Quote:
Originally posted by skinbag
I can't answer that directly, because I think you nailed it already. I believe that the sense of self is a delusion, hence it is brought on by ignorance of the truth. I have to fall back on the old film metaphor, i.e. the picture appears fluid although in reality it is merely a series of still pictures. It's an illusion produced by perception. I've never heard a full explanation, other than to say it's a product of our neurological hardware. I think you are stating the truth, I guess.
|
Well, my "immortality of self" is the same self that you will act to protect, by not giving me permission to kill you!
So while I definately don't believe in immortality, in the case of a "magical soul", I, see the possibility arising to preserve your "percieved self" indefinately.
Another strange paradox occured to me a few days ago.
We construct an artificial neuron out of plastic/semiconductors/whatever. It opperates in the same way as a biological neuron.
We then replace a single neuron in your brain with this artificial neuron.
Are you still you?
Well the obvious answer is yes.
There's no fundamental difference to this, than recieving an artifical heart.
Also it is possible for a single brain cell to die, without losing your "sense of self"
So, it seems to be acceptable to believe that inserting an artificial brain cell wouldn't stop us being conscious.
So what if we replace another? And another? Is there a threshold or limit, at which we will stop percieving a "self"?
What about when there is nothing left of our original brain? Our brain is nothing more than a collection of artificial nerouns. Would we percieve that as being our self?
Presumably so. But what fundamental difference is this to our artificial brain? Why would we claim that one of them represents our "actual" self, and the other only a "simulation" of our self?
My answer to it, is that both and neither are our "self".
Neither of them are our "self", in the sense that our self is transient, and its continuity is only an illusion, based on the relative permenance of our memories.
Both are our self, in the sence that both would
percieve themselves to be our self (and share the same memories etc.). Why then is it, that I don't feel that "downloading" our thoughts into a ready made brain would be benificial from my point of view of preservation of self, but the slow replacement of my brain would be?
Is it just my preconceptions of reality and existence that are fucking with my judgement, or is there something deeper to be understood?
These questions can only be properly understood with
.
1. A complete and unambigous physical "theory of everything"
and
2. A complete and unambigous model of the working of the human brain.
Sadly I don't believe that I will see either of these being realised in my own time!
Its a pity, as the prospect of immortality is an enticing one! If only I could just hang on long enough! I'm very suspicious of cryogenics, so I guess the only real way, is to somehow raise funding for me to take a near light speed round trip of the galaxy, and return having aged only a few years to find that immortality has been achieved (or that we've blown ourselves up in a nuclear war!)