Why am I me and not you?

[richardbaxter]

Why am I me and not you? Why is my experience of existence mapped to physical entity x and not mapped to physical entity y?

[twinklingwinter]

Your experience of existence is not "mapped" to a physical entity. You ARE the physical entity. Your consciousness is a result of whatever process is going on in the brain.

[Erwin]

I think it would be best if you reframe your question. As it stands, your question is tautological and answers itself.

"me" is the definition of "not you". Why? Because definition.

[Donnadogsoth]

42 minutes ago, richardbaxter said:

Why am I me and not you? Why is my experience of existence mapped to physical entity x and not mapped to physical entity y?

God's will.  There must be some irreducible characteristic of you that defines you-ness as apart from the physical entity you are mapped to.  On this basis God assigns you to said entity under the principle of sufficient reason.

[os.motic]

4 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

God's will.  There must be some irreducible characteristic of you that defines you-ness as apart from the physical entity you are mapped to.  On this basis God assigns you to said entity under the principle of sufficient reason.

Why must there be?

[Goldenages]

6 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

Why am I me and not you? Why is my experience of existence mapped to physical entity x and not mapped to physical entity y?

 

It is the old philosphical problem of identity.

If I have a 2 identical drinking glasses, how can I distinguish between them?  I have to do very accurate measurements to distinguish, e.g. some minor scratches etc. Just by the way: If there is no measurement possible that finds out any differences, we have to say thats the very same object(s). This applies e.g. for photons. We can not distinguish between one photon and an other if they have the exact same characteristics. We could only distinguish between their appearance at certain locations and certain times. Funny now - since photons move with the speed of light, for a photon such things as time and space do not exist. Form their point of view they just are everywhere at the same time. So as a matter of fact - all whats needed to illuminate the whole universe would be one single photon.

 

If I have a wooden ship, and its repaired and some planking is replaced - is it the same ship as before? Usually we say yes, as long as its qualities in the water are the same.

However these qualities depend on a certain arrangement of matter.  Now we can say, if matter is the base for our minds, and every mind is based on a slightly different arrangement of matter, that enables to distinguish between me and you.

 

regards

Andi

[Eudaimonic]

9 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

Why am I me and not you? Why is my experience of existence mapped to physical entity x and not mapped to physical entity y?

It would make sense to me that there is existence and there is consciousness at the very least. The fact that I can differentiate between the two implies the concept of identity or A is A, something cannot be itself and something else at the same time.

The fact that you can differentiate between me and you means that we are essentially different. This is implied in all definition.

Basically identity is caused by existence and existence is the ultimate given. Not sure if that answers your question, but let me know what you think!

[neeeel]

13 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

Why am I me and not you? Why is my experience of existence mapped to physical entity x and not mapped to physical entity y?

This question doesnt make sense to me, which suggests that its flawed somewhere.

 

What does it mean for an experience of existence to be mapped to a physical entity X? 

[RichardY]

13 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

Why am I me and not you? Why is my experience of existence mapped to physical entity x and not mapped to physical entity y?

""Why am I me and not you?" Sounds a bit like a bit of speech from the STTNG episode "Time Squared".Star Trek STNG Moments 39 Time Squared Almost word for word. 

 

35 minutes ago, neeeel said:

What does it mean for an experience of existence to be mapped to a physical entity X? 

Maybe something to do with the concept of a singularity.

 

"Where we're going we don't need eyes to see" - Event Horizon. Bit of a Back to the Future Vibe.

[Donnadogsoth]

9 hours ago, os.motic said:

Why must there be?

Principle of identity of indiscernibles:  two things which are indistinguishable from each other are the same thing.  Two souls that are indistinguishable from each other, physical bodies aside, would be the same soul.  Either souls are characteristically distinct, or else we face pantheism.

[os.motic]

1 hour ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Principle of identity of indiscernibles:  two things which are indistinguishable from each other are the same thing.  Two souls that are indistinguishable from each other, physical bodies aside, would be the same soul.  Either souls are characteristically distinct, or else we face pantheism.

Possibly, but that does not answer why there must be a basal substrate that is essentially the barcode version of you. 

[Donnadogsoth]

2 hours ago, os.motic said:

Possibly, but that does not answer why there must be a basal substrate that is essentially the barcode version of you. 

I'm not sure I read you.  Are you asking why there are souls at all?

[os.motic]

22 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

I'm not sure I read you.  Are you asking why there are souls at all?

If you care to take the time, I would like to hear your argument for the existence of souls. 

[Eudaimonic]

2 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

I'm not sure I read you.  Are you asking why there are souls at all?

1 hour ago, os.motic said:

If you care to take the time, I would like to hear your argument for the existence of souls. 

Ditto, very interested to hear your thoughts on souls, maybe move this to a different thread? Or perhaps that not nesseccary...

[Donnadogsoth]

I've started a new thread here.

[richardbaxter]

Physical properties are uniquely assigned because they are part of a bigger indivisible system. Are we suggesting that mental properties are also? The problem is that to suggest some substances don't have mental properties but others do is to introduce differentiation - and there must be a reason for this differentiation. 

To interpret "you" or "me" as a physical entity in this context is to assert an unnecessary reduction which avoids the question. Perhaps I could be you (rather than me) if indivisible centres of awareness are randomly assigned to physical entities. But we must then ask what determines the mapping?

Does the universe itself (nature) generate a set of discrete instantiations of sentience? Then why would a new one be created? Why not use the same one? (This is Arnold Zuboff's argument). Is the fact we don't have any memory of alternate references of experience (like we don't have memories of our infancy) a sufficient argument?

[neeeel]

1 hour ago, richardbaxter said:

Physical properties are uniquely assigned because they are part of a bigger indivisible system. Are we suggesting that mental properties are also? The problem is that to suggest some substances don't have mental properties but others do is to introduce differentiation - and there must be a reason for this differentiation. 

To interpret "you" or "me" as a physical entity in this context is to assert an unnecessary reduction which avoids the question. Perhaps I could be you (rather than me) if indivisible centres of awareness are randomly assigned to physical entities. But we must then ask what determines the mapping?

Does the universe itself (nature) generate a set of discrete instantiations of sentience? Then why would a new one be created? Why not use the same one? (This is Arnold Zuboff's argument). Is the fact we don't have any memory of alternate references of experience (like we don't have memories of our infancy) a sufficient argument?

It seems like you are imagining sentience as a "ghost in the machine"?

[richardbaxter]

On 1 May 2017 at 6:49 PM, neeeel said:

It seems like you are imagining sentience as a "ghost in the machine"?

In order to analyse a phenomenon one has to not make any implicit assumptions regarding it. For example a) reductive physicalism (which few adhere to as although mental properties may be mapped to physical properties they are not reducible to physical properties given how information is distributed across neural networks), or b) "emergence by necessity" (the assumption that mental properties just appear given a sufficient level of physical complexity - like when a machine declares itself to be conscious - without explanation).

"Ghost in the machine" could be interpreted to mean anything from substance dualism to property dualism to simulation theory so I can't recommend the phrase here. Max Tegmark (an "informationism" architect) does however recommend the book/film when discussing simulation theory in the context of numerical simulation of physical systems and VR. In terms of property dualism, I figure it is more probable than a ghost without a machine, a machine without a ghost, or a machine with 73 ghosts.

[richardbaxter]

On 1 May 2017 at 1:43 AM, RichardY said:

""Why am I me and not you?" Sounds a bit like a bit of speech from the STTNG episode "Time Squared".Star Trek STNG Moments 39 Time Squared Almost word for word. 

Cheers Richard - thanks for all the references.

[richardbaxter]

On 30 April 2017 at 6:07 PM, Goldenages said:

Now we can say, if matter is the base for our minds, and every mind is based on a slightly different arrangement of matter, that enables to distinguish between me and you.

Hi Andi - but what if I were you and you were me? What part of reality would differ to accomodate for this fact?

[neeeel]

4 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

Hi Andi - but what if I were you and you were me? What part of reality would differ to accomodate for this fact?

what are the "you" and "me" that you are referring to here? I still dont get it? What is there that you could take out of you, and put into me, that would turn me into you? 

 

[Goldenages]

7 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

What part of reality would differ to accomodate for this fact?

The information on which a personality is based. The genes plus experience. 

 

regards

Andi

[richardbaxter]

What if you died and they reconstructed you? Would it still be you or would it be someone else?

[richardbaxter]

Try to imagine variations on this scenario (from Zuboff's "one self: the logic of experience");
- what if I added an additional 795739528073 atoms to its neocortex?
- what if I created two identical copies of the reconstruction?

[adamNJ]

We can't answer that

[Goldenages]

12 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

What if you died and they reconstructed you? Would it still be you or would it be someone else?

 

11 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

Try to imagine variations on this scenario (from Zuboff's "one self: the logic of experience");
- what if I added an additional 795739528073 atoms to its neocortex?
- what if I created two identical copies of the reconstruction?

There must be a fundamental description of state for everything. The most fundamental description of state is the wave function. It gives exactly (within the uncertainty principle) information about every single part of every single atom. Thats what they are looking for to build the transporter for Captain Kirk´s Enterprise. Unfortunately, aside from some small technical problems, the wave function of man is a stack of discs that fills the diameter of the visible universe.

So to reconstruct somebody, well, thats not a problem. You give me your wave function, I insert the discs, and here we are - a perfect copy. As a matter of fact, not a copy, but the original, because since we used the wave function - the most fundamental description of state - there is no means to measure any difference to the original. Your "copy" would be you.

 

And if you tell me exactly how your brain works, I could figure out what difference some more atoms make

 

regards

Andi

[richardbaxter]

Nice Andi - very practical :). What we want to know is that final change to the reconstructed physical system (e.g. x neural connections) where you no longer experience reality and someone else does. Because if there is such a change it implies something determines when a new instantiation of sentience is assigned, and if there isn't - that we live in a pantheistic world.

With respect to finding out how the brain works, I agree that this is an extremely worthwhile enterprise for a number of reasons (in fact so important that a significant proportion of all research should be directed towards the human connectome). But assuming we found out how it works, and it behaved according to the known laws of physics (or any others discovered within the existing paradigm), mental properties could confer no advantage on the physical system. Nor could we ever know for certain which systems exhibited them. So it begs the question, what are they there for; and why would they be restricted to such complex information processing systems? Perhaps they are an inherent property of all matter/energy and consciousness exists in gradations, etc. 

Furthermore (although this is getting increasingly off topic), I hope you appreciate that we have just defined a method to resurrect a body, which moreover according to the materialist framework will be the same person. It is fortunate the laws of nature are so fine tuned as to necessitate an infinite multiverse. Because with an infinite multiverse there are going to be an infinite number of exact copies of our bodies anyway. So let's put all the sola materialist assumptions in the box and see what we get; resurrection of the body, reincarnation, and life after death.  

Wait, what? Is there an error somewhere? Was it perhaps the assumption that design optimisation can't involve evolution based on a simple algorithm and unlimited computational resources? (Cf planet earth from the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy). Maybe it was realism itself and we are living in a simulation? (Cf discreetness/quantisation of nature + indeterminism). Such would concord with the assumption that we are reasonable creatures; but it doesn't explain the source. I do think it therefore worth promoting open mindfulness. For the sake of science it is profitable to assume that all reality will ultimately be accessible to it - but should we be projecting this ideal as a philosophy?

[Goldenages]

5 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

I do think it therefore worth promoting open mindfulness.

Shure.  Cosmology, physics - thats all "interior design". We can not know for shure wether there is something beyond that influences our world, such as e.g. Lisa Randall suggests in her work about multiple universes. Nevertheless this something has to be sensed over here in one way or another. Shure we could assume that certain properties are literally coming from beyond this world. But if those properties do not happen by chance, they have to follow some rules. So we can find out those rules. And how likely is it that just mental properties come from somewhere else? Why not the lever principle? I would say that all those supernatural claims about brain and mind are the last retreat of the "God of the gaps" (Richard Dawkins).

 

5 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

Perhaps they are an inherent property of all matter/energy and consciousness exists in gradations, etc. 

  Exactly as much as other inherent property of matter such as walking, flying, transporting energy ....

 

5 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

For the sake of science it is profitable to assume that all reality will ultimately be accessible to it - but should we be projecting this ideal as a philosophy?

Up to you

For me, life, and generally, the world becomes more and more interesting and astonishing, the more I know. Does science know 3% of all that can be possible known, or is it 90%?  I would guess we are closer to 3 than to 90

 

But there is a nice quote from Robert Goddard, the rocket scientist: “No matter how much progress one makes, there is always the thrill of just beginning.”

 

regards

Andi

[richardbaxter]

Thanks Andi it is really interesting to hear your perspective.