Why Are You Conscious in Your Own Body?

[lacasner]

Do you think it is a question of mere chance, where at this particular existence you happen to percieve is the result of a fortunate conglomeration of atoms?

Do you think the odds of you inhabiting you're own body were the same at the time of your birth as inhabiting any other living organism? I specificy living, because I can not necessarily concieve an idea where I could exist as a non-living entity (I suppose when I say living I mean conscious, after all we can not understand anything past our own consciousness I think).

I personally have no idea how to tackle either quandary, but it seems to me there is some undiscovered, underlying mathematical principle for each question.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Do you think the odds of you inhabiting you're own body were the same at the time of your birth as inhabiting any other living organism?

This seems to presume there was a "you" to inhabit something before there was a body.

I specificy living, because I can not necessarily concieve an idea where I could exist as a non-living entity (I suppose when I say living I mean conscious, after all we can not understand anything past our own consciousness I think).

Now I'm lost.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm fairly positive that "you" developed along with your brain and the rest of your body, based on a combination of genetics and environment. That is, "you" didn't exist before your body did.

Of course, this is just my physicalist opinion.

 

[lacasner]

Err, sorry then, it seems I've posed my question in a painfully ambigous manner. Let me try again.

We are aware, currently, that each of us are a particular body. I assumed when I posted my question initially that we should not posit the existence of a soul. However, I can see how it can be interpreted that when I said "inhabiting your own body", I implied that there exists some exterior entity of "you" that comes into your "body".

So here's the thing. I am born. I can control my body parts, I slowly develop my brain until I can form thoughts, I develop ideas, feelings, relationships with other people. You can argue, that at least from my perception of time existing, that I am a unique entity in the universe. However, before my birth, we are assuming that I did not exist, that it is impossible for me to exist before my psychical parts actually come together to make "me".

However, just as now I am aware that I am myself, and not "Math is Hard", or "Pythagorean", it seems to me that there exists a probabibility that I COULD have either been born Pythagorean or Math is Hard. I could exist as either of their bodies in their conscious state just as if they could mine, from the onset of each individual creation of our bodies, of ourselves. Now, because we already exist, it seems impossible to "be" more than one body, and because if I claimed to be Pythagorean, Pythagorean would disagree with me because he is consious in his own body and knows that only he can exist in his body, as his body, throughout his life as it progresses through time.

And when he dies, he will cease to exist, because his body no longer exists. But, we can observe that although he, and every other living organism, will die and no longer exist, this state of non existence appears to be equivelent to that of his pre-birth non existence. So, it seems equally likely to me that the chance of his birth of his current body is equal to that of being born again as some entity in the universe after he dies, because it is irrelevant whether or not he is dead or not yet born. Those two things seem to be the same thing.

Having said that, do you believe that there exists some mathematical principle, some cosmic behaivor that determines how the particles of a living organism assemble to form a unique identity in the universe, or is it just a matter of random probability that assesses whether or not I will exist as not just any object, but this particular object I recognize as my body, as myself, through the fabric of time.

I hope this made a little bit more sense.

 

[computerphys]

particles of a living organism assemble to form a unique identity in the universe

In my opinion, the particles you are made of are unrelated to your identity, because you are the same identity than 20 years ago, but your particles are not the same than before. It seems to me that your identity/mind is one thing and your body/particles is another. Dualism?

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm not sure I agree. First of all, are you sure you mean pre-birth? Because pre-birth there's a lot of things already determined (by genetics and whatever developmental instances took place in the womb).

But even if you mean preconception, I would still disagree that pre-conception and post-death are the same state. There's a number of sperms and a number of eggs in your parents. Each combination of egg and sperm leads to a different person. That's where your potential to exist comes from. Your are bundled tight into a code, highly ordered, pre conception.

When you grow old, your body and brain are degrading, and you personality with it (dementia, senility, etc.) Eventually, the system of interactions (that you recognize as yourself). Once you've died, it's an indication that the matter that makes up your material body can no longer support the interactions required for the phenomena "you" (a system of interactions between the elements of the material body) to persist.

There are two ways you can prosper past your death: spreading your seed, and making a mark socially in the world. You already make quite a physical mark in the world (for instance, converting food to waste or exchanging molecules with the universe through your breath, skin, and orifices, or even blowing holes in mountains).

 

[alt]

Why do you think you're conscious in your own body as opposed to someone elses?

Well, I wouldn't mind being conscious in Beyonces body ..

But that lame joke aside, I think the question is circular.

If I was conscious in John Smiths body, I would be John Smith - not who I am now.

 

[robheus]

Sorry folks, this is all just such utterly rubbish. Of course, since the nervous system of some body is attached to it's brain, so that if that brain commands the attached hand to raise, it will raise it's own hand, and not the hand of someone else.

 

[DaveC426913]

However, just as now I am aware that I am myself, and not "Math is Hard", or "Pythagorean", it seems to me that there exists a probabibility that I COULD have either been born Pythagorean or Math is Hard.

Seems to come down to the definition of "I".

How could the "I"-that-is-lacasner be anyone other than lacasner? If that "I" were born as Pythagorean, that "I" would be Pythagorean.

 

[Fuzzystuff]

I think everyone is part of each other in a coherent system of communication and perception. It is the area of matter known as your body where your signaling and collective mechanisms exist. You communicate and interact, just as I communicate and interact.

So not to say you could be someone else, but that you are in a way part of someone else is plausible, before and prior your human existence. We can make up a network of thoughts and actions, and with these thoughts and actions we can make up our reality sort of thing.

 

[robheus]

I am conscious in my body, cause my brain is connected to my body, not someone else's body.

However, for someone else, that person's brain is connected to that person's body, so in fact for that person, seen from that perspective, the situation is the same. It is the case for everybody (who is conscious and has a brain).

So why is the the phrase "as opposed to" added to the question, if in fact it is a wrong propostion?

 

[robheus]

I think everyone is part of each other in a coherent system of communication and perception. It is the area of matter known as your body where your signaling and collective mechanisms exist. You communicate and interact, just as I communicate and interact.

So not to say you could be someone else, but that you are in a way part of someone else is plausible, before and prior your human existence. We can make up a network of thoughts and actions, and with these thoughts and actions we can make up our reality sort of thing.

Communicating with each other does not imply that we are part of each other, we just share common heritage in the biological and social-cultural sense.

 

[stevenb]

Why do you think you're conscious in your own body as opposed to someone elses?

During my pre-existence in the chaotic void, I tried all bodies and simply chose the best one.

Seriously, we can't answer this question. Science has not scratched the surface of generating a coherent theory of consciousness.

If we assume a scientific answer is possible, then it seems to me that an important starting point for a discussion is that the individual consciousness we each call "I" has an evolutionary advantage in itself, or it must exist as a natural byproduct of something else (for example intelligence) that has an evolutionary advantage. Which is it, and can intelligence (or any relevant linked traits) even exist without consciousness? If you designed and built a robot that was indistinguishable from a human in actions and abilities, in every possible way, would it be conscious? Can we answer these starting question? If not, how can we go any further?

 

[fluidistic]

Why do you think you're conscious in your own body as opposed to someone elses?

Maybe curiously I've thought about it several times. All I can say is that the brain of any 1 person is a part of the universe that can think. There are several of them in the universe and each one think separately. So that the brain of any 1 person is sort of confined and cannot interact with other brains as it does with itself.
So our brains are just parts of the universe and are "doomed" in the sense that you are you and I am me and we think separately.
Each one of our consciences are created by each one of our brain. You're just a part of the universe that has a conscience. There is a part of the universe with a brain, so with a conscience and that's precisely you (ok a part of you, after all you're more than a brain!).
I feel that questioning oneself such question make the illusion to oneself that the conscientiousness can be separated from the brain and can be implemented into others while it can't at all.

 

[binbots]

"I" is the illusion. The I is made up of cells and bacteria who have there own sense of I. The more we learn about the world the more the illusion is revealed. Evolution shows us that we are the same. Further back, the big bang theory shows that all living and non living things are the same thing. We are just as clueless as a cell in our body, unaware of the living universe we are apart of. The idea of I comes from there only being 1 thing. Which we are. God I am such a hippie

 

[khemist]

This, to me, seems to be almost a rhetorical question. While many other science questions of "how" and "why" arise, I feel this question of "why you feel yourself, as opposed to someone elses" is almost on the point of absurity.

Why do dogs control their own tail, and not other dogs tails? Simply because, as robheus has stated, one's brain is only connected to one's body, and no one elses.

How else would one determine the self? If the brain was interconnected, we would certainly know...

 

[Meatbot]

You are assuming that there are multiple centers of consciousness in the universe. Perhaps you are the only consciousness in the universe (in a sense, you ARE the universe). I tend to think this is not the case, but it's an option (or maybe it's not).

 

[brainstorm]

I hope I can introduce this hypothetical as a means of exploring the issue of the discussion - i.e. this is not meant to be a speculative adventure in scifi:

If you could attach a device to sensory inputs and transmit the signal from one person's body to another's so that you could effectively sense everything from that body's perspective and possibly even control it by remote, would you have "become" that person - or would you simply be borrowing their body as a remote probe of your own?

This is relevant because it addresses the question of the OP why someone perceives through their own body and no one else's. It raises the question of at what point one person would or could become another by inhabiting their body.

 

[LudusRex]

The chances of you being born Neil DeGrasse Tyson against you being born yourself is an unanswerable question because you could only have been born yourself. What separates you from someone else? You're genetic make up and environment. If you we're born with Tyson's genes but we're raised in your current environment you would not be the same Tyson and vise versa.

In a sentence: YOU are your brain, and [STRIKE]nothing[/STRIKE] almost everything else around you.

Thanks for the criticisms, Pythagorean and George.

 

[Pythagorean]

The chances of you being born Neil DeGrasse Tyson against you being born yourself is an unanswerable question because you could only have been born yourself. What separates you from someone else? You're genetic make up and environment. If you we're born with Tyson's genes but we're raised in your current environment you would not be the same Tyson and vise versa.

In a sentence: YOU are your brain, and nothing else.

To nitpick at your last sentence:

Are you certain about that? Don't you think the rest of the cells in your body constitute a significant part of you, too? I imagine that my brain without my body would be quite a different person.

But I think it goes even further. What about your place in society and the way you interact with things external to you? It's not as if there's an impenetrable barrier between you and the rest of the universe, you're constantly exchanging information and matter with the universe and who YOU are is subject to growth and development that depends as significantly on the external world as it does on the internal DNA code that allows you to persist in it.

 

[GeorgCantor]

In a sentence: YOU are your brain, and nothing else.

Actually, you are a mental state that finds it reasonable to believe its origin lies within the events that take place in it. I do too, but i don't find convincing evidence to share your complete certainty.

Of particlar interest is the relative 'structure' of those events and how they are affected by your(whatever that is) freewill choices. That they(the events) cannot be both local and realistic is hardly a surprize, given the previous two points.

 

[alt]

I hope I can introduce this hypothetical as a means of exploring the issue of the discussion - i.e. this is not meant to be a speculative adventure in scifi:

If you could attach a device to sensory inputs and transmit the signal from one person's body to another's so that you could effectively sense everything from that body's perspective and possibly even control it by remote, would you have "become" that person - or would you simply be borrowing their body as a remote probe of your own?

The latter, I would think.

Some high tech, 3D computer games nearly go as far.

 

[alt]

Actually, you are a mental state that finds it reasonable to believe its origin lies within the events that take place in it. I do too, but i don't find convincing evidence to share your complete certainty.

Do you find evidence (complete or not) to the contrary ?

Of particlar interest is the relative 'structure' of those events and how they are affected by your(whatever that is) freewill choices. That they(the events) cannot be both local and realistic is hardly a surprize, given the previous two points.

Sorry - why can't events be both local and realisic ? I experience local and realistic events all the time !

 

[GeorgCantor]

Do you find evidence (complete or not) to the contrary ?

Yes. The physics since the end of the 19th century has been in stark contrast with that which you dearly believe.

Sorry - why can't events be both local and realisic ?

Because they contradict QM.

I experience local and realistic events all the time !

The question is - do you really experience local and realistic events?

 

[alt]

Yes. The physics since the end of the 19th century has been in stark contrast with that which you dearly believe.

Though earlier you said .."I do too, but i don't find convincing evidence to share your complete certainty".. which by some degree puts you in the same boat. Not complete certaintly, but some certainty I would assume. Some certainty is better than none, I suppose.

And am I reading your above right ? ie, the physics pre 19th century were not in stark contrast to that which I dearly believe ?

Because they contradict QM.

The question is - do you really experience local and realistic events?

But in my human scale, practical world, they are real. Look, here's my keyboard, and my cup of tea .. and it's raining outside .. and my son is snoring .. (1.48 AM here).

These things and events are local and as real as I am.

But if you claim some un-reality about them, then claim it for me as well, in which case it's semantics .. again !

What the hell is going on ?

 

[GeorgCantor]

Though earlier you said .."I do too, but i don't find convincing evidence to share your complete certainty".. which by some degree puts you in the same boat. Not complete certaintly, but some certainty I would assume. Some certainty is better than none, I suppose.

Well, yes, the world is ridiculous. It's impossible to know between that which has been all your life and the contradiction that lies beneath it. My initial point was to highlight the fact that you can be just as certain that "everything is brain" as you can be that "everything is perception". Opinions on the matter are simply opinions, these questions aren't resolved and the contradictions aren't skin deep.

And am I reading your above right ? ie, the physics pre 19th century were not in stark contrast to that which I dearly believe ?

Materialism, realism and locality were pretty much a given back then. It would have been insane to think otherwise(well some fringe philosophers didn't agree back then, which simply goes to show the depth of their reasoning, even if they are wrong).

But in my human scale, practical world, they are real. Look, here's my keyboard, and my cup of tea .. and it's raining outside .. and my son is snoring .. (1.48 AM here).

These things and events are local and as real as I am.

But if you claim some un-reality about them, then claim it for me as well, in which case it's semantics .. again !

What the hell is going on ?

Realism at the quantum scale is problematic but how it relates to the macro world of your keyboard and cup of tea is anybody's guess. The concepts of time, matter and space are philosophically laden, and this is very well known among those working on the unifaction of physics. I wonder how many of them would make the categorical claim "You are just your brain, and nothing else", since they are(supposed to be) currently the most knowledgeable on this topic.

 

[alt]

Well, yes, the world is ridiculous. It's impossible to know between that which has been all your life and the contradiction that lies beneath it. My initial point was to highlight the fact that you can be just as certain that "everything is brain" as you can be that "everything is perception". Opinions on the matter are simply opinions, these questions aren't resolved and the contradictions aren't skin deep.

I don't agree that the world is ridiculous. At each end of the scale ( QM / Relativity) there are contradctions; even absurdities perhaps. BUT - it does not follow that everything in-between is ridiculous. If you didn't hit those 'brick walls' at each end of the scale, you'd be omniscient ! In other words, (if you believe in God, as I recall you do ? Apologies if I'm wrong) you'd be God.

Materialism, realism and locality were pretty much a given back then. It would have been insane to think otherwise(well some fringe philosophers didn't agree back then, which simply goes to show the depth of their reasoning, even if they are wrong).

Each ages cosmology has worked for them - to the limits of their perceptions and the rantings of their heretics. Upon what does the last turtle stand ? What's over the edge of the flat Earth ? And now .. what WAS before the big bang ? Shhh .. that's a non question. Though I'm confident in the next so many years, we'll be grouping the latter with the two former ones.

Realism at the quantum scale is problematic but how it relates to the macro world of your keyboard and cup of tea is anybody's guess. The concepts of time, matter and space are philosophically laden, and this is very well known among those working on the unifaction of physics. I wonder how many of them would make the categorical claim "You are just your brain, and nothing else", since they are(supposed to be) currently the most knowledgeable on this topic.

I would say that at each end of the scale, in this case the quantum scale, anyone .. even the greatest most knowledgeable, will hit a brick wall IMO. Or might just extend the scale a little further down the road to hit a brick wall again - such being the veil of Maya :-)

 

[GeorgCantor]

I don't agree that the world is ridiculous. At each end of the scale ( QM / Relativity) there are contradctions; even absurdities perhaps. BUT - it does not follow that everything in-between is ridiculous.

This is easy - all the interpretations of the world(that which you call "everything in-between") give a picture of a ridculous world. If it were not ridiculous, it wouldn't fit the evidence. Nobody, seriously engaged in fundamental physics, cares much about human intuitions and perception.

If you didn't hit those 'brick walls' at each end of the scale, you'd be omniscient ! In other words, (if you believe in God, as I recall you do ? Apologies if I'm wrong) you'd be God.

The 'brick walls' you speak of appear to be made of knowledge(our knowledge). This is totally unexpected and puzzling, given the general attitude towards these questions.

Why do you say we had to hit 'walls'? What's wrong with there being completely local, realistic, solid chunks that comprise matter and that we at some point would not be able to explore further, because of technical limitations?

Oh, i see. Stuff would have no temperature, there'd be no light, electrons would collapse to the nucleus and matter would collapse as well, there'd likely be no emergent properties, 'solid stuff' would have to be brought in from somewhere outside the universe(ridiculous), chemical properties that we now know would be a mirage, modern day electronics wouldn't even have been dreamt of, or more generally, perhaps solid stuff(as we imagine it) simply cannot exist.


It's not at all obvious to me that physical motion should be possible in a world of solid stuff.

It doesn't matter if someone created the universe, or it created itself, it's still a ridiculous way to build a universe. Nature doesn't seem to care at all about human concerns and logic or perhaps we still have a very very long way to go till everything 'klicks'.

I would say that at each end of the scale, in this case the quantum scale, anyone .. even the greatest most knowledgeable, will hit a brick wall IMO. Or might just extend the scale a little further down the road to hit a brick wall again - such being the veil of Maya :-)

Well, for certain, the Maya(the distinction between the self and the universe) will be the very last false dichotomy to fall. Only through the unification of all sciences will such questions have the opportunity to be resolved, even if it has to shift the focus towards Biology as the fundamental science, not physics.

And, of course, it's not just hitting a wall somewhere down the road. It's as bad as having a Nobel prize winner in physics and asking him:

"-What is everything?"

and then watching him silently recede in humility.

 

[alt]

This is easy - all the interpretations of the world(that which you call "everything in-between") give a picture of a ridculous world. If it were not ridiculous, it wouldn't fit the evidence. Nobody, seriously engaged in fundamental physics, cares much about human intuitions and perception.

Ridiculous; (WordWeb)
1) Inspiring scornful pity
2) Incongruous; inviting ridicule
3) Broadly or extravagantly humorous; resembling farce

Given that I (and probably most people) would not consider the above terms a suitable description of the world, ie, it is NOT ridiculous, you would then have to look elswhere for the incongruity. That, I'm afraid, is not within my ambit (although I have some private speculations, though I won't go into them here for the grave fear of being laughed at, or bashed, or both).

The 'brick walls' you speak of appear to be made of knowledge(our knowledge). This is totally unexpected and puzzling, given the general attitude towards these questions.

I was saying that at each end of the scale our knowledge fails us. This, however, is not unexpected IMO, else, as I said, we would be omniscient, and by extention, omnipotent ! Do you think we should be omniscient and omnipotent ?

Why do you say we had to hit 'walls'? What's wrong with there being completely local, realistic, solid chunks that comprise matter and that we at some point would not be able to explore further, because of technical limitations?

I'm happy ..

Oh, i see. Stuff would have no temperature, there'd be no light, electrons would collapse to the nucleus and matter would collapse as well, there'd likely be no emergent properties, 'solid stuff' would have to be brought in from somewhere outside the universe(ridiculous), chemical properties that we now know would be a mirage, modern day electronics wouldn't even have been dreamt of, or more generally, perhaps solid stuff(as we imagine it) simply cannot exist.

Uh Oh .. I'm lost again !

It's not at all obvious to me that physical motion should be possible in a world of solid stuff.

Some Zeno of Elea had a similar idea concerning a flying arrow or something. I read some speculative answer to that once - something about the world being discontinuous, ie, it blinks in and out of existence many many times a second. I might see if I can find it again - not to pursue it here, but because I recall it was very interesting.

It doesn't matter if someone created the universe, or it created itself, it's still a ridiculous way to build a universe. Nature doesn't seem to care at all about human concerns and logic or perhaps we still have a very very long way to go till everything 'klicks'.

I agree. But what makes you confident that everything will 'klick' soon - or late for that matter ? Isn't that akin to saying that a single cell, or perhaps a group of 'enlightened' cells in my body will eventually realize that they go to constitute me ?

Well, for certain, the Maya(the distinction between the self and the universe) will be the very last false dichotomy to fall. Only through the unification of all sciences will such questions have the opportunity to be resolved, even if it has to shift the focus towards Biology as the fundamental science, not physics.
And, of course, it's not just hitting a wall somewhere down the road. It's as bad as having a Nobel prize winner in physics and asking him:

"-What is everything?"

and then watching him silently recede in humility.

Do you really think that at some point, some human, 'en-Nobel-ed' as he might be, will ever answer "what is everything" ? Isn't that the same as becoming omniscient and by extention, omnipotent ?

If you are a theist, isn't that BECOMING God ?

If you are an atheist, isn't that the same of having mastery over the entire infinity of this universe and all ?

 

[GeorgCantor]

Ridiculous; (WordWeb)
1) Inspiring scornful pity
2) Incongruous; inviting ridicule
3) Broadly or extravagantly humorous; resembling farce

Given that I (and probably most people) would not consider the above terms a suitable description of the world, ie, it is NOT ridiculous, you would then have to look elswhere for the incongruity. That, I'm afraid, is not within my ambit (although I have some private speculations, though I won't go into them here for the grave fear of being laughed at, or bashed, or both).

That's probably my error for not defining the terms i use. I meant to say that it was a ridiculous(absurd) way to construct a classical(classically-looking) universe. Then i added, that perhaps with more knowledge of the workings of the universe, this attitude of mine might change. As you say, a universe of measurements does not suffer from Zeno-like paradoxes.

I was saying that at each end of the scale our knowledge fails us. This, however, is not unexpected IMO, else, as I said, we would be omniscient, and by extention, omnipotent ! Do you think we should be omniscient and omnipotent ?

We are already a kind of mini-gods to those from whom we descended. But my point was different, we shouldn't have been dealing with the knowledge of the observer, uncertainty relations that reflect what WE can know, and relative structures depending on where you measure, if this were a local, realistic and mechanistic world.

Uh Oh .. I'm lost again !

"The art of wondering" - the other name of philosophy. I was just wondering how a completely classical, local and realistic world might look like. And if it could work at all, without the need for measurements.

Some Zeno of Elea had a similar idea concerning a flying arrow or something. I read some speculative answer to that once - something about the world being discontinuous, ie, it blinks in and out of existence many many times a second. I might see if I can find it again - not to pursue it here, but because I recall it was very interesting.

It's great that there lived people like Zeno, to whose thoughts scientists of our age are surely returning.

I agree. But what makes you confident that everything will 'klick' soon - or late for that matter ? Isn't that akin to saying that a single cell, or perhaps a group of 'enlightened' cells in my body will eventually realize that they go to constitute me.

Probably my strong disagreement that you are merely a group of cells.

Do you really think that at some point, some human, 'en-Nobel-ed' as he might be, will ever answer "what is everything" ?

We did(almost). But that was in 1897. Since then, the world picture we'd been building has collapsed. We were ALMOST there, but then along came Einstein and said - wait a minute, this is not an absolute universe. "What is everything?" is a contemprary conundrum of the 20th century, people of the past centuries had an intuitive "understanding" of the universe that simply isn't there today.

Isn't that the same as becoming omniscient and by extention, omnipotent ?

If you are a theist, isn't that BECOMING God ?

If you are an atheist, isn't that the same of having mastery over the entire infinity of this universe and all ?

I don't have a strong opinion on this, we could be or not becoming gods(on many levels we could be viewed as mini gods, esp. to those from whom we are descended).

My single, most worrysome gripe with the supposedly outside universe is the question - What the hell are measurements for? If we assume that any interaction is a measurement, we are back at a non-local universe and how many of the top physicists would accept a universe of nonlocal effects? 3%, 6% or 13%?


It's likely that realism is the stumbling block, the idea that there are objects with properties even when they are not measured. In some way, it's all looking like it will soon 'click' about what everything is, it's only that it's just so riduculous.
I really wish i could say something in defence of realism, but other than hope that all of physics is wrong, there isn't much to be done.

 

[helloitsme]

And here I thought the world was finally going to provide me with some answers to the question in my head (or is it?). I guess some questions are answers too.

Hello everyone, first post here--been wrestling with the idea of identity and determinism since I was about 10 years old--only just today (27) did the hand of procrastination guide me to the interwebs, in search of an answer. I'm glad I'm not the only one, who's ever wondered if he could have been a beautiful African-American singer. lol

 

[Newai]

Do you think it is a question of mere chance, where at this particular existence you happen to percieve is the result of a fortunate conglomeration of atoms?

Do you think the odds of you inhabiting you're own body were the same at the time of your birth as inhabiting any other living organism? I specificy living, because I can not necessarily concieve an idea where I could exist as a non-living entity (I suppose when I say living I mean conscious, after all we can not understand anything past our own consciousness I think).

I personally have no idea how to tackle either quandary, but it seems to me there is some undiscovered, underlying mathematical principle for each question.

Consider your alternative. Say you're conscious in someone else's body and let me know what you think would happen.

 

[alt]

That's probably ... there isn't much to be done.

Hi George. Thanks for the interesting response. As always, these things provoke much thought. I'm 'off the air' today and tommorrow, though I certainly want to respond. Probably not in this thread though, as we would be straying way off topic.

I like your "The art of wondering"

I should open a new thread in the Philosophy forum, and call it that. See you soon.

 

[kfmfe04]

What if we turn the question into a thought experiment?

Say physicists and engineers have perfected a Star Trek transporter.

Let's say it works on the premise that the particular atoms that make you you are unimportant (consistent with the fact that the atoms in your body now are not the same as the atoms in your body 10 years ago). Rather, this transporter figures out the pattern of atoms in your body, but in doing so, your body disintegrates. This information is transmitted to Mars at the speed of light where another transporter sits and re-integrates "you" using the atoms available on Mars.

Question: Where is your consciousness?
Choose:
A. I am gone, because my consciousness was attached to my physical body - that body on Mars is as good as a twin or a clone
B. I am actually on Mars!

If you chose B., consider a second twist, where a dastardly fiend also sent the identical signal to Saturn where another transporter sits and re-integrates a second "you" using the atoms available on Saturn. Where is your consciousness now? On Mars or Saturn?

Paradox:

If your consciousness were bound to your original body (your atoms), then none of these transporters would work, because once your original body is disintegrated, then your consciousness is gone. However, the atoms in your body change over time and yet, most of us would claim we hold the same coherent consciousness/identity.

So which one is it?
Are our consciousness bound:
1. to our atoms (transporter would kill, but why are we same over time?)
or
2. the pattern of our atoms (transporter would allow us to live, but on Mars or Saturn?)

or something else?

 

[DaveC426913]

What if we turn the question into a thought experiment?

Say physicists and engineers have perfected a Star Trek transporter.

Let's say it works on the premise that the particular atoms that make you you are unimportant (consistent with the fact that the atoms in your body now are not the same as the atoms in your body 10 years ago). Rather, this transporter figures out the pattern of atoms in your body, but in doing so, your body disintegrates. This information is transmitted to Mars at the speed of light where another transporter sits and re-integrates "you" using the atoms available on Mars.

Question: Where is your consciousness?
Choose:
A. I am gone, because my consciousness was attached to my physical body - that body on Mars is as good as a twin or a clone
B. I am actually on Mars!

If you chose B., consider a second twist, where a dastardly fiend also sent the identical signal to Saturn where another transporter sits and re-integrates a second "you" using the atoms available on Saturn. Where is your consciousness now? On Mars or Saturn?

Paradox:

If your consciousness were bound to your original body (your atoms), then none of these transporters would work, because once your original body is disintegrated, then your consciousness is gone. However, the atoms in your body change over time and yet, most of us would claim we hold the same coherent consciousness/identity.

So which one is it?
Are our consciousness bound:
1. to our atoms (transporter would kill, but why are we same over time?)
or
2. the pattern of our atoms (transporter would allow us to live, but on Mars or Saturn?)

or something else?

This is the premise of a story called http://www.jimkelly.net/index.php?Itemid=50&id=35&option=com_content&task=view"

I read it over a decade ago and it haunted me enough that I still remember it as clearly as if I read it yesterday.

If I were gtransported, would I have continuity of thought? How could I? The last thing I remember is being disintegrated.

I get the solution to the paradox, but it's weird.