I came up with this argument while “pondering the meaning of it all”. It actually led to some quite shocking (for me at least) conclusions.
First of all, I would point out that this argument makes the assumption that the atheist picture of reality is correct: There is no soul. Obviously the existence of a soul would invalidate the entire argument from the beginning. I don’t wish for this thread to spark an argument of the for and against the existence of a soul. There are other threads where this issue is being fiercely debated!
1: All atoms of the same isotope are equivalent, and differ only in state. In a system, if a particle is replaced by an equivalent one, the two systems are identical. In effect they are actually the same system.
2: The atheistic picture of reality disallows the existence of a metaphysical mind/soul. A metaphysical soul, by definition cannot effect/be effected by a physical system.
3 (1,2): Consciousness is a (as of yet unexplained) phenomena that results due to *physical* activity of the brain.
4: A person's "self" cannot be held within their specific particles that make up their body. (Besides, people are constantly losing and replacing their constituent particles)
5: Nor can a person's sense of self be considered to be encapsulated by the *pattern* of constituent particles. said pattern is completely transient, which can be observed either on the macroscopic scale of physical movement, or the microscopic scale of electrical and chemical signals propagating through the brain/central nervous system.
Conclusion (1): Our perception of a continuous consciousness is completely illusionary. There is no "self" which is not completely transient.
Conclusion (2): So our experience of the persistence of "being" must come entirely in the information wrapped up within ourselves. i.e. our memories, both long term and immediate.
So what do you think of this argument? I posted a poll asking about
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26296]Amnesia vs. Death[/url], as from this argument we can deduce that amnesia and death are completely equivalent in terms of the preservation of "self".
It is hard to accept this, but it appears to be true. I cannot find any way out of the logical impasse other than to accept it as fact. Essentially what it hinges on is how we define our “self” that we experience.
It also seems to have a certain sense of giving head room to the possibility of immortality. If we were to invent artificial brains, which I cannot see any logical reason as to what we could not, at least in principle, then it follows that we could “download” our memories into this brain and live forever. This is something which I have a hard time accepting. Though it is a very popular topic among airy science-fiction writers, I find it difficult to accept. It doesn’t appear to make any logical sense that “we” could live in a state independent of our bodies. Surely such an artificial brain would only be
duplicating us as opposed to actually
being us. But what’s the difference?
One other consequence of this argument is something which I do find highly plausible. Consciousness is impossible without memory. In my poll I put forward a “once-off” memory reset. Now take that further. What would happen if you we not allowed to form memories. What if you had a “memory reset” continually, at every instant. Would you be conscious? (Disregard the film Memento. Leonard’s problem was with forming
long term memories. I am including “instantaneous” memory as well). Without the ability to remember, you would obviously not be a functional human being, but that has precisely no implications on whether or not you would be conscious. Take for instance Guillain-Barre patients, who show no outward signs of consciousness, as they are completely paralysed, and show no response to stimulus, yet internally are fully functional and conscious.