MyKell

I think there is some kind of confusion over a few points,
One: In my original position I was trying to say that I didn't think science had limits trying to reduce phenomenology to biology
Two: That has nothing to do with the limitations imposed on us by quantum systems. It is impossible, according to quantum mechanics, to figure out the exact history of each particle in order to make definite predictions about its next movement and thus on its interactions within the system. I'm not sure if consciousness is dependent on interactions at the quantum level. But I was commenting on your original post on building identical brains atom by atom, which is physically impossible. At least at our current state of knowledge. However, I am speculating on where quantum mechanics might affect the emergence of consciousness indirectly (see below).
Three: Consciousness is dependent on the sensory input to emerge. Each brain performs perceptual categorization of the world according to its unique internal environment. I have no idea how you are going to experimentally control the different ionic/neurotransmitter concentrations on all the different synapses of two brains. How are you going to control the various gene expression programs in different brain cells. My guess was that those systems are affected by the quantum uncertainity. This limitation does not preclude us from trying to seek a general understanding of how consciousness emerges from physical interactions in the brain.

John Page

Hi Nowhere!
I know I'm butting in but yes, action at a distance is a fact. If this was not true, arguably distance would not exist so v=d/t couldn't be proven.
Aren't we rushing to judgement in linking one poorly understood phenomenon with another? IMO how matter occurs seemingly at random from the quantum soup is a different issue from how an arrangement of matter can exhibit conscious awareness.

I would like to point out the difference between duplicate and identical - I think the latter is deemed to be indistinguishable (in whaich case how can you tell!) whereas the former has some characteristic that is different i.e. you would be able to tell which is the original and which is the copy.

Forgive me for being somewhat pedantic about this but here's a suggestion. Before the discovery of Newtonian physics people may have wondered where the wind comes from, perhaps to some it seemed kind of random, emerging in a capricious nature at the whim of the gods. In the same way, we may be considering what causes the self to arrive at a phenomenological explanation (for we believe that the self is not random or just whipped up by the gods for amusement or punishment).

My current working hypothesis is that the actual self is not self aware, it is part of the brain that "unconsciously" observes and is aware of the internal (to the brain) representation of reality.

Does thi smake sense at all?

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

Hi John. My understanding of this effect is that quantum particles are in some kind of FTL contact, and that we cannot in theory use this to transfer information. Is this way wrong?

I agree. I was trying to show that Mykell's reason for dismissing my thought experiment, was invalid.

Then I've used the term "duplicate" incorrectly. The experiment involves imagining an identical person.

I understand, and agree up to a point. That point is this: the fact that awareness is different in kind than any other phenomenae. For one thing, it cannot be proven scientifically, only experienced! I haven't found a way past this point (yet).

I think so. "self-aware" reqires memory (requiring brain). You use the word "self" where I use the phrase "an awareness". While unconscious, "a self" may still be "experiencing", but no memories laid down. If I have your meaning wrong, I apologize.

Here is the thought experiment. If the implications here are misleading, I desire to know why. (The duplicate is identical).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your input.

John Page

FTL contact? Things would seem to happen instantaneously at a single point in space (which is its own frame of refeernce by definition). Some of the speed of gravity discussions in the science forum have been fascinating, take this post - Speed of Gravity
There will be two "I"'s, each one looking out of one pair of eyes. I give this answer based on "I" appearing to be a local property of alive peeps.

Cheers, John

MyKell

John,
Thanks for your input, a couple of points I would like to comment on:

Do you mind elaborating on this point specifically. I don't understand where you stand regarding quantum effects on consciousness. Why is it invalid to say that two identical brains cannot be possibly constructed?

I don't really understand the terminology here. IMO the self is one form of consciousness. Just like the mental scene would have some physical correlates for its consciousness probably linked throughout the visual hierarchy, the self has nodes of representation from the posterior part of the brain projecting to the prefrontal cortex. Did you read Crick and Koch's new paper in Nature Neuroscience a "framework of consciousness"?

John Page

QM may or may not be relevant or necessary in explaining how consciousness occurs.
Because the definition of the word "identical" precludes this. If you propose that identical brains could indeed exist then the Law of Identity would be byebye. (Hah! A by-law, snigger snigger). Such a position would gravitate toward Dialethiesm, as in the thread here .
But *who* is watching these representations. I'm trying to articulate an argument that says what we imagine is the first person is, in fact, part of the mental scene being observed and we believe (deluded by our own mind) *we* directly experience ourselves.

So, the *I* is different from "I". Have I made myself clearer? BTW I don't exclude that a phenomenology whereby the "I" can be in two places at once would be useful in explaning our first hand experience of ourselves!

Cheers, John

MyKell

John,
Thanks alot, you're always giving out food for thought
My working hypothesis is that any consious representation is a representation with respect to the rest of the brain. The "I" would be a set of neurons (or a group of neuro-astrocytic circuits)presenting itself to the rest of the brain. None of those two elements (the group or the rest of the brain) is consious by it's own, however, the interaction itself generates the self. Any comments appreciated.

John Page

Nice idea, no issues - this approach makes sense given that when the interaction ceases, we die. Does your approach use the combination of alpha and other rhythms overlaid on top of signaling between the actual nerve/synapse activity?

You might be interested to peruse the Mind/Body Border thread - excreationist has some observations regarding levels/types of consciousness and developmental stages referencing Piaget's work.

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

Hello! With an eye on which thread I'm in, I respectfully ask that you gentlemen slow down. Even back up a little!

First, John and Mykell, and all others, thank you for your involvement in these various threads. My understanding increases every time I visit.

The issue is whether or not there is anything "special" about the fact of our existence. The original question was something like "Am I just chemical reactions?". Mykell said Yes, I said No.

To support my opinion, I brought in that stupid thought experiment. Stupid or not, there it sits. I need help getting past it, or help understanding a better way to interpret it. Or something.

John, you did the first part of the experiment. Please consider the second part, where the experiment is performed on yourself.
Mykell, entertaining a thought is not the same as accepting it (forgive me please).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 perfect duplicate is identical to the original.
Scientifically, if the conditions of an event are identical, then the results will be identical, also.
Therefore the perfect 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? Or what?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again thank you. I value all the help I can get.

John Page

Sure. I am not my duplicate. There would be two similar (but not absolutely identical) instances of the entity that I call "me".

Both of them would call themselves "me". They will, however, differ in space coordinates (this is a requirement for there to be a contemporary copy).

Thus, performing the experiment on someone else, a brick, oneself etc. makes no difference to the outcome.

Cheers, John