Blog post4/19/16

Thank you Monocle Smile for your reply! The question I was replying to was: Please state a falsifiable fact about super-immortality. You have 3 sentences.

1 Is the basic idea behind awaretheory. It may not be true if souls, mind substances or other supernatural concepts that produce consciousness exist.
2 Maybe I stated it in a confusing way, so I will give a specific example and restate it. "Duplicating the same structure and functioning at the present time that was produced in a past period of time, in the same brain produces at the present time that was produced in the past ,the same consciousness.
3 Clones have the same DNA by definition but not the same structure and functioning of their brains. thus a clone brain can have numerous different structures and functionings thus produce many different consciousnesses
4
5 Are you actually saying that no matter how small we make a change in the brain it will produce a different consciousness? This seems laughable, because I can imagine an enumerable amount of extremely small changes that can be made to the structure and functioning of the brain like any one atom in the brain having one more or less neutrons in its nucleus.
6
7
8
9
10

In mathematics you have your basic axioms. They are stated as true with no proof.

I agree we do not experience consciousness we experience the functioning of a brain. As the structure and functioning of a brain changes so does what we experience. It sound like you want to eliminate the concept of consciousness from the discussion completely. I think this is a big mistake because how do we distinguish a brain that is conscious from a brain that is not conscious if we can not use the concept of consciousness to distinguish them. The term alive brain versus dead does not work because a live brain can be either conscious or unconscious. Experiments that we can perform can deal with the structure and functioning of the brain and body and its behavior over time without mentioning consciousness at all. Awaretheory does not require the use of the concept of consciousness at all, it however makes the predictions about what you can experience through out space and time much easier to understand subjectively. I can give strong evidence for my conclusions by creating a number of rational experiments. In the first experiment we create two identically structured and functioning bodies. This means that every part of the body including every atom will have the same structure and be functioning identically. Their brains will be functioning identically. Because every part of their bodies are functioning identically their behaviors will be identical, so what ever they say about themselves will be identical. They will call themselves the same name. They will say that they have the same sensations, feelings, and emotions at the same time. They will remember the exact same memories in the exact same ways. They will say they love and hate the same people, food, life styles, animals, environments, etc., in exactly the same way. For any one that knows them they can replace each other without any one knowing the difference including themselves.

In a second type of experiment we take the same body and change the structure and functioning of this body to be identical to someone else's, with this other person having a notable different personality and self identity. He now will behave exactly like this other person. He will not produce behavior that identifies himself with the original person but only with the person that has the same structure and functioning. All of the original person's personality traits memories etc., are gone. It is still the same matter that makes up the original and a continuous linear bodily connection to the original. But if asked this modified original will not believe that he is the original if the person that he has the same structure and functioning does not.

There are a third set of experiments that show just how flimsy the body criterion is compared to the structure and functioning criterion. What actually makes the same body over time? The body is constantly changing over time in placement in space and time, with the matter that it is made of and its structure and functioning. How fast can matter be exchanged with matter outside of the body and still be the same body? How fast can the structure of the body change and still be the same body? How much matter can be exchanged with matter from outside of the body and still be the same body? Imagine the experiment where we have two identically structured and functioning bodies and lets say one is your body. To begin with there are clearly two distinct different material bodies. Now we start exchanging identical body parts. It can be any type of exchange from atoms to molecules to cells to bones to organs arms legs and brain parts to whole brains. What happens to the concept of body identity? When is your body no longer your body? The body naturally looses cells, atoms, and molecules naturally all of the time. One might propose that when fifty percentage the matter has been switched you are some how now in the other body. This seems bizarre. One atom before you are one body and one atom switch later you are in the other body or as you seem to be saying you are the other body. Knowing what I have shown experimentally, If you had to choose between your body with some different person's body structure and functioning or someone else's body with your current body's structure and functioning which would you choose and why?

This is an argument between what is more important continuousness and or continuity of the body or identify of structure and functioning in the same body or between bodies continuity of the body is close identity of structure and functioning from moment to moment

Chikoppi (42) If I forget to say it later I appreciate your and anyone else’s time and effort in considering these ideas.

I define “me” as any body that produces a consciousness that I experience like I am experiencing this current consciousness. You write: “What makes my identity “me” is the persistence over time of the form and function of the unique self-organizing collection of matter that is my body.” How is a self organizing collection of matter unique? Matter is not unique (at least not in its structure, functioning, and it ability to produce consciousness and ixperiencitness). Biological self organizing systems are not unique either so what is this “unique thing”, and how does it persist through time and continue to be unique? Is it supernatural? Can it be observed. Is this type of uniqueness hiding like god does? How can we scientifically study this “unique thing” or unique whatever it is? Can we see it disappear when we die, or transform into another unique thing like you say happens within the experiments that I proposed. Can it stay around when a person is frozen after death? How long does it stay around after a person dies? If the body is restored to life is this “uniqueness of matter” restored or does another “uniqueness of matter” (a different me) replace it? If another “uniqueness of matter” replaces it how does this process occur? How long does it take the body to produce this uniqueness? Does this uniqueness start in the first fertilized egg, or does it show up latter? I am not trying to be funny because you have a made a very well stated hypothesis of what many people believe. If you make your hypothesis into this statement “What makes my identity “me” is the persistence over time of the form and function of a self-organizing collection of matter that is my body.” This is basically what I am saying with a few addendums. All that I have taken out of your hypothesis is the term unique. The belief in the concept of the “uniqueness of self” is a concept that is kind of like the belief in god which has been brain washed into us, through out life, from all sorts of different sources, but without proof. However, We as human bodies are in a way, unique in the sense of our overwhelming complexity of chemical structure and functioning. Isn’t it better scientifically, to say we are extremely complex organisms than saying we are unique organisms? Experiments give us information because of their ability to be duplicated. The uniqueness that you add to your hypothesis about conscious beings, if true, greatly limits our ability to understand them. In your discussion you used the term magical clone, there is nothing magical in the concept of identical structure and functioning of two or more bodies. A clone, I believe, refers to two different bodies having the same DNA in their cells, not identical structure and functioning. I can imagine an enumerable amount of identical clones that have different structures and functioning of their bodies. You say concerning the second experiment that “You aren’t “changing” the original, you are destroying it”. Does the resulting body now have a different “unique” thing or does it no longer have a “unique” thing? If there is no longer a “unique thing” in the modified person then replicating identical structure and functioning from this new original should then produce identical consciousness like awaretheory predicts because there is then no “uniqueness” to have to duplicate. If another unique thing is produced in the experiment #2 process what can we learn about how “unique” things originate, are destroyed, modified, what properties they have, how to change them without destroying them etc. In experiment #2 at what point does the “unique thing” of the original change into the new different “unique thing” of of the new body? Why at that point and no other. If these things can not be answered with scientific proof then it seems like this “unique” thing is really just a supernatural invention.

Chikoppi (42) You wrote: What makes my identity “me” is the persistence over time of the form and function of the unique self-organizing collection of matter that is my body. Then in response to experiment #2 @ superatheist (41) you wrote: “You aren’t “changing” the original, you are destroying it.” What you appear to be expressing here is that by modifying the structure and functioning of a body you can change the “me” that a body produces into another “me”. This is exactly what awaretheory predicts. Let me ask you to consider several other rational experiments. Lets imagine changing the structure and functioning of a person’s body to the way it was a few minutes ago. Will this destroy the “me” or will it modify it to have the consciousness that the body had a few minutes ago? Now lets say that things are slightly different now than they were are few minutes ago for this individual so their brain is not functioning as it did the first time. Will it still be producing the original “me” or will it destroy the original “me”? like you said would occur in experiment#2 @ superatheist (41)? We can modify this experiment in many different ways. For instance, the body of the original at every period of time in its life will have produced a specific different sequence of structure and functioning. So we can imagine changing the structure and functioning to any previous period of time. Is there a time where these modifications to the structure and functioning of the original’s body will not produce the “me” that the original now has? If not, if the original with this new structure and functioning modifications is allowed to experience a different life. Will this body still produce the original “me” or will this original “me” be destroyed, changed, or totally different? There is a continuation to the experiment#2 @ superatheist (41) I would like you to consider. You said that when the originals structure and functioning was changed to be like a completely different person the original’s “me” was destroyed. What happens now if we change this new modified original body back to the structure and functioning it had before it was modified in the first place? Is the original “me” that was destroyed restored? Is there are new different “me” but nonetheless with all of the memories, feeling, emotions, loves, hates, abilities etc., that the pre-modified original had?

Thank you Chikoppi and Sky Captain, for so many good responses, however, I have had little time so far today to respond. In response to you statement: “I suggest you pack this away and spend some time learning about neuroscience, epistemology, and linguistics (Steven Pinker has some good books).” I am a mathematical epistemologist. I have been once since college. I loved going to the university and taking classes. I was lucky to be able to go there for many years and take numerous classes. I took upper level and graduate classes in philosophy of mind, epistemology, philosophy of science, mathematical logic, philosophy of language, mathematical linguistics model logic, physics, quantum mechanics, biochemistry, organic chemistry, advanced calculus, complex analysis, differential equations, partial differential equations, combinatorical analysis, numerical analysis, probability, statistics, topology, abstract algebra a number of different computer science classes a number of biological science classes, astronomy, geology, ecology, psychology, educational psychology, empiricism, Kant, history of philosophy, philosophy of religion and a whole bunch of other classes. I also have several thousand books on science, mathematics, and philosophy. I have at least ten books on neuroscience which I have spent hours studying. The only thing this information shows is that I have a very big curiosity and love to learn about new ideas. It does not in any way prove awaretheory nor that I know any more than you do about these topics. The more I learn the more I realize how little I know. Because I am a scientist that specializes in the mathematical study of scientific theories it puts me at a clear disadvantage in these discussions.

Sky Captain (52, 53, 54)

You may be right, frequently the words I write do not convey the meaning I wish it would. In the web site awaretheory, I have developed words that have different but more precise meanings. The TV analogy that I refer to in awaretheory is much more detailed or at least I am working at making it much more detailed. In it are terms for the input source for a TV. I have named this the "receptionpath" it is analogous to the term for conscious beings that I call the "sensepath". The "receptionpath" is defined as the electrical signals that comes into the TV from the antenna or from a recording device like DVR or VCR. The "sensepath" is defined as the information that comes in from the five, more or less, senses. A TV that is not connected to an outside show producing device still, when it is on and working, produces a show. it is just static in older TV sets or a solid colored screen in newer ones. A computer is in a way a TV that can generate its on shows with limited external input. In Sky Captain (54) you write: "And this, as stated, is false." What do you mean? Are you saying that parts of TV sets can not be recycled into other TV sets? It used to be if you had two identical types of TV sets you could unplug a vacuum tube in one and plug it into the other one and it could function just fine. I would venture a guess that no two TV sets are completely identical even though manufacturing processes try to make the necessary aspects of a TV set of the same model as closely alike as needed.

“Antenna for a soul” analogy is a cool name, but as far as my limited perspective can understand awaretheory is not like that. The "Antenna of the soul" analogy seems to me to imply a singular soul that is spread out over many different bodies. Awaretheory deals with the ideas that the structure and functioning of conscious bodies at least theoretically can be replicated. And when this happens what consciousness will be produced by or correspond to these bodies. The behavior will be identical will the consciousness be identical?

Chikoppi (60)

You do realize that the theory that you are proposing is scientifically incoherent, that is why scientists and philosophers are continuously struggling to understand the concept of being the same person over time. Some say it is the body some say it is the personality or consciousness that determines the self. Your hypothesis is that it is some combination of the two concepts. But when it is more fully examined it falls apart as a scientifically coherent theory. These same arguments existed with the ancient greeks and have been argued ever since then with many thinkers giving up the battle thinking there is no solution. I am coming from the same place that you are now. It has taken me years to begin to understand the problem and even longer to realize that the answer to the problem because the solutions are so radically different that expected. Awaretheory may not be totally correct, but it is so much better than any other theory about consciousness, what makes you, and continues to make you, you over all of the changes that can occur to you over time. You apparently can not see it yet, but, awaretheory is the first actual scientific theory about consciousness and ixperiencitness that exists. When I try to show you the supporting evidence for awaretheory or the problems with your theory you seem to ignore them. Your big point now seems to be that an experiment is a unique thing because it is existence is unique in space and time, and the matter and energy that it uses. I do not disagree with this at all. There are other unique aspects of an experiment as well, like who created the experiment, if it was the first experiment of its kind, what are or were the external events occurring in the environment locally or universally when it occurred. Or even the thoughts of the experimenters when they carried out the experiment make it unique. The point of an experiment is seeing how the change in one or more variables changes one or more other variables. They are called as you know the independent and dependent variables. The independent variable that is very useful in awaretheory is the the concept of the structure and functioning of matter over time the dependent variables that are most interesting to know about for awaretheory are consciousness and ixperiencitness. The ixperiencitness concept being like the me or self concept. It is a concept that ties together what you are through space and time. I think you have been saying that the me, self, or ixperiencitness exists during the life time of a person then is permanently destroyed at death. Am I wrong?

Blog post4/21/16