Moderator: MagsJ
surreptitious75 wrote:New technology brings new moral dilemmas and this would be no different to any other.
Silhouette wrote:consciousness being transferred
But then I realised that when we wake from sleep, this "re-"entry into consciousness could also just as easily be faked
Would this experience not be identical to you dying and being reincarnated but under the impression that you had simply woken up?
Are we legitimately dying at every moment and just accepting that the newest experience is along the same continuum to our memories that we assume without question to be of what was before "in time"?
Perhaps all an adult would need, upon introduction to this new technology that isn't even that far-fetched of a concept anymore, would be an unquestioning acceptance of the falling of unconsciousness and that it would be followed by a reawakening "as though" it were a perfectly ordinary and acceptable continuation of the same consciousness - like we already have when we go to sleep and wake up?
This has some obvious parallels with death - that one would need to see no issue with dying and that it wasn't even a problem with the actual (and not just assumed) continuation of consciousness.
Perhaps the technology to transition consciousness would simply be staged to help people deal with death - the consciousness that emerges may even fool everyone,
Silhouette wrote:Say, one day, perhaps even soon, we create the technology to continue our consciousness between one's body and another platform, perhaps after death or even while still alive.
Initially I thought about this and identified a problem with the acceptance of such a transition, by the consciousness being transitioned. If this wasn't done incrementally whilst fully conscious such that both the body's and the new platform's consciousness were in agreement at each step that it was genuinely the same consciousness, without break, being transferred, then the process could be "faked" or at least seen as faked and thus rejected. If anything, both the initial experience and the destination experience would have to be melded - it would be like adjusting to gaining a second pair of all of your senses from slightly different points in space and accepting that both were "yours". I would wonder whether that would be particularly disorientating, confusing, and even quite traumatically painful - or maybe it would be quite within the human brain's ability without any or at least significant ill-effect. If there was no meld then it would be like agreeing with another person about what was being experienced, it being only very slightly different due to being in a different point in space, but you both still accepting that you were the same people just from different points in space. I'm not sure how much I would accept that this was genuinely the same consciousness being transferred, and that it wasn't in fact the ultimate death of my own consciousness once the process completed.
But then I realised that when we wake from sleep, this "re-"entry into consciousness could also just as easily be faked - and yet we accept it daily. How is it possible that we accept this without question? Would this experience not be identical to you dying and being reincarnated but under the impression that you had simply woken up? All the same memories, and everyone else (who may also have just the same been "replaced" by another consciousness upon awakening) simply accepting that nothing was out of the ordinary...
Obviously this is all we've known throughout our lives, and probably even had issues with when young that we don't even remember - at least with the distinction between wake and dreaming. Perhaps this is all the training you need, and if children were brought up to a much cruder version of what I described above about the transition of consciousness between platforms, then perhaps they would see absolutely no issue even if it was experienced that there was even a significant break between the two bases of consciousness? This doesn't even seem that far-fetched given what adults accept not just with waking, but with any snapping back to awareness, perhaps from a distracted or any different mindset. Does consciousness even qualify as continuing while concentrating the whole time? Are we legitimately dying at every moment and just accepting that the newest experience is along the same continuum to our memories that we assume without question to be of what was before "in time"?
Perhaps all an adult would need, upon introduction to this new technology that isn't even that far-fetched of a concept anymore, would be an unquestioning acceptance of the falling of unconsciousness and that it would be followed by a reawakening "as though" it were a perfectly ordinary and acceptable continuation of the same consciousness - like we already have when we go to sleep and wake up? This has some obvious parallels with death - that one would need to see no issue with dying and that it wasn't even a problem with the actual (and not just assumed) continuation of consciousness. Perhaps the technology to transition consciousness would simply be staged to help people deal with death - the consciousness that emerges may even fool everyone, even itself that it was the same person (perhaps that doesn't even qualify as fooling, but is just normal)? Perhaps that's all falling asleep and waking is, so would it even matter if it were staged?
Serendipper wrote:Silhouette wrote:consciousness being transferred
If you were cloned atom for atom like the transporter on star trek, could you have consciousness from both yous? If not, then why would one consciousness have been transferred just because the other was destroyed?
I believe no, it's not possible. The transported star trek characters have brand new points of observation by the universe, but the transported character would not be surprised to exist because it would have all the memories. Essentially, new-you would have consciousness from the new location AND consciousness of all your memories, so new-you will believe he went through the transporter, but you-you would be dead.
Serendipper wrote:Btw, when did you begin? If you're a determinist, you'd have to go back to the beginning of the universe, right?
Serendipper wrote:Silhouette wrote:Perhaps the technology to transition consciousness would simply be staged to help people deal with death - the consciousness that emerges may even fool everyone,
lol that's a good idea.
Serendipper wrote:The only thing that can happen after you die is the same thing that happened before you were born.
If you were cloned atom for atom like the transporter on star trek, could you have consciousness from both yous? If not, then why would one consciousness have been transferred just because the other was destroyed?
Silhouette wrote:What I'd add though, is that this whole topic seems to throw into question whether spatial location is actually a relevant factor to identity at all.
Obviously we are reassured that when we wake up, we are in roughly the same place we were when we remember going to sleep. When we don't recognise where we are when consciousness returns, it's often very confusing, although even this doesn't seem to shake our understanding of continued identity. Things like dementia also cause a great deal of confusion, and I would guess that it does probably shake one's understanding of continued identity. So, as you say, with the "new-you" "re"gaining consciousness after being transported star trek style, having your memories in tact seems to be highly necessary. More important than having them in tact, though, might be the perceived sense in their continuity - that the things you do remember play out in a way you can understand - like a story that makes sense. When we remember dreaming, we seem to be very good at forgetting them very quickly with their lack of fitting in with our "waking story" - probably in much the same way that we're so good at not remembering our earliest years before we starting being able to put together a sensible narrative of our life. It's troublesome to a child who has not yet learned to compartmentalise away things like dreams as a "non-real" tangent to the "real" life, despite the seeming realness of them at the time, and despite any emotions that have persisted through a dream to being awake. If you wake up in a different place to where you remember falling asleep, there are many accepted ways to incorporate this into the story of your identity. If it's possible that you simply moved without remembering and/or being conscious, then you can imagine such a process, even in the abstract, and fill in the gaps. Waking up on another planet or spaceship would be less acceptable, but I'm not convinced even that would give cause for you to doubt you were the same "you".
So given that we can fall unconscious (or forget our consciousness like when you get lost in thought while walking, doesn't matter), and accept that the "old-you" didn't die, maybe it doesn't matter if in some way it could be said to have died. The essentials are memories that can be seen as fitting into a story (e.g. your appearance when you look in the mirror, your worldview, your interactions with others). So if "old-you" dying is either standard or irrelevant, then what does it matter when you get transported in star trek?
I think the issue we have is that we know it would be no different from being killed and a different identity coming into existence to replace us. But given the above, is that an issue? Is dying any different from what our "same" consciousness does all the time?
We seem to think of it as though it does, though it would be more consistent to fear with enough certainty only that a "new-you" won't replace "old-you". Since it does in the star trek example, this really ought not to bother us, and if it does I think our conception of what continued consciousness and identity are needs to be re-examined in light of the above.
Material existence seems to go back to the beginning of the universe, sure. The conscious universe only needs to go back (at the most) to when you were born, or first conscious, or even only to your first memory, or since memories are only ever recollections of the present - is there any beginning other than right now? Did it begin when you last remember regaining consciousness?
What if you just weren't aware of breaks or lapses in that time? What about Saccades? At best, I see "me" as just "being", or perhaps "becoming" in the present, and even then I don't see any philosophical reason to see "me" as only going as far as my body. All my consciousness seems to be an interpretation done by my own brain, so why isn't the "not me" of which I am conscious not also "me"? Because I don't seem to understand myself as being able to manipulate it as well? Consciousness doesn't even seem to require "outside" input when dreams and hallucinations are a thing.
A completely valid deconstruction of identity seems enough to make you entertain Solipsism with complete sincerity (which I did for many years) if it weren't such an absurd concept on which to base your ontology. It has practical uses, so sure, I'll use it as people normally do all the same.
Serendipper wrote:Silhouette wrote:Perhaps the technology to transition consciousness would simply be staged to help people deal with death - the consciousness that emerges may even fool everyone,
lol that's a good idea.
My instinct is that it's a highly morally ambiguous idea. You alleviate a great deal of suffering, and you do so with a highly significant lie. However, in light of what I was saying above, it's probably not even necessary if you just understood consciousness and identity better. What is death other than standard life only no longer being replaced by a "new-you"? There won't be a "new-you" to worry for the people of whom you are no longer conscious. The only issue is for the living people who don't get to experience the "new-you" any more, which is a problem of living, not with dying.
Serendipper wrote:The only thing that can happen after you die is the same thing that happened before you were born.
Sure, although I think "happen" is the wrong word, and I think all words are wrong for "before you were born/after you die". Maybe "unconsciousness" is okay, but even then it seems invalid to attribute anything to it because "anythings" are a living thing - so to me the question is null. Void. And death and pre-birth aren't even that.
Arcturus Descending wrote:Serendipper,If you were cloned atom for atom like the transporter on star trek, could you have consciousness from both yous? If not, then why would one consciousness have been transferred just because the other was destroyed?
Seriously, I cannot imagine another me somewhere in this Universe.
I am still in the process of coming to Consciousness and trying to figure things out even as we speak.
As for the first question, though I know hardly anything at all about this stuff, doesn't being cloned mean that everything is exactly alike?
But I might suggest that afterwards Consciousness would necessarily have to change especially if both me's went our separate ways, having different experiences and being influenced by different things. Little by little, different Consciousness would develop, there would be a breakdown of similarities.
Your second question does not quite make sense to me the way in which you have worded it - but that might just be me and my Consciousness not getting it. lol
Now the above is just one example of why one of me in the Universe is more than enough.
That being said, I kind of like and enjoy the one I have though I would continue its process of evolution. To do otherwise, would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and one must never ever do that.
Seriously, I cannot imagine another me somewhere in this Universe.
Yeah I can't imagine another me either.
I am still in the process of coming to Consciousness and trying to figure things out even as we speak.
Me too. We all are!
But I might suggest that afterwards Consciousness would necessarily have to change especially if both me's went our separate ways, having different experiences and being influenced by different things. Little by little, different Consciousness would develop, there would be a breakdown of similarities.
Yes and that's probably why identical twins are different people.
Your second question does not quite make sense to me the way in which you have worded it - but that might just be me and my Consciousness not getting it. lol
Now the above is just one example of why one of me in the Universe is more than enough.
With such modesty I'd prefer there be more of youDon't be hard on yourself... I look forward to your comments!
I imagine someone must have actually thrown a baby out with the water before because who would think of that otherwise lol
Meno_ wrote:There is a new theory out there , quote plausible at that - consciousness creates it own duplicity. The generation of consciousness is different from what they used to think.
In fact, it is not continuous, but invariably cyclical. A team of neuro psychologists found recently that focus can be found for only 4 seconds after which there is a break , followed by a general sense of apprehending reality, in a large apperception of all sensory data.
Meno_ wrote:I withdrew my response because I was unsure on a further reading of the meaning of the narrative, on basis of that became reluctant that my answer was adequate. I also thought that it may have been perfunctory and possibly misleading.
Let's see how this develops before further commentary on my part.
Fixed: Last night I was very put out , had a bad day, and I did my best, but had/have -even now- to unravel your thoughts. But this is a very interesting topic and mucj worth an effort to connect the streams of consciousness which may give clues between the conscious and the sleep state.
Ill try work on it .
Arcturus Descending wrote:SerendipperSeriously, I cannot imagine another me somewhere in this Universe.
Yeah I can't imagine another me either.
I think I will have to give that some thought after having re-read what I wrote above.
Freud gestures. "Where do you think that this comes from? Some childhood trauma? Your father or your mother? heehee
I am still in the process of coming to Consciousness and trying to figure things out even as we speak.
Me too. We all are!
Yes, in an ideal world that could be the case but you do not actually believe that, do you? ALL? Is it possible for all of humanity to come to consciousness despite the fact that we might not ALL work towards it? Is that even a valid question, Arc?
But I might suggest that afterwards Consciousness would necessarily have to change especially if both me's went our separate ways, having different experiences and being influenced by different things. Little by little, different Consciousness would develop, there would be a breakdown of similarities.
Yes and that's probably why identical twins are different people.
But what is it that creates one twin as normal and the other as a sociopath or psychopath? Does this happen during gestation, I wonder?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-fo ... -if-so-how
So, is this pre-determined within the womb, I wonder, (I might suggest that it somehow would possibly have to be) That instinct and behavior can be seen quite quite early in life for someone who might know about such things or is it related to the outside world? I would have to say the former.
.
I think that in order to go along with Theravada Buddhism one would necessarily have to believe in reincarnation in the first place which I am skeptical about but how could I thoroughly discount it? (though I more or less do)
Your second question does not quite make sense to me the way in which you have worded it - but that might just be me and my Consciousness not getting it. lol
Now the above is just one example of why one of me in the Universe is more than enough.
With such modesty I'd prefer there be more of youDon't be hard on yourself... I look forward to your comments!
Was I being hard on myself there or just seeing myself with *sometimes* clearer lenses?
What do we in actuality have to lose when we see the reality of who we are?
More to gain I would think. How do we chisel away at the flaws in the forms which we are if we cannot see them as they are?
Serendipper wrote: If you were cloned atom for atom like the transporter on star trek, could you have consciousness from both yous? If not, then why would one consciousness have been transferred just because the other was destroyed?
I left the first question in to preserve the context of the second. The second question which I colored refers to that which I cannot understand. I would like to give it some thought if you could re-word it a bit for me. Something just seems to be amiss but I do not want to throw that baby out.
I imagine someone must have actually thrown a baby out with the water before because who would think of that otherwise lol
That is possible but is it probable? Who can know for certain and how important is THAT anyway? I will admit that it is interesting to discover how particular idioms came about. The statement serves a far greater purpose though as a reminder today for a too quick-thinking and absolutist mind.
The phrase "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is used when warning someone not to be in such a rush to get rid of something useless (bathwater) they also throw away something of value (the baby).
But what does that mean? What is the meaning behind the idiom "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater"? It is commonly understood that the saying comes from a time when clean water for bathing was in such high demand that an entire family would use the same water – first the father, then the mother, then children from oldest to youngest and that by the time the baby was bathed the water would be dirty you couldn't see them and they'd get tossed out along with the water.
That's the popular understanding of the origin of the phrase, but is it correct? According to some sources the answer is "no".
lol Talk about family sharing! The question really is "Is that even possible? I suppose that one might have to imagine that dirty water but just how dirty and then again how forgetful can a parent be about a child?!!! Perhaps that was an excuse used at a trial for a parent having done away with one's child and the judge's final admonishment - "Do Not Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater."
Silhouette wrote:Serendipper wrote:Silhouette wrote:consciousness being transferred
If you were cloned atom for atom like the transporter on star trek, could you have consciousness from both yous? If not, then why would one consciousness have been transferred just because the other was destroyed?
I believe no, it's not possible. The transported star trek characters have brand new points of observation by the universe, but the transported character would not be surprised to exist because it would have all the memories. Essentially, new-you would have consciousness from the new location AND consciousness of all your memories, so new-you will believe he went through the transporter, but you-you would be dead.
I would agree.
I'd add though, is that this whole topic seems to throw into question whether spatial location is actually a relevant factor to identity at all.
Obviously we are reassured that when we wake up, we are in roughly the same place we were when we remember going to sleep. When we don't recognise where we are when consciousness returns, it's often very confusing, although even this doesn't seem to shake our understanding of continued identity. Things like dementia also cause a great deal of confusion, and I would guess that it does probably shake one's understanding of continued identity. So, as you say, with the "new-you" "re"gaining consciousness after being transported star trek style, having your memories in tact seems to be highly necessary. More important than having them in tact, though, might be the perceived sense in their continuity - that the things you do remember play out in a way you can understand - like a story that makes sense. When we remember dreaming, we seem to be very good at forgetting them very quickly with their lack of fitting in with our "waking story" - probably in much the same way that we're so good at not remembering our earliest years before we starting being able to put together a sensible narrative of our life. It's troublesome to a child who has not yet learned to compartmentalise away things like dreams as a "non-real" tangent to the "real" life, despite the seeming realness of them at the time, and despite any emotions that have persisted through a dream to being awake. If you wake up in a different place to where you remember falling asleep, there are many accepted ways to incorporate this into the story of your identity. If it's possible that you simply moved without remembering and/or being conscious, then you can imagine such a process, even in the abstract, and fill in the gaps. Waking up on another planet or spaceship would be less acceptable, but I'm not convinced even that would give cause for you to doubt you were the same "you".
So given that we can fall unconscious (or forget our consciousness like when you get lost in thought while walking, doesn't matter), and accept that the "old-you" didn't die, maybe it doesn't matter if in some way it could be said to have died. The essentials are memories that can be seen as fitting into a story (e.g. your appearance when you look in the mirror, your worldview, your interactions with others). So if "old-you" dying is either standard or irrelevant, then what does it matter when you get transported in star trek?
I think the issue we have is that we know it would be no different from being killed and a different identity coming into existence to replace us. But given the above, is that an issue? Is dying any different from what our "same" consciousness does all the time? We seem to think of it as though it does, though it would be more consistent to fear with enough certainty only that a "new-you" won't replace "old-you". Since it does in the star trek example, this really ought not to bother us, and if it does I think our conception of what continued consciousness and identity are needs to be re-examined in light of the above.Serendipper wrote:Btw, when did you begin? If you're a determinist, you'd have to go back to the beginning of the universe, right?
Well identity is a terrible concept, philosophically. It's so very full of holes, and like I was saying above, it just seems to be a vague memory of continuity in only a very small number of key ways that aren't even that specific in themselves. To get precise about a hugely imprecise concept seems redundant.
Material existence seems to go back to the beginning of the universe, sure. The conscious universe only needs to go back (at the most) to when you were born, or first conscious, or even only to your first memory, or since memories are only ever recollections of the present - is there any beginning other than right now? Did it begin when you last remember regaining consciousness? What if you just weren't aware of breaks or lapses in that time? What about Saccades? At best, I see "me" as just "being", or perhaps "becoming" in the present, and even then I don't see any philosophical reason to see "me" as only going as far as my body. All my consciousness seems to be an interpretation done by my own brain, so why isn't the "not me" of which I am conscious not also "me"? Because I don't seem to understand myself as being able to manipulate it as well? Consciousness doesn't even seem to require "outside" input when dreams and hallucinations are a thing.
A completely valid deconstruction of identity seems enough to make you entertain Solipsism with complete sincerity (which I did for many years) if it weren't such an absurd concept on which to base your ontology. It has practical uses, so sure, I'll use it as people normally do all the same.Serendipper wrote:Silhouette wrote:Perhaps the technology to transition consciousness would simply be staged to help people deal with death - the consciousness that emerges may even fool everyone,
lol that's a good idea.
My instinct is that it's a highly morally ambiguous idea. You alleviate a great deal of suffering, and you do so with a highly significant lie. However, in light of what I was saying above, it's probably not even necessary if you just understood consciousness and identity better. What is death other than standard life only no longer being replaced by a "new-you"? There won't be a "new-you" to worry for the people of whom you are no longer conscious. The only issue is for the living people who don't get to experience the "new-you" any more, which is a problem of living, not with dying.Serendipper wrote:The only thing that can happen after you die is the same thing that happened before you were born.
Sure, although I think "happen" is the wrong word, and I think all words are wrong for "before you were born/after you die". Maybe "unconsciousness" is okay, but even then it seems invalid to attribute anything to it because "anythings" are a living thing - so to me the question is null. Void. And death and pre-birth aren't even that.
Serendipper wrote:I don't think there is such thing as space without time or time without space because it takes time to traverse space, d=rt. Two objects can be in the same place, but not at the same time, and as logical as that sounds, I'm not sure what law insists it be so: are absurdities objectively illegal or an artifact of how this universe is put together?
Anyway, from the point of view of light there is no time or space and the emission and reception of a photon is the same instantaneous event. Actually, I think it was Max Planck who said that before a photon could be released, a particle would have to travel back in time from the destination and the arrival of said particle actually seemed to have inertia to move the emitting particle backwards as it released the photon (apparently this has been confirmed through observation). I'm not sure which direction "backwards" is since a photon is released in all directions. Perhaps backwards in time? Anyway, the point I'm making is that time and space are integral to each other.
If consciousness is the aperture through which the universe observes itself, then it seems likely that it could only occupy one spatial, temporal coordinate; otherwise there could be no feeling of self and other; I and everyone else. Then again, consciousness is not solely a function of s,t location or else our body would be irrelevant. So it appears therefore that continuity is what matters.
Going back to this thread: Probability of Spontaneous Martian Transference http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 4&t=193940 It's probably possible to suddenly appear on Mars and that raises a possible distinction between Michio Kaku's teleporter and that of Star Trek's because cloning someone is quite different than actually teleporting them. Through actual, natural teleportation, continuity is maintained (I'm guessing) but cloning is a discontinuity.
Don Lincoln at FermiLab says we are always traveling at the speed of light (whatever that means) through spacetime (not just space), but light travels exclusively through space (not through time) while matter has a spatial and temporal vector that sums to the same speed of light. Also, an object completely at rest (relative to spacial fabric) would be traveling at the speed of light exclusively through time and not through space (the opposite of light). The point is that when the spatial and temporal vectors are summed, the speed is always the same. Discontinuities would seem to violate that.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users