The nature and seat of individuality

[Jaywalker]

This is just a continuation of the topic started on “when does life begin”. I thought it was so fascinating that it deserved its own thread.

-If the cells that make us up and the cells that are responsible for higher consciousness die and get replaced regularly (brain cells also regenerate) such that the cells that made us up when we were born are almost entirely different from the cells that make us up today, would it follow that we are little by little getting replaced by another person who thinks they are us?

-If not, then is individuality independent of the cells and is entirely in the consciousness they produce and the memories they hold? If we were able to reproduce a man’s consciousness down to the most insignificant memory would that reproduction be the same person?

-If not then is there another factor that needs to be coupled with our consciousness that would secure our identity

A couple of thought experiments:
Theoretically, quantum teleportation should be applicable to even complex entities such as humans. –Put simply, It works by creating an exact (down to the atomic structure) copy of the object to be teleported but the original should be destroyed in the process- After being “teleported” would the individual be the same individual before he had undergone the process. Assuming the “original” wasn’t destroyed in the process which should be considered the “real owner” of the identity?
Say you were doomed to die in a planet and the only way out would be a.)through a spaceship with a 50/50 chance of making it to its destination and b.)through teleportation. Which would you choose?

If every brain cell you have is replaced little by an electronic chip without changing the state of your consciousness, would you still be the same person? Say you acquired a disease that, over time, would scramble your neural connections changing your personality and memories in the process. If you were given a choice, would you rather a.)have each brain cell you have replaced by the chip or b.)let the disease run its course?

[rickym]

from what i've read from spiritual sources is that individuality is not defined from the material plane but from the spiritual plane. each individual having one soul. for those who believe in reincarnation, the soul may transmigrate from one to another upon death of the material body.

in buddhism though it is different, they believe in reincarnation but do not believe in transmigration of the soul. i'm not exactly sure, but its something like there is no individuality because nothing is permanent. i read somewhere that it is like a drop of rain which later joins into body of water. the implication i think is that invividuality is created and destroyed just like raindrops in the water cycle

[Lucca Yamazaki]

hm...

not one, but two
not two, but one

[Ischaramoochie]

this was my undergrad thesis

[faaip_de_oiad]

^ haha.

very good thread. I think it's human pride that drives man to think this stuff over. They want to justify and concretize the seat of their 'being' and ideally (and esoterically) speaking, man is more receptive to the idea that there is more to just mere atoms and cells that constitute our state of being and individuality, unfortunately, that's tantamount to taking an easy way out.

I believe it all boils down to the biochemical processes in our brains.

[gekokujo]

do brain cells really regenerate or multiply? they do in fetuses and children, but how about adults? - isn't the brain supposed to stop producing neurons around adolescence, and then we go on losing brain cells as we grow older but never actually replace them?

(^obviously the result of one too many lectures on the dangers of alcohol )

[Jaywalker]

^You might want to update your references gekokujo. Brain cells do regenerate albeit very slowly.

Originally Posted by faaip_de_oiad

very good thread. I think it's human pride that drives man to think this stuff over. They want to justify and concretize the seat of their 'being' and ideally (and esoterically) speaking, man is more receptive to the idea that there is more to just mere atoms and cells that constitute our state of being and individuality, unfortunately, that's tantamount to taking an easy way out.

I believe it all boils down to the biochemical processes in our brains.

In case you haven’t read any of my earlier posts, I too am an atheist and so therefore do not believe in a “spiritual plane” nor in a higher purpose of existence or life after death. Besides I think it’s even more interesting to view the problem from a non-spiritual perspective.

I think of consciousness as an illusion created by a group of cells wired to think that they are collectively an individual. By that definition if the brain were copied exactly then the copy should also be the same person since individuality isn’t really in the cells that compose it but in the illusion of consciousness they produce. But still I would be apprehensive about being actually teleported in the manner that was described above and I think you would be too.

One way of viewing the teleportation problem is: If I were to teleport myself without destroying my “original self”, then both my original self and the copy would be aware that they view each other’s physical and mental selves from different perspectives. -The individual (me) wasn’t moved, just copied- if my original self were destroyed on the other hand, then the perspective from which I originally saw myself (or at least the last perspective I saw myself from) would also be destroyed and my remaining other self would be viewing things from an entirely different perspective which would make him a different individual –by most people’s definitions that would be equivalent to dying.

Another way is: If we constantly get replaced at the cellular level then it would be the same as the teleportation example above in that we are constantly making copies of ourselves and destroying our past selves it’s just that the copies occupy the same space. So to say that we die through quantum teleportation would be equivalent to saying that we as “individuals” die and get replaced by different individuals who just happen to occupy the same space regularly.
…by the way what are your answers to the thought experiments faaip?

(I just reread my 1st post and I just realized that I said the word “process” a ridiculous number of times –obviously a direct result of careless editing)

[Ischaramoochie]

first we have to separate the terms "person" and "individual"

[gekokujo]

on the contrary, Jaywalker, the only instances of adult neurogenesis ever observed involved only miniscule amounts of brain cells in only one region of the brain (hippocampus) hardly resembling a scenario where neurons "die and get replaced regularly". all you have to do to confirm this is look at people in comas as a result of brain injuries, or those who've lost the use of their limbs and other functions because of the same: if wholesale neurogenesis did occur on a regular basis, wouldn't it be observed in them of all people?

all the adult brain can do is compensate by rewiring its internal connections, dude, it can't replace itself; besides, are you saying that (our) personalities are born whole?

[HBB]

Right up Ischaramoochie's alley.

Reminds me of John Varley's novel Ophiuchi Hotline. The seat of the self is in the software and not the hardware. That's why it's theoretically transferable to other hardware. But without the hardware, you won't be able to run the software.

Would transferring the software to another hardware that can run it result in the same individual? It would certainly access the same data and so at that point--at the point of turning on the new hardware--it would be the same person. But beyond that point, when the hardware enables the software to gather new data, it won't be the same individual anymore.

[freakster2k1]

Ischaramoochie, didnt we have a thread like this before-- with all those crazy opinions, on where the self lies? hehe I like this topic.

[Jaywalker]

Originally Posted by gekokujo

on the contrary, Jaywalker, the only instances of adult neurogenesis ever observed involved only miniscule amounts of brain cells in only one region of the brain (hippocampus) hardly resembling a scenario where neurons "die and get replaced regularly". all you have to do to confirm this is look at people in comas as a result of brain injuries, or those who've lost the use of their limbs and other functions because of the same: if wholesale neurogenesis did occur on a regular basis, wouldn't it be observed in them of all people?

I’d like to know what your references are. Because this [link=http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa102199.htm]link[/link] says that new cells form in the prefrontal region, inferior temporal region and posterior parietal region of the cerebral cortex. I also have an issue of scientific american that says the same but that was an old issue and I am by no means a neurologist so pardon me if I’ve made an error. I never said though that the brain gets entirely replaced but whether the cells die and get replaced in critical areas entirely or just partly I think it is essentially the same for someone who thinks that bodily continuity is important for the continuity of the individual

are you saying that (our) personalities are born whole?

I never implied that our personalities are unchanging nor did I say that it’s an independent entity separate from the brain that produces it, If that was what you meant.
I think though that there’s a line between a mere change in personality and a change in individuality –personality being the “contents” of the consciousness and individuality being the perspective from which a consciousness perceives itself and others.- What I mean by this is If an individual were copied exactly to another location even if the two resulting personalities are exactly the same, they see each other from different perspectives and so therefore qualify as different individuals. The obvious answer to why that is, would be: because they have two disconnected brains that exist at different locations at the same time, they view the world and each other from different perspectives. but still even after being copied to another location through the type of “teleportation” described above, I’m pretty sure that you wouldn’t think that it would be ok for “you”(the individual at the original location) to die, even if the death would be completely painless.
By not wanting to die, what is it that you’re trying to preserve? The copy of you would be indistinguishable from the original even at the atomic level so, by definition it should still be you.

The title of the thread may have been a bit misleading. I don’t think there is a “seat” of individuality but still the examples given above pose inherent contradictions in how we view ourselves and how we define ourselves

This is a really complex topic and I’m having problems converting ideas into words in a coherent manner. It’d be a lot easier if you answered the thought experiments above

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

1.)Say you were doomed to die in a planet and the only way out would be
a.)through a spaceship with a 50/50 chance of making it to its destination and
b.)through teleportation. Which would you choose?

2.)If every brain cell you have is replaced little by an electronic chip without changing the state of your consciousness, would you still be the same person? Say you acquired a disease that, over time, would scramble your neural connections changing your personality and memories in the process. If you were given a choice, would you rather
a.)have each brain cell you have replaced by the chip or
b.)let the disease run its course?

I don’t think anybody has answered these yet. This was by the way from a link that Ischaramoochie gave. I find it interesting that if I were to use gut instinct my answers would be quite contradictory to each other and I’m not sure why.

[tianak_me]

An organism asserts it right to the universe by its abilities. Rights emanate from natural/artificial constructs such as intelligence, greed, ego and desire. Therefore, rights and individuality are, by and large, derived from an organism's capacity to reason. This is opposed to the Judeo-Chistian notion that rights are derived from an organism's capacity to suffer.

[gekokujo]

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

I’d like to know what your references are.

adult neurogenesis in the human hippocampus was discovered in 1998 and is widely accepted; in contrast, adult neurogenesis in the cerebral cortex - claimed in monkeys one year later - has been disputed: even proponents admit to being unable to pin down the function of these newly-minted cells – to the point that the whole thing may simply be the vestige of an earlier stage of growth - while opponents raise the possibility of plain misidentification, among other issues:

“We use neurons to store our life experiences and if we change neurons every season like male canaries do, then we would lose a lot of our life experiences,” Rakic said. “Neurogenesis in the neocortex could eliminate crucial, learned cognitive functions and long-term memories. We have to learn how to preserve our neurons during disease and natural aging.”

losing neurons is one thing - how about losing the entire hippocampus? - some very strange things have happened when the memory center has been damaged.

since the most optimistic view of adult neurogenesis asserts only limited regeneration, the current paradigm w/c assumes that the brain adapts to new experiences by tuning/rewiring its internal/external connections - aka neural synaptic plasticity – remains secure, and has sometimes been demonstrated, again, in very strange ways; on a related note:

By 7 months gestation almost all of the neurons that will comprise the mature brain have been formed. Brain development following birth consists almost exclusively of the growth of axons, synapses and dendrites (fibre connections)

w/c is the point of asking whether (or not) it is implied that the personality is born 'whole': retention of neurons formed before birth is the ultimate in 'body continuity', are you also implying a similar extreme in the continuity of the 'person' or 'individual'?

for the puzzle questions, well, since i remain confused about the premise may i answer them later?

...whew!

[bleh]

reminds me of Tarkovsky's Solarirs..... *drifts off*......

[Jaywalker]

Originally Posted by gekokujo

for the puzzle questions, well, since i remain confused about the premise may i answer them later?

HA glad to know I'm not the only one

[Jaywalker]

adult neurogenesis in the human hippocampus was discovered in 1998 and is widely accepted; in contrast, adult neurogenesis in the cerebral cortex - claimed in monkeys one year later - has been disputed: even proponents admit to being unable to pin down the function of these newly-minted cells – to the point that the whole thing may simply be the vestige of an earlier stage of growth - while opponents raise the possibility of plain misidentification, among other issues:
losing neurons is one thing - how about losing the entire hippocampus? - some very strange things have happened when the memory center has been damaged.

since the most optimistic view of adult neurogenesis asserts only limited regeneration, the current paradigm w/c assumes that the brain adapts to new experiences by tuning/rewiring its internal/external connections - aka neural synaptic plasticity – remains secure, and has sometimes been demonstrated, again, in very strange ways; on a related note:
w/c is the point of asking whether (or not) it is implied that the personality is born 'whole': retention of neurons formed before birth is the ultimate in 'body continuity', are you also implying a similar extreme in the continuity of the 'person' or 'individual'?

for the puzzle questions, well, since i remain confused about the premise may i answer them later?

...whew!

I never implied that continuity of the “body” should be the sole basis for the continuity of the individual nor did I imply that continuity of the mind should be, nor a combination of both -it’s easy to find loopholes for each of those definitions (actually the point of the post was the self-contradictions of those common definitions.) I don’t really have a position on this I’m still sort of feeling my way through.

This may be really unscientific of me to say but what really fascinates me is the fact that My consciousness is produced by a group of brain cells wired together -Another person’s is also produced in the same way –how come this is the one that I am “aware” of
…Is my point of view a property of the cells that produce my consciousness? If they die and get replaced as I age, even if just partly, what does that mean
It’s not something that seems relevant from a scientific third-person perspective after all if two persons have two separate brains then they should have two independent minds but seen from the first-person I think it becomes an entirely different matter.

[Ischaramoochie]

Originally Posted by freakster2k1

Ischaramoochie, didnt we have a thread like this before-- with all those crazy opinions, on where the self lies? hehe I like this topic.

yes we did. i wonder what happened to it. ah well, life goes on as usual...

[Mordecai]

Hi Jaywalker,

It seems to me that you have placed the "seat" of individuality at consciousness, i.e. because you are conscious then you are an individual. Would you please elaborate on how you have arrived at that idea? Because if we follow that thought then people who are in unconscious conditions like those in a coma or those asleep cannot be considered individuals.

Furthermore, you seem to hold a materialistic philosophy that implies that matter is all there is in the universe, and therefore you attribute consciousness to purely physical origins--the cells in your brain. The thing is there is no evidence whatsoever that consciousness can arise from purely material things no matter how complex. This is in fact one of the problems for evolutionists.

[gekokujo]

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

(actually the point of the post was the self-contradictions of those common definitions.)

and my point here is why resort to those definitions or even the terms they intend to define? does something like individuality in the popular sense really exist, or is it simply a relic of outdated attempts to explain the world? i'm confused because my view of these things is constantly evolving too, the more something like evolution can explain things like morality and free will, the more i question my old (or residual) beliefs about the same. even a pro admits to evolving views

Something is a symbol only relative to some observer, user or agent who assigns a symbolic interpretation to it. So the question, `Is consciousness a computer program?', lacks a clear sense. If it asks, `Can you assign a computational interpretation to those brain processes which are characteristic of consciousness?' the answer is: you can assign a computational interpretation to anything. But if the question asks, `Is consciousness intrinsically computational?' the answer is: nothing is intrinsically computational. Computation exists only relative to some agent or observer who imposes a computational interpretation on some phenomenon. This is an obvious point. I should have seen it ten years ago but I did not.

anyway, freakster mentioned that old debate about consciousness; i'm guessing it's the one HBB and yours truly was a part of, and i remember my position regarding the mind-body problem, that is, "consciousness" is not something equivalent to or synonymous with organic matter (the brain) rather it is something that arises from the latter. again, Mr. Searle says it best

Conscious states are caused by lower level neurobiological processes in the brain and are themselves higher level features of the brain.

adios. keep on posting.