hard Problem of Consciousness , special pleading?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Wow, really, an even smaller number that might as well be zero.

[kellyb]

Are you still insisting that I might have made up naturalistic dualism?

[jrhowell]

Originally Posted by kellyb

So, suppose you're in a blue room, and I copy you and send the copy into a yellow room, what color walls do you see?

ETA: a first person POV is not a soul.

One instance of me sees a blue room and the other instance of me sees a yellow room.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by jrhowell

One instance of me sees a blue room and the other instance of me sees a yellow room.

What about YOU? What color do YOU see in this thought experiment?

[jrhowell]

Originally Posted by kellyb

What about YOU? What color do YOU see in this thought experiment?

I answered the question already. There will be two instances of me, each seeing a different color room.

Thinking that only one of them is the one true ME is a mistake.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by jrhowell

I answered the question already. There will be two instances of me, each seeing a different color room.

Thinking that only one of them is the one true ME is a mistake.

So then there is a third you that gets all the input telepathically from the other two or are The You and The Copy connected telepathically?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by jrhowell

Two distinct individuals would have equal claim to call themselves jrhowell based on their shared history.

Do they? I doubt a court would agree. The Copy's case would be weaker as they did not exist before being copied. They two individuals do not share a history, The Copy co-oped your history.

[jrhowell]

Originally Posted by qayak

So then there is a third you that gets all the input telepathically from the other two or are The You and The Copy connected telepathically?

No and no. Why would you think that?

After the copy is made there would be two distinct instances of jrhowell sharing the same history, but not connected in any other way going forward.

[jrhowell]

Originally Posted by qayak

Do they? I doubt a court would agree. The Copy's case would be weaker as they did not exist before being copied. They two individuals do not share a history, The Copy co-oped your history.

If the process works properly it might be impossible to prove which is the original and which is the copy after the fact.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by jrhowell

I answered the question already. There will be two instances of me, each seeing a different color room.

Thinking that only one of them is the one true ME is a mistake.

There would be you and a clone/twin/copy/duplicate.
Which one is where?

You - the singular instance of you which has a single first person perspective - will be one place or the other.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by jrhowell

If the process works properly it might be impossible to prove which is the original and which is the copy after the fact.

The one in the hi-tech scan & copy room would have a pretty strong case!

[qayak]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

OK. Just tell me where the boundary is then.

It would seem to me that the boundary is your physical body. No outside force affects you until it contacts your physical body. You don't see anything until light from it strikes your eyes. You don't hear anything until sound waves strike your ears. You don't feel anything until the sensation strikes receptors in your skin, etc.

An outside observer might not be able to tell but you are separate from your environment. A fire a few feet away maybe smaller than one a mile away but you will react to the one closer while ignoring the distant one. Obviously there is some sort of boundary.

Quote:

Will this boundary exclude parasites

Yes.

Quote:

infectious, bacteria

Quote:

gut bacteria

Yes.

Quote:

the food in your mouth?

Yes

The fact that you identify these things demonstrates that they are separate from me although they maybe parasitically attached to me.

Quote:

Will I be able to find a way to cross this boundary and get from something that is you to something that isn't you?

Yes.

Quote:

When does the water vapor and co2 you exhale transition from you to not you?

When it crosses the boundary of my physical body? That physical boundary defines the limit of where I can use elements of my environment. I cannot use just any water that exists in my environment. The only water available is the water that crosses my boundary, same with oxygen. If there were no boundary I would have access to all water and oxygen. The only light I can use is the light that crosses my boundary. I use it to make vitamin D through my skin, or to warm myself, or to see what is going on around me but I do not have the ability to use any of the other light in the environment. Obviously there is a boundary between me and the rest of my environment.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by jrhowell

No and no. Why would you think that?

After the copy is made there would be two distinct instances of jrhowell sharing the same history, but not connected in any other way going forward.

So how was this copy made?

[kellyb]

You probably want to keep the bacteria in your gut and on your skin.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by kellyb

You probably want to keep the bacteria in your gut and on your skin.

Yes, but does that make it part of ME?

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by qayak

Yes, but does that make it part of ME?

When it comes to this replication thought experiment, it would be technology, so we could choose what to take or leave and the "you-ness" would be a pointless philosophical exercise.

So, it is if you want it to be, or isn't if you don't want it to. You can pick your own parameters for something like this.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen

That is a legal, political and what not question. Unless I am using the wrong definitions and if that is the case, then you won't explain the correct definitions. You will only point out, that is not the correct definitions, right, Darat?

To your first part: Wrong thread Tommy.

My question was rather a simple question. To those that now think there are two Darats rather than individual DaratA and DaratB who owns the car?

For me the answer is rather simple and goes back to why I wouldn't use the destructive transporter. DaratA owns the car because we can trace back his time line to when he purchased the car. Tough to be DaratB who can remember buying the car but didn't.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by LarryS

Zeno proved motion is impossible (or at least incoherent)!!!

He must have been a mad man if he thought that he had proved that.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Consciousness is hard. Figuring out all of its moving parts is a problem. That still doesn’t account for any sort of qualia.

The “hard problem of consciousness” basically seems to be “consciousness is reaally hard. Therefore: God”

Qualia are the HPC, folk need to find a way of demonstrating they exist independently of the electrochemical and information processing we know the brain and human body does before anyone needs to provide an explanation for them.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by jrhowell

I answered the question already. There will be two instances of me, each seeing a different color room.

Thinking that only one of them is the one true ME is a mistake.

Which one of you bought the car?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by jrhowell

If the process works properly it might be impossible to prove which is the original and which is the copy after the fact.

No, at no point in time did either of you share the same physical space so it is always possible to work out which one has a "real" history and which one just thinks it had.

This is why I said it had to be a form of transportation/copying that could work within how we know the world works, otherwise all we are doing is discussing fictional magic spells.

[Darat]

I always see a problem of communication in this topic, thought I'd take a second to make sure it isn't happening this time.

I don't think anyone is claiming that there is some part of a person that cant be transported/copied, so there is no soul popping up here.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the original and copy will share a single conciousnes.

Everyone agrees that after the duplication there are two individuals, and their experiences and memories will diverge after the duplication.

[Porpoise of Life]

Are we really arguing about the possible ambiguities of the word 'you'?

It all depends on your definition.
If you define 'you' as the continuation of your consciousness, both instances will be a version of you, even though you're also two different people from now on.

And if you define 'you' as your original physical body, the copy won't be you, but someone else who just happens to share your past and physical make-up.

The thing is, in the world as we know it, those two definitions denote the exact same thing, because we don't have a magical way of producing perfect copies of people. So we've never needed a word for 'you' that addresses that possibility.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Darat

DaratA owns the car because we can trace back his time line to when he purchased the car. Tough to be DaratB who can remember buying the car but didn't.

There would be circumstances where being the duplicate would be ok. If nuclear Armageddon had just broken out, and copy & transport to a better place was the closest thing your original could think of as a consolation prize for facing imminent, painful death, discovering that YOU get to be the duplicate would be kind of awesome. Weird, but ok. Sucks for DaratA, in that case. lol

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life

Are we really arguing about the possible ambiguities of the word 'you'?

It all depends on your definition.
If you define 'you' as the continuation of your consciousness, both instances will be a version of you, even though you're also two different people from now on.

And if you define 'you' as your original physical body, the copy won't be you, but someone else who just happens to share your past and physical make-up.

The thing is, in the world as we know it, those two definitions denote the exact same thing, because we don't have a magical way of producing perfect copies of people. So we've never needed a word for 'you' that addresses that possibility.

I'm not sure it's so much about the physical body as the point in space, combined with the continuation of consciousness (aka, moving through time, as well).

[Darat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

There would be circumstances where being the duplicate would be ok. If nuclear Armageddon had just broken out, and copy & transport to a better place was the closest thing your original could think of as a consolation prize for facing imminent, painful death, discovering that YOU get to be the duplicate would be kind of awesome. Weird, but ok. Sucks for DaratA, in that case. lol

And I truly think if we did develop a cheap and widely available transport technology based on destructive scanning and a recreation we'd soon adopt it, convenience is a very powerful factor in what we will accept and what we won't.

[8Sime8]

i don't think it is particularly useful to jump in and start philosophising about the quantum teleportation, since most of the philosophical confusions of quantum mechanics are the result of conceptual confusions in relation to classical mechanics.

For example, what is meant by "the same state" in classical mechanics?

Do we have a rigorous notion of "the same", even in our classical concepts?

For example, in digital photography two pictures are considered "the same" if their image pixels are treated identically by a machine.

But which machine?

Don't machines malfunction and make mistakes like humans?

Presumably we mean the "ideal" machine. But where is this "ideal" machine? Does it exist only in the mind? Presumably we mean a machine that is considered to be ideal according to the judgements of a more trustworthy higher authority. e.g, a committee of machine-testing machines.

while committees of machines undoubtedly reduce the rate of errors relative to an individual machine, they nevertheless make mistakes and still cannot reduce uncertainty to zero, for we can never have an infinitely large committee - even in our imagination.

So it must be that our concept of identicality is merely a pragmatic designation, even in the classical sense. We mere *treat* things as being the same according to our purposes and there is nothing more to be said.

And the same could also be said of our more general concepts of "necessity" and "certainty". There aren't unambiguous notions of necessity or certainty, even in our classical concepts.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

I didn't say a single thing about QM and you haven't told me where the boundary is.

Lets preform and experiment, exhale your breath and hold your nose.
-How long can you wait before you allow yourself to breathe?

Have a friend or casual stranger preform the same act.
-Do you sense the the sensations of breathlessness and relieve when they do this?



Even after rereading the series of posts I think my question still applies, I could be wrong.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by LarryS

Yes, we can say the human body is a macroscopic object, but we're not talking about the human body, we are discussing the copy and transport of a person.

I am not. I am talking about the person, the transporter issue is just part of the thread.
I guess I missed the lack of connection, I have been reading this.
Sorry

ETA: Even after rereading the series of posts I think my question still applies, I could be wrong.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Well, "The hard problem doesn't exist" and "consciousness is solved" are basically atheist woo.

I am not saying that it doesn't exist but asked why it is classified differently that liver function or earthquakes?


ETA: to add essential not

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Wow, really, an even smaller number that might as well be zero.

Is that like a virtual zero?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I am not saying that it doesn't exist but asked why it is classified differently that liver function or earthquakes?


ETA: to add essential not

Do livers or Earthquakes experience conscious thought? What subjective experience is there is an earthquake or liver function?

Basically, WTF are you thinking? This is a "one of those things is not like the other" moment.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Well, "The hard problem doesn't exist" and "consciousness is solved" are basically atheist woo.

By the way forgot to ask - what is "atheist" about not thinking the HPC exists? How is it tied into any form of atheism? Really not seeing the connection.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Do livers or Earthquakes experience conscious thought? What subjective experience is there is an earthquake or liver function?

Basically, WTF are you thinking? This is a "one of those things is not like the other" moment.

Without a liver you wouldn't experience conscious thought for very long!

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life

Are we really arguing about the possible ambiguities of the word 'you'?

It all depends on your definition.
If you define 'you' as the continuation of your consciousness, both instances will be a version of you, even though you're also two different people from now on.

And if you define 'you' as your original physical body, the copy won't be you, but someone else who just happens to share your past and physical make-up.

The thing is, in the world as we know it, those two definitions denote the exact same thing, because we don't have a magical way of producing perfect copies of people. So we've never needed a word for 'you' that addresses that possibility.

I am not sure I agree. Let's look at this from a slightly different angle. Suppose the ability to do transplants is perfected so we can transplant any, or any combination of, human part(s). There are two scenarios:

1) You have a diseased body that needs replacing or you will die. Your brain is very healthy.

2) You have a diseased brain that needs replacing or you will die. Your body is very healthy.

So the transplants are done. In the first scenario your entire body is replaced. In the second scenario your entire brain is replaced.

The questions:

Is it still "you" in scenario 1? In scenario 2?

Is it more "you" in one scenario than in the other?

Is scenario 2 were you just "the parts" for someone else? How about in scenario 1?

(In my view, you only survive in scenario 1. Scenario 2 means the survival of someone else.)

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Darat

By the way forgot to ask - what is "atheist" about not thinking the HPC exists? How is it tied into any form of atheism? Really not seeing the connection.

It's commonly claimed by atheists and skeptics that "consciousness is well understood" or the like to quash theist claims about the soul. It's a vast overstatement of the facts. Pointless one too, IMO, since there isn't any evidence in favor of souls anyway.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Do livers or Earthquakes experience conscious thought? What subjective experience is there is an earthquake or liver function?

Basically, WTF are you thinking? This is a "one of those things is not like the other" moment.

Basically WTF are you thinking?

What is so different about consciousness that it gets a whole special category?

This is you asserting a difference, can you delineate it in a fashion that is actually different than liver function or earthquake prediction?

(Or is there just something special about consciousness? )

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Basically WTF are you thinking?

What is so different about consciousness that it gets a whole special category?

This is you asserting a difference, can you delineate it in a fashion that is actually different than liver function or earthquake prediction?

(Or is there just something special about consciousness? )

Because our consciousness is the core of our existence.

Do you have any opinions about the likelihood of strong AI being possible, or distinguishing strong AI from weak AI?

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Basically WTF are you thinking?

What is so different about consciousness that it gets a whole special category?

This is you asserting a difference, can you delineate it in a fashion that is actually different than liver function or earthquake prediction?

(Or is there just something special about consciousness? )

What makes the problem of consciousness 'hard' is that we haven't made any progress in explaining it in the last thousand years or so. Maybe our hunch it's the brain is stronger - but the question how matter becomes consciousness is no further along.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Basically WTF are you thinking?

What is so different about consciousness that it gets a whole special category?

This is you asserting a difference, can you delineate it in a fashion that is actually different than liver function or earthquake prediction?

(Or is there just something special about consciousness? )

I just did delineate the difference. Subjective thought. What subjective experiences/thoughts do earthquakes and livers have?