X-Message-Number: 25274
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 08:25:02 -0800
Subject: Scott and Identity
From: <>

Dear Scott,

You wrote:

"So we finally agree on something. The human mind CAN BE sustained 
on a non-biological substrate with the original QE."

Assuming, of course, that functionally identical non-biological 
neurons could be constructed (they would not be digital). I see no 
reason why this is impossible.

In fact, I would, after much testing, want my brain to be replaced 
gradually, with a more durable (and functionally equivalent!!!) 
counterpart. This would open the door to increasing the number of 
conscious events per minute, which in turn would make time slow 
down. I could perhaps live a hundred years in the space of a day, 
thus increasing my perceived lifespan tremendously.

You wrote:

"So if the instantaneous replacement of all your neurons with 
artificial duplicates destroys the QE, just how quickly  can  I 
replace them if I do so one at a time (assuming there was no 
limitation to how quickly I could replace them)? Just a fraction of 
a
second short of instantaneous?"

This is a little like saying, 'assuming there were no laws of 
physics.' Well, if there were no laws of physics preventing 
asymptotic instantaneous replacement, then the universe would be a 
different place, and our conceptions of space and time and identity 
might require revision.

So I cannot honestly answer your question. I don't know what the 
universe would be like without the laws we have. 

But certainly, given the laws we DO have, you can replace the 
neurons with functionally identical neurons, and personal survival 
is guaranteed NO MATTER how fast you go, as long as for all moments 
in time, the physical system possesses the ability to experience 
qualia (clearly higher speeds would vaporize or otherwise damage 
the brain, even if possible).

You wrote:

"Also, your last post made it clear that you re pretty critical of 
the idea of exceeding human limitations or enhancing human 
capabilities (with the notable exception of extending your own 
maximum life span),"

'Exceeding human limitations' is meaningless. There are no such 
thing as intrinsic 'human limitations.' There are only things which 
you view as limitations to your own happiness.

These self-imagined limitations differ for each person. Further, 
just because you think something limits your happiness, doesn't 
mean it actually does. For example, you think being smarter would 
increase your happiness, but from my experience dumb people seem to 
be just as happy as smart people.

Smart people often derive some happiness not from just being as 
smart as they are, but from being smarter than others, so if you 
were to increase your intelligence, it would only make you happy 
until everyone else did the same.

You wrote:

"but what if I wanted a bigger, more powerful brain? Assume my 
brain has successfully been replaced with let s say, silicon-based, 
artificial neurons and my QE survived. Assume also that these 
silicon neurons can be easily manufactured and I can add as many of 
them
to my existing system as I wish. The size of my skull would 
restrict how many I could add to my system internally, but a 
silicon version of a corpus callosum it seems to me could allow my 
mind to expand its reach to an external silicon-based system. Or 
perhaps a physical cord wouldn t be necessary at all, and a 
wireless connection could be used."

Whether or not this is possible depends on what you mean by 'expand 
its reach.' If you mean, increase its unconscious abilities, then 
yes, this is possible. If you mean, construct a NEW entity, 
comprised of the two separate systems, which has ONE qualia 
experiencer, and a unified consciousness, then no, this is not 
possible without destruction of the original qualia experiencer.

Why? Because the brain (and your synthetic equivalent) is designed 
as a thing with a singular qualia experiencer, which is you. In 
order to make it 'half' of a qualia experiencer, such that the 
whole system together would have unified consciousness, it would be 
necessary to radically change its design, and the resulting 'half' 
would no longer be capable of consciousness by itself. These 
changes would therefore be incompatible with your personal 
survival.

However, later you write something which indicates you picture not 
ONE qualia experiencer, but TWO, which are in sync. This might be 
possible (though I highly doubt you could keep them in sync), but 
it is mistaken to think of the two experiencers as being the same---
i.e. as being a single experiencer. They are two physical systems, 
each having a qualia experiencer, and they 'happen' to experience 
the same things. If you destroy one of them, that one stops 
experiencing, since it was destroyed.

[snip]

"So the two systems have become one system, and qualia are 
happening to both of my QE s, both of which would be having the 
same internal subjective experience."

They have not become 'one system' in the sense that there is one 
thing that experiences qualia (for else, there would be no 
experience of qualia after the destruction of either system; see 
above). There are two things which experience the same qualia---two 
qualia experiencers that are kept in relative sync.

You wrote:

"So now I have a redundant brain system and the accidental or 
intentional loss of either QE structures would not result in the 
destruction of the original QE since the overall physical system 
remains capable of experiencing qualia and continuity would be
maintained."

Nope. You have two experiencers of qualia. One of them stops 
experiencing qualia, because it is destroyed. This means loss of 
personal survival for that 'copy'. The other one continues to 
exist, but its own subjective inner-life is not a continuation of 
the subjective inner-life of the one that was destroyed.

[snip]

You wrote:

"I see. Given Dr. Gazzaniga s considerable experience and 
reputation in this field, and given the empirical evidence he cites 
to support his theory, you ll forgive me for not readily accepting 
your
sweeping dismissal of his ideas since I m unaware of your 
experience and reputation in this field."

Do you know how many doctors of philosophy have written on 
consciousness or the theory of the self? Do you know that nearly 
all of these views conflict with each other in irreconcilable ways? 
Therefore, the odds that any one of them are correct are neligible. 
In fact, if we have knowledge these people did not consider because 
of their biases or their lack of interdisciplinary training, then 
we can easily dismiss their theories.

You wrote:

"I assume you base this on an earlier assertion you made which I 
believe to be false. I ve always heard the idea that evolution is 
so efficient that its products always have survival value or 
purpose is a
myth. Natural selection involves a lot of trial and error, a lot of 
dead ends. Am I wrong?"

Yes, you are extremely wrong (though probably through no fault of 
your own).

Natural selection produces lots of malfunctioning or non-
functioning proteins, a few of which go on to evolve independently 
useful functions. It does not produce non-functioning organs, or 
complicated physical systems that require the concerted effort of 
dozens, perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes.

Vestigal organs are those that once served a useful purpose, but 
now no longer do, and which will eventually be removed (since as 
our tail or body hair) due to conservation and lack of maintenance.

Consciousness is obviously a very complex phenomenon that requires 
the interplay of an untold numbers of genes. Moreover, it is 
(presumably) shared by every single human on the planet, indeed, by 
all intelligent life on this planet (assuming you think animals are 
conscious). To assert that this extremely complicated process arose 
spontaneously, and persists without exception in all life, despite 
conferring NO reproductive advantage, is a claim I can dismiss out 
of hand even if it came from the very mouth of God.

Moreover, even without evolutionary arguments, I can debunk the 
claim trivially: there is a phenomenon called consciousness, or 
else there would be no mention of it in Gazzaniga's writings (or 
the writings of anyone else, for that matter). I am writing about 
this very phenomenon now. Therefore, in some sense, the existence 
of consciousness is responsible for me writing about it. Writing is 
a complex activity that involves use of my forearm and back 
muscles, and much of my brain power. Therefore, consciousness can 
cause drastic changes in the behavior of individuals. QED.

Best Regards,

Richard B. R.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25274