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