Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 12

[Soupie]

Isn't it rather obvious? It is to me. Perhaps if we imagine a child's mother who says, "I gave birth to my daughter, not that copy over there in the corner. That is not my child!" or as I said before, what loving parent would be happy sending their child off to school in the morning knowing they would be destroyed in the process of making a copy? Continuity of personhood is dependent first on on continuity, not simply of some select component, but of everything.

The question of how that continuity is maintained over time has been addressed, at least superficially, and currently to my satisfaction. I'm curious where others draw their lines. I'm fine with the idea that cells replicated by the original cells of the original person qualify as continuity of the original person. This resolves the issues brought up with respect to aging and cellular replacement over time. Your thoughts?

So if a family travels to Planet X from planet y, but their son is left behind, you’d be fine with him being teleported to them. So long as the process was gradual, say, over the course of a week, and the original body no longer existed when the process was over?

Is a week still too fast? How about if the process took a month? A year?

 

[smcder]

Isn't it rather obvious? It is to me. Perhaps if we imagine a child's mother who says, "I gave birth to my daughter, not that copy over there in the corner. That is not my child!" or as I said before, what loving parent would be happy sending their child off to school in the morning knowing they would be destroyed in the process of making a copy? Continuity of personhood is dependent first on on continuity, not simply of some select component, but of everything.

The question of how that continuity is maintained over time has been addressed, at least superficially, and currently to my satisfaction. I'm curious where others draw their lines. I'm fine with the idea that a cell replicated by the original cells of the original person qualify as continuity of the original person. This resolves the issues brought up with respect to aging and cellular replacement over time. Your thoughts?

Of course it's obvious.

 

[Soupie]

What do you mean by 'external and internal stimuli'? And by their being 'the same' before and after copying by teleportation?

If both copies were, say, sitting in an identical room with identical temp etc and internally the same, no stomach, hunger, same brain state, etc. their conscious experiences would be similar.

 

[smcder]

So if a family travels to Planet X from planet y, but their son is left behind, you’d be fine with him being teleported to them. So long as the process was gradual, say, over the course of a week, and the original body no longer existed when the process was over?

Is a week still too fast? How about if the process took a month? A year?

By teleported do you mean copied, copied and destroyed, beamed or consciously beamed or instantaneously beamed with continuity of consciousness or ...

 

[smcder]

If both copies were, say, sitting in an identical room with identical temp etc and internally the same, no stomach, hunger, same brain state, etc. their conscious experiences would be similar.

So in what way do you think that @Constance and I think that an organism's consciousness is causally tied in some way to their causal history (which is ...?)?

"One reason this is an interesting topic is that it may suds out some of our views/thoughts re consciousness. @Constance and @smcder don’t like to speculate much but in a discussion a few months ago they both seemed to hint that an organism’s consciousness is casually tied in some way to their causal history."

 

[Soupie]

What if it's something more subtle than an entire component of matter missing? What if when consciousness arises, there is some kind of synchronization or resonance, something that sets it off, how is that kept if there is not an instantaneous copy? Even if instantaneous will all of the interactions and prior "motions" of matter be captured? How do you copy aspects of matter that are in motion, and if the motion matters to consciousness? It seems unlikely with what we know, but with what we know, we don't know how consciousness works.

Let's see if I can do an analogy. Let's say I see a pendulum clock and I copy it exactly and instantaneously and the pendulum is at the bottom of a swing, so that with the copy, the pendulum is not swinging and the clock doesn't keep time. Something like that. I'm not sure that's what you mean by:

@Soupie says:

One reason this is an interesting topic is that it may suds out some of our views/thoughts re consciousness. @Constance and @smcder don’t like to speculate much but in a discussion a few months ago they both seemed to hint that an organism’s consciousness is casually tied in some way to their causal history.

... but that's now two ways you could make an exact copy and not suss out consciousness.

Sussing out our views on consciousness, not consciousness itself.

For example, if one feels intuitively that a persons “consciousness” wouldn’t be copied along with their body, then that tells us something about how they view consciousness and the mbp.

 

[smcder]

Sussing out our views on consciousness, not consciousness itself.

For example, if one feels intuitively that a persons “consciousness” wouldn’t be copied along with their body, then that tells us something about how they view consciousness and the mbp.

If I were copied, then, by definition, both my body and consciousness would be copied but the copy would have neither my consciousness nor my body.

 

[Soupie]

By teleported do you mean copied, copied and destroyed, beamed or consciously beamed or instantaneously beamed with continuity of consciousness or ...

When a quark is copied it is then destroyed. But the tech is so advanced the organism person can be conscious during this procedure.

 

[Soupie]

If I were copied, then, by definition, both my body and consciousness would be copied but the copy would have neither my consciousness nor my body.

If I were copied, then, by definition, both my body and consciousness would be copied but the copy would have neither my consciousness nor my body.

I agree. There would by two bodies capable of consciousness.

 

[smcder]

When a quark is copied it is then destroyed. But the tech is so advanced the organism person can be conscious during this procedure.

Got it, thought that was a response to something else. Now we are "moving" someone from one place to the next, is the quark itself moving from planet x to planet y, or is it being reconstituted remotely? So if the child is on Earth, you are scanning and destroying a quark at a time...is the child then being drawn "into existence" on planet y from a stockpile of quarks there? And if so, is the child on earth or the child on planet y conscious during this procedure? At some point the matter on earth (my child, if you are a materialist) is no longer conscious, is therefore dead, and the child on planet y is at the same moment also not conscious before the copy of my dead child gains partial consciousness?

 

[Soupie]

So in what way do you think that @Constance and I think that an organism's consciousness is causally tied in some way to their causal history (which is ...?)?

"One reason this is an interesting topic is that it may suds out some of our views/thoughts re consciousness. @Constance and @smcder don’t like to speculate much but in a discussion a few months ago they both seemed to hint that an organism’s consciousness is casually tied in some way to their causal history."

It was something about organisms and evolution. I think Pharoah was in the convo. I was arguing (if I recall) that consciousness (or more specifically minds) seemed to be binary, on and off. On during the day for example, off during dreamless sleep and anesthesia. (I know you and Constance don’t hold that few.)

We were talking about the evolution of a species. How the copy is passed via dna and instantiated in individuals of the species. Very similar to current discussion.

Perhaps I was saying if we copy an individual of the species we copy the consciousness. Whereas you two weren’t sure. Maybe it was a dispute about whether a true copy was possible? But it seemed at the time like you two felt the copy wouldn’t have a similar consciousness to the original.

 

[smcder]

It was something about organisms and evolution. I think Pharoah was in the convo. I was arguing (if I recall) that consciousness (or more specifically minds) seemed to be binary, on and off. On during the day for example, off during dreamless sleep and anesthesia. (I know you and Constance don’t hold that few.)

We were talking about the evolution of a species. How the copy is passed via dna and instantiated in individuals of the species. Very similar to current discussion.

Perhaps I was saying if we copy an individual of the species we copy the consciousness. Whereas you two weren’t sure. Maybe it was a dispute about whether a true copy was possible? But it seemed at the time like you two felt the copy wouldn’t have a similar consciousness to the original.

I don't necessarily not hold that view, what I have done is pointed to evidence about the persistence of consciousness in dreamless sleep. As I have said many times, if you are asking does something I say indicate the view that I hold, the answer will always be "no" as I have (at this moment) a principled agnosticism about consciousness - it could be materialism, it could be lots of things, on the other hand and perhaps to contradict myself, I won't say that I haven't ruled some theories out or at least hold them as very unlikely.

As to a copy, that is similar to how we define subjective and objective as opposites, but we don't know that two opposite states exist, which is part of the problem I have with @Michael Allen 's view. Similarly, by definition, a copy of the person would be ... well, a copy of the person. That definition does not mean that a person can be copied. It also doesn't mean that a person can't.

Words.

Things.

 

[Soupie]

So if the child is on Earth, you are scanning and destroying a quark at a time...is the child then being drawn "into existence" on planet y from a stockpile of quarks there?

Yes

And if so, is the child on earth or the child on planet y conscious during this procedure?

Scratch that. The procedure is happening right on earth, in the same room. Same bed as a matter of fact.

At some point the matter on earth (my child, if you are a materialist) is no longer conscious, is therefore dead, and the child on planet y is at the same moment also not conscious before the copy of my dead child gains partial consciousness?

At any given moment during the process there is only ever one living conscious organism.

Let’s say the process takes 40 years.

Are we okay with this process?

 

[Soupie]

>> And if so, is the child on earth or the child on planet y conscious during the procedure.

Yes

 

[Randall]

Sussing out our views on consciousness, not consciousness itself.

For example, if one feels intuitively that a persons “consciousness” wouldn’t be copied along with their body, then that tells us something about how they view consciousness and the mbp.

I would answer by saying that if teleportation = relocation, then that person's consciousness would be moved ( not copied ) to another location along with the rest of them. However if teleportation = deconstruction to a data set > transmission of data > construction of a copy using the data as a guide with non-original materials, then the original person is now dead, and a new person, along with a new consciousness has replaced them.

 

[Soupie]

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gk2ed

 

[Randall]

Of course it's obvious.

Do you mean it's obvious to you ( personally ), or are you making a snide remark? Sorry. Can't tell just from the text.

 

[Soupie]

then the original person is now dead, and a new person, along with a new consciousness has replaced them.

I’m with you and playing devils advocate. What I’m trying to point out, however, is that on this logic, the above is exactly what happens during the course of human life.

The only difference is the tome scale.

Even the location is space is completely different as with difference between Planet Y and x.

 

[smcder]

>> And if so, is the child on earth or the child on planet y conscious during the procedure.

Yes

How can this be yes if "At any given moment during the process there is only ever one living conscious organism." So one has to die (or lose consciousness) (at best) at the instant the other gains it.

 

[Randall]

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gk2ed

That is one of the factors in my reasoning for why time travel, as is typically portrayed in sci-fi, isn't possible.