Graeme M

I most certainly wouldn't step into the transporter. I am a process of the brain, that is true. And quantitatively if I am replicated on Mars, it would not be possible to differentiate that being, that I, from the I that stepped into the transporter. So clearly B feels like me and remembers everything that led to that moment. But A, the original me, is dead. My qualitative, subjective experience of life has ceased. And it doesn't matter how many replicas you produce, they are not the me that died. From the perspective of A, I have died. I will never again experience life. From the perspective of B, nothing has changed, life goes on. But of course, B never lived before that moment. So not only is B essentially an illusion, but B's life before that moment is but an illusion of an illusion.

Exactly. Of course this is just my opinion but it's increasingly backed by research. That said, I am curious about the idea that some have expressed whereby somehow the original person can experience the copy's mind or even revert to that mind after their own death. That would have to be a dualist position in that the mind is seen as separate from the body. I find that surprising in this context though - is the implication that the mind or soul can express in another body? Why only a replica of yourself? Or is it that the soul/mind is some kind of separate 'signal' like a radio transmission that is received by a correctly tuned receiver?

Thanks for the tip iNow. I found it hard to concisely describe what I was getting at - I tried several times and gave up each time!

Not sure what you mean by "priority of continuity". There is no priority. In the case where A is annihilated, A ceases to exist. B does exist, and imagines herself to be A. But that's just an initial conditions thing. If A and B remain in existence their paths will diverge. Neither will have any inner awareness of things experienced by the other after the moment of replication. Macro scale objects behave according to physical laws and processes. The physical framework that holds the atoms and molecules of a person together operate predictably across the time that a person lives. While the cells may divide, die, be cast off or whatever, the macro object - a person - remains wholly substantial while that person lives. The mind, the "I" arises from the function of that brain. So, is the "me" of today the same "me" as yesterday? In a sense, yes. I can feel my self through ideas, memories, connections and so on. I have a linearity of existence. In another stricter sense, I don't think so. "I" am entirely an illusion, a construction of the brain. As the brain changes, so too do I. Whack me around the head hard enough and "I" might become something else entirely. I change in every moment of my existence. More accurately, I think "I" arise afresh in every moment of existence. I just imagine myself to have continuity. Disperse my molecules so that they no longer exhibit the macro scale behaviour of a human body, and "I" no longer exist. Reassemble my molecules in precisely the same way and "I" will exist again, but the two me's are not the same being. Old me is dead. And that's exactly how it felt to old me. Old me has no awareness of new me whatsoever.

Eise, your retelling is adding twists not originally included when you say that I will die in 2 days. I could discuss that. But I don't even 'get' why this is such a difficult question. You are not real in the sense that you is some kind of permanent thing. "You" are a construction, formed by the processes of your brain. "You" have no independent existence. The you (A) who steps into the transporter that atomises you and then recreates you (B) is killed. The new being is not the same you, it's a replica. Yes it will think exactly as you do and remember getting into the transporter and so on, but make no mistake B is not A. A is dead. A has no knowledge of what happens next. Why would you think otherwise??? EDIT: I thought I should go back and read the OP in more detail as I really only skimmed it to get a sense of the idea. So, my opinion of the original propositions: 1. Am "I" inside the head of the new person? This depends a little on what you mean by "I". The new person is in a measurable sense "me". But the original me has no awareness of that new person - the two are not connected in any meaningful way. "I" am dead. My qualitative experience would be that of death. 2. If we retain original and copy (A & B), I ("A") continue to experience the world as A. And B experiences the world as B. Experiences from here on will differ and the two will diverge to some extent. For example if A lives on Earth and B Mars, at the end of their lives each will have a qualitatively different life experience, memories, knowledge and so on. Who is experiencing the world from B's eyes? B. Who is not A. I don't follow the bit about living life and jumping back at death. I have no idea what is meant by that. Oh, and you couldn't pay me enough to step into that 'transporter'...

Thanks Gee, that was great. Spent an hour reading everything I could find, although there's some controversy I see. Last thing I found was from 2008 so need to find more recent info to see if Everett's claims have held up. I think there is some interesting parallels there with the nature of my question - how has mind developed over time. I am not sure this thread has quite covered the idea I was trying to express and was more focussing on skillsets than 'mind'. But I can't think of a better way to describe what I was getting at...

I am with StringJunky. "You" is simply the function of a particular brain. A perfect replica would be another consciousness with exactly the same feelings, thoughts and memories as you. In the first moment. After that, the two diverge as any two persons might with the constraint that the personality, behaviours and so on are relatively set already. "You A" is no more aware of the inner workings of "YouB" than YouA is of anyone else. The two are not the same being at all. I also completely disagree with TheDivineFool in his allegation that human cognition is somehow quantitatively vastly different to other animals.

Delta1212, I had to come back to this! I think that the comments so far have offered some good background and I still want to follow up on the recommendations such as StringJunky's 'strange loops'. My actual interest (which is at a very general basic level in terms of how much I know) is in animal cognition. How is it that a brain gives rise to a mind that can think. I include humans in the term 'animals' as I think that to distinguish between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom smacks too much of a religious connotation of separateness or specialness. I think there is something of a problem distinguishing between what I think of as the mind and what others think of variously as brain or knowledge. However, getting back to your last comment. Caveat: When I say "I think" something, I don't mean I have a theory or I think my idea is right or better than something already known, it's just my way of saying here's my take. What I am after is evidence fo why I might be right or wrong or reference to literature/information that addresses these kinds of things. Or pointers to where I can find out more. I want to learn more about the subject. Your analogy of the fruit at the top of the tree is a fair one. My point is this. While those who cannot eat of the upper fruit may never know its taste or benefits, they have the same mouth and digestive apparatus as those who do. Agreed. However, if they do not know of the upper fruit nor of its benefits, then they indeed have a less expansive experience. The skills and knoweldge that are needed to acquire the upper fruit constitute 'something' that gives the upper fruit eaters a qualitatively different experience. We could argue whether it is a better, worse or indifferent experience in value terms, but it is nonetheless qualitatively different. The upper fruit eater can eat the lower as she knows how, but she has also learned how to reach the upper fruit. The lower fruit eater lacks the knowledge needed to reach the upper fruit. Not only has he less knowledge, but he also has not experienced the reward. I think that modern knowledge is indeed more sophisticated than old knowledge. If it is not, then what on earth are we doing pursuing more knowledge? The view of the universe shared by even the smartest thinkers of 100,000 years ago would be as nothing next to the view of the universe experienced by a well educated teenager today. I would argue that the neural processing - the actual connections and arrangement of those connections - is far more complex for a mind doing quantum physics than it is for one tracking prey animals. Why would you think otherwise? For us to do more complex things surely requires mental arrangements of significantly more complexity than for ancient man to make stone tools and hunt wildlife, wouldn't you think? Of course the brains are the same, their application differs. And I think today's application is, in physical terms of the internal arrangements of neuronal processing, more complex. But not necessarily in an individual sense. I am thinking more about the overal capacity of today's greatest minds, in a sense the sum of human knowledge, compared to the sum of ancient knowledge. And its trickle down effect. I think that knowledge does not exist as something without, it is intrinsic to the internal mental condition. It is an emergent property of the brain which can be developed as the toolkit for doing so is developed. The mind itself is evolving, but in a generic, perhaps information processing sense.

Many comments stating that a modern mind is no different to an ancient mind are rather intriguing - I really would not have thought that! The notion I have about development of the mind simply does not seem to accord with anyone else's idea about this so clearly I have completely misunderstood how thinking works, or what a mind is. My original question about brain form and function changes over time has been answered. I need to do some reading about the progress between earlier forms and the modern form to get a better picture of human evolution and then I think I need to read up on human cognition. Thanks for the various comments even if I am feeling a little nonplussed that I seem so far off the mark!

No.. here I run into the problem of knowing little about the mechanics of evolution. I understand it at a macro level, although my understanding is probably a bit shaky. And I most certainly do not have any disagreement with the idea. But I suppose I imagined that evolution would result only in changes that confer a particular advantage being selected. So while a brain that can do clever things would be an advantage over a brain that is not so clever, how would one that provides vastly greater capacity beyond immediate application come into being? I mean, being able to out compete other animals in the natural environment hardly requires quantum physics. Is it that the application of our minds to solving problems not connected with survival simply a serendipitous by-product? For example, writing plays, or piano concertos, or being able to design a jet engine or working out a Big Bang theory seem not to have an obvious application in terms of survival and successful breeding.

Perhaps not knowing much about human cognition I am mistaking something about thinking? Delta1212, I have assumed, perhaps erroneously, that our earliest ancestors would have 'thought' more like modern primates, say chimps. I assumed this would be a far simpler thing than our modern thought. Modern humans clearly have richer and more complex minds than say a chimp, although I confess to not knowing what evidence there is for me thinking that. I have assumed that as the brain developed it gave us the capacity for more advanced thinking which has led us to today. It seems hardly credible to me that a brain should have appeared that has capacity beyond our current use of it, but if that is the case then OK. We use our brain to think as well as running our body. I imagine therefore that over time, our thinking has become more complex. People agree that knowledge has accumulated and become more complex, but I cannot see how that can happen without a similarly more complex framework for thinking. While an ancient human of 100,000 years ago may have had a largely modern brain I sincerely doubt any of them thought as you do. I am fascinated by the notion that mind has developed or evolved. I am defining complex as meaning how a modern well educated person might think. I imagine that we have access to more facts, more extensive analytical and problem solving techniques, broader awareness of the nature of things and a more comprehensive ability to share that information arising from the development of language and mathematics. I think that the process of teaching a modern human using methods developed over time, plus our broad awareness of things far beyond those available to a person of the past, as well as access to things like television and the internet, create a mode of thinking - a 'mind' - that is more complkex than one of 100,000 years ago. Or 20,000 years ago. Or today in a remote Amazonian jungle. That does not mean our brain is different or better, or even that we are 'better'. This is not a value judgement, it is more about the mechanics of thought and its relationship to the physical brain.

Overtone, you make very good points but they may be not quite tackling what I am thinking of. If we accept that ancient brains have the same form and function as ours, then presumably those brains have the potential to do the same feats of thinking as we do today. You note such things in your comment. However, I'm not trying to dismiss those peoples' abilities or achievements. What I am getting at is that modern knowledge is more comprehensive. It must be, otherwise why do people keep learning and coming up with new ideas? Did any of the societies you mention have a collection of knowledge and capabilities as broad as today's? Aborigines had a boomerang. Spears, woomeras, canoes, bark huts and so on. By any modern standard, that is a rather rudimentary civilisation. That's not to be dismissive, it just means that they did not pursue the kinds of knowledge that Europeans seem to have. The techniques by which knowledge is developed and communicated and shared today have been developed and refined over many thousands of years. My point is that a modern mind has access to much more knowledge, learning techniques and skills than an ancient mind. Surely, that makes a modern mind a more complex construction? Let's step back further. At 100,000 years ago, while an anatomically modern brain had appeared, what kinds of language, society, and tools were in use? I don't actually know but I'll suggest quite simple. A person of that time simply could not have entertained the same kinds of ideas that an educated modern person could. I'm not arguing that they couldn't have if they'd been raised in today's world, but that they couldn't have at their time. While knowledge has increased over time, so have the techniques for using it. A modern mind surely is able to entertain complex thoughts than an ancient mind. I am venturing that developing knowledge and its application has developed the mind itself. Did farming and controlled use of fire arise in human populations at 100-200,000 years ago when it is suggested that modern brains appeared? It is argued here that an ancient brain is capable of modern thinking if it were here in our time. That means that the brain that could use fire and farm was already capable of that BEFORE they began to farm and use fire (assuming those things happened later than 100,000 years ago - I don't actually know).

We've strayed somewhat from my original question. Which was about brain structure and function. I gather from the responses that the modern brain and the ancient brain (if we use say 100,000 years to define ancient) are largely the same. Certainly a modern brain and one of 20,000 years ago seem to be the same. I want to come back to Overtone's comments at some point, but to return to my earlier question which had become something slightly different. Our brains appear to be capable of quite sophisticated 'thinking', whatever that is. Modern theories and frameworks of thought around all manner of fields of knowledge are I think very well developed. How is it that we evolved a brain able to do this at a time when we didn't use it for that? I don't know much about this - but I will assume that when the modern form appeared, maybe 100-200,000 years ago, humans would have had only basic language and I assume would not have used their brains in the way that a modern thinker might. What selective pressure would cause such a powerful organ to evolve that is so over engineered for the task of survival?

Phi and Delta, you are taking my comments at a more literal level than I intend. I am not suggesting that my brain, or your brain, has a greater capacity or potential than the brain of an ancient human. On this thread it has been stated that the brain reached its modern form maybe 100,000 years ago. For our purposes we can agree that a modern brain and a 20,000 year old brain would be indistinguishable one from the other. What I am suggesting though is that the MINDS are different. It seems to me that the idea of mind has developed over the ages. While the underlying brain remains the same, a smart early human could not have thought of the theory of relativity for example. But neither could a smart modern man if he had lived in isolation from birth. What people have done is create an entire framework for thinking that allows complex information to be stored, retrieved and applied. Einstein and Hawking for example did not do what they did on their own - they built on the work of others as you note. But first, they had to learn how to think the right way and to apply what they'd learned. I think that humans have, through the development of language, mathematics, analytical techniques and so on, evolved the mind itself. The mind of an early human was tied up with matters of survival. He may have wondered about his world, but he simply did not have the knowledge, education, skills and techniques to come up with very sophisticated models of the world. So while an ancient human may not have been intrinsically dumber than a modern human, he did not think as a modern human. And I think modern thinking is fundamentally different. I suggest that a well educated modern man has a much better toolset of knowledge, language, analytical techniques and contextual understandings that would allow him to perform better at thinking and making sense of the world than an ancient man. Of course he wasn't born with it - he had to be taught. But what he learns and what he is exposed to from birth is a far cry from what the ancient man experienced. The modern mind is a much improved construction, IF we consider its ability to create and understand complex syntheses of the external experience. Presumably - and I am just guessing here - in an evolutionary sense, this equips us to dominate every niche, in fact it allows us to manipulate the niche to our own advantage. Knowing how the universe works is all well and good, but it's simply a sideline to an exploitive advantage so fundamentally different from all other species that we have come to dominate the entire landscape.

Acme, no, I definitely am not harking to the meme of 10% of the brain. I was more suggesting that while the potential for knowing a lot of information and doing complex things with it existed very early on, the extent to which we do that has increased over time. This must still be happening - for example Einstein's or Hawking's insights are far more complex and expansive than say Da Vinci's or Plato's. Perhaps not comparatively in context, but in an absolute sense. If it is still happening then in time we will see greater knowledge and more capacity to apply that. I think that a high school student today knows more, has better applied knowledge skills, and a more complete understanding of the nature of the universe than a student in the 1600s. Presumably, this must continue to happen until we reach the limits of the brain's capacity to do this. Delta1212, I disagree to an extent though I may be quite wrong! I'll try to explain. I think a poor farmer with limited education IS more ignorant than a physicist. And equally, a physicist is smarter and able to use his mind in more complex ways than a primitive human. I think this relates to the development of language. Regardless of how the brain is structured or whether it has changed appreciably in the past 50,000 years, it is language that allows us to introspect in more complex ways. It allows us to do complex analytical thinking, it permits us to share knowledge and pass it on, and it enables a greater level of shared understanding and cooperation. It seems to me that without language, a person would think in terms of visual images and impressions/feelings. It is much harder to deduce a theory of relativity if you do not have a language to express it in. Written and spoken language, plus mathematics, enables highly complex ideas to be expressed and manipulated symbolically. I don't think that even the smartest primitive man would have the capacity to do that for the simple reason he does not have the language tools to facilitate that. His brain may be capable of it, but his mind is not 'evolved' to take advantage of that capacity. I am sceptical that "people 20,000 years ago didn't know less, on an individual level, than we do". I think they did. They may have had possession of a similar number of facts (though I doubt that too) but they could do far less with those facts. It is a much simpler thing to know what berry is safe to eat, or where to find water, than it is to be able to do many of the things a person might do today. For example, design an engine, write a play, solve an equation, psychoanalyse a patient, undertake a surgical procedure.

No, on second blush I won't say that. I just don't know enough about modern Chinese farmers and I can't judge my own place in any scale of mental acuity. I suspect I'm fairly dim. In any case it's a diversion from the main idea I am pursuing. Let's go back to my last question. Bear in mind my lack of science background - I've read some books, done a bit of thinking, but that's it. Pretty much failed math and science at school because I just had no interest. But if you need to reply with some detail, please feel free to do so because I think I can generally follow arguments if they don't drop down to the level of esoteric language or equations. What is the generally agreed finding on how the human brain's complexity developed to its present level without that complexity being fully utilised? Or is that a question that makes no sense when you understand molecular biology and the framework of evolution?

I can't answer that directly as I have no knowledge of what a Chinese farmer does or how he is educated. But at first blush, I would say yes. And I have a good reason for saying that, even though my reason may be quite wrong.

mickeytea, thanks for the reference to Ken Wilber, I will look into that as the evolution of consciousness is really where my interest lies. StringJunky, I have little background into evolution/DNA/molecular biology, so don't really understand the detail. But I think I have a general grasp of the concepts. You mention how mutations confer selective advantage and hence that mutation spreads throughout a population. In the case of a human brain, we clearly see that over time, let's use our 20,000 years, the extent of human knowledge has grown enormously. I think, without having read any evidence, that a modern person's 'mind' would be a more complex nuanced thing than an early man's. It is suggested above that that early man's brain has the same form and size and presumably capacity for thought and complex problem solving as today's man. In other words, a new born from 20,000 years ago transferred to today's world could learn knowledge and be able to think much as a modern person could. This means that the full potential for the human mind to know more, and do more with that knowledge, is always evolving. We do not yet know the extent of this capacity. And yet, this ability evolved with no selective pressure that i can think of. What is the advantage to an individual 20,000 years ago in having a brain that is capable of the kinds of thinking, discovery, and complex problem solving that a quantum physicist of the 22nd century might enjoy? Put another way, how is it that the brain formed in all its complexity 200,000 years ago, yet as a species we are still developing the use of that organ? Caveat: I am not leading up to any religious exposition, this is a genuine question rooted entirely in evidence based rational inquiry. I do not believe in God.

Delta1212, so a human of 20,000 years had a brain essentially the same as today? However, a human of 20,000 years ago couldn't think of things as complex as we think of today. A person of a tribal culture back then could presumably have known all there was to know of the collective knowledge of that tribe. And that knowledge would have been rather simple in today's terms. I'd imagine he could not have formed complex associations and conceptual arrangements of thought as would a modern man, regardless of the structure and function of the brain. It has taken centuries of thinking, of investigation, and the development of more complex language and a means for recording and passing on knowledge to develop the 'mind' of a modern human. Let's take a smart man of 20,000 years ago, and a smart man of today. I'm not entirely sure I know what I mean by 'smart', but let's consider a quite competent, intelligent modern person with a broad understanding of science, philosophy, the arts and who contemplates matters of society and politics. He is educated from childhood to assimilate both knowledge gained over the years as well as modes of thinking and concepts about the external world that allow him to develop a thoroughly modern 'mind'. Our person of 20,000 years ago however does not have the advantage of this. he knows little beyond the basics of survival, some social skills and presumably some religious beliefs of a rudimentary kind. His mental experience could not be as broad or as rich as that of the modern man, regardless of the similarities of brain. In other words, even though the physical organ is the same, and the potential of each brain is the same, the mind of modern man is a far richer and more subtly nuanced thing, is it not? Sorry, didn't see your comment before I replied EdEarl. What you say seems to match my findings so far - that we have assumed the ancient brain is the same in function as today's brain on the basis of relatively scant information. I have no beef with the idea that an ancient (20,000 years old) brain is the same, I simply wondered what evidence we have for that. Or at what point the human brain is agreed to have assumed the modern form.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this question. I was thinking about the development of the human mind which led me to wonder how the human brain has evolved to facilitate this. If the mind arises from the function of the brain, I wondered when the human brain developed to the point where it was capable of thinking like a modern human. I googled the question and after reading several articles, was left not much the wiser. I found little to describe how the internal structures of the brain might have changed in that time. As far as I could tell we know the size, shape and general surface arrangement of the brain from fossil evidence. But the main thrust of most articles was size. I gather that the size of the human brain increased over the course of several millions of years until around 10,000 years ago when brain size began to decrease slightly. Today's brain appears to be about the same size, or slightly smaller than, the brain of 10,000 years ago. Broadly speaking, I got the impression that the brain has not changed much other than size in at least the past 20,0000 years. The essential structures appear to have been well in place by that time. Presumably then, the potential of a human brain to know and understand the knowledge that we have today was present then - 20,000 years ago. That raises some intriguing questions about the mind. But I suppose first I need to know if that core fact is true. When did the human brain develop into essentially its modern form? Do we have any evidence that its internal structure and function was the same 20,000 years ago as today? Does this imply that the brain of a person of 20,000 years ago was as capable of modern thought as a modern brain?

I think you are off on a tangent. I am not suggesting God does or does not exist. I am saying faith is a very blunt tool for establishing the matter either way. In terms of evidence, there is plenty that God does not exist in a form such as the Bible might teach us. There may be a God, I cannot know. But I think I'd rather consider the matter from the perspective of rational inquiry than from faith.

I don't think religion is mainly about death is it? I'm also not sure we need religion in life. I suspect human beings do need some framework of meaning in which to live but I'm not sure of the best way to provide that. Religion so often leads man into less than positive modes of behaviour - with no testable, quantifiable God, afterlife or knowledge of any soul, all we are left with is faith informed by other human beings. Which means it is not difficult to subvert people to the purpose of some elite. I don't think for myself the act of dying itself is fearful, though the process of getting there may be, for example if I knew my end would be to stand in a cage and be burned alive. What I find fearful is the cessation of self. Once I AM dead it won't matter, as I shall not be conscious and I have many times been unconscious. There is nothing there. I am not aware of anything so I cannot fear while I am dead. It is the idea of death and cessation that is scary. You suggest that God is not touchable and we should just believe, but that is faith and is not faith the ultimate surrender? Only through rational thought and inquiry can we make sense of the universe, faith alone has no implicit integrity. If I were to create a sect whose faith was to believe in a higher being who demanded human sacrifice and sex with children and only by believing in this being would I ultimately be delivered to paradise, am i wrong or right to practise my faith? If I abandon any kind of rational scrutiny of my faith, am i right or wrong to do so? Faith on its own can not offer any assurance of certainty, nor equally it cannot offer way to distinguish its inherent truth from an inherent falsehood. If you think faith can be a mechanism for certainty, on what basis do you think that?

I am not saying discussion is meaningless, just that I don't understand what you are getting at. If you believe in God and an afterlife, then you shouldn't be fearful of death (unless you haven't lived your life well enough). If you don't believe in God, then yes it could be scary to think of death, as indeed it is to me. The question of what death might mean for us, in a philosophical, non-religious sense, is an extremely interesting matter for discussion. If that's what you want to discuss. Or are you simply trying to convince us that God exists?

I don't know what point you are trying to make yahya515. If you choose to believe in a God, then live your life according to His laws and be comfortable that you will have lived a good life and will be rewarded after death. Easy. If you do not believe in God, then it's a bit trickier. But ultimately, without a belief in God, you are left with no idea what death will bring. Cessation of existence? Paradise? Reincarnation? You cannot know. So take comfort in the pleasures of the life you do lead. Or if your life is awful, take comfort in the promise of death. I tend to think death is the end of Me. And being rather attached to Me, I try not to think too much about the end of Me...

Yes of course, I completely agree with that. But let's address the question. The matter of where we might draw a line for 'sentience' is another matter, and one I am happy to debate. But ethics are a matter of value judgement - there is no higher authority to whom we can appeal. Equally, if we consider the universe to be an uncaring mechanical process in which no good or bad exists, then we are free to do as we please. But generally we imagine that we cannot do that, we do seem to think that some kind of framework for human behaviour, based on some kind of values, needs to be in place. And that framework is of necessity informed only by human values. We cannot make any sensible statement about what animals interests in this respect might be. So it is human value judgements that underlie any question of ethics. My question then remains, on what basis do we assume that our value judgements constitute a sound basis for ethical practices that impact other species? Or put another way, how could we derive a set of ethical values that consider objectively and fairly the rights and interests of other species? If all we can use are our own ideas about human primacy, then it's ultimately a selfish system and intrinsically not ethical.