Why Are You Conscious in Your Own Body?

[DaveC426913]

True, but how would that be any different from having your consciousness transplanted into a new body and having to deal with the "muscle-memory" or reflexes of the new body.

Muscle memory and reflexes are in the brain, not the body. You would have the muscle memory and reflexes for your original body, not your new body.

If you would implant new memories/knowledge, you would remember yourself being able to play violin or do yoga more comfortably and need to train your "new" muscles to be able to achieve what you used to with your "old" body. Basically, your memories/knowledge would just trick you into believing you were the person that the memories/knowledge were transplanted from, I think.

Yes, I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of this statement:

Without memories you have no way of knowing whether your consciousness has always been living in the same body or whether it's been transplanted multiple times through multiple bodies and sets of memories.

There are lots of ways you would be out-of-place in a new body, even if all your conscious memories said it was the correct body.

 

[brainstorm]

There are lots of ways you would be out-of-place in a new body, even if all your conscious memories said it was the correct body.

Here you're confounding my whole point. I never said anything about transplanting consciousness into a new body. What I said was that if you transplanted memories and knowledge from one body into another, the consciousness of the receiving body would BELIEVE it originated in the other body, even though it didn't.

 

[kfmfe04]

Here you're confounding my whole point. I never said anything about transplanting consciousness into a new body. What I said was that if you transplanted memories and knowledge from one body into another, the consciousness of the receiving body would BELIEVE it originated in the other body, even though it didn't.

But the consciousness of the receiving body would quickly reconcile the difference between the memories/knowledge from the former body and its current physical condition... ...or go insane trying.

There's nothing to believe - imagine if the memories/knowledge from a woman were transplanted into the consciousness of a man - I actually have a hard time understanding what this really means, but this is brainstorm's thought experiment.

 

[brainstorm]

But the consciousness of the receiving body would quickly reconcile the difference between the memories/knowledge from the former body and its current physical condition... ...or go insane trying.

There's nothing to believe - imagine if the memories/knowledge from a woman were transplanted into the consciousness of a man - I actually have a hard time understanding what this really means, but this is brainstorm's thought experiment.

The reconciliation might not happen quickly. The point is that the consciousness would identify immediately with its memories and knowledge more so than with its body, which is why it would experience itself as having been transplanted from the source-body of the memories/knowledge even if that consciousness itself had not been transplanted.

It's really not a hard thought experiment to do for yourself. Just imagine you wake up and your memory of life before waking up all took place in a previous body. Would you assume these memories were false or that you had been transplanted into a new body? It would be harder to assume your memories were false than to assume your body was false because it didn't match the body you had in your memories.

Here's the really creepy question: who would mourn the lost memories and knowledge that were replaced when the new ones were transplanted into you? Basically you're whole self and personality would have been erased, but since your body continues to live, people would not comprehend the loss, I think. Certainly you yourself wouldn't if you had no memory of your former self.

 

[kfmfe04]

The reconciliation might not happen quickly. The point is that the consciousness would identify immediately with its memories and knowledge more so than with its body, which is why it would experience itself as having been transplanted from the source-body of the memories/knowledge even if that consciousness itself had not been transplanted.

It's really not a hard thought experiment to do for yourself. Just imagine you wake up and your memory of life before waking up all took place in a previous body. Would you assume these memories were false or that you had been transplanted into a new body? It would be harder to assume your memories were false than to assume your body was false because it didn't match the body you had in your memories.

Here's the really creepy question: who would mourn the lost memories and knowledge that were replaced when the new ones were transplanted into you? Basically you're whole self and personality would have been erased, but since your body continues to live, people would not comprehend the loss, I think. Certainly you yourself wouldn't if you had no memory of your former self.

What doesn't make sense is, if your memory and knowledge has been completely transplanted by someone else's, you would not even be aware that this has happened! All you would know is, there is psychological dissonance between your memories and who you are, physically, right now. If that dissonance is large enough, you go crazy. If there is little dissonance (you got a transfer from an identical twin), you may not even know it has happened.

How would I even be aware of lost memories?? That makes no sense to me. The only way is to deduce it somehow from what has happened on top of knowing about the availability of this type of technology.

Anyhow, if you are interested in this line of thought, you can just go watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

I am more interested in knowing if consciousness, with its memories and experiences, is transferable. If it is, the implications are much, much greater.

 

[nismaratwork]

Here you're confounding my whole point. I never said anything about transplanting consciousness into a new body. What I said was that if you transplanted memories and knowledge from one body into another, the consciousness of the receiving body would BELIEVE it originated in the other body, even though it didn't.

...Or you'd have a psychotic break... who really knows?

 

[Max™]

http://molinapsychology.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/worst-case-of-amnesia-ever/

Memory is not consciousness.

 

[brainstorm]

I am more interested in knowing if consciousness, with its memories and experiences, is transferable. If it is, the implications are much, much greater.

My whole point is that if consciousness itself were transferable, the net effect would be the same as if someone else's memories and knowledge were transplanted into your body with your consciousness still in it. All you would know is that your body seems new to you, because your memories and knowledge are of yourself living in another body. Presumably, if you kept transplanting your consciousness from body to body for centuries, you would start to lose track of very distant memories of lives past. You would probably just hold onto select memories of each body you had lived in.

 

[SMERSH]

The paradox in this thought experiment (which duplicated "copy" will "I" subjectively be in ?) I think touches on something that I think is still very poorly understood in current scientific and philosophic discourse.

As I have posted in some other threads, I think this is the concept of a fundamental "identity" that remains unalterable and non-duplicable (even in an infinite multiverse) that defines what this "I" is rather than another "I" over there. There is some sort of fundamental "address" that this "I" occupies that can not be changed because it is inseperable from what "I" is.

Therefore in my view whatever the result of such a thought experiment described elswhere in this thread - the dublicated copy that "I" will subjectively be in will always be ONE or ZERO, but not more than one. (Even in a multiverse). The exact set of laws by which this would occur is of course I have no idea and I don't think anyone does.

Of course there are many ways to criticize such a notion. For example the thought experiment does not address what "matter" or atoms etc really is. This could alter the thought experiment significantly. Many question the notione of "I", but I think Descartes was right - if I'm not sure of the "I" existing then I will never be sure of anything. I believe "I" is real and other "I"s also exist - other conscious minds.

This concept of unique identity I think is a feature of the "whole" universe (or infinite metaverse if you think of multiple universes).

The "whole" has laws, emergent properties and constraints BUT these constraints need to "keep track" of these subsets with some coherence - otherwise there is no way for subsets of the whole to remain consistently identifiable for these constraints to act on them.

In other words, the global constraints that may somehow affect local events need to "know" which local part they are affecting as opposed to other local parts - a unique address system that identifies each local subset.

All models of reality that do not include this notion of a unique address system I think remain doomed at really making progress on the problem of understanding consciousness, qualia and the like.

 

[DaveC426913]

...I think Descartes was right - if I'm not sure of the "I" existing then I will never be sure of anything. I believe "I" is real...

More to the point of what Descartes was trying to say: in order for there to be doubt about existence, there must be something doing the doubting. Labelling that something as "I" is a trivial last step.