Thread: The Brain of Theseus

Ghost In The Shell is pretty awesome... but as for your argument, there's a lot of work that has to be done just to simulate and pattern a consciousness, the memories that belong to said consciousness, and then all the unconscious thought process. The inherent complexity of the human mind puts a question on whether one can replace an organic brain with that of circuitry, and still be able to be the same mind.

The technicality of the problem can be just as important as the philosophical implication. Any component of the brain that is replaced must be equalled in complexity. In the case of the boat, whilst the materials may change, they must still hold the same shape, dimensions and detail. If things do not match up, then the originality is lost.

Uhh, there's no paradox there. If you replace all components of something, it's something different. Duh. If you replace only one, it's already different. So how about just changing everything...
Whether or not you call it the same object is entirely arbitrary and up to you. It's a pragmatic question, not a philosophical one.

If you replaced the brain with an electromechanical device, it's pretty obvious that you wouldn't be human anymore. If you claim that this can create consciousness, then you are essentially claiming that the computer you are using right now has consciousness. The difference between an electromechanical device and the brain is that an electromechanical device is (a) centralized and (b) simulates neuronal information processing without actually physically representing neurons. A brain is a brain because every neuron actually is a neuron and there's no central processing unit.
I could get deeper into this but this is my basic argument.

The basic mistake that's being made is the idea that only because we as humans interpret some specific material events as a flow of information doesn't actually mean that simulating that flow of information on a computer is identical. It is, in fact, entirely different. Interpreting certain events as material information beyond material states isn't justified in the sciences, so why would computer consciousness be? A simulated neural network on a computer is basically information flowing in the pattern of a neural network, but it isn't an actual neural network. In fact the information is first spinning at 10,000 rpm on the hard drive, then flows in minimalistic parts to the RAM and from there in pieces of a few KB to the central processing unit where some operations take place. That is NOT what is happening in the brain, even though the resulting pattern of information might be identical. Neither the flow nor the information are at any point completely represented in the computer. They're spread all over the components in electronic bits that are barely related to the information they represent. A brain can be in a state of neuronal activity, and that is a material state of organization. You can't simulate that unless you actually find a way to construct a net of ACTUAL artificial neurons. Artificial intelligence != behavior that seems intelligent.

Originally Posted by Korittke

Uhh, there's no paradox there. If you replace all components of something, it's something different. Duh. If you replace only one, it's already different. So how about just changing everything...
Whether or not you call it the same object is entirely arbitrary and up to you. It's a pragmatic question, not a philosophical one.

If you replaced the brain with an electromechanical device, it's pretty obvious that you wouldn't be human anymore. If you claim that this can create consciousness, then you are essentially claiming that the computer you are using right now has consciousness. The difference between an electromechanical device and the brain is that a electromechanical device is (a) centralized and (b) simulates neuronal information processing without actually physically representing neurons. A brain is a brain because every neuron actually is a neuron and there's no central processing unit.
I could get deeper into this but this is my basic argument.

The basic mistake that's being made is the idea that only because we as humans interpret some specific material events as a flow of information doesn't actually mean that simulating that flow of information on a computer is identical. It is, in fact, entirely different. Interpreting certain events as information isn't justified in the sciences, so why would computer consciousness? A simulated neural network on a computer is basically information flowing in the pattern of a neural network, but not an actual neural network. In fact the information is first spinning at 10,000 rpm on the hard drive, then flows in minimalistic parts to the RAM and from there in pieces of a few KB to the central processing unit where some operations take place. That is NOT what is happening in the brain, even though the resulting pattern of information might be identical.

If the replacement part acts in the same way by using a neural network architecture, then the trick would be to simulate the pattern flow of impulses that the old brain imposed in a certain area onto that of the replacement neural network chip. If one can simulate the intricate details of impulse flow and the connections between neurons, then whilst the materials would be different, one would at least be able to simulate the mind.

Technically, it won't be a human component, just like a replica is not the real thing. But an accurate replica can be just as good as the original if all the details and intricacies of the original are taken into account.

Sorry, I edited some things.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

If the replacement part acts in the same way by using a neural network architecture, then the trick would be to simulate the pattern flow of impulses that the old brain imposed in a certain area onto that of the replacement neural network chip. If one can simulate the intricate details of impulse flow and the connections between neurons, then whilst the materials would be different, one would at least be able to simulate the mind.

Technically, it won't be a human component, just like a replica is not the real thing. But an accurate replica can be just as good as the original if all the details and intricacies of the original are taken into account.

You mean artificial mechanical neurons?

Originally Posted by Korittke

Sorry, I edited some things.
You mean artificial mechanical neurons?

Yes. Because the only real way to create something that acts like an organic brain, is to build it in a similar fashion.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Yes. Because the only real way to create something that acts like an organic brain, is to build it in a similar fashion.

I agree with you on that... but I think that's still some decades ahead of us, definitely not within my lifetime. (that's including exponential progress etc.) And will probably be outrun by stem cells.

Originally Posted by Korittke

I agree with you on that... but I think that's still some decades ahead of us, definitely not within my lifetime. (that's including exponential progress etc.) And will probably be outrun by stem cells.

Well, for realistic AI systems, neural networks are the way forward. Also, the discovery of the memristor will also boost the viability of even simulated AI systems, as such memory will not only allow computers to switch on without having to boot up, but also will allow a computer to access memory in much more 'natural' ways (thus allowing for more accurate simulations).

I think we'll definitely see a lot of progress in our lifetime with these sorts of things. It is an interesting field with a lot of potential uses (the more potential it has, the better funding it gets).

If I remember correctly, every 10 years or so humans replace every single cell in their body.

So by the above logic and assuming my point above is true (I can't remember for definite), it would mean that we're all clones of our past selves.

Personally I disagree with this assessment, and instead think that if you gradually replace parts of an object so that the others are 'worn in', so to speak, before replacing more, then it's still the same object.

Yeah Korritke, the premise is pretty sci-fi to be sure... but, for the argument, I'm just assuming the existence of arbitrarily advanced technology, purely because the idea of a 100% fabricated human is intriguing. Ha we'll probably never see the day when we can all talk about this as a serious, realistic matter, so now it's just for fun really...

it would mean that we're all clones of our past selves.

?? A clone is a group of genetically identical organisms, this makes no sense.

bcomp: great thread. I personally believe very strongly that the same consciousness would remain, because I believe that it is the mathematics of the neural network formed which are crucial. This point of view is called functionalism. You'd probably be interested in a philosophical puzzle called the China brain:

Suppose that the whole nation of China was reordered to simulate the workings of a single brain (that is, to act as a mind according to functionalism). Each Chinese person acts as (say) a neuron, and communicates by special two-way radio in the corresponding way to the other people. The current mental state of China Brain is displayed on satellites that may be seen from anywhere in China. China Brain would then be connected via radio to a body, one that provides the sensory inputs and behavioral outputs of China Brain.

Thus China Brain possesses all the elements of a functional description of mind: sensory inputs, behavioral outputs, and internal mental states causally connected to other mental states. If the nation of China can be made to act in this way, then, according to functionalism, this system would have a mind.

Do you believe that the China Brain would be conscious? I certainly do.

I've never heard of that film though. What's it like?

Originally Posted by Xei

I've never heard of that film though. What's it like?

It's an anime movie. Not your usual anime affair, but really interesting and thought-provoking.

No, you would cease to exist, or be fragmented if your brain is replaced or partially damaged.

Next time apply all questions of the brain like this to a computer.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

No, you would cease to exist, or be fragmented if your brain is replaced or partially damaged.

Next time apply all questions of the brain like this to a computer.

But at what point would you lose your consciousness? When the first part is repaired? When more than 50% is repaired? 30%? 78.54%? See it's hard to tell when. Imagine that you are the one going through the series of operations. When would you cease to be you?

Xei: That's a really interesting idea, the whole China brain thing. I think it wouldn't have a consciousness, simply because the whole system is constructed from the bottom up... if you get what I mean. See I think that somehow human reproduction fuses an individual consciousness (or ghost if you will ha) to a physical body and that the ghost is the highest level of a person. I'm of the belief the hierarchy is something like this:

Consciousness
|
Thought
|
Physical Body

Constructing the China system would create a physical body capable of thought to be sure, but I don't think it could ever have a consciousness. Of course it would be a zombie, philisophically speaking, so we could really never determine whether or not it was conscious... but it probably wouldn't be.

I think it would be; in fact I'm convinced it would be; due to the following question (which also is adressed at Seis):

Do you think that there is something especially conscious about lumps of water and protein and phospholipid bilayer and sodium and potassium ions?

See I think that somehow human reproduction fuses an individual consciousness (or ghost if you will ha) to a physical body and that the ghost is the highest level of a person.

Hm, well, that begs the question, what was the first being to be conscious, if it is a product of reproduction? Also bear in mind that the zygote formed in reproduction has no neurons...

I'm personally pretty sure consciousness is the result of the network of causality in the brain. When you treat it as such, many paradoxes disappear.

Originally Posted by bcomp

But at what point would you lose your consciousness? When the first part is repaired? When more than 50% is repaired? 30%? 78.54%? See it's hard to tell when. Imagine that you are the one going through the series of operations. When would you cease to be you?

Consciousness != You

Any change at all to your brain ceases you from being you.

Hence "you" exists in an arbitrarily labeled period of time, as you are constantly changing.

Originally Posted by Xei

I think it would be; in fact I'm convinced it would be; due to the following question (which also is adressed at Seis):

Do you think that there is something especially conscious about lumps of water and protein and phospholipid bilayer and sodium and potassium ions?

In fact I do. Consciousness (In the way we think of it) is what happens to a system like the brain when it becomes x so complex.

Consciousness isn't a thing, it isn't a state, it is a verb. This is why some animals show higher cognizance than others.

Yeah I see what you're getting at Xei. However, I don't think that causality alone is a person's consciousness, but rather the consciousness is the spark that generates causality; causality fits more into the realm of thought than consciousness or awareness, because it can be created, while true awareness cannot.

By your reasoning, a calculator would be conscious, simply because it's calculations have a cause/reason. Let me explain, the calculator first responds to environmental stimuli - someone pressing the buttons - then reacts accordingly and with a purpose. The environmental stimuli is "2 + 2," so the calculator's chip goes through a series of "thoughts" that eventually produce an "action": displaying "4" on it's screen.

In a sense, the calculator's inventor would be the "consciousness" to the calculator's ability for causal "thought," but the calculator alone would have no awareness. Just because something has a cause or purpose, doesn't mean it is self-aware.

I think I might have some things confused in all that, so correct me if I understood what you were saying wrong.

No.

The calculator is a system in its own right.

Well... consciousness isn't a verb really? The sentence 'consciousness quickly' makes no sense, for example. But whatever, better to not get sidetracked.

But what you said about complexity... well, like I said, regard neurons as nodes/functions in a network. I think you may well be right about complexity correlating with consciousness, but the material of the nodes is completely irrelevant when considering the complexity of the network.

Yeah I see what you're getting at Xei. However, I don't think that causality alone is a person's consciousness, but rather the consciousness is the spark that generates causality; causality fits more into the realm of thought than consciousness or awareness, because it can be created, while true awareness cannot.

By your reasoning, a calculator would be conscious, simply because it's calculations have a cause/reason. Let me explain, the calculator first responds to environmental stimuli - someone pressing the buttons - then reacts accordingly and with a purpose. The environmental stimuli is "2 + 2," so the calculator's chip goes through a series of "thoughts" that eventually produce an "action": displaying "4" on it's screen.

In a sense, the calculator's inventor would be the "consciousness" to the calculator's ability for causal "thought," but the calculator alone would have no awareness. Just because something has a cause or purpose, doesn't mean it is self-aware.

I think I might have some things confused in all that, so correct me if I understood what you were saying wrong.

Yeah that's not really what I meant. When I say causality is vital to the network, I do not mean that it is the only thing. The network clearly must have some specific structure for consciousness (though nobody knows what this is yet). When I say causality in this context, what I mean is that consciousness would not happen if the neurons fired randomly and happened to emulate a thought; the interactions of neurons must be causal, the firing of one causing the processing of signals and possible firing of the next.

Also, I don't personally think that thoughts cause actions... I believe in determinism, at least on the scale of the brain, so our consciousness is in fact the passenger, the result, of causality, not the driver or cause.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Consciousness != You

Any change at all to your brain ceases you from being you.

Hence "you" exists in an arbitrarily labeled period of time, as you are constantly changing.

Ah yes that's the physically-based school of thought: "you" change literally every second as your skin cells flake off, your heart pumps.blood to different locations, you breathe in different air. But paradoxically, I still refer to you as "you." Why? Because "you" is a concept governed by formal cause. You still have the same attitudes, general design, social worth, and "form"... that is why "you" is a constant.

So physically, yes. Your identity is constantly changing. But philosophically, the issue is more debatable. I personally take the side of constant "you"-ness.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well... consciousness isn't a verb really? The sentence 'consciousness quickly' makes no sense, for example. But whatever, better to not get sidetracked.

But what you said about complexity... well, like I said, regard neurons as nodes/functions in a network. I think you may well be right about complexity correlating with consciousness, but the material of the nodes is completely irrelevant when considering the complexity of the network.

Consciousness is an arbitrary concept.

You could say that the system that holds an atom together is conscious.

We as humans think of consciousness as something with "thinking" abilities at our "level".

Originally Posted by bcomp

Ah yes that's the physically-based school of thought: "you" change literally every second as your skin cells flake off, your heart pumps blood to different locations, you breathe in different air. But paradoxically, I still refer to you as "you," because "you" is governed by formal cause. You still have the same attitudes, general design, and social worth, that is why "you" is a constant.

So physically, yes. Your identity is constantly changing. But philosophically, the issue is more debatable. I personally take the side of constant "you"-ness.

You is arbitrary.

There doesn't have to be some kind of "thing" that defines you as you.

It just so happens that other people may call you you.

Consciousness is an arbitrary concept.

You could say that the system that holds an atom together is conscious.

We as humans think of consciousness as something with "thinking" abilities at our "level".

I personally believe that there must be something special happening for consciousness to arise, actually. I don't think it's possible to experience being an atom; there are no inputs or intelligent processing of inputs. I regard consciousness as the answer to the question 'why are we not philosophical zombies'; our brains are very complex systems, but why does that mean they create consciousness? Can't a complex system exist without consciousness?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

You is arbitrary.

There doesn't have to be some kind of "thing" that defines you as you.

It just so happens that other people may call you you.

Well in that sense, I could call both you, a rock, and Bill Cosby "you" and the meaning would adequately apply.

My point is, we have to pin "you" to some aspect of an individual. What aspect you relate it to is really up to you.

I've althought thought more like... matter and consciousness is two sides of the same coin. "Being" matter always feels like "being" the piece of matter that one is. No matter if you're just carbon floating around or the entirety of the human brain.

Being LSD, or being H2O probably just feels like static white noise to the matter. Only if you structure it in specific ways, it actually makes sense.

No, I don't have any evidence for this, I just feel that it makes sense that, since every piece of matter necessarily IS, that piece of matter must necessarily BE and have an internal representation of BEING. Which corresponds to consciousness, or organized consciousness in intelligent systems (life).

That does NOT mean that I think a philosophical zombie would have consciousness like a human. It could very well just be static noise or something crazy like that, especially if it's just data flowing from one component to the other, but no COMPLETE system in which all the information is represented as a state, like in organic neural networks.

Originally Posted by Xei

I personally believe that there must be something special happening for consciousness to arise, actually. I don't think it's possible to experience being an atom; there are no inputs or intelligent processing of inputs. I regard consciousness as the answer to the question 'why are we not philosophical zombies'; our brains are very complex systems, but why does that mean they create consciousness? Can't a complex system exist without consciousness?

Depends on what you see as "complex" and "conscious".

Originally Posted by bcomp

Well in that sense, I could call both you, a rock, and Bill Cosby "you" and the meaning would adequately apply.

My point is, we have to pin "you" to some aspect of an individual. What aspect you relate it to is really up to you.

No you don't.