Why Is My Consciousness Unique to Me?

[Anubis]

I have a few questions that had been bothering me the past few days. First off, why am I born with this particular consciousness and why am i born this "way" as oppose to an infinite other possibilities? Is it because this is how the chemicals in my brain happened to arranged itself out of all the possible way of arranging causing my unique consciousness to observe the world?

Hope you guys can understand what I am talking about

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Who said you were born with consciouesness? Do you remember having consciousness when you were born? That would be... horrible.

 

[saviourmachine]

... why am i born this "way" as oppose to an infinite other possibilities?

Do you have reasons to suggest that it could have gone in a different way? What possibilities are you talking about? Do you have an infinite amount of possible pasts?

... unique consciousness to observe the world?

What's unique in regard to your consciousness?

Do you remember having consciousness when you were born? That would be... horrible.

Some say that's where "end of the tunnel experiences" come from.

 

[Faust]

Hope you guys can understand what I am talking about

I think I understand your questions perfectly, I often think the same things myself. I haven't concluded much, the following is the best I can offer:

First off, why am I born with this particular consciousness and why am i born this "way" as opposed to an infinite other possibilities?

I find this question twofold. First there is the problem of why you were born at all, and for me the answer to that is "because I have always existed". I'm not talking about reincarnation, but I think of myself as an abstract entity, like the number 37. So I am an abstract thing, an idea.

As to why I am this "me" and not some other "me", I think the only possible answer is: because we are all the same. There is no difference between me, you, and anyone else who exists. We are all one, and the perception that we are different is just an illusion. If I were someone else, I would still be "me" because everybody else is also "me".

Is it because this is how the chemicals in my brain happened to arranged itself out of all the possible way of arranging causing my unique consciousness to observe the world?

Nah, that can't possibly have anything to do with anything physical. You are an idea; ideas are abstract, they exist outside of time, as opposed to things physical.

In a nutshell, we are who we are because we are the only thing that truly exists. That thing is usually referred to as God, but it doesn't really have a name.

That said, I don't think any of this can be explained. In a way, all I said above has been known since the beginning of history; in another way, it's an eternal mystery.

 

[Anubis]

thanks for the reply guys, however I am still very confused. So faust, are you saying that every single life forms in the universe are all one connected consciousness? than how did "I" came to existence and why does everyone think differently?

 

[Paul Martin]

So faust, are you saying that every single life forms in the universe are all one connected consciousness?

I'll be interested in Faust's answer to your question, Anubis. In the meantime, I'll give you my answer to it. I think every single life form in the universe is "run" or "operated" or "driven" or "animated" by one single consciousness in the same sort of way that a person might run or drive a remotely controlled vehicle. In that example, all the experience occurs to the driver and not the vehicle. Similarly, deliberate conscious choices concerning the vehicles actions are made by the free will of the driver and not by the vehicle itself.

than how did "I" came to existence and why does everyone think differently?

I think your body was "manufactured" deliberately to be driven by that consciousness, just as we manufacture cars to be driven. And not everyone thinks differently. I think Faust's statement is correct.

Paul

 

[spicerack]

the short answer is evolution

You are you based on the initial conditions of the universe at the time of your conception and the threads of consciousness woven into the fabric of space and time by the union of your parents. This makes you unique as your parents coming together to align those threads to form you are also unique and those circumstances of the state of the universe at conception only pertain to you given your unique geograpihcal postion in relation to the movement of the universe at said conception.

Notice the similarities with astrology, the difference being I think cosmic consciousness manifest itself in you at conception not at birth so you can chuck the astrology out the window ?

Also in line with Paul Martin's postulate is that this shared cosmic consciousness within the vehicle of your physical body governs you in the early stages of life as you learn to drive your body/vehicle but as you master the controls necessary to navigate lifes highway it (shared consciousness) becomes a passenger that you influence by way of a feedback loop and refer to as a rally driver does a co driver/navigator/passenger.

It relays information back to you via instinct and intuition. It is possible by reason and logic to overide and assume manual control of all facets of your body/vehicle except the basic functions needed to ensure survival. But by exercising total free will at the expense of that gut feeling or little voice you possibly do so at your peril just as a rally driver would by ignoring his co driver.

Basically no two people are concieved of the same parents at the same time in the same place and this is what makes you and the way you think different from anyone else. The strength of your particular thread of consciousness is dependent on cultural evolutionary and natural selective processes brought together by chance (or possibly not) in the union of your parents and their individual threads. The state of the universe can mean, the state of the cosmic consciousness that is constantly being updated at every shortest interval of time by input from the collective human experience and allow for a unique individual that is YOU

So...Your own developed thread of consciousness along with your shared cosmic passenger consciousness and the state of the universe as it was when you were concieved all combine to form the unique entity that is you and as you procreate by union with another so will you perpetuate and evolve the next generation of unique entitites who will wonder the same thing except that by understanding the nature of their individuality they will be better prepeard to prosper in the future

well that's what i think anyway, sorry if i repeated myself to often . I hope you like it and i hope it makes sense and i hope that it helps you too.

 

[Faustus]

So faust, are you saying that every single life forms in the universe are all one connected consciousness?

That's not exactly what I said, although that may turn out to be the case. I think that is a question for poets and priests; there's only so much we can say about the universe using logic and reason.

The way I see it, you can't really differentiate between yourself and any other conscious being; your sense of identity is not what you are. It's like looking at the surface of a perfect sphere: how do you tell one point from another, if they all look exactly the same? In a way any point in the surface of the sphere is the same point. When our conscious mind is completely devoid of thoughts we lose our identity and become like points on a sphere. If the whole universe is inhabited by minds which only exist but think about nothing, then it doesn't make sense to say there is more than one individual.

than how did "I" came to existence and why does everyone think differently?

If you use a pen to make a dot on the surface of a perfect sphere, that dot has no identity, it is simply The Dot. If you make another dot, they still lack identity, except for the fact that one is not the other; but you still can't tell which is which. Now add a third dot near the second one, and suddenly all three dots become individual, in the sense that you can spin the sphere and still recognize each of them by their relative distance to the other two.

(I believe this is also a hint as to why we perceive the universe in three dimensions: it's the minimum number of dimensions necessary to establish the identity of objects. But that's way out of topic...)

So, to answer your question, you did not come to existence, but rather gained an identity, and that was by mere chance. You always existed, as an undifferentiated point in the sphere, but you only gained an identity when a pen made a dot in your position - that act suddenly made you from a point to a dot which is different from all other dots.

Why does everyone think differently? Becuase that is what makes them "them"! If they thought exactly the same thought as you, then they would be "you".

(PS: I made a silly mistake and had to change my alias - hopefully I can still be recognized)

 

[Paul Martin]

I am neither poet nor priest, nor am I an expert in logic or reason, but it seems to me that with some clarification of some key words, we might all be saying the same thing. The main words we are stumbling over comprise half of Anubis' original question: "Why am I me?" 'I' and 'me' are two of the troublesome words.

Faust(us) said that he/she and I spoke a slightly different language. I agree. I think that slight difference is in our respective connotations of the words 'I', 'me', 'you', 'us', 'identity', and 'conscious being'. Faust(us) drew the conclusion from what I wrote earlier that Faust and Paul were the same person. (Maybe I should also append the inclusive 'us' and call myself Paulus. Just kidding.)

Spicerack and I have slightly disagreed in a similar manner on the identity of the 'driver' in the vehicle called the body. Our disagreement seems to be in exactly who or what is actually driving the vehicle. Is it 'me' or some outside conscious entity? Is it the pilot or the co-pilot?

So here's my proposal to clear up this confusion. Let's consider that all these confusing terms lie on a spectrum. The ends of this spectrum are clear and distinct so that I think we will all agree with them at the outset.

At the extreme physical end, we have the physical body. Someone here called this the PNS for 'physical neurological system' (or something like that). There are some six billion of these on Earth now and each one is separate and distinct and each one has a name. So if we agree to use names like 'Paul Martin', or 'Anubis' to mean the physical body, then we will have nailed down one end of my proposed spectrum and there shouldn't be any misunderstanding when one of us refers to another by name.

At the other extreme end of my spectrum is the 'one' all the mystics talk about. I guess we can't really say much about this 'entity', even whether it exists or not. But in the spirit of allowing ourselves to discuss concepts such as 'unicorns' which may or may not exist, let's allow ourselves to posit an entity which is singular and somehow at the basis of all of reality. I'll refer to this entity as the 'one'.

So to begin drawing us closer together in our mutual understanding, let me suggest that the 'one' is Faustus' perfect sphere with no ink dots; it is Spicerack's co-pilot; and it is my single universal consciousness.

Next, in the hopes that you will agree with that, let me suggest that all the troublesome words I mentioned can be thought of as being someplace on the spectrum between the two extremes. And, I think that much of our misunderstanding results from our own inconsistencies as to where we consider those words to fall on the spectrum. Here are some examples.

When I say 'I am going to the store', I certainly mean that my body is going to the store, so I have tacitly placed the term 'I' very near to the physical end of the spectrum. When I say "I am a conscious being", it is less clear where the "'I' falls on the spectrum. In fact, in my world-view, in this usage, the 'I' falls at the extreme other end and is really the "one" itself.

I think Faustus' accumulating ink dots on the sphere illustrate the progression from the "one" to separately individuated human beings by moving completely across the spectrum. I think that when someone meditates, the awareness of the experience moves across the spectrum in the other direction, from the awareness of the physical circumstance of the body to the awareness of the "one" itself, or at least some place on the spectrum toward that end.

And when Spicerack talks about "me" the driver and a conscious (or was it a sub-consious?) co-pilot, I think the difference is simply how he/she chooses to identify exactly where to place the 'identity' of the 'conscious being' that is driving the car (body).

When I read what each of you wrote in response to Anubis' question, I can make sense of, and agree with, everything you said when I interpret it using this "spectrum" idea. I think the question itself, "Why am I me?" is ambiguous until you choose where on the spectrum the 'I' falls, and where on the spectrum the 'me' falls. The question itself implicitly implies that the 'I' and the 'me' are different things, otherwise the tautology "I am me" would obviate the question.

But, instead, I think the question is profound and is really asking, why does this particular consciousness I experience seem to be embedded in this particular body that I experience? I think the answer is dependent on where along my spectrum you consider your identity to lie. Are 'you' the 'one' at the extreme end which is driving all bodies? Or are 'you' the obvious visible body others see walking around?

Paul

 

[Faustus]

Hi Paulus

I wrote a long reply to your interesting post, then read it and thought "this is nonsense" (my post, not yours). Instead I will post a brief attempt to summarize my position. It probably makes no sense either, but at least it's quicker to read.

It's been a while since I realized I must have existed before I was born, that in fact I have existed forever in the past. I don't recall the exact steps in my reasoning, I could probably retrace it if I wanted.; in any case I have since accept that as a truism, and observed that it explains quite a lot of things for me.

One thing that became clear for me is that, at my essence, I am not a thing, an object; I am only an idea, or rather a collection of ideas. It is only ideas that can exist forever, and it's only ideas (abstractions) that can exist in the absence of a physical universe. So I just made the jump from the unbelievable notion that atoms can be conscious to the unbelievable notion that ideas can be conscious. Somehow the jump looks reasonable to me, solely on the basis of its explanatory power.

Now if I am a collection of ideas, what makes "I" "me", or rather why is it that I am this collection of ideas and not that other collection, I believe the only possible answer is: mere chance. You can only develop your identity as a result of mere chance. This is where the perfect sphere analogy comes in.

If someone asks you to select a collection of points on the surface of a perfect sphere, the first point can only be chosen at random. The second point must be chosen based on the first, but other than that, it's still a random choice, with the sole exception that it cannot be the position defined by the first point (even with two points, you can't still tell one from the other - they still don't have identity). Only when the third point is chosen is the symmetry of the situation broken, and now all points have their own identity which is their relative position to the other two.

So the first being who became conscious had no problem understanding "why am I me", since he could not be anybody else, for there was nobody else to be. The second being could conceive of being the first one, but would realize being the other and being himself are essentially the same thing, so the question "why am I me" was meaningless for him. Only from the third being on did the question of one's identity become meaningful, but it is still a meaningful question without a meaningful answer other than "mere chance". Which is why I said this was known since the beginning but at the same time it's an eternal mystery.

That should, I hope, make it clear to you how my perfect sphere is not your "one"; my sphere was just a metaphor to convey an abstract notion, your "one" not only is real but probably the most real thing around, if not the only.

So, back to the drawing board?

 

[Anubis]

So, to answer your question, you did not come to existence, but rather gained an identity, and that was by mere chance. You always existed, as an undifferentiated point in the sphere, but you only gained an identity when a pen made a dot in your position - that act suddenly made you from a point to a dot which is different from all other dots.

Interesting. Since I have always existed, than how did i inherit this new identity? By sheer chance?

If my question is answered already than sorry, my brain flopped over and died half way through the thread.

 

[Faustus]

Since I have always existed, than how did i inherit this new identity? By sheer chance?

I think we don't have an identity before we are born, just like no point in the surface of a perfect sphere can be said to be different from all other points. You inherited a new identity by being born. Let me use an allegory:

Imagine a huge nursery in heaven, filled with "spiritual babies" waiting to be born. The "babies" look all the same, they are all like little grains of sand, perfectly identical. The babies already have a mind, but their minds are completely devoid of any thoughts, fully blank. Now a woman's egg has just been fertilized on earth, which causes the phone in the spiritual nursery to ring:

- Spiritual Nursery. Good eternal morning!
- Hi. This is Angel #98723. Someone has just been conceived, please send me one of the spiritual babies so I can put it inside the fertilized egg.
- No problem. You'll have it in 5 minutes.
- Thanks.

And off the spiritual nurse goes, to pick up one little grain of sand to dispatch to earth. Now there's billions of them, all exactly the same. Which one should she pick? Well, she's been in this business for an eternity and she knows there are no criteria that can be used to choose one over the other, so she just picks one at random.

Twenty years later a young man on Earth wonders why he was chosen instead of the billions who have been left behind and are still waiting to be born. But the young man will not find an answer other than "it happened to me but there's no reason why it couldn't have happened to anyone else". The key thing here is "there is no reason".

Bottom line: never underestimate the importance of chance. That is how most things come about.

my brain flopped over and died half way through the thread.

And if it hadn't done so already, my poor literary skills would have certainly done it now

 

[spicerack]

Is it by mere chance though and why at birth not at conception ?

Surely a unique thread of consciousness/template of an identity is initiated at conception ?

I don't think it is by chance either that combinations of unique threads over time form higher evolved beings which have a purpose in the overall scheme of things.

Was Einstein a fluke or was he predisposed by the union of his many antecedent threads towards maths/physics/higher thought and with the influence of environment and experience became what he was meant to be ?

I'm thinking as in Dune with the kwisatz haderach/Paul Atreides and the bene gesserit program that produced him but as in that scenario we by the natue of free will can override genetic predisposition and achieve beyond our calling or disregard it completely and do our own thing

Are you familiar with this...

The "guff" is a term the Talmud uses to refer to the repository of all unborn souls. Literally, the word "guff" means "body."

The Talmud says, "The Son of David (Mashiach) will not arrive until there's no more 'soul' in the 'body.' " This means that there are a certain number of souls in heaven waiting to be born. Until they are born, they wait in a heavenly repository called "the body." The Mashiach won't arrive until every single one of these souls has been born into the physical world.

This teaches that each person is important and has a unique role which only he, with his unique soul, can fulfill. Even a newborn baby brings the Mashiach closer simply by being born.

Interesting that it translates to "the body" and enters "our body". Same thing different name "shared consciousness" entering our uniquely inherited "thread of consciousness"

 

[Kerrie]

I have often thought about this question myself. Why am I who I am and not an animal, plant, bacteria, or my next door neighbor?

Notice the similarities with astrology, the difference being I think cosmic consciousness manifest itself in you at conception not at birth so you can chuck the astrology out the window ?

As a student of astrology for 13 years, I must agree to disagree Just for the record, astrology is based on the time of birth because the baby begins to breathe completely on her own, whereas in the womb, her lungs are collapsed and she is dependent upon her mother for oxygen. With that thought, I believe that the arrangement of celestial bodies has a certain reflection (not affect) on every form of life, but we choose who we become. As to why we we are who we are, I also believe "god" is a fancy label for the constant energy flow throughout our universe/reality and the channeling to who or what it becomes is quite random.

 

[loseyourname]

Think about it this way: If you were someone else, would it be any different? You'd be asking the same question. They may be a virtually infinitely number of persons/entities that you could have been, and all might be equally probable. No matter which you became, you'd still be able to stand and wonder about all the other things you didn't become. The only reason you are you is because you can only be one thing.

 

[arildno]

The only reason you are you is because you can only be one thing.

Nope, I contain multitudes (yeah, I know it is a contradiction but Walt was right nonetheless..)

 

[Gokul43201]

The only reason you are you is because you can only be one thing.

This seems (to me) an obvious enough truth (and since it is entirely pertinent) that it answers the question completely, with no room for doubt. Why am I wrong ?

 

[arildno]

This seems (to me) an obvious enough truth (and since it is entirely pertinent) that it answers the question completely, with no room for doubt. Why am I wrong ?

Evidently true. I just paraphrased one of Walt Whitman's more memorable phrases.. ("Did I contradict myself? Oh well, I contain multitudes")

 

[Integral]

The simplest physical reason you are what you are has to do with your brain. Brains are complex bio-electrical organs. The random neuron connections made as your brain grows are as unique to an individual as your fingerprints. It is how these connections are arranged that determines your though patterns, thus your personality and your ability to learn.

Thou it may now be a bit dated try giving GEB, The Eternal Golden Braid By Douglas Hofstadter a read. He does an very good job of explaining the fundamentals of thought processes and brain operation through an analogy with an ant colony.

 

[learningphysics]

I have often thought about this question myself. Why am I who I am and not an animal, plant, bacteria, or my next door neighbor?

The question "Why am I this human, as opposed to that animal?" only makes sense if the "I" means something other than "this human". What is meant by "I" here if it is not "this human"?

If "I" literally means "this human" then the question reduces to asking "Why is this human this human?". "This human" is "this human" is just a tautology. It would be like asking "Why is a=a?"

 

[Faustus]

The simplest physical reason you are what you are has to do with your brain. Brains are complex bio-electrical organs. The random neuron connections made as your brain grows are as unique to an individual as your fingerprints. It is how these connections are arranged that determines your though patterns, thus your personality and your ability to learn.

So two persons with physically identical brains would be the same person? And when your brain physically changes then someone else takes over?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I have a few questions that had been bothering me the past few days. First off, why am I born with this particular consciousness and why am i born this "way" as oppose to an infinite other possibilities? Is it because this is how the chemicals in my brain happened to arranged itself out of all the possible way of arranging causing my unique consciousness to observe the world?

Personally I think "what is me" has to be answered before one can properly contemplate the "why" question.

Let's say you're an alligator egg that accidentally get's mixed in with some chicken eggs a mother hen is hatching. You grow up with the chickens and try to eat seeds, cluck, do the chicken walk, peck other chicks, etc. but can never seem to find satisfaction or success. "Why" tells you that your beak is deformed, your neck doesn't lend itself to the chicken walk, your teeth are why a peck ends in dead chicks . . . but all of your questions get answered when you are out for a walk and run into another gator who explains "what" you really are.

Most people don't seem concerned about their nature, their essence. They describe themselves in terms of behaviors, and mechanics associated with the brain. How many people do you think actually sit down, look inward to the "self" they wonder about, and just experience that? If you don't even know the nature of what you are, then how can you figure out why it exhibits all the more obvious appearances and behaviors it does?

 

[Integral]

So two persons with physically identical brains would be the same person? And when your brain physically changes then someone else takes over?

Just as no 2 people have identical finger prints no 2 brains are wired the same. If we make any signifigant changes in the wiring of the brain, personalities change. Isn't that common knowledge? I.E. Shock treatment, chemicals etc.

 

[Faustus]

Just as no 2 people have identical finger prints no 2 brains are wired the same.

That is not what I asked. There is no reason why two people can't have identical fingerprints, it's just extremely unlikely. Likewise, there is no reason why two people can't have their brains "wired" the same way; again, it's just extremely unlikely.

However, there is a reason why two people cannot be the same person, the same "me", and that is not a matter of being unlikely, it's a matter of being impossible. So if one thing is unlikely but possible, and the other is absolutely impossible, it follows they can't be the same thing.

If we make any signifigant changes in the wiring of the brain, personalities change. Isn't that common knowledge?

What seems to be common knowledge is that you remain the same individual regardless of which personality you happen to exhibit at a particular point in time. At work I have one personality, at home I have another, but it's the same "I" that goes to work and comes back home.

I really don't understand why some people think changes in personality imply changes in individuality. When you crash your automobile, does it become another automobile just because it doesn't look the same?

 

[learningphysics]

Just as no 2 people have identical finger prints no 2 brains are wired the same. If we make any signifigant changes in the wiring of the brain, personalities change. Isn't that common knowledge? I.E. Shock treatment, chemicals etc.

What if we constructed two bodies with identical brains. This may be practically impossible, but is it logically impossible?

Do we then have two people, or one person in two bodies?

 

[Integral]

There are literally BILLIONS of neurons in the brain. The likelihood of having 2 identically wired brains nil, if not totally impossible, simply because the life time of the universe is to short. If a simple pattern like your finger print is considered unique how can you even conceive of identical brains? We do not now have, nor will we have in the lifetime of you or your grandchildren, the technology to completely map the connections in a brain.

I get the feeling that you guys simply do not comprehend the complexity of the organ.

Once again find a copy of GEB give it a read...

 

[learningphysics]

There are literally BILLIONS of neurons in the brain. The likelihood of having 2 identically wired brains nil, if not totally impossible, simply because the life time of the universe is to short. If a simple pattern like your finger print is considered unique how can you even conceive of identical brains? We do not now have, nor will we have in the lifetime of you or your grandchildren, the technology to completely map the connections in a brain.

The issue isn't the complexity of the brain, or whether or not identical brains will actually occur at some point in the future.

The question is what would happen IF two bodies had identical brains?

Can't a question of the form, "What would happen if A occurred?" be answered even if A never actually occurs?

 

[Les Sleeth]

The issue isn't the complexity of the brain, or whether or not identical brains will actually occur at some point in the future.

The question is what would happen IF two bodies had identical brains?

Can't a question of the form, "What would happen if A occurred?" be answered even if A never actually occurs?

Just a small point . . . I think to make the question meaningful you'd have to add to the hypothetical identical brains that both individuals have identical life experiences. While it's true that experiences, especially early on, help create neural pathways, tons of new experiences travel established neural routes.

Reality interferes with this problem however, because unless time travel is possible, it is impossible for two people to have the same experiences. No two persons can occupy the same space. Even Siamese twins sharing one body with two brains would be in slightly different locations, which means they possesses different persepectives and therefore different experiences.

The only way the problem can work is if time travel is possible, then one of the identical brains could go back in time and go through exactly the same experiences as his clone.

And THEN would they be exactly the same? Hmmmmmmm . . . I don't think so, but y'all probably guessed I'd say that. It comes right back to the question of if consciousness is created and totally shaped by brain physiology, or if there is something inherent in consciousness apart from brain's contributions.

 

[Anubis]

And THEN would they be exactly the same? Hmmmmmmm . . . I don't think so, but y'all probably guessed I'd say that. It comes right back to the question of if consciousness is created and totally shaped by brain physiology, or if there is something inherent in consciousness apart from brain's contributions.

Yes, that was my one of my original question. If Faustus is right and that we're all the same before conception, that we all belong to a single universal consciousness, then our present consciousness and "self" is a result of our experiences growing up. So your statement is right, unless there is time travel, then everyone is different based on their particular experiences.

 

[spicerack]

As a student of astrology for 13 years, I must agree to disagree Just for the record, astrology is based on the time of birth because the baby begins to breathe completely on her own, whereas in the womb, her lungs are collapsed and she is dependent upon her mother for oxygen. With that thought, I believe that the arrangement of celestial bodies has a certain reflection (not affect) on every form of life, but we choose who we become. As to why we we are who we are, I also believe "god" is a fancy label for the constant energy flow throughout our universe/reality and the channeling to who or what it becomes is quite random.

What difference does it make adding oxygen to the mix ?

Surely a unique template of an identity is created at conception. The time of first union and division. From then on a certain amount of personal consciousness is fixed within the entity that is you, in line with the connection established with the primordial cosmic consciousness as Paul calls it and somewhat determined in the "position/state" of the universe. The so called strategic dependence on initial conditions.

I am interested in how you align predictability through astrology with God's random channeling of energy ?

On a side note I watched a news piece about an autistic savant who could do and learn amazing stuff but couldn't do simple stuff. He seemed to just intuitively know the answer to really hard maths questions but not know how he knew. I'd say his passenger consciousness/mind actually did more driving of his body vehicle and rewired his personal consciousness/brain but most of us rewire our brains though choice, logic, reason and experience

 

[Integral]

The issue isn't the complexity of the brain, or whether or not identical brains will actually occur at some point in the future.

The question is what would happen IF two bodies had identical brains?

Can't a question of the form, "What would happen if A occurred?" be answered even if A never actually occurs?

I question the validity of any results obtained from a Gedanken experiment which starts with non physical assumptions. OK, fine, IF you had identical brains it would be the same person.

Now since it is impossible for 2 identical brains to form what have gained other then a plot for a bad sci fi story?

 

[Tournesol]

Now since it is impossible for 2 identical brains to form what have gained other then a plot for a bad sci fi story?

It's not impossible -- there's no law against it -- just very unlikely.

 

[Kerrie]

What difference does it make adding oxygen to the mix ?

Surely a unique template of an identity is created at conception. The time of first union and division. From then on a certain amount of personal consciousness is fixed within the entity that is you, in line with the connection established with the primordial cosmic consciousness as Paul calls it and somewhat determined in the "position/state" of the universe. The so called strategic dependence on initial conditions.

I am interested in how you align predictability through astrology with God's random channeling of energy ?

On a side note I watched a news piece about an autistic savant who could do and learn amazing stuff but couldn't do simple stuff. He seemed to just intuitively know the answer to really hard maths questions but not know how he knew. I'd say his passenger consciousness/mind actually did more driving of his body vehicle and rewired his personal consciousness/brain but most of us rewire our brains though choice, logic, reason and experience

As much as I would like to continue on the discussion of astrology, it is most definitely off topic. There are archived threads where I go into lengthy discussions about the subject here in the PF files.

 

[spicerack]

As much as I would like to continue on the discussion of astrology, it is most definitely off topic. There are archived threads where I go into lengthy discussions about the subject here in the PF files.

please indulge me Kerrie

I think a study which can account for what determines someone to be the person that they are in line with anubis question is very much on topic. If you would like to go on discussing astrology within the context I'm sure no one would mind, well at least i wouldn't anyway

Maybe you could just cut and paste or link to the files in the archive. I would love to but am currently pressed for time

 

[Integral]

It's not impossible -- there's no law against it -- just very unlikely.

Please prove this statement.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Please prove this statement.

He means that it is theoretically possible; i.e., there are no laws of physics which prohibit it from happening however unlikely it is to occur. Your requirement for proof could be turned toward your assertion too. That is, prove it is impossible, which of course no one can do.

But, I don't understand why you would say that even if possible, two identically wired brains would create the same "me." Even if we are just a brain, the "me" in there is much more the result of personal experience isn't it? Since even with identical wiring the individual units would walk around in different settings from different perspectives, I can't see how they would have the same "me."

 

[Paul Martin]

The Essential Question: What exactly is this "me"?

Even if we are just a brain, the "me" in there is much more the result of personal experience isn't it?

Given the premise of the question, then the "me" is nothing but a combination of the physical state of the body which is a result of its history of experiences. If this premise is true, then all animal behavior would be identical with the behavior of complex robots or automatons.

But I think this premise is an unsupported assumption. If we accept the possibility that consciousness is something non-physical that is outside the brain, then it seems to me that that consciousness would naturally qualify as the "me" that we wonder about. I think the car-driver analogy is a good illustration of what the relationship might be. The car is a specific physical object with structure and function and which obeys the strict laws of physics. But without a conscious driver, the car cannot behave much differently than a rock. With a driver, however, although still obeying all the laws of physics, the car can exhibit seemingly purposive and improbable actions -- the same kind of actions live animals exhibit.

It seems to me that even a casual observation of human and animal behavior suggests purposive behavior rather than robotic behavior.

Paul

 

[Kerrie]

please indulge me Kerrie

I think a study which can account for what determines someone to be the person that they are in line with anubis question is very much on topic. If you would like to go on discussing astrology within the context I'm sure no one would mind, well at least i wouldn't anyway

Maybe you could just cut and paste or link to the files in the archive. I would love to but am currently pressed for time

please see your private message spicerack. an astrological discussion started in this thread is not the focus.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Given the premise of the question, then the "me" is nothing but a combination of the physical state of the body which is a result of its history of experiences. If this premise is true, then all animal behavior would be identical with the behavior of complex robots or automatons.

I understand your overall point Paul, but what you say above doesn't seem right.

Let's just take two robots who each have identical AI brains and sensory apparatus, and both retain what they experience exactly the same way so a personal history is built up for each. What they experience is dependent on the receipt of information, but it is impossible for both to receive the same information. Reality is incessantly changing, and so the information available from it is also different from one moment to the next. Also, they cannot both occupy the same space and therefore simultaneously experience from the same perspective.

So, each is going to retain a different collection of information even if they process, interpret, respond, etc. to identical information exactly the same.

 

[Faustus]

Let's just take two robots who each have identical AI brains and sensory apparatus, and both retain what they experience exactly the same way so a personal history is built up for each. What they experience is dependent on the receipt of information, but it is impossible for both to receive the same information.

It is not really impossible. I can think of a planet, exactly like ours, with an exactly identical history, located in a position in space where the night sky looks exactly the same...

(boy, this philosophy business makes winning the lottery seem as easy as stealing candy from a kid)

But in that hypothetical scenario, I believe we no longer have two persons, two "me"s. If someone else is living a life exactly like mine, having exactly the same experiences, I think that would also be me. That is, unless we can have different subjective experiences that have no physical correlates in our brains.

Makes you really wonder what is the point of this exercise, doesn't it?

 

[Les Sleeth]

It is not really impossible. I can think of a planet, exactly like ours, with an exactly identical history, located in a position in space where the night sky looks exactly the same...But in that hypothetical scenario, I believe we no longer have two persons, two "me"s. If someone else is living a life exactly like mine, having exactly the same experiences, I think that would also be me.

I am still going to disagree with you. The universe might appear the same on that planet, but it really isn't. That means you here on Earth, and your clone on that planet, have taken in information from two completely different perspectives. Appearing the same doesn't equal actual sameness.

See, I am arguing this because I think a hugely important aspect to individuality is the "point" we each occupy which no one else can.

Makes you really wonder what is the point of this exercise, doesn't it?

Well, I was tempted earlier to give my opinion on what the point of this particular argument is, but I thought I'd let it go for awhile first. However, I do believe it is important.

I think that experience is a major part of what establishes the self, along with the unique collection of experiences each perspective, or "point," acquires. So I questioned Integral's idea that only wiring determines the individual because I don't think wiring creates the self. It's just what allows information to reach us, decides the neurons we use to think and remember with, etc.

 

[learningphysics]

I am still going to disagree with you. The universe might appear the same on that planet, but it really isn't. That means you here on Earth, and your clone on that planet, have taken in information from two completely different perspectives. Appearing the same doesn't equal actual sameness.

See, I am arguing this because I think a hugely important aspect to individuality is the "point" we each occupy which no one else can.

Well, I was tempted earlier to give my opinion on what the point of this particular argument is, but I thought I'd let it go for awhile first. However, I do believe it is important.

I think that experience is a major part of what establishes the self, along with the unique collection of experiences each perspective, or "point," acquires. So I questioned Integral's idea that only wiring determines the individual because I don't think wiring creates the self. It's just what allows information to reach us, decides the neurons we use to think and remember with, etc.

What if we had a virtual environment... we feed the identically wired brains exactly the same data.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What if we had a virtual environment... we feed the identically wired brains exactly the same data.

At the same time? If so, then they have to be in two different places, which means there is an actual difference in the perspective, even in a virtual environment.

Alternatively, are you going feed the info first to one brain, move the other brain to the exact same spot, and then feed it the exact same info? Okay, you've solved the "point" problem, but by the time you feed info to the second brain the first brain has aged, so they are not identical.

That's why I said earlier that the only way to solve the problem is if time travel is possible (which I don't believe is . . . but that's a whole other can of worms ).

 

[learningphysics]

At the same time? If so, then they have to be in two different places, which means there is an actual difference in the perspective, even in a virtual environment.

Yes, I meant at the same time. Are you saying that the brain is receiving different information due to the sole reason that it's in a different point in space?

 

[Integral]

He means that it is theoretically possible; i.e., there are no laws of physics which prohibit it from happening however unlikely it is to occur. Your requirement for proof could be turned toward your assertion too. That is, prove it is impossible, which of course no one can do.

But, I don't understand why you would say that even if possible, two identically wired brains would create the same "me." Even if we are just a brain, the "me" in there is much more the result of personal experience isn't it? Since even with identical wiring the individual units would walk around in different settings from different perspectives, I can't see how they would have the same "me."

My apologies, I make this sort of post at the end of my day, when my poor brain only wants sleep.


So, given that the human brain consists of approximately 1 x 10^9 neurons and each neuron can be connected to up to 2 x 10^5 other neurons, you can come up with an estimate of the possible number of brains using.

\frac {n!} {n -m!}

Where n is the number of neurons and m is the number of connections. Due to the magnitude of these numbers, most calculators cannot give a meaningful answer. Special methods can be used, perhaps someone will grace us with the number. Given the number of possible brains we then need to assume a rate of generation and compare this time (how long to generate all of them) to the life time of the universe. If the time required exceeds the life time of the universe then it must be considered impossible. If the time required is less then the life time of the universe then it is improbable. I did a brief search for the life of the universe but did not find a usable number, perhaps someone can find that?

I still maintain that if the simple patterns of a finger print are considered unique to an individual. To even consider the possibility of duplication, of the vastly more complex connections and patterns, that from a human brain is ludicrous.

As you imply brain connections are not fixed, they change through out your life. An individual starts with a unique set of connections and every life experience forges new connections. The brain is ever changing and never the same. How could 2 possibly be the same.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Yes, I meant at the same time. Are you saying that the brain is receiving different information due to the sole reason that it's in a different point in space?

Yes. Location is unique, time is unique. Remember, you are claiming that there is NO difference. It doesn't matter how minute or trivial the difference is, any difference whatsoever still constitutes the uniqueness required for individuality.

I say, there is no way to escape this.

 

[Les Sleeth]

My apologies, I make this sort of post at the end of my day, when my poor brain only wants sleep.


So, given that the human brain consists of approximately 1 x 10^9 neurons and each neuron can be connected to up to 2 x 10^5 other neurons, you can come up with an estimate of the possible number of brains using.

\frac {n!} {n -m!}

Where n is the number of neurons and m is the number of connections. Due to the magnitude of these numbers, most calculators cannot give a meaningful answer. Special methods can be used, perhaps some will grace us with the number. Given the number of possible brains we then need to assume a rate of generation and compare this time (how long to generate all of them) to the life time of the universe. If the time required exceeds the life time of the universe then it must be considered impossible. If the time required is less then the life time of the universe then it is improbable. I did a brief search for the life of the universe but did not find a usable number, perhaps someone can find that?

I still maintain that if the simple patterns of a finger print are considered unique to an individual. To even consider the possibility of duplication, of the vastly more complex connections and patterns, that from a human brain is ludicrous.

As you imply brain connections are not fixed, they change through out your life. A individual starts with a unique set of connections and every life experience forges new connections. The brain is ever changing and never the same. How could 2 possibly be the same.

Lol. You are clearly a realist. In the real world, you are correct to assume that it will never happen even if theoretically possible. In philosophy, once something is deemed possible, no matter how unlikely, then that becomes a subject of discussion.

But I still have to challenge your assumption that it is the uniqueness of brain wiring that most determines "me."

If you review your life, can't you trace most of what has established you as an individual to your particular experiences? If you hadn't had children, would you be the same person? If you hadn't (I'm guessing) gone to school, moved to Oregon, gotten married, fought in Viet Nam, had parents that treated you a certain way, slipped on that banana peel and injured yourself for life, been the target of teasing in school, been a great athelete or muscian . . .

So I don't see how brain wiring is even close to having the impact that life experience has on creating individuality.

 

[spicerack]

please see your private message spicerack. an astrological discussion started in this thread is not the focus.

Thanks Kerrie. I read through that thread and decided to post here with a link to it as you are correct in surmising astrology has little relevence within the focus of this thread

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2294&page=7&pp=15

Free will implies a choice between at least two options. Is a baby aware of the options enough to consciously choose ? It has a latent ability to develop the notion of free will but this ability is present from the time of it's conception.

If as i postulated (in the other thread) a thread of "primordial consciousness(PC)" is fixed in an entity that then becomes it's "template for an identity/personal consciousness(pc)", then it happens at conception and that until a baby learns to exercise the ability to choose of it's own free will, it is operating on instinct and intuition in line with the PC acting as the driver of its physical body until such time as the entity can assume manual control and resign it to a passenger

I'm struggling to think of examples where a baby might exercise it's free will if it doesn't have the ability to use reason and logic to determine its choices.

As you can see I am in favour of pelastration's premise which would suggest a more relevant astrological chart would be developed from the time of conception as opposed to birth. It is the position/state of the universe at the moment a "thread of PC" entered the entity that will become you (pc), that i think has more bearing than the time at which you start to breathe oxygen and separate from your mother.

The latter premise would suggest that until birth a baby has only a shared "personal consciousness" with it's mother and no consciousness of it's own.

However i do not think we have past spiritual memories of previous incarnations but perhaps a memory inherited from antecedent threads of consciousness woven into the primordial consciousness or a strong connection to the primordial consciousness which deteriorates over time by exercising of free will and the feeding back of pc to the PC. This deterioration in effect hardwires our brain to patterns based on logic and reason which many find hard to override.

It appears there is a bit of parapharsing of each other going on in this thread. Strategic dependence on initial conditions present at conception determine the uniqueness and individuality of a template for an identity, which we then customise and adapt using free will and the experiences we choose to let affect us that then becomes the individual we think of as us.

what thinks anybody else ? should i have posted in the other thread instead.

 

[hypnagogue]

Integral, I don't think your objection is germane here. We're concerned here with analyzing a logically possible situation here in order to evaluate a metaphysical claim, which is not uncommon in philosophy. Extremely unlikely events are not logically impossible-- they're just extremely unlikely.

But I still have to challenge your assumption that it is the uniqueness of brain wiring that most determines "me."

If you review your life, can't you trace most of what has established you as an individual to your particular experiences?

This is not really an effective counterargument, since experiences in the world have the effect of changing our brain wiring, and brain wiring/activity has certainly been shown to have a direct impact on thoughts, feelings, and actions.

Look at it this way: suppose it's possible for Bob to go about experiencing things in the world, but that these experiences do not affect the structure of his brain. Is Bob changed or influenced by his experiences in any meaningful long term sense?

 

[Integral]

Lol. You are clearly a realist. In the real world, you are correct to assume that it will never happen even if theoretically possible. In philosophy, once something is deemed possible, no matter how unlikely, then that becomes a subject of discussion.

But I still have to challenge your assumption that it is the uniqueness of brain wiring that most determines "me."

If you review your life, can't you trace most of what has established you as an individual to your particular experiences? If you hadn't had children, would you be the same person? If you hadn't (I'm guessing) gone to school, moved to Oregon, gotten married, fought in Viet Nam, had parents that treated you a certain way, slipped on that banana peel and injured yourself for life, been the target of teasing in school, been a great athelete or muscian . . .

So I don't see how brain wiring is even close to having the impact that life experience has on creating individuality.

Indeed but all of those life experiences are stored in and effect the neural patterns of the brain. It is the wiring of the brain which determines how you react to those experiences. This is really getting close to the "nature vs nurture" arguments. I stand firmly on the fence in that issue.

Since the brain is the processing center and storehouse for all life experience it remains in my mind the definition of the individual. Certainly your life experiences create the neural networks so it is some where between difficult and impossible to separate the two as the source of individuality.

I guess it comes down to the question of, is it the experiences, or the memory of the experiences, which create the individual?