My New Argument for a Nonphysical Consciousness

[ryan]

Of course, we will also give the same answer if both of us are clones. So the idea that one is the original is not critical to your argument.
Or, your thought experiment will not allow anyone to distinguish between the three (original, copy, copy).

The original and the clone have a non-physical difference.

But how does this argue leap to an assumption that the consciousness is the non-physical difference?

How's this. Please consider your thought experiment, but also assume at the beginning that the mind IS merely the artifact of the processes in the physical brain.
How does your thought experiment turn out any differently?

If everything is cloned, then the consciousness is only a clone too. Everything about the original is the original including the mind. But somehow the two minds are different.

 

[bilby]

Of course, we will also give the same answer if both of us are clones. So the idea that one is the original is not critical to your argument.
Or, your thought experiment will not allow anyone to distinguish between the three (original, copy, copy).
But how does this argue leap to an assumption that the consciousness is the non-physical difference?

How's this. Please consider your thought experiment, but also assume at the beginning that the mind IS merely the artifact of the processes in the physical brain.
How does your thought experiment turn out any differently?

If everything is cloned, then the consciousness is only a clone too. Everything about the original is the original including the mind. But somehow the two minds are different.

What do you mean 'somehow'? They are different in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that everything else about the copy is different.

Shake the hand of one of the clones (A) - why does the other clone's hand (B) not move?

The reason is the same - the B's hand doesn't move, because it isn't B's hand being shaken. B's brain does not share A's consciousness, because it isn't B's brain that generates that consciousness.

 

[ryan]

This has been brought up so many times that I now know that I must have really screwed up somewhere because that is not my argument at all.

Imagine they make a clone of you. Then they say that they must kill the clone. You are both in separate but exactly identical environments. When asked which one is the real you, you will both claim to be the original. But only one of you are actually the original. The original and the clone have a non-physical difference. Yes, the environment is different. But the bodies are not the environments, and the environments are not the bodies.

When asked which one is the real you, you will both claim to be the original*. And you will both want the other guy to be the one who gets the bullet.

Each brain is conscious. No brain has any ability to directly experience a consciousness other than its own. This remains true no matter how similar the brains may be; The two brains may be having identical thoughts, but they cannot ever know this, because consciousness is a property of the physical brain, and one brain cannot experience the consciousness of another. I can imagine how you probably feel, what you are probably thinking, and what your experiences and memories might well be; But my brain can only actually experience my own consciousness.

Identity is an illusion; Continuity of identity doubly so. You have memories of yesterday, but no way to tell whether those memories represent something real. This is true for both the original and the copy in the thought experiment. Both are equally correct to assert their priviliged status as the 'real' Ryan.

I completely agree with everything you said. It doesn't affect my argument.

*Which of you is 'right' is irrelevant ...

One bilby is right, and the other is wrong. That's the non-physical difference.

Think of replacing one spatial dimension with the temporal dimension such as distance over time. On one graph, you would have the original bilby extending from birth. On the other graph, you would have a much shorter interval starting from the moment that the clone was made. So the original bilby is a much larger organism to aliens that can see in 4 dimensions. But to humans that don't have that luxury, we can't tell you apart.

 

[bilby]

When asked which one is the real you, you will both claim to be the original*. And you will both want the other guy to be the one who gets the bullet.

Each brain is conscious. No brain has any ability to directly experience a consciousness other than its own. This remains true no matter how similar the brains may be; The two brains may be having identical thoughts, but they cannot ever know this, because consciousness is a property of the physical brain, and one brain cannot experience the consciousness of another. I can imagine how you probably feel, what you are probably thinking, and what your experiences and memories might well be; But my brain can only actually experience my own consciousness.

Identity is an illusion; Continuity of identity doubly so. You have memories of yesterday, but no way to tell whether those memories represent something real. This is true for both the original and the copy in the thought experiment. Both are equally correct to assert their priviliged status as the 'real' Ryan.

I completely agree with everything you said. It doesn't change my affect my argument.

*Which of you is 'right' is irrelevant ...

One bilby is right, and the other is wrong. That's the non-physical difference.

Think of replacing one spatial dimension with the temporal dimension such as distance over time. On one graph, you would have the original bilby extending from birth. On the other graph, you would have a much shorter interval starting from the moment that the clone was made. So the original bilby is a much larger organism to aliens that can see in 4 dimensions. But to humans that don't have that luxury, we can't tell you apart.

And the difference this makes to either bilby is what?

At a specified moment, history is what you remember. Whether those memories represent something real in the past is irrelevant at any given point in time.

And how is a different history 'non-physical'?

The difference is ONLY apparent to your hypothesised alien who sees in 4 dimensions; and to that alien, the two entities are as physically different as a circle drawn on paper is different from a sphere, to you or I.

Or are you claiming that time is not a part of physics?

When you say "So the original bilby is a much larger organism to aliens that can see in 4 dimensions" you are describing a physical difference between two objects - one is "much larger" than the other.

 

[ryan]

I completely agree with everything you said. It doesn't change my affect my argument.

*Which of you is 'right' is irrelevant ...

One bilby is right, and the other is wrong. That's the non-physical difference.

Think of replacing one spatial dimension with the temporal dimension such as distance over time. On one graph, you would have the original bilby extending from birth. On the other graph, you would have a much shorter interval starting from the moment that the clone was made. So the original bilby is a much larger organism to aliens that can see in 4 dimensions. But to humans that don't have that luxury, we can't tell you apart.

And the difference this makes to either bilby is what?

nothing tangible, nothing physical, nothing noticeable ...

History is what you remember. Whether those memories represent something real in the past is irrelevant.

Yes, that is what interests me so much about all of this. It should be irrelevant, but in this case it's not. One is the "real" bilby, and the other is a clone.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Of course, we will also give the same answer if both of us are clones. So the idea that one is the original is not critical to your argument.
Or, your thought experiment will not allow anyone to distinguish between the three (original, copy, copy).
But how does this argue leap to an assumption that the consciousness is the non-physical difference?

How's this. Please consider your thought experiment, but also assume at the beginning that the mind IS merely the artifact of the processes in the physical brain.
How does your thought experiment turn out any differently?

If everything is cloned, then the consciousness is only a clone too.

What does 'only a clone' mean in this context?

Everything about the original is the original including the mind. But somehow the two minds are different.

The minds are identical until you kill one of them. THEN you've introduced a difference. A physical one.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And the difference this makes to either bilby is what?

nothing tangible, nothing physical, nothing noticeable ...

You cannot say that.
You insist that one being the original, one being not the original, is a difference. Your whole argument centers on that. But if it's not a detectable difference, then you have no argument. If we can't tell which one is original, they can't tell which one is original, then there's no point in one being the original.

And still, how does this begin to come close to an argument for a non-physical mind?

- - - Updated - - -

But somehow the two minds are different.

You assert this but offer no evidence for this. HOW are they different except by a label you apply? You can do that by flipping a coin and pointing. "YOU are Heads Bilby, YOU are Tails Bilby." The difference is still not a physical one, but it's in your head, not their minds.

 

[bilby]

I completely agree with everything you said. It doesn't change my affect my argument.

*Which of you is 'right' is irrelevant ...

One bilby is right, and the other is wrong. That's the non-physical difference.

Think of replacing one spatial dimension with the temporal dimension such as distance over time. On one graph, you would have the original bilby extending from birth. On the other graph, you would have a much shorter interval starting from the moment that the clone was made. So the original bilby is a much larger organism to aliens that can see in 4 dimensions. But to humans that don't have that luxury, we can't tell you apart.

And the difference this makes to either bilby is what?

nothing tangible, nothing physical, nothing noticeable ...

History is what you remember. Whether those memories represent something real in the past is irrelevant.

Yes, that is what interests me so much about all of this. It should be irrelevant, but in this case it's not. One is the "real" bilby, and the other is a clone.

The difference is ONLY apparent to your hypothesised alien who sees in 4 dimensions; and to that alien, the two entities are as physically different as a circle drawn on paper is different from a sphere, to you or I.

When you say "So the original bilby is a much larger organism to aliens that can see in 4 dimensions" you are describing a physical difference between two objects - one is "much larger" than the other.

Your problem is that you are switching points of view without acknowledging it - from our regular day-to-day perspective, there is no physical difference, the claim that the two clones are identical is true, and the distinction that one is 'the original' is meaningless.

From the higher dimensional perspective, the physical difference is obvious, and the claim that the two clones are identical is clearly false; the original is the one that is largest in the 't' dimension.

Either point of view is fine; but you can't pick bits of your argument from one, and bits from the other, and expect to reach a useful conclusion.

 

[ryan]

If everything is cloned, then the consciousness is only a clone too.

What does 'only a clone' mean in this context?

It has only a limited history.

Everything about the original is the original including the mind. But somehow the two minds are different.

The minds are identical until you kill one of them. THEN you've introduced a difference. A physical one.

Forget one needing to die for now. While alive, don't you agree that you are experiencing where your original body is, and you are not experiencing where your clone is?

This is an answer to the rest of your post.

 

[ryan]

I completely agree with everything you said. It doesn't change my affect my argument.

*Which of you is 'right' is irrelevant ...

One bilby is right, and the other is wrong. That's the non-physical difference.

Think of replacing one spatial dimension with the temporal dimension such as distance over time. On one graph, you would have the original bilby extending from birth. On the other graph, you would have a much shorter interval starting from the moment that the clone was made. So the original bilby is a much larger organism to aliens that can see in 4 dimensions. But to humans that don't have that luxury, we can't tell you apart.

And the difference this makes to either bilby is what?

nothing tangible, nothing physical, nothing noticeable ...

History is what you remember. Whether those memories represent something real in the past is irrelevant.

Yes, that is what interests me so much about all of this. It should be irrelevant, but in this case it's not. One is the "real" bilby, and the other is a clone.

The difference is ONLY apparent to your hypothesised alien who sees in 4 dimensions; and to that alien, the two entities are as physically different as a circle drawn on paper is different from a sphere, to you or I.

When you say "So the original bilby is a much larger organism to aliens that can see in 4 dimensions" you are describing a physical difference between two objects - one is "much larger" than the other.

Your problem is that you are switching points of view without acknowledging it - from our regular day-to-day perspective, there is no physical difference, the claim that the two clones are identical is true, and the distinction that one is 'the original' is meaningless.

From the higher dimensional perspective, the physical difference is obvious, and the claim that the two clones are identical is clearly false; the original is the one that is largest in the 't' dimension.

Either point of view is fine; but you can't pick bits of your argument from one, and bits from the other, and expect to reach a useful conclusion.

I brought up the t dimension to emphasize that there is a clear difference that is real. The difference is physical in the sense that it has a longer history of existing.

The alien could take a 10 minute cut, so that both bilbies are 10 minutes long, and there wouldn't be a difference. The clone emphasises the difference more when it is not as old as the original bilby.

 

[bilby]

I completely agree with everything you said. It doesn't change my affect my argument.

*Which of you is 'right' is irrelevant ...

One bilby is right, and the other is wrong. That's the non-physical difference.

Think of replacing one spatial dimension with the temporal dimension such as distance over time. On one graph, you would have the original bilby extending from birth. On the other graph, you would have a much shorter interval starting from the moment that the clone was made. So the original bilby is a much larger organism to aliens that can see in 4 dimensions. But to humans that don't have that luxury, we can't tell you apart.

And the difference this makes to either bilby is what?

nothing tangible, nothing physical, nothing noticeable ...

History is what you remember. Whether those memories represent something real in the past is irrelevant.

Yes, that is what interests me so much about all of this. It should be irrelevant, but in this case it's not. One is the "real" bilby, and the other is a clone.

The difference is ONLY apparent to your hypothesised alien who sees in 4 dimensions; and to that alien, the two entities are as physically different as a circle drawn on paper is different from a sphere, to you or I.

When you say "So the original bilby is a much larger organism to aliens that can see in 4 dimensions" you are describing a physical difference between two objects - one is "much larger" than the other.

Your problem is that you are switching points of view without acknowledging it - from our regular day-to-day perspective, there is no physical difference, the claim that the two clones are identical is true, and the distinction that one is 'the original' is meaningless.

From the higher dimensional perspective, the physical difference is obvious, and the claim that the two clones are identical is clearly false; the original is the one that is largest in the 't' dimension.

Either point of view is fine; but you can't pick bits of your argument from one, and bits from the other, and expect to reach a useful conclusion.

I brought up the t dimension to emphasize that there is a clear difference that is real. The difference is physical in the sense that it has a longer history of existing.

The alien could take a 10 minute cut, so that both bilbies are 10 minutes long, and there wouldn't be a difference. The clone emphasises the difference more when it is not as old as the original bilby.

Yes, the alien could switch points of view by looking only at a subset of the 't' dimension in which there is no physical difference. At which point his ability to tell which is the clone and which is the original disappears, and the reality of that distinction disappears along with it.

As I said, "Either point of view is fine; but you can't pick bits of your argument from one, and bits from the other, and expect to reach a useful conclusion."

 

[Kharakov]

What if the consciousnesses are not the same, although there is a single physical body? In other words, one body, with multiple consciousnesses interacting with it.

I am not sure what your question is referring to. What scenario are you talking about?

The one in which you have two bodies in the exact same location. Instead of increasing their mass twofold and creating a nuclear explosion with an energy release of approximately 4 Gigatons (4,000 Megatons) of TNT (see  TNT equivalent, assume that Pauli exclusion principle converts all Fermions to light/kinetic energy), just have two identical consciousnesses using a single body as a host.

This has nothing to do with the consciousnesses not being physical- that's a matter of how you define physical and mental phenomena, and whether you've determined which phenomena supervenes upon which (or if both supervene upon one another in some way).

 

[Juma]

Of course, we will also give the same answer if both of us are clones. So the idea that one is the original is not critical to your argument.
Or, your thought experiment will not allow anyone to distinguish between the three (original, copy, copy).
But how does this argue leap to an assumption that the consciousness is the non-physical difference?

How's this. Please consider your thought experiment, but also assume at the beginning that the mind IS merely the artifact of the processes in the physical brain.
How does your thought experiment turn out any differently?

If everything is cloned, then the consciousness is only a clone too. Everything about the original is the original including the mind. But somehow the two minds are different.

It is a bad example for there is nothing strange/problematic/contradictional in it.
The minds are not different. The minds are exact copies.

The only difference is in the history and how you refer to them.

So everything is fine. Now move on to a real problem...

 

[ryan]

I brought up the t dimension to emphasize that there is a clear difference that is real. The difference is physical in the sense that it has a longer history of existing.

The alien could take a 10 minute cut, so that both bilbies are 10 minutes long, and there wouldn't be a difference. The clone emphasises the difference more when it is not as old as the original bilby.

Yes, the alien could switch points of view by looking only at a subset of the 't' dimension in which there is no physical difference. At which point his ability to tell which is the clone and which is the original disappears, and the reality of that distinction disappears along with it.

You seem to be implying that if we don't know something, then there is no objective reality to it.

 

[ryan]

I am not sure what your question is referring to. What scenario are you talking about?

The one in which you have two bodies in the exact same location. Instead of increasing their mass twofold and creating a nuclear explosion with an energy release of approximately 4 Gigatons (4,000 Megatons) of TNT (see  TNT equivalent, assume that Pauli exclusion principle converts all Fermions to light/kinetic energy), just have two identical consciousnesses using a single body as a host.

This has nothing to do with the consciousnesses not being physical- that's a matter of how you define physical and mental phenomena, and whether you've determined which phenomena supervenes upon which (or if both supervene upon one another in some way).

I actually have no problem with supevenience physicalism. That is minimal physicalism. They came up with supervenience physicalism as a desperate attempt to explain the mind physically. But, most philosophers of science reject this, and the mind-body problem remains a mystery.

 

[bilby]

Yes, the alien could switch points of view by looking only at a subset of the 't' dimension in which there is no physical difference. At which point his ability to tell which is the clone and which is the original disappears, and the reality of that distinction disappears along with it.

You seem to be implying that if we don't know something, then there is no objective reality.

No, I am saying that IF it is IMPOSSIBLE to know something within the confines of a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, THEN taking a 'God's eye view' and claiming that the difference YOU KNOW ABOUT AS THE CREATOR but which is NOT AVAILABLE IN THE EXPERIMENT is important to the RESULT is CHEATING.

The objective reality includes time; by including sufficient time to render the physical difference between original and copy real, you destroy the similarity between original and copy, and it becomes trivial to determine which is which.

The thought experiment seeks to narrow reality to a slice of time, rendering the difference between original and copy undetectable; within the confines of this limited thought experiment, there is NO WAY to tell which is which, and so within the confines of this limited thought experiment there is no way to appeal to objective reality.

 

[ryan]

If everything is cloned, then the consciousness is only a clone too. Everything about the original is the original including the mind. But somehow the two minds are different.

It is a bad example for there is nothing strange/problematic/contradictional in it.
The minds are not different. The minds are exact copies.

The only difference is in the history and how you refer to them.

So everything is fine. Now move on to a real problem...

But for the time that you and your clone are alive, your clone is experiencing where it is, and you are experiencing where you are. Say you are in Sydney, and your clone is in Perth. You are conscious in Sydney, but your clone is conscious in Perth. This is an objective truth.

 

[Juma]

It is a bad example for there is nothing strange/problematic/contradictional in it.
The minds are not different. The minds are exact copies.

The only difference is in the history and how you refer to them.

So everything is fine. Now move on to a real problem...

But for the time that you and your clone are alive, your clone is experiencing where it is, and you are experiencing where you are. Say you are in Sydney, and your clone is in Perth. You are conscious in Sydney, but your clone is conscious in Perth. This is an objective truth.

So what? That is no problem

 

[ryan]

But for the time that you and your clone are alive, your clone is experiencing where it is, and you are experiencing where you are. Say you are in Sydney, and your clone is in Perth. You are conscious in Sydney, but your clone is conscious in Perth. This is an objective truth.

So what? That is no problem

The consciousness in Sydney has you experiencing in it, but the consciousness in Perth does not have you experiencing in it. The consciousness in Perth lacks you experiencing.

 

[Juma]

So what? That is no problem

The consciousness in Sydney has you experiencing in it, but the consciousness in Perth does not have you experiencing in it. The consciousness in Perth lacks you experiencing.

Ah. You have to think of what "you" really means.

There is one person in sydney and one person in perth. One is acopy of the other. Both believes themself to be A. Both has the memories of A.

What is the problem?