Keith Russell

Good morning:

Say I buy a brand new, 2003 car this year. This fall, I have change the oil and filter; repair the brakes, shoes, and pads; replace the battery and cables; a headlight bulb; and fix the damaged front windshield.

It's still my car, and it's still a '2003' vehicle.

Next spring, it's in a wreck, and the entire rear end has to be replaced. The rear fenders; rear wheels, tires, axle, shocks, quarterpanels, the trunk lid and compartment, bumper, tailights and housings, etc.

But, those parts came from a junked 1999 car of the same model.

No, it's no longer a '2003' car--at least not entirely--but it's still my car.

A couple years from now, the front end is damaged, and I have to replace most of the front half of the body: the grill, radiator, motor mounts; tires, wheels, brakes, axles; the firewall; bumper headlights and housings; even the engine.

Most of these parts come from junked 1998, 2002, and 2004 models. The replacement engine comes from a different model of car altogether.

Now the thing is no longer mostly comprised of 2003 parts. The engine isn't even from the same model car. In fact, most of the car, except for the interiour (seats, dash, upholstery, and wiring) was not bought with the 'original' car.

Is it the same car? A strong case could be made that it is--but an equally strong case could be made that it isn't.

But, it is still 'my car', regardless.

This is how I view 'the self'...it's still 'me'...

Keith.

DRFseven

So then the nature of the "I" we preceive is the I of a particular moment in time.

MyKell

Crocodile,
I don't think that is a problem at all. Where is the logic behind saying that is a problem?

In very loose terms, yes!

Nowhere357

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
The problem I have with pure materialism is that
If one were to wind the clock back to when the earth was young then are there "atoms" scattered all over the globe that have are the essence of you personal self stamped on them and in order for your personal self to be generated into existence they all have to gather in a certain place at a certain time?

I think if the chances of my existence were contingent on that extreme improbability then it should not be possible my personal self to exist and read this message and send it to you.
But since I sent this message and you are reading it then there should IMO be something wrong with that theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Crocodile,
I don't think that is a problem at all. Where is the logic behind saying that is a problem?


I read the statement something like: IF the particular atoms that make up a body (not just any atoms), are required for that body to generate a particular personal self, THEN it is extremely unlikely (to say the least!) that it would ever occur. Whether used correctly or not, I'm sure it's logic.

I think science says that any old atoms do - it's the patterns they're arranged in that count, no need to consider the personal self as anything but emergent.


DOPPLEGANGER THOUGHT EXPERIMENT (aka Riker's twin)

Assume awareness ("I", "Self") is emergent (arises naturally from the physical processes of the body).
Assume we have ability to make a perfect duplicate of a body - atom by atom, this duplicate is identical to the original.
Scientifically, if the conditions of an event are identical, then the results will be identical, also.
Therefore the duplicate will produce an indentical awareness ("I").
In the lab, this experiment works fine - science is explaining everything.
NOW I perform the experiment ON MYSELF, and ... what happens?
Will "I" be looking out of two sets of eyes? Or will "I" exist in the original only, and the duplicate is a seperate awareness?

MyKell

Well it sure is a stupid kind of logic



Scientifically, you cannot duplicate a body atom by atom, period. The whole experiment is invalid as the assumption is invalid.

Cheers, MyKell

Nowhere357

Scientifically, you cannot duplicate a body atom by atom, period. The whole experiment is invalid as the assumption is invalid.

Cheers, MyKell


A thought experiment is absolutely useless, except for any insight it provides. Einstein got to ride his light-beam. All I'm asking for is a little duplicate person!

What theory or principle of science prevents atom by atom duplication of an object?

MyKell

The Uncertainity Principle

Nowhere357

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle shows that the closer we measure the momentum of a sub-atomic particle (energy packet), the fuzzier the particle's position gets, and vice-versa. It's key to quantum theory, and takes math skills to understand. As indicated by Schroedinger's Cat and by Copenhagen, the uncertainty principle seems to involve the conscious mind (which involves the "Self" or "I") in a fundaMENTAL way. :notworthy
Theoretically, the particles don't take shape until observed.

I see nothing here to prohibit the existence of a duplicate object. I think you're saying that because we can't know exactly the original, how could we copy it? Surely two wave-packets in theory can HAVE the same characteristics, and so two objects can also. The argument seems to say that because of uncertainty at quantum level (requiring the existence of the concious mind, which in turn requires the "Self" or "I"), therefore my experiment is invalid, and does not indicate existence of the "Self" or "I". That is, it almost seems as if you're saying because the "I" exists, therefore the "I" doesn't exist!

Anyway, the Uncertainty principle doesn't contradict the EXISTENCE of duplicate objects, I think, and Riker's twin is still standing.

MyKell

I agree the uncertainity principle does not prohibit the existence of two identical brains, but it does prohibit the building of two. Besides, for consciousness to emerge, you need identical environments, even at the quantum levels. I don't know if that is possible to control... Development is key for consciousness to emerge, and I think each set of particles follow a distinct history in relation to another.
Correct me if I'm wrong

Nowhere357

The experiment doesn't require that we demonstrate HOW we build the duplicate, only that te duplicate exists. Besides, I think that giving science arbitrary limits here doesn't help your position. After all, my original position (in another thread) was that science HAD such limits, and I was shot down.

"...and I think each set of particles follow a distinct history in relation to another."

Here my understanding fails. Are you talking about quantum physics, and the idea that there is some sort of "action at a distance", linking particles in a way we can't identify (yet)? And therefore the experiment fails, because two "identical" particles actually contain differences currently undetectable. If so, aren't we talking about a currently undetectable property of matter/energy which is required for the emergence of "Self"?

This doppleganger dude is still walking around the lab. Is it dangerous?