X-Message-Number: 11145
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: About "self-circuits", identity, and consciousness
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 23:51:12 +1100 (EST)

Hi everyone!

Here are some comments on "self-circuits" or whatever:

First, those who think that computers settle this issue might look for
John Pollock, HOW TO BUILD A PERSON, which explicitly considers building
a creature/robot/device/individual containing a self-circuit. The role
of this self circuit is to receive input from most of the brain, and
play a general guidance role. Just as with our own experiences, sometimes
our brain (or its brain) might decide on some action before we ourselves
are aware of what has happened. (I do not think that computers totally
settle this issue, mainly because our brains are highly nonlinear and
apparently employ versions of neural nets which so far have not been
constructed electronically --- nor could they be with any electronic
parts now envisioned or in existence).

The existence and role of a "self-circuit" is a question quite independent
of whether or not we can be emulated by a computer/robot. 

Second, I note in Bob's discussion that the cases he discusses always
involve creation of a SECOND version of you (or a person). There is an 
essential problem with creation of a second version: it is almost by
definition impossible to make the experiences of that second version
match those of you. Even a different location means that it must be a 
different creature, and even a little thought tells me (at least) that
as a different creature it will almost instantly diverge. This makes the
claim that the two of you are "the same" kind of pointless: yes, you
might be "the same" for about 1/20th of a second, but then you will
start to differ quite radically. And while you are "the same", nothing
will happen because neither of you can do anything, even think.

I do not know just what opinion Bob has on what might happen if creation
of this second version took place after destruction of you, the first
version. That question seems to me to be essential to this discussion.
In those terms, we are also talking about something much closer to the
case of revival from cryonic suspension. For what it's worth, I'd say
that even a non-identical version, if close enough (just how close it
needs to be we will someday find out by actual experiment!) would qualify
as the same kind of continuation of you as, say, the person who comes
out of hospital after recovery from a head injury.

And it's very important here that the original you no longer exist. Merely
by existing, that original creates a situation in which the duplicate
quickly ceases to be a duplicate, and takes its own path to its own 
existence. 

I have already discussed the several ideas involved in identifying (or
sometimes arguing against) our "self circuits" in terms of actual 
neurobiological understanding of our brains. If there is enough demand,
I can go through past PERIASTRON's and construct a commented bibliography
on this issue, too. And for those who wish to confine themselves to
various ideas from computing, sorry: we remain very far from being able,
even theoretically, to construct a pure computer version of a human being.
So that bibliography will tell about something characterized on Cryonet
as "meat", and all the subtleties of behavior, feeling, and thought that
different structures of "meat" can produce.

(And I'd even add that if you DO want to create a computer version of a 
human being, you would do well to study carefully just how that "meat"
works, yourself. You're not going to be able to escape such study, no 
matter how elaborate your computer and your computing may become).

			Best and long long life to all,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11145