Consciousness Thought Experiment

[Yoseph]

I'm always trying to reconcile consciousness and physics. This is a thought experiment that scrutinises the relationship between our experience of the universe and the idea that consciousness is just neurons firing in a predicatable way due to their position in space (and their connection to each other).

 

Disclaimer: I don't know if this is an old thought experiment or if it just sounds naive and stupid, I am here to discuss the idea and make some progress with what to me seems like a bit of a conundrum.

 

Imagine we create a replicator. With the recent advances of 3D printing it's not completely implausable to think that we might one day have a device that could scan an object of immense complexity and map it atom to atom in a new place. You guessed it, we're replicating a human. This human is you. (Please let's not get into the plausibility of creating such advanced technology)

 

We replicate you atom for atom so that your brain, neurons, neuron relationships are absolutely identical. We atomise you so that you're completely destroyed. Where this new human is standing, are you behind his/her eyes? Are you inside their head, like you are inside your head now? If every neuron was mapped correctly they should surely have all your memories, mannerisms and thought patterns.

 

If no, are you saying that consciousness is not connected to matter and exists in some higher realm?

 

If yes, the experiment continues...

 

We do the exact same thing again but we don't atomise the original "you". There are now two copies of you with the exact same experience up until this moment in time. Which one of them do you experience the world through? Who's experiencing the world through the one that isn't you?

 

My musings on the last questions have pulled up some interesting (slightly crazy ideas). At first you would of course have to experience only one of the people's lives. Which one could be decided randomly, similar to the double slit experiment with particles; when you take the measurement the particle appears in one place despite the pattern inferring that it's in two places at the same time. Now I see there being two possibilities: 1. You live out your life as the one you landed with and when you die your consciousness "jumps" back in time to the moment you split and you then get to experience the life as the other copy. 2. As in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics you just live the life you landed in and then die.

 

I hope you find the experiment interesting and don't berrate me for it's whimsicality. Any thoughts, insights, comments appreciated. As mentioned at the beginning, my true goal is to find a theory which nicely encapsualtes physics with consciousness. Any further readings/thought experiements which might help me with this are much appreciated.

[TheDivineFool]

Your assumption: Consciousness is determined by physical conditions e.g. the position, motion, charge etc. of atoms and the connections and activity state of the neurons in your brain.

 

Is this justified? I'm inclined to agree with you. Yet, this may be more an indication of ignorance rather than knowledge. I mean our current materialistic conceptualization of the universe prefers such a hypothesis. It sits pretty with current science.

I'm only concerned that there is a possibilty that this could be wrong. One thing that suggests such an error is the enormous difference between a stone and a bacteria. We can dissect apart a bacteria and study its parts in great detail. However, together, as a whole, it comes to life. We can look at another example from life. See the huge gap in cognitive function between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. This gap is equivalent to, even more, than the gap between living and non-living. These observations lead me to believe that "the whole can be more than its parts".

As matter organizes at various levels and in different configurations, novel and strange phenomena occur. Could the human mind be one such thing? It develops from one such particular permutation of matter but lives in a different level of existence. Could it involve something a bit more than just placing atoms in position x, y, z?

This is pure speculation on my part and also it disagrees with scientific materialism and science has a proven track record. All I can say is if science is right on the money, it would suck as hell!

 

Let us assume that your assumption is true. What then do we make of the next part of your question?

 

It would appear that you would be exactly duplicated at another point. You would remember getting into the machine and then suddenly waking up in the new location, as if from a short nap. Now that I think of it, it would be very much like going to sleep/becoming unconscious at your home, then being taken to another location while you were asleep/unconscious and then waking up. In a sense, your thought experiment happens in real life.

 

In case, you don't get "atomized" and now there are two of you, it gets complicated (for me). Intuition tells me that now there would be two of you. However, the moment the two of you experience a different reality, your memories would be different from that point of time.

 

I guess we're now discussing what it means for you to be "you". Is there anything physically or mentally that defines you as "you" in a sort of unalterable way? Since memory is alterable, it hardly seems to qualify as a distinctive feature of identity. You stayed at home one day and you now have memories of a day at home. But, you could have easily gone to the park and developed a different memory. Does that mean, every time we have a choice between experiences, we're making choices about who we are? It doesn't seem right.

 

If you agree, then it implies there is a different set of properties that define your identity, that remains unchanged as you proceed through different experiences. What that is, I have no idea?

[Mr. Laymen]

If it's a matter of reorganizing fundamental particles in space time to form exact duplicate relationships of one another... I'd say this is impossible, impossible because each fundamental unit must have unique coordinates of space and time in relation to one another, therefore they are never exactly the same.

[Skeptic134]

We replicate you atom for atom so that your brain, neurons, neuron relationships are absolutely identical. We atomise you so that you're completely destroyed. Where this new human is standing, are you behind his/her eyes? Are you inside their head, like you are inside your head now? If every neuron was mapped correctly they should surely have all your memories, mannerisms and thought patterns.

 

 

I tend to agree that consciousness is the result of the physical world, matter, more specifically our brain and neural activity.

 

However, "inside their head now", doesn't accurately describe the situation IMO.

 

"You" feel no different after being replicated. "You" are still "inside your head" up until your demise. Likewise, the replicated you feels no different and feels "inside it's original head" too.

 

 

We do the exact same thing again but we don't atomise the original "you". There are now two copies of you with the exact same experience up until this moment in time. Which one of them do you experience the world through? Who's experiencing the world through the one that isn't you?

 

"You" experience the world through them both, because both are "you". Granted at the point of replication forward the "you's" diverge. And this isn't to say that there is a collective consciousness between the two "you's" where all experiences had individually are shared in some metaphysical way.

 

It's to say that each person feels like the original, feels normal, and continues to experience life as if nothing changed.

 

 

My musings on the last questions have pulled up some interesting (slightly crazy ideas). At first you would of course have to experience only one of the people's lives. Which one could be decided randomly, similar to the double slit experiment with particles; when you take the measurement the particle appears in one place despite the pattern inferring that it's in two places at the same time. Now I see there being two possibilities: 1. You live out your life as the one you landed with and when you die your consciousness "jumps" back in time to the moment you split and you then get to experience the life as the other copy. 2. As in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics you just live the life you landed in and then die.

 

 

I don't follow any of this, randomly "landing" in a body, jumping back to the point of replication etc...

 

I mean it's your thought experiment and pie in the sky, so it's anyone's guess but to me that doesn't make sense.

 

If you've replicated a consciousness than there are now two consciousnesses that will experience life as if nothing has changed. That's the way I see it.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Skeptic134

[Ten oz]

In discussions about the brain and conciousness I think people too often leave out the influence of genes. Hormonally all humans are not the same. The differences can be both environmental and genetic. It effects the why a persos minds works. It effects conscious thought. My brain atom for atom in my wife's body would not opporate the same way it does in my body.

[Skeptic134]

Agreed, but this thought experiment included total replication of the body not just brain.

 

Or at least that's what I assumed based on there being two of the original people standing there following replication.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Skeptic134

[Pozessed]

I'm always trying to reconcile consciousness and physics. This is a thought experiment that scrutinises the relationship between our experience of the universe and the idea that consciousness is just neurons firing in a predicatable way due to their position in space (and their connection to each other).

 

Disclaimer: I don't know if this is an old thought experiment or if it just sounds naive and stupid, I am here to discuss the idea and make some progress with what to me seems like a bit of a conundrum.

 

Imagine we create a replicator. With the recent advances of 3D printing it's not completely implausable to think that we might one day have a device that could scan an object of immense complexity and map it atom to atom in a new place. You guessed it, we're replicating a human. This human is you. (Please let's not get into the plausibility of creating such advanced technology)

 

We replicate you atom for atom so that your brain, neurons, neuron relationships are absolutely identical. We atomise you so that you're completely destroyed. Where this new human is standing, are you behind his/her eyes? Are you inside their head, like you are inside your head now? If every neuron was mapped correctly they should surely have all your memories, mannerisms and thought patterns.

 

If no, are you saying that consciousness is not connected to matter and exists in some higher realm?

 

If yes, the experiment continues...

 

We do the exact same thing again but we don't atomise the original "you". There are now two copies of you with the exact same experience up until this moment in time. Which one of them do you experience the world through? Who's experiencing the world through the one that isn't you?

 

My musings on the last questions have pulled up some interesting (slightly crazy ideas). At first you would of course have to experience only one of the people's lives. Which one could be decided randomly, similar to the double slit experiment with particles; when you take the measurement the particle appears in one place despite the pattern inferring that it's in two places at the same time. Now I see there being two possibilities: 1. You live out your life as the one you landed with and when you die your consciousness "jumps" back in time to the moment you split and you then get to experience the life as the other copy. 2. As in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics you just live the life you landed in and then die.

 

I hope you find the experiment interesting and don't berrate me for it's whimsicality. Any thoughts, insights, comments appreciated. As mentioned at the beginning, my true goal is to find a theory which nicely encapsualtes physics with consciousness. Any further readings/thought experiements which might help me with this are much appreciated.

A perfectly replicated mind and body would indicate different experiences to me. Whether I'd have a conscious control over both is hard to imagine, but not impossible. During mundane tasks I "zone out" and allow my body to function as I drift into thought. Maybe there would not be much difference in handling 2 conscious experiences at the same time.

[Eise]

Imagine we create a replicator....

 

The idea is good, but not original: see e.g. this 'existential comic'.

 

Originally it was brought by Derek Parfit, in his 'Reasons and Persons'. He uses it as test for our our intuitions about personal identity. If you really believe that you are just a function of your body, would you then step into such a machine? Who would be the 'real you'? If you are copied to Mars: who would be the 'real you'? The one still being on earth, or the one on Mars? What if the machine causes the original to have a heart failure, so you will die in a few days?

[StringJunky]

 

....If you've replicated a consciousness than there are now two consciousnesses that will experience life as if nothing has changed. That's the way I see it.

Yes, and from here on in the two diverge.and live different lives. At the point of replication, it is arbitrary which one, another person chooses is the original. When a zygote splits into twins, which one is the original?

[Graeme M]

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.

[Eise]

Graeme M,

 

I think you answer the original question too easy. Let's retell the story a little, in the hope that it becomes more clearly:

 

Situation 1

On earth, you step in the transporter, and push the green button. The next moment that you are conscious again and step out of the cabin, you are on Mars.

 

Situation 2

On earth, you step in the transporter, and push the green button. The next moment that you are conscious again and step out of the cabin, you are still on earth. You hear that there was a malfunctioning of the transporter. Your original 'you' (i.e. you) were not immediately destroyed in the process, but the copying worked well and your duplicate has just stepped out of the transporter cabin on Mars. If you want, you can talk with him via telephone. However, due to the scanning process, you will die in the next few days.

 

Are you dying or surviving in situation 2? Would you step in such a device? If you wouldn't, would you in situation 1? Why?

[MigL]

If you set up a situation where the rules of physics are violated, you cannot make predictions based on physics.

 

QM guarantees that you cannot copy states perfectly, as you cannot know these states exactly.

No copy can be exact, even if you have Star Trek's transporter with its Heisenberg compensator.

[Eise]

Who is saying something about predictions using physics?

Who is saying that you need perfect copies to copy you? A nano second from now all your quantum states may have changed. Does that make another 'you'?

 

The whole thought experiment is to find out if someone really believes it, when he says that e.g. we are a function of our brain. A consequence of this idea is that you would have no problem to use the transporter. But what if the transporter turns out to be a copier, that with some delay destroys the originial? Would you use the transporter then?

[Delta1212]

Graeme M,

 

I think you answer the original question too easy. Let's retell the story a little, in the hope that it becomes more clearly:

 

Situation 1

On earth, you step in the transporter, and push the green button. The next moment that you are conscious again and step out of the cabin, you are on Mars.

 

Situation 2

On earth, you step in the transporter, and push the green button. The next moment that you are conscious again and step out of the cabin, you are still on earth. You hear that there was a malfunctioning of the transporter. Your original 'you' (i.e. you) were not immediately destroyed in the process, but the copying worked well and your duplicate has just stepped out of the transporter cabin on Mars. If you want, you can talk with him via telephone. However, due to the scanning process, you will die in the next few days.

 

Are you dying or surviving in situation 2? Would you step in such a device? If you wouldn't, would you in situation 1? Why?

The me that steps out of the transporter back on Earth is dying. The me on Mars survives.

[Graeme M]

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'...

Edited May 27, 2015 by Graeme M

[Delta1212]

 

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'...

But by the same token, isn't the you from last year just as dead as "A" you? Or the you from 10 years ago? Or five year old you?

 

You aren't the same person you used to be, so what happened to that person? B is made up of a different set of atoms arranged in the same pattern, but you aren't made up of the same matter that you were made of when you were five either? What gives you priority of continuity over B?

[Graeme M]

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.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Graeme M

[pzkpfw]

Many (not all) of the cells we have today are not made of the same atoms we had x years ago (it depends on which cells). So we are already pretty much our grandfathers' axe. (The one where the head's been replaced a few times, and so has the handle, but it's still the "same" axe).

 

Since consciousness is an emergent property of our brains, given "perfect" replication, I'd suggest there'd end up being two of the replicated person, both considering themselves that person and having shared memories, but from that moment on generating their own separate memories, and developing their personalities (separately, possibly in diverging ways) according to their different experiences.

 

No biggie. (But I do find it interesting to consider - if I met a replicated me, would I like myself?)

Edited May 28, 2015 by pzkpfw

[Graeme M]

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?

[Eise]

The me that steps out of the transporter back on Earth is dying. The me on Mars survives.

 

So? Would you step in such a transporter? Will you die, or do you live on, on Mars? From your point of view.

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.

 

Why would you think otherwise???

 

(...)

 

Oh, and you couldn't pay me enough to step into that 'transporter'...

 

So you say:

 

"You" are a construction, formed by the processes of your brain. "You" have no independent existence.

 

But you would never step in such a transporter?

 

But if you are just a process in a brain, then why worry? This process runs on exactly from the point where you have 'materialised' on Mars: you remember how you stepped into the transporter on earth, and the last thing you remember is that pressed the green knob in the transporter. What is killed on Earth, that does not continue on Mars?

But by the same token, isn't the you from last year just as dead as "A" you? Or the you from 10 years ago? Or five year old you?

 

You aren't the same person you used to be, so what happened to that person? B is made up of a different set of atoms arranged in the same pattern, but you aren't made up of the same matter that you were made of when you were five either? What gives you priority of continuity over B?

 

That's a good question. But who is the you: A stepping out of the transporter on Earth, or B, stepping out of the transporter on Mars? Would you step into the transporter?

Edited May 28, 2015 by Eise

[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.

[Eise]

But Graeme M,

 

If you think that, then you do not just think that you are a function of the brain. Something has died that does not continue to exist, and it is not just your brain process, because this process continues just as it was before you pressed the button. It looks as if you intuitive believe in something like a soul, something that defines your identity, the person that you really are.

[Graeme M]

Sorry, I can't grasp what you are saying at all. You simply are not making sense to me.

 

 

Something has died that does not continue to exist, and it is not just your brain process, because this process continues just as it was before you pressed the button.

 

The critical word there is "your".

 

The something is indeed my brain process. The process that continues is not that of my brain, it is that of another brain. Just because two objects work the same does not mean they are the same thing.

[StringJunky]

Sorry, I can't grasp what you are saying at all. You simply are not making sense to me.

 

 

 

The critical word there is "your".

 

The something is indeed my brain process. The process that continues is not that of my brain, it is that of another brain. Just because two objects work the same does not mean they are the same thing.

If you copy a dvd of a film, is there any difference between the two? You are the film, not the dvd.

[Spyman]

I don't think it makes any difference to the question whether we are the DVD or the film on the DVD. Both the film and the DVD can be identical, but will still not be the same one. The original will still be the only original and the copy will still only be one copy. If you place them next to each others you can clearly see that they are not the same one, they are identical but still two separate objects.