Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.philosophy.objectivism,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nuclear.microserve.net!luzskru.cpcnet.com!not-for-mail
From: bs <ajax@freedomnet.com>
Subject: Re: Brain and Body aspects of same thing.  Mind and Matter defined in more basic terms.
Message-ID: <1f7cc$111127.126@luzskru.cpcnet.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 17:17:39 GMT
Organization: none
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1 (Windows; U; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4cu3ql$mok@aladdin.iii.org.tw> <Pine.A32.3.91.960112232806.19670A-100000-100000-100000-100000@glibm9.cen.uiuc.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Lines: 180
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:36647 comp.ai:35944 comp.ai.alife:4914

Eugene Khutoryansky <ekhutory@glibm9.cen.uiuc.edu> wrote:
[...]
>So all of your analysis holds for a driver/car as well. 

yes, the car would be part of the driver.  when you are driving, you do 
not think of doing things the normal way, you do them as they pertain 
to the car.  when an object darts out on the road, you are not 
concerned immediately about whether or not it will hit you, but whether 
or not it will hit the _car_.  the car becomes an extension of you.  

but the fact that the two can be distinguished makes them different.  you 
know you can open the door and walk out of a car(except while its 
driving), but you can't just take out an artificial liver so easily.  and 
more importantly, if you did not know that the artificial liver was 
there(say you had other surgery and the doctors added the liver as a 
little bonus experiment), then you would operate as if there was nothing 
different.

there is a difference between replacing what i already have, and adding on 
new things.  lets say my brain was replaced and i knew it was replaced.  
what else would i call myself?  "hello, i am not the _real_ brandon....". 
 but would this make sense?

lets take it further.  what if i was put together using the genetic code 
of different humans.  "hello, i am not a real human, only a simulation of 
one...".  but this would not make sense, because i would still view myself 
as a human, and think like a human.  but if i was told i was not a 
human...perhaps i would believe it.  

lets say i am not sure whether or not i am human.  i come across someone i 
find bearing an exact resemblence to me.  he proves to me that i am not 
really a human by cutting my arm, which exposes wires and circuits.  then 
he cuts his own arm, and blood spurts out.

then, the next morning after i wake up(i sleep because a replica of a 
human would have to sleep too) i goto see this person that proved to me i 
was fake, who then says that i am the "real" one.  he cuts my arm(the same 
one as last time) and blood spurts out.  he then cuts his, and wires pop 
out.

right now, i am really confused.  there is only one way i see to explain 
the situation.  i remember an experience i never had.  the tricky 
neuroscientist, which would have to be myself, first took the memory from 
himself and put it into the clone.  then he put the memory from the clone 
into himself, so that they were the same.  i could _swear_ that yesterday 
i was a robot, but i know i am not now, as my clone was so happy to point 
out.  

i could indeed be a butterfly that is dreaming of being a human.  the 
point is that the _source_ does not matter.  both my thoughts and that of 
my clone are the same.  if i am given "direct access" to what he is 
thinking, then i will be "conscious" of it.  this can only mean that he 
was conscious of it too.  if i go back to my clone again and reprogram it 
to my current state, which has just figured out it is human indeed, the 
clone will think it is human too.  would it be human?  of course, until it 
gets a scratch or bruise(assuming i make my clones of high quality).

>But no reason to 
>stop there.  Every object you have ever interacted with can be thought of 
>in this manner.  For example, a book you read a year ago can be 
>considered a physical part of you.  

not physical, i don't think of books that way.  but yes, the book would be 
part of me.

upon recently reflecting upon this topic, i think that "consciousness" 
could be thought of in the same lines as the "universe" is.  this may 
give a reason for why it is so hard to explain.  when i reach for 
something, i can think of it as a process that is going on "inside my 
head", however i don't feel like i'm reaching for something "thats inside 
my head".  so is the keyboard inside my head, or is it "really" there?  
you could consider the question ad infinitum, but you can't live your life 
that way.  if this is a dream then let me live my dream.  i can think of 
it as i want, but all i have _unquestionably_ is the keyboard in front of 
my face, whether or not it is real.

the book would indeed be a part of my consciousness, but it is not in what 
i call myself.  myself being the well defined area that i seem to "be at".

[...]
>In fact this arguement can be extended to 
>include every object in the Universe.  You can potentially interact with 
>all of them, you have influence over them and they have influence over 
>you.  In fact the entire Universe is really just one big unified system.  
exactly.

>Why do you believe that your brain/body is somehow a seperate entity from 
>the rest of it.  So following you analysis to the logical conclution, we 
>have to conclude that the stars in the sky are just as much a part of you 
>as is your hand (be it the one you were born with or an artificial one).

they are just as much a part of my conscious, or as others would say "what 
i am conscious of".

>Well, something doesn't sound quite right about this conclution to me.  
>Maybe it really is the correct conclution, but let's proceed with the 
>assumtion that this conclution is incorrect.  So then I would have to say 
>that there is a cuttoff point between what "I" am and what "I" am not.  I 
>would have to say that "I" am not the car and for similar reasons "I" am 
>not the body either.  The way I determin this is by drawing an imaginary 
>closed surface and asking wether or not what I think that "I" am is 
>inside of it.  If the answer is yes, then whatever is outside of it is 
>not "me".  If I draw it around my brain and body but leave the car 
>outside, then "I" am still included and so "I" am not the car.  If I 
>include my brain and body but leave out one arm, "I" am still inside it, 
>so I am not the arm.  However, If I draw it around my entire body from 
>the neck down but leave the head out, I have to say that whatever it is I 
>think that "I" am is now not included in the closed surface, so what ever 
>"I" am has to be something above the neck.  I could continue repeating 
>the process untill finally, I only include the brain and leave everything 
>else out.  I would have to say that "I" am still inside it and that 
>therefore whatever "I" am is in the brain.  Now it can become very tricky 
>if I try to continue this process and try to draw the surface in such a 
>way that it only includes some of the brain but not all.  Now I'm not 
>sure how to answer.

this does not hold because if you cut off the rest of your body, even if 
you managed to keep your brain working, you would not "feel" the same.  
likewise, people can have a lobotomy or a brain tumor and still "be 
conscious" to some degree.  

there are certain parts you just can't go without.  if you take out the 
heart you will die, unless of course, you replace it with something that 
does the same job.  the same with the brain.  if you take out a part, 
things won't quite be the same, unless you replace it of course.

to further demonstrate the point there was a person living in the French 
revolution period that thought that his head was chopped off and replaced 
with anothers.  however, instead of thinking that his body was fake, he 
thought his _head_ was fake.  so he thought that he could still function 
with the body there, even if his head was replaced.  what does this say 
about the origins of thoughts?

>What is it that makes me think that I am the brain.  Well, if any other 
>part of the body is removed and not replaced, I would still be alive and 
>conscious, at least for a little while.  If the heart were removed and 
>not replaced, I would still be alive and conscious for a little while 
>longer.  Even if my head were cut off I would be alive and conscious for 
>a few seconds longer (this was demonstrated during the French Revolution 
>when cutoff heads were asked to blink if they can still hear).  However, 
>if my brain was removed and not replaced, well I'm pretty much dead 
>instantly.

the brain has just as much relevance to the function of the person as many 
other parts.  the fact that it "is the last thing to go" does not have 
much relevance.  my body would not be able to blink to the fact that it 
has no means of responding, and it does not have the complexity to realize 
such a responce.  i could have a brain in my abdomine and head, and then 
perhaps, my body would twitch when asked if it was still there.

it is certainly necessary that the brain is there for thought.  lets say 
we did not have the ability to replace the other organs.  then it would be 
necessary for them to be there as well.  well what if we could replace the 
brain?  it would keep the body going.  when the brain is cut off, the 
blood still has to be there for the brain to function, just as the brain 
has to be there for the heart to function.  when the link is severed, the 
brain may function for a while, while the heart may function for a while.

if you asked the victim to blink if he felt the same as before he lost his 
head, chances are he would not.  so is he the "same person" without his 
body?

>As far as replacing the brain one cell at a time goes, we are not the 
>hardware but the software.  We are like the waves on a string.  We are 
>not the material the string is made out of but only the wave itself.

this is the point i was trying to make.  and here i get to the bottom of 
the message and see you grant me the point.

my response to this would be "exactly".  we are the software, the hardware 
is irrelevant.

perhaps you misunderstood my point.  the brain is a part of the hardware. 
 but so is the body.  the mind is the software.  it could be said that the 
mind is more directly influenced at the brain, but it is still influenced 
at the body.  i do not think "it is just my brain inside of a body", i 
think in terms of what my body is going through, as a driver would think 
in terms of what the car is going through.



