EagleMan wrote:Can you elaborate what you mean though by not believing in it 100%? You either believe in something or you don't generally speaking, since belief is not a matter of knowledge
noxux wrote:The rencarnation (I believe it's true but not a 100%) is the one that I believe because it have show that those images you see in dreams are people from past lifes and I study more like Indian religion that show how rencarnation works.
EagleMan wrote:It's not the same, though I could see why you'd bring that up. My brain is a vessel for me. Wherever that vessel goes, "I" go. If that vessel is taken out of my head, then I go with it. If an exact copy, Vessel and Brain B, is placed where I used to be, I am still in Vessel A.
Hmm. So have you done much studying into the Indian Religious beliefs and philosophies?
Sentios wrote:EagleMan wrote:It's not the same, though I could see why you'd bring that up. My brain is a vessel for me. Wherever that vessel goes, "I" go. If that vessel is taken out of my head, then I go with it. If an exact copy, Vessel and Brain B, is placed where I used to be, I am still in Vessel A.
Then if your brain was replaced in sections "you" would exist in multiple locations? That seems even less convincing.
Let's go full ship of theseus here and suppose that rather than a brain transplant, or even multiple brain transplants which resulted in you have a new functionally exact copy of your brain in your skull, you instead had nanomachines which were injected into your blood which replaced only a small percentage of your brain matter with something else over the course of 5 years. At what point would you consider yourself to become not you through this scenario even though 'you' would make up a majority of the brain for half the process?
EagleMan wrote:This is not purely a philosophical question, but also one of science. So are you convinced that whole brain replacement with an exact copy would still constitute the original person being gone? (Even if no one else realized it).
So replacing the brain bit by bit is an entirely different matter, because it means we run up against the wall of current scientific knowledge, and we have to address the question of what actually is consciousness, rather than being able to ignore that issue in a whole-brain scenario.
Science can answer this question, but only to an extent. Generally the prefrontal cortex is responsible for most of your personality. So if every bit of your brain except your prefrontal cortex was replcaed, we can easily still say that you are you. After all, a person is still them even if they have a leg replaced with a bionic one, or a heart with someone else's heart, so we can extend this to the brain, where if you replace parts that are not responsible for your personality.
Because consciousness is an emergent property, we get into a fuzzy realm that as I said, the whole-brain scenario avoids. If you start to replace the prefrontal cortex, then at some point the person who was "you" disappears. Currently we lack the precision to say when such a thing would happen, because consciousness is not something you can point out as starting here and ending there, but presumably at 100% replacement of the prefrontal cortex, it would then be safe to say that you are now gone and something else is in your place.
A ship is the sum of its parts. A ship is not just its motor, or just this plank or that one. It is all of it. If you had to, you could not reduce what is "the ship" to just one part. However, you can do the same with humans, that is, we can reduce the person to just a few parts of the brain. A finger does not hold equal claim in being you as your prefrontal cortex does, but any part of a ship is as much a part of the ship as any other part - their claims are equal. This is not the case in humans, where the prefrontal cortex is most of who we are. So if everything but that was replaced, then I am still me. But if that gets replaced, even if it's the only thing replaced in my entire body, then whatever takes my place is no longer me.
EagleMan wrote:To imagine it another way to keep the premise the same, imagine you went in for an experiment and were put under anesthesia. When you wake up, an exact clone of you has been made - but how do you know who is who? Neither of you know who is the original. There are 2 of you now. Were you 2 people all along? No. Clearly not. The 2 yous get into a fight and the original dies. The original existed past when his copy was made - so clearly he was still "him", but now the clone can easily assume his place in life. But you're dead. The clone is alive. You are dead and your consciousness is gone. So clearly that other thing is not truly "you" in the meaningful sense - the sense being that your consciousness is continued.
EagleMan wrote:I've already said as much in many examples what you said. I was just trying to illustrate that they are in fact different people, and that continuity of consciousness matters. I said on many occasions that to the outsider observer, and even to the clone (or gradual replacement of the brain), they might not notice the difference, but it would still matter to the original because they would either be gone (or gone at some point) because the chain would be broken. Practically speaking it doesn't matter that they're "different", because the replacement functions identically as the original and was hopefully seamlessly transitioned to, but on a philosophical level it does matter.
Sentios wrote:Vegedus wrote:I don't think consciousness == being awake, in this case. It's more the sense of self, your identity that is stake. Whatever we call that we are so afraid of losing when we die. You can lose any part of yourself, a limb, your body, your intellect, but you're still you, right? Our consciousness is the thing that is us, perhaps hidden somewhere in the brain, or in our non-physical soul if you're religious. That thing presumably does not disappear when we sleep. One could argue that it does, but then, then sleep is just as terrible as death, the person that wakes won't be 'you'.
That is exactly what I'm suggesting though, it's impermanent death and rebirth.
Mir@k wrote:Exactly Veg, it's closing the mind. Only way from preventing people from bringing down the only thing that allows some humans to cling to life, while at the same time barring the pursuit of truth or knowledge. Personal choice.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests