In order to discuss this, we need to get on the same page:

'The number of parameters that would have to be identical to have "identical conditions" would be absurdly prohibitive. You would have to have identical parents (where did the identical parents come from?), that raised you in identical ways, an identical home, identical experiences, identical teachers teaching identical lessons, Identical diseases would have to exist at two different times and you would have to catch them at identical times.... Of course this would assume that you have the identical genetic structure to begin with.'

Subtract the experiential factors. Before an organism experiences anything it has to have the capacity to experience. The consciousness, the Self. At what point does that arise? Why, absent any reflective surface, can I see everyones eyes but my own?

The GT I am now, or the MJ you are now, are the progression from this starting point.

So. What combination of matter is required for mine, or anyones, personal point of view?

Is it a matter of self awareness? But then you and I are both self-aware and neither sees through the other's eyes.

So, my point is, given that there is a finite amount of matter in that first collection and combination of matter that made up the organism that has my personal point of view, could it not be conceivable that, given enough time and 'chances' that matter could eventually recombine enough to remake my personal consciousness?

I have thought of this in regard to M theory where membranes repeatedly 'touch' sparking off an infinite number of big bangs, continuously creating an infinite number of universes.

Supposing that infinity is a variable in this equation, then conditions as finite as the molecules in a particular organism, though extremely rare, would likely duplicate eventually.

It doesn't mean that it would be the GT, ex-mo from C.S., me, but another organism who, as I put before could see everyones eyes but my own, (without the aid of a reflective surface, that is.)

I may not even have to be human, or an 'Earthling'. I am interested in what creates the 'self'. Does a tree have a personal point of view? A dog? An insect? An alligator? An amoeba?
Most of these organisms feel pain as we know it. What is it that feels the pain- no, not feels, experiences the pain?

At what point do organisms develop that individuality/self/soul? Why could it not be transplanted like a heart or grown on a mouse in a laboratory?

Then there is this thought: What if the next step in human evolution is a collective consciousness? Literally feeling what others feel and seeing through others eyes?

Gullible's Travel's Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In order to discuss this, we need to get on the
> same page:
>
> 'The number of parameters that would have to be
> identical to have "identical conditions" would be
> absurdly prohibitive. You would have to have
> identical parents (where did the identical parents
> come from?), that raised you in identical ways, an
> identical home, identical experiences, identical
> teachers teaching identical lessons, Identical
> diseases would have to exist at two different
> times and you would have to catch them at
> identical times.... Of course this would assume
> that you have the identical genetic structure to
> begin with.'
>
> Subtract the experiential factors.

And why would we want to do that? My experiences make me who I am. You can not have a duplicate me without them.

> Before an
> organism experiences anything it has to have the
> capacity to experience. The consciousness, the
> Self. At what point does that arise? Why, absent
> any reflective surface, can I see everyones eyes
> but my own?

Not so, the organism can experience many things that affect it that have nothing to do with consciousness. A baby of a crack addict mother who does crack while pregnant can be born addicted to crack regardless of the level of consciousness. Thus experiential can not be excluded from this discussion because of consciousness issues.

>
> The GT I am now, or the MJ you are now, are the
> progression from this starting point.

False assumption, see above.

Sorry, but experiential factors are important and can not be dismissed because of false claim (or implication) that experiential factors only affect consciousness. Experiential factors also affect health, growth rate, development of the intellectual capacity for consciousness to exist, etc..

Since you seem to base you whole discussion on the invalid concept that experiential factors are only valid in regards to consciousness, I see no reason to deal with the claims drawn from invalid assumptions.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2011 06:58PM by MJ.

If you were in a life altering car wreck and terribly brain damaged would you still be looking out of your eyes? (the hypothesis being that you can still see)

Now imagine a fork in your history. One path sees you in the above scenario, the other sees you about how you are now: You are still looking out at the world from some point in your brain in either case. How much you comprehend is irrelevant. The fact that you experiences consciousness altering circumstances is irrelevant. You would STILL no more be the man in the next room than you are me right now or either of us are the embryo in my neighbors uterus.

It is not first hand experience that creates the personal point of view/self. Now cumulative evolutionary experience, perhaps. Cellular 'memories' laid down in previous generations, possibly.

Maybe someone else will take a stab at it since we are not talking about the same thing and I get the feeling that you had your mind made up before you formulated your first answer.

I doubt I'm going to see anything in the realm of "I see what your saying. You mean (summarize my point so I know you have it), and I agree/disagree for this that reason."
So I needn't trouble you with any further explanations.

To anyone else:
So where in the brain does the 'self' lie? And is it POTENTIALLY reproducible by either natural or synthetic means?

Gullible's Travel's Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you were in a life altering car wreck and
> terribly brain damaged would you still be looking
> out of your eyes? (the hypothesis being that you
> can still see)

possibly, but would I BE who I was? Would my SOLE be the same? No. Damage the brain, damage the sole. PERIOD.

>
> Now imagine a fork in your history. One path sees
> you in the above scenario, the other sees you
> about how you are now: You are still looking out
> at the world from some point in your brain in
> either case. How much you comprehend is
> irrelevant. The fact that you experiences
> consciousness altering circumstances is
> irrelevant. You would STILL no more be the man in
> the next room than you are me right now or either
> of us are the embryo in my neighbors uterus.
>

Ahhh, the old make everything that contradicts your point irrelevant ploy. Sorry, but that really makes NO SENSE at all. Your concluding sentence assumes that just because we are embryos we are the same, a totally bogus assumption.

> It is not first hand experience that creates the
> personal point of view/self. Now cumulative
> evolutionary experience, perhaps. Cellular
> 'memories' laid down in previous generations,
> possibly.

It is NOT personal experience that creates personal points of view? Are you seriously trying to claim that? Do you even READ THIS FORUM? This forum is FULL of people telling how their personal experience with TSCC has created their personal point of view/self.

>
> Maybe someone else will take a stab at it since we
> are not talking about the same thing and I get the
> feeling that you had your mind made up before you
> formulated your first answer.
>

Frankly, I'm not sure you are talking about anything based in reality. My mind is NOT made up, but when you suggest that personal experience does not shape one's view, well, I begin to believe that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

> I doubt I'm going to see anything in the realm of
> "I see what your saying. You mean (summarize my
> point so I know you have it), and I agree/disagree
> for this that reason."
> So I needn't trouble you with any further
> explanations.
>

I see what you are saying, I just strongly disagree. Disagreement does not mean I do not see what you are saying. As I have said, this board itself is full of people that on a regular basis disprove your claim "It is not first hand experience that creates the personal point of view/self" So, I believe the EVIDENCE not what you are claiming.

> To anyone else:
> So where in the brain does the 'self' lie? And is
> it POTENTIALLY reproducible by either natural or
> synthetic means?

The whole brain, the self is the total of what goes on in the brain.

To Gullible I ask, if not the brain WHERE does the self lie?

Oh, and I find it interesting that at one point you say "The GT I am now, or the MJ you are now, are the progression from this starting point." and at another you say "Cellular 'memories' laid down in previous generations, possibly." Well, those two statements seem to contradict themselves. One you are saying that my self started at the emergence of self, the other you are saying it may be cellular memory, so, which is it and why do you need to rely on contradictory ideas?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 04:31PM by MJ.

Some general questions not addressed to anyone in particular.

How does re-incarnation address the fact that there are a lot more people on the earth today opposed to 1000 years ago?

Are the number of living creatures equal?

Are people re-incarnated as soon as they're dead or is there a waiting period?

Can you be re-incarnated as something that is not self-aware?

Assuming that in the next 100 or so years, mankind is able to create AI, well that's just a whole new can of worms.

As you can probably see by my questions, I think that there are far too many problems with the idea of re-incarnation for it to be possible.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2011 06:50PM by Rob.

However, the discussion that spawned this is the notion that a perfect copy will just randomly pop into existence.

Snowflakes are snowflakes. There is no "species" "snow flake", snow flakes have no possibility of being a species that evolves into some other species over time. The "snow flake" does have a nearly infinite amount of time to replicate, humans likely do not.

The differences between humans and snowflakes makes trying to make any comparison INVALID.

you are trying to formulate an answer when you haven't understood the question.
Why don't you just quit since you are not even trying to see what I am asking?


Humans are compiled of matter that is organized in a specific pattern.
So are snowflakes.
If an identical pattern can occur naturally in a snowflake given enough time and material...
Then why not a complex living organism?

Christ MJ! It is a hypothetical question. How many ways are you going to say "No! It's a dumb question, GT!"

Okay, I get it. You don't like the question (whatever you think it is) and you have made it your personal mission eviscerate your version of it.

I just wish I hadn't tried to follow you down your semantic rabbit hole.

The potentiality of some sort of, idk, abstract form of re-incarnation isn't meant to 'address' anything.

If it was even a remote statistical possibility there is no reason why any particular 'self' would be regurgitated at some future (or past) point if at all.

I think the particular problems you point out would need the attention of a theologian rather than an artist who periodically gorges herself on science/history programs and books.

Which has been my point all along.

There is no way to know if any particular 'self' has ever, anywhere, at any point in time been 'duplicated' before this point or will after.

I am wondering if our wires are being crossed over semantics.

Do you think re-incarnation is the same thing as duplication of an individual self?

Re-incarnation is the term (for lack of a better one) that I have been using to describe my hypothesis.
Unfortunately it has connotations that tie it to the realm of the supernatural/extra sensory/pseudo-scientific. All realms that I am NOT attempting to explore.

I do think there is a scientific explanation for the phenomenon of the 'self'. If it can be found, then it should at some point be reproducible in a lab. If it can be reproduced in a lab, then at some point, as goes my hypothesis, it must then be reproducible in nature.

How often, and under what conditions is quite debatable. But we DO know that it at LEAST happens once per sentient individual.

I'd be interested to see if human cloning could get us closer to singling out a 'self-gene', or 'self-molecule'

I would not put forth anything I said as a 'belief system', since belief tends to denote some sort of acceptance of an as yet unexplained phenomenon.

What I do think is that the 'self' phenomenon and the ability to extend an individual consciousness beyond the parameters we currently hold as possible is a worthwhile endeavor as the progression of human civilization is entirely dependent on our ability to preserve knowledge.
What better way to do that than to be able to harness all the first person knowledge that inevitably gets lost on the journey from our mind to the mouth/pen/keyboard?

A soothing balm for the existential crisis that might come with such an understanding may or may not be a positive.
After all, compared to our first tool using ancestors whose ideas died out in their relatively short life spans, we would seem practically immortal. So I am sure that even with technology advanced to a point to preserve the 'self' indefinitely, some future ancestor of us humans may have some new existential fear, like, the death of the universe. They may be wringing their hands at some future time to stop the 'death' that their immortal selves experience when the Big Freeze (or Big Rip) finally occurs.

So the trite comforts of religious views of immortality is not a comforting 'belief' because it addresses non of the potential issues that come with such a 'belief'.

If the self is not duplicated, then the self was not reincarnated, some other self was created. Sorry, I am not responsible for your misuse of words.

End of that story.

Now again I will ask "If the sole does NOT reside in the brain, where DOES it reside? Oh, and please do supply supporting evidence of the claim."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 05:22PM by MJ.

Thanks for replying to my post on the other thread Reed.
I disagree with your characterization of "I think with my brain" as being akin to "I do math with a calculator". While "I do math with a calculator" does inply that "I" and "calculator" are separate entities, it doesn't follow that "I think with my brain" is strictly analogous, other than as an accident of language. Maybe Descartes other formulation "I am a thing that thinks" is better, as it does not imply that "I" and the substance (for admitted lack of a better term) of thought are different (like "I" and "calculator" are). If I am a thing that thinks, then there is no categorical error in identifying myself with my brain.

"Consciousness, of itself, is unexplained by any reference to the brain, since there is no explanation as to why (or how) the physical brain produces consciousness, and its related subjectivity"
--while I would tend to agree with you on this, we've discussed philosophy of mind enough for me to know that you are well read in the subject, and I know that you know that is not the currently dominant position. And I suspect we might disagree with the consequences of the currently insufficient explanations.

"Second, no one who gives credence to the scientific literature supporting reincarnation believes that the physical brain is not relevant to cognition."
--This is a given. However, I wasn't trying to argue against any scientific literature regarding reincarnation. Whatever that may entail. I was arguing against commonly held perceptions regarding the mind body connection, and their implications for reincarnation.

The bulk of your reply is, as you point out, quite speculative. Even though it is speculative, I think that you are correct to a point in that I think that quantum fields might be an interesting way of trying to explain consciousness. But I don't see how, even if QM turns out to be the best explanation of consciousness, it adds to the plausability of reincarnation.

"the point is that the idea of a soul does not exclude a kind of corresponding cognitive brain function on a macro-physical level."
--true, but this runs into the same issue I mentioned in my previous post. The corresponence problem. If the consciousness corresponds with the macro level neural activity, then when the latter is gone, so is the former.

"Presumably, a soul that survived death would encompass both personal identity..."
--agreed, If this is left out, reincarnation loses any meaning.
"...and non-brain supported cognition at some level, as somehow related to quantum information processing...note, however, that quantum fields do not require a macro physical basis. They exist independently in nature, as arguably might the soul."
--(Reed, I hope I didn't mischaracterize your position by using the ellipse here). I think you are suggesting that the quantum fields exist independent of and ontologically prior to macro reality. It sounds like you are, by analogy, allowing the ripples in the water to be independent of the pebble. Ripples = consciousness; pebble = brain activity.

In principle, yes.
Your personality, memory, aptitudes, etc, are programmed into the patterns of connections of synapses. This is true even if you also have a soul, or if your mind is a quantum field associated with your brain.
So if I clone your brain, and can somehow perfectly replicate the pattern of synapses (10-100 trillion), then that cloned/replicated brain would be you. It would have your personal identity.
If you believe in a soul, there is no reason to think that God would not give souls to clones (he gives them to test tube babies, after all). If your mind is a quantum field, then the cloned/replicated brain would generate the same field.
It might be impossible in practical terms, but it's not impossible in principle.

GT wants us to believe that it can all happen randomly by chance that we could get the duplicate.

The random thing, no can't happen
The universe is not infinite.
To get the same conditions to end up with human DNA...an infinite number of variables would have to come into place
Then to get the same DNA as yourself, also an infinte number of variables would have to coincide
Then for this new you to have exactly the same physical and social environmental input...another infinite number of possible variables to coincide.

So the probability of another you popping into existence?
1 in (infinity)x(infinity)x(infinity)
;)

Is it really so impossible to concede the possibility, no matter how unlikely?

Or is it your position that it is 100% impossible for the same 'self' to, in all of space, and time, ever be reproduced again naturally/by chance?

Despite the fact that it demonstrably occurred at least once by chance already?

There have not been enough humans to make it even probable that a single change to a single cell could be replicated.

To try to discuss something as remote as the replication of a human to the point that it replicates the sole, (and if the sole is not replicated, then it is a different sole that was created) is pretty much mental masturbation the has nothing to do with reincarnation.

and it really was a simple yes or no question.

So what's wrong with mental masturbation? My whole hypothesis is just that.

So was it good for you? :-)

Holy the Ghost Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I disagree with your characterization of "I think
> with my brain" as being akin to "I do math with a
> calculator". While "I do math with a calculator"
> does inply that "I" and "calculator" are separate
> entities, it doesn't follow that "I think with my
> brain" is strictly analogous, other than as an
> accident of language. Maybe Descartes other
> formulation "I am a thing that thinks" is better,
> as it does not imply that "I" and the substance
> (for admitted lack of a better term) of thought
> are different (like "I" and "calculator" are). If
> I am a thing that thinks, then there is no
> categorical error in identifying myself with my
> brain.

Well, of course, I was playing a language game. However, it is still interesting that it seems no matter how hard we try, we describe the brain as a tool for some other entity. Even your use of the word "thing" falls into this trap, because then you have to explain just what this thing is, and where it comes from. Superficially, you can say, well, it comes from the brain, but then you get into a physical (not necessarily logical) circularity about the relationship between the essence of the self, or consciousness, and the brain, and the cognition that results from it. Such an identity theory is laced with problems in my view. Thus, it seems quite natural to fall back on natural intuitions that suggest a separate "soul," or whatever you want to call it, and ask whether there might be an explanation that is consistent with some sort of co-existance.
>
> "> --while I would tend to agree with you on this,
> we've discussed philosophy of mind enough for me
> to know that you are well read in the subject, and
> I know that you know that is not the currently
> dominant position. And I suspect we might disagree
> with the consequences of the currently
> insufficient explanations.

One thing that credible reincarnation reports do is cast serious doubt on the standard materialist view of consciousness, which partly expains why philosophers and scientists are so resistant to these reports. Nonetheless, they cry out for explanation, which, as I previously noted, is difficult to muster in a way that dismisses the phenomena and preserves the traditional materialist view. Perhaps, the message of reincarnation is that our materialist world view needs to be reexamined. (I assume you realize that by "materialist" I mean the traditional use of this term that does not encompass quantum considerations)
>
> "Second, no one who gives credence to the
> scientific literature supporting reincarnation
> believes that the physical brain is not relevant
> to cognition."
> --This is a given. However, I wasn't trying to
> argue against any scientific literature regarding
> reincarnation. Whatever that may entail. I was
> arguing against commonly held perceptions
> regarding the mind body connection, and their
> implications for reincarnation.

Well, if I understand you, I would say that the traditional philosphical arguments that address the mind-body problem by debunking dualism are misplaced because of QM. Certainly, the idea of reincarnation does not depend upon a traditional, Cartesian dualist position. In fact, it works best when the notion of immaterial substance is abandoned altogether, and we consider the "soul" as an aspect of physical reality in the broad, modern sense.
>
> The bulk of your reply is, as you point out, quite
> speculative. Even though it is speculative, I
> think that you are correct to a point in that I
> think that quantum fields might be an interesting
> way of trying to explain consciousness. But I
> don't see how, even if QM turns out to be the best
> explanation of consciousness, it adds to the
> plausability of reincarnation.

Well,first I think you have the issue backwards in the following sense. Once the reincarnation experience is established as a credible psychological phenomenon, then the scientific question is how do you explain it? The phenomena itself suggests an independence of the brain and the soul. If this is wrong, then there must be in principle an explanation for it. Moreover, the explanation must go beyond claims of fraud, or even neuroscience. The explanation must somehow encompass the fact that the living person identifies with a deceased person, and is able to provide historical, and personal facts about the deceased person that he or she could not under normal circumstances have known. I do not see how in principle this can be done without some sort of paranormal component.

Now, your point turns the tables by asking how QM, even if explaining consciousness, could explain reincarnation. That may in fact be very difficult, but the result of this objection, if valid, is that reincarnation is left unexplained, not, of course, refuted. The lack of a viable scientific explanation does not dismiss an otherwise established phenomena as being invalid. If QM cannot explain it, then its back to the scientific drawing board. We cannot simply conclude that reincarnation experiences must be a hoax. (This is a very important point often missed)
>
> "the point is that the idea of a soul does not
> exclude a kind of corresponding cognitive brain
> function on a macro-physical level."
> --true, but this runs into the same issue I
> mentioned in my previous post. The corresponence
> problem. If the consciousness corresponds with the
> macro level neural activity, then when the latter
> is gone, so is the former.

Probably, but not necessarily. Correspondence does not imply ontological or causal dependence.
>
> "Presumably, a soul that survived death would
> encompass both personal identity..."
> --agreed, If this is left out, reincarnation loses
> any meaning.
> "...and non-brain supported cognition at some
> level, as somehow related to quantum information
> processing...note, however, that quantum fields do
> not require a macro physical basis. They exist
> independently in nature, as arguably might the
> soul."
> --(Reed, I hope I didn't mischaracterize your
> position by using the ellipse here). I think you
> are suggesting that the quantum fields exist
> independent of and ontologically prior to macro
> reality. It sounds like you are, by analogy,
> allowing the ripples in the water to be
> independent of the pebble. Ripples =
> consciousness; pebble = brain activity.

Quantum fields do not require "pebbles." Quantum fluctuations exist in space-time independent of any material cause, and matter is generated and organized from such fields as part of the natural order. What other micro-tricks such fields are capable of we do not know.

Thanks,
Reed

In answer to that question, may I suggest that you read "The Feeling of What Happens" and "Self Comes to Mind" both by Antonio Damasio and then you will have a pretty good idea where consciousness and the sense of self or being comes from.

If you aren't interested in that much reading, here's a synopsis in a nutshell. Consciousness begins in the womb but does not come into full fruition until about 18 months of age. It continues to mature throughout life and dies when you do. When your brain dies, that's the end - nothing comes back, nothing "recombines" or reincarnates. Death is oblivion, make the most of this life.

There's lots of scientific support for this scenario but, admittedly, scientists do not have all the answers.

...does it try to say that consciousness is a purely physical condition? Or does it descend into the realm of the supernatural? The former is what interests me.
However, even before 18 months there is still an organism experiencing stimuli, whether it is aware of it on a sentient level or not. I keep defaulting to humans because we are the only species so far that can contemplate and communicate the results of this contemplation on the existence of the first person POV.

I do NOT think that those specific pieces recombine. I'm not suggesting that. In the same way that the identical water molecules don't combine to make a visually identical snowflake. An identical snowflake forms from different water molecules.

Is the 'self' akin to a fingerprint, a pattern that can be duplicated if certain conditions are repeated?

This would lead to the question: can two organisms (copies), share or otherwise combine a self?

Did you ever see John Carpenter's 'The Thing' where the alien organism experienced stimuli as a collective vs an individual? (The creature in the chair turned murderous when some of 'its' blood in the petri dish was burnt with a hot paper clip.)

We see certain organisms, like cells in our bodies, or ants that can experience stimuli as a collective 'self' through chemical means. Even crowds of people, herds of mammals, and flocks of birds behave as one unit, one self. (in response to body language or other subtle cues.)

These examples lead me to understand that the 'self', the first person point of view, is a physical state. And that a certain 'self', under the right conditions, could be reproduced.

The genetics of the individual sperm and egg, the health of the mother, and a lot of other factors go into creating the self.

They are not the same thing.

If that is how the self is created then first define self vs personality, and then give me your evidence that it is indeed the 'self' that is created via those conditions rather than the personality.

If the sole does NOT reside in the brain, where DOES it reside? Oh, and please do supply supporting evidence of the claim.

or in the ocean.

So, are you saying that I can go down to the ocean bottom, damage something down there and destroy my "self"? Where is there any evidence that this is so?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 05:45PM by MJ.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2011 05:46PM by MJ.

since you didn't even bother to look up "sole" in a dictionary. This was just a gentle nudge for you to get the hint.

It does not change the points I have been making.

...I don't actually believe in a 'soul'. Certainly not in the supernatural sense. I haven't seen any convincing evidence for some magical ghost that animates the physical.

What I do subscribe to is the fact that I am alive and I am looking through my eyes and experiencing stimuli. I cannot be 'inside' someone else's body so I have come to the conclusion that every human (if not other organisms that sense their environment) also have their own personal 'self'.
(I'm sure my entire premise could be argued against on philosophical grounds.)

So I am concluding that the phenomenon of the 'self' must be a product of the physical brain.

What evidence would you like to see that supports my premise that the 'self' resides within (or is a result of) the physical structure and processes of the individual organism?

I guess I could point to you, or me, or anyone as evidence of this. I could also point to the lack of evidence on the religious/metaphysical side of any substance that could be called a 'soul' that resides 'somewhere' outside the body.

Did you think I was trying to say that the 'self' lies outside the physical structure of the body or that some supernatural 'soul' is cloistered somewhere inside our physical structure?

If so, can you point it out to me, b/c I am not seeing where I thought/said that.

Can we agree that the soul then is the grand total of the what exists in the brain?

So sue me.