Kracus t1_iwrdk8y wrote
This is a famous thought experiment called the ship of Theseus.
There is no single correct answer to this question. I blew my 12 year old sons mind the other day when I posed him this question. He answered very confidently that the ship was no longer the same at the end of its travels. Then I reminded him that every atom in his body will have been replaced in 7 years time so does that mean his original self passed away?
I believe it is possible to transfer consciousness in the way of replacing pieces of the brain which complicates the question of what is consciousness?
thetwitchy1 t1_iwrf6fh wrote
Here’s the point: if a biological system can replace the individual biological parts (cells) with new biological replacements and it’s the same person, why would it be different if we replaced the biological parts with more durable non-biological ones?
Getting them to mimic the originals well enough AND be more durable would be the hard part.
Kracus t1_iwrg0u6 wrote
I fully understand the point. In fact if you search through my posts on this subreddit I’ve already spelled out in great detail this exact scenario several times. It’s still the same concept as the ship of Theseus.
As to perfecting the technology I have no doubt it will happen in the future.
thetwitchy1 t1_iwrh6go wrote
Oh, sorry, I know. That was more a “coles notes” version than a “here’s what you need to see” version.
I completely agree with you and think you have a firm understanding of the topic.
DerivingDelusions t1_iwryy1g wrote
Generally your heart cells and neurons don’t really replace themselves (neurons literally can’t divide/replicate and come from stem cells in the ventricles). So I think this is true for every other cell except for these two organs.
Trakeen t1_iwtbe07 wrote
New neurons are created and integrated into the neuronal network during learning and memory formation
So there is an existing mechanism in the brain to accommodate changes, but we don’t understand how outright replacement would work since there isn’t an existing biological process to reference
sunplaysbass t1_iwszmlt wrote
Those are the good ones too
[deleted] t1_iwrqekn wrote
[deleted]
-ZeroRelevance- t1_iws9wxg wrote
No, many of your heart cells and neurons won’t ever be replaced. For the most part it is though.
ninjasaid13 t1_iws4s5r wrote
>I believe it is possible to transfer consciousness in the way of replacing pieces of the brain which complicates the question of what is consciousness?
Consciousness can't be confused with brain itself. The brain has a bunch of things running that sum up to a consciousness kind of like Jenga, taking one brick away doesn't mean the whole tower collapses. In Jenga the tower is consciousness and the brain is all of the wood blocks that makes up the tower.
Consciousness is an emergency property of the brain, the tower is the emergent property of the wooden blocks. But obviously consciousness is alot more complicated than a tower.
beachmike t1_iwtge85 wrote
Consciousness is NOT an emergent property of the brain. You're stuck in the incorrect materialist paradigm. The brain, and everything else in the physical universe, emerges within consciousness. Consciousness itself doesn't "emerge." It's non-material, dimensionless, and eternal.
ninjasaid13 t1_iwtgyoh wrote
this seems like like saying "I'm the center of the universe" that absolutely no one will take seriously. The universe doesn't emerge with consciousness, it has existed before I was born and will exist when the all the atoms in my body decay into something else..
beachmike t1_iwtz94m wrote
You are so very wrong. Many people take the idealistic (non-materialistic view) very seriously. The father of quantum physics, Max Planck, certainly did. Erwin Schrödinger, another founding father of quantum physics, certainly did. They were geniuses. To quote Max Planck: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
ninjasaid13 t1_iwz25z6 wrote
It's erroneous to take old scientists on their beliefs, this isn't how science works. Issac Newton is a theist but that doesn't mean that's the correct view that all scientists should follow.
beachmike t1_iwzaivx wrote
I'll study what very brilliant "old" scientists had to say, but won't clutter my thoughts with what you or other mediocre thinkers say.
ninjasaid13 t1_iwzvzy7 wrote
>I'll study what very brilliant "old" scientists had to say, but won't clutter my thoughts with what you or other mediocre thinkers say.
alright but you won't get anywhere with that, lots of scientists in that era spoke kookoo and was just speaking their own personal beliefs.
pen7zer t1_iwtu8i4 wrote
Perhaps consciousness is just imagined.
DerivingDelusions t1_iwtvi1i wrote
Maybe the universe is just a consciousness and we’re just living in it’s imagination, almost like a simulation but not quite.
SufficientPie t1_iwrzlox wrote
> every atom in his body will have been replaced in 7 years time
That's not actually true.
IrreverentHippie t1_iwtwlgc wrote
What makes us who and what we are is a complex set of internal interactions.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments