Nowhere357

I am not sure exactly what you mean, in terms of the idea of individual subjective awareness. Where exactly do the billions of brain entities exist, what are they "made of"?

This sounds like the "radio" theory: physical organisms are like the radio, which receives some form of pre-existing "spiritual" energy, much like radio waves.

John Page

How do you know this? Isn't there a contradiction between your saying there is an actual difference science can't detect and then saying this conclusion is the result of an experiment?
I think its the opposite - if a "self" is an "emergent" property of (certain arrangements of) matter then why wouldn't a similar arrangement of matter result in the emergence of another self?

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

Yes there is a contradiction - the experiment had a non-scientific step. When the experiment is performed on myself, I detect results which cannot be detected with the scientific test. The result, that my 'self' exists in the original only, and not the duplicate, cannot be verified scientifically.

I accept this. Then (per the experiment) an EXACT duplicate would produce an EXACT duplicate of the self. The duplicate must produce a self that not only thinks it's me, it actually IS me. That is, I would be looking out of two sets of eyes.

If instead, the perfect duplicate produced a 'self' that was NOT me, science can't detect it.

I'm almost there, John.

John Page

Cannot presently be explained through scientific experimentation. What makes you think mankind cannot develop stuff that has a sense of self?
Well, either its you or its not. If the duplicate is exact, in what way is it not a perfect copy?
No, I think you're getting confused. Even I think I'm *me* (a name, I call myself, far a lon long way to run...). There would be two selves, each thinking they're me and looking out of their respective eyes.
"Why, you don't know who you are, do you?" (Stinky Pete to Woody in Toy Story II)
Both of you?

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

Nowhere man is changing each time he cruises this delightful forum. I think I'm addicted.

Okay I will try to point out exactly where I think the confusion occurs. I see two possible outcomes to the experiment, so it's important to note which we are talking about. Also, part of the experiment involves the concept of a non-scientifically verifiable fact, and this also is important to note.

There are two steps to the experiment.
Step 1) Make a perfect copy of a person.
Result: Two people, appear the same. (They then diverge.)

Step 2) Perform the experiment on yourself.
Result A: Two people, each think they are you.
Result B: Two people, each which ARE you.

Result A: You, the original, see another person, who is like you in every way, except that HE IS NOT YOU. You are looking out of your eyes, your original eyes, and NOT the duplicate eyes. SOMEONE ELSE is looking out of the duplicates eyes. This difference is not scientifically detectable, as demonstrated in step 1.

Result B: You, the original, and you, the duplicate, now share the same awareness, and you are looking out of both sets of eyes at once. Just as we have two hands, and are aware of two hands, so you would have two bodies, and would be aware of two bodies. This result WOULD be detectable by scientific means, I think.

Here I'm talking about step 2, result A. You said:

The result cannot be explained by scientific analysis, in theory. *The results differ from scientific analysis by a difference which can ONLY be detected through introspection, through the performance of a non-scientific test*, yet that difference exists (in this scenario).

(BTW, I do think we can develop stuff that has a sense of self.)

I said (step 2, before result):
You said:
Correct, the duplicate is me, or is not me. 'Not me' is result 1; 'me' is result 2. Now, if the duplicate IS a perfect copy, then the result would be result 2. (It cannot be result 1, which revealed a difference.)

I said:
This is result 2. You say:
Here is the confusion: now you are referring to result 1.
Also, in no case would I think I'm you, or vice-versa. Remember, step 2 involves a non-scientific test; the results are available to a particular individual subjective awareness, ONLY.

Anyway, at times you seem to imply the result must be result 1, at other times result 2. This is due IMO because I have not explained well; because of the strange concept of a 'non-verifiable fact'; and because of the changing POV's (from objective to subjective, from what science sees to what the self sees).

Result 1 means that science is inadequate in theory to fully explain the nature of self.
Result 2 is problematic. I think I can show this result would be even more difficult to explain, in terms of science.

The rest of your comments were fun, and yes, BOTH of me is almost ready to break through.

Plump-DJ

I'm probably popping in a bit late in the piece here but i'd like to pick up on something Mr Page said.

The original poster essentialy asks 'what is the true nature of the self' to which John Page replied..

Well my problem with all answers to this question is epistemic. How do we know what we are?

John Page

Hi DJ:

Well, you'll need to add an ontology for that!

Cheers, John

P.S. Anticipating "How do we know that ontology is accurate", my response would be "An ontology is an empistemic claim related to the process of knowing, to test the ontology we need to build a working model - phenomenological proof, if you will".

crocodile deathroll

IMO what it is made of is an information pattern when biological complexity achieves a critical threshold, consciousness flashes into existence. Our brains have a genetic template behind them which is purely information processes.

You have to ask yourself at what stage of the universe's evolution did conscious awareness first emerge?

No I am not so implying a radio theory but an emergent theory. I do not believe conscious "self" is something beamed in from the outside because you have to ask the question where is the source of that signal coming from and who or what is sending it, but more like something that just emerged out of a complex haze as the universe reached a critical threshold of complexity.

Nowhere357

We don't, IMO. We can only know what it SEEMS we are.

We have two ways of experiencing reality, and I think this fact causes a lot of the confusion and miscommunication that I see throughout these threads. This is part of the motivation behind my stupid thought experiment - to bring forth these two ways into the light.

We detect reality externally through our senses.
We ALSO detect reality INTERNALLY through introspection.

IMO the problem is that when we detect reality externally through our senses, we PERCEIVE it internally. This makes it seem as if everything that we perceive, must relate to an external cause. Then our perception of things like self, free will, and pain are seen as 'illusion'.

My position is that no explanation of 'pain' (for example) is complete, if the explanation does not include the 'fact' that 'something' is EXPERIENCING that pain. The idea that pain is FULLY described as neurons fireing etc., is wrong.

I put 'fact' in quotes because it IS true, yet not provable scientifically. I put 'something' in quotes because I don't know what the hell I'm talking about (insert cheap shots here).

The scientific method WORKS because we have removed the subjective awareness from the method. What a scientist 'feels' or 'wants' is irrelevant as we explore reality. All the facts that we learn however, have no existence without a subjective awareness in the first place. THEN we use the the scientific method to investigate life, and can not find the subjective awareness. Hmmm, pain is 'only' neurons and chemicals.

So we require subjective awareness to detect reality with the scientific method, while the scientific method is used to show that subjective awareness does not exist! IMO this is missing the forest for the trees.

My experiment shows that natural reality cannot be fully explained by the scientific method. Science is a powerful tool, but is not omnipotent. I know here I am commiting secular blasphemy, and I await the inquisition.

I don't think I'm being radical, or that great wisdom is required to understand what I'm talking about. Gravity doesn't cause people to fall in love, pain cannot be seen under a microscope, desire and need have no mass.

There is a circular complementarity evident to reality. Science is a one-armed man.

Nowhere357

Hi CR.

WHY does the radio theory require a 'who' or a 'what', while genetic templates or information patterns do not?

IMO the radio theory is not incompatible with emergent theory.

I understand the 'self' is not 'beamed in'. I have no existence without my body/brain. But why is the body/brain animated at all? What is the difference between a dead thing and an alive thing?