is this process does “rebooting” occur?
There is a cessation of consciousness that will be rebooted.