Why Are You Conscious in Your Own Body?

[Imperial]

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?

What do you mean by 'atoms'? Different people and different physicists have different definitions - from atoms being phantasms, to atoms are waves or mistakenly - atoms are solid balls. Viewing atoms merely as their (measured) states doesn't provide much info what is meant by atoms either. Answer 'what is an atom?', and you'll have 50% of the riddle solved.

 

[DaveC426913]

What do you mean by 'atoms'? Different people and different physicists have different definitions - from atoms being phantasms, to atoms are waves or mistakenly - atoms are solid balls. Viewing atoms merely as their (measured) states doesn't provide much info what is meant by atoms either. Answer 'what is an atom?', and you'll have 50% of the riddle solved.

No. Whatever atoms are, they are what our bodies and brains are made of. And our consciousness is a product of our brains.

 

[kfmfe04]

What do you mean by 'atoms'? Different people and different physicists have different definitions - from atoms being phantasms, to atoms are waves or mistakenly - atoms are solid balls. Viewing atoms merely as their (measured) states doesn't provide much info what is meant by atoms either. Answer 'what is an atom?', and you'll have 50% of the riddle solved.

I take a classical, biochemical definition of atoms. The atoms in my body tomorrow are different from the ones in my body today since I have breathed in air, metabolized food, etc... ...in other words, if I had marked the carbon in the environment differently from the ones in the body. After a day, I will find that some of my carbon has escaped into the environment and some of the carbon in the environment has made it into me.

 

[Imperial]

No. Whatever atoms are, they are what our bodies and brains are made of. And our consciousness is a product of our brains.

Still no answer to "what is an atom?". Without it, the question, as posed, is in a deadlock.

 

[DaveC426913]

Still no answer to "what is an atom?". Without it, the question, as posed, is in a deadlock.

Why? That's like saying I cannot read a book without knowing what the pages are made of.

Our consciousness is a product of biochemistry, which is well understood at the chemical level (even if our consciousness stemming from it is not). Consciousness it is not a product of mysterious subatomic processes.

 

[kfmfe04]

DaveC426913, I didn't know about "Think Like a Dinosaur" - thanks for the tip!

No. Whatever atoms are, they are what our bodies and brains are made of. And our consciousness is a product of our brains.

Okay. This is a very reasonable assumption. Let's go from here. The important thing is our brains and not really our bodies. Over time, with a healthy brain, this organ embodies our consciousness. We don't care if we get an artificial arm or a leg - we still have the same identity.

Now, over time, our understanding of bioengineering improves and we are able to replace carbon-based neurons with computer-like silicon-based neurons. If I replace 10 of those carbon-based ones with silicon-based ones, out of billions of neurons, I surmise that we would still retain our consciousness.

What if we replaced 100,000? Or 10%, 25%, 50%, 95% with silicon? Would we lose our consciousness at some point? What's so special about carbon-based neurons that would help retain consciousness? Is consciousness potentially portable, somehow? If not, what, exactly is the binding?

 

[DaveC426913]

What if we replaced 100,000? Or 10%, 25%, 50%, 95% with silicon? Would we lose our consciousness at some point? What's so special about carbon-based neurons that would help retain consciousness?

If these silicon-based neurons transmitted and retained nerve pulses just like carbon-based ones, you could replace 100%. Our consciousness is not in the hardware, it is in the processes - the chemical and electrical processes.

 

[nismaratwork]

If these silicon-based neurons transmitted and retained nerve pulses just like carbon-based ones, you could replace 100%. Our consciousness is not in the hardware, it is in the processes - the chemical and electrical processes.

If we take this as a purely hypothetical (I doubt it can be practically done), then as long as the complex actions of the human brain are replicated exactly, then you're right. In practice you'd need to account, not just for replicating current activity, but also future behaviour and organic evolution of the brain due to stimulus, insult, etc. If you could do all of that... I don't see how your conclusion is wrong unless what I believe to be true is not, and dualism is correct.

I would add, even if our consciousness is altered, it would need to be something profound and rapid to attract attention. After all, we change constantly, and the concept of a single unified consciousness existing objectively in the fashion that we perceive ourselves clashes with how our brains actually work.

 

[kfmfe04]

If we take this as a purely hypothetical (I doubt it can be practically done), then as long as the complex actions of the human brain are replicated exactly, then you're right. In practice you'd need to account, not just for replicating current activity, but also future behaviour and organic evolution of the brain due to stimulus, insult, etc. If you could do all of that... I don't see how your conclusion is wrong unless what I believe to be true is not, and dualism is correct.

Let's take all this to be true - it's not unreasonable from a purely physical point-of-view. But if it were possible, then the bifurcation of consciousness becomes a possibility. What if, in the same way you gradually turned from carbon-based to silicon-based, you made a gradual copy and ended up with two copies of the same brain, but silicon-based?

We are then left with the same kinds of paradoxes as before! In which copy does the original consciousness reside?

 

[nismaratwork]

Let's take all this to be true - it's not unreasonable from a purely physical point-of-view. But if it were possible, then the bifurcation of consciousness becomes a possibility. What if, in the same way you gradually turned from carbon-based to silicon-based, you made a gradual copy and ended up with two copies of the same brain, but silicon-based?

We are then left with the same kinds of paradoxes as before! In which copy does the original consciousness reside?

You don't bifurcate consciousness, you duplicate it. There's no more confusion than you'd have with a perfect replica, but I'd add that as we constantly change in response to stimulii, while similar, a duplicate would not be the same person for long. See "twin studies"... anyway... remember, duplication, not bifurcation. Before you ask, maybe you could create so much confusion that it would be difficult to identify which in a series of duplicates (+1 original) is the original template, but not knowing doesn't equate to nonexistence.

 

[Imperial]

Why? That's like saying I cannot read a book without knowing what the pages are made of.

You can read the book but you can't conclusively state what a 'book' is. Consequently, it would make little sense to be perfectly sure what brings the exsitence of what(imo).

Our consciousness is a product of biochemistry, which is well understood at the chemical level (even if our consciousness stemming from it is not).

Going from 'well understood' to 'there is a material universe that (accidently?) brought forth the existence of consciousness' is a bit of a stretch. If anything, the material universe and the one with absolute properties is dead.

Consciousness it is not a product of mysterious subatomic processes.

We are leaving the philosophy field and treading into the dark.

I am still confused how a truly convincing answer can be given without an answer to the question 'what is matter and how does it relate to the reality we experience?'.

 

[DaveC426913]

You can read the book but you can't conclusively state what a 'book' is. Consequently, it would make little sense to be perfectly sure what brings the exsitence of what(imo).

There is no evidence at all to support the idea that consciousness is any more than the sum total of chemical and electrical properties of the brain.

If there's any doubt, we have a beautifully complete continuum of consciousness all the way from bacteria (0) to humans (1) without any gaps. There is no place where the unconsciousness of reptiles ends, and the (dim) consciousness of higher mammals begins.

Going from 'well understood' to 'there is a material universe that (accidently?) brought forth the existence of consciousness' is a bit of a stretch.

Why? You don't believe in emergent properties of complex systems?

I am still confused how a truly convincing answer can be given without an answer to the question 'what is matter and how does it relate to the reality we experience?'.

OK well, I'm not confused. My book example explains why. The words in the book are full of complexity that is completely independent of the ink with which it is written. If the ink, instead of being a chemical pigment were, unbeknownst to you, a "chromatic quantum stringy phenomenon", would that mean your study of the book's story is meaningless?

 

[Imperial]

There is no evidence at all to support the idea that consciousness is any more than the sum total of chemical and electrical properties of the brain.

If there's any doubt, we have a beautifully complete continuum of consciousness all the way from bacteria (0) to humans (1) without any gaps. There is no place where the unconsciousness of reptiles ends, and the (dim) consciousness of higher mammals begins.

I don't deny that, but i am genuinely wondering why this process works, given the fact that... this is difficult to put down without risking a misunderstanding, but one could say that matter is not made out of matter(not in the traditional sense of solid stuff that you could represent spatially). Of course you can't do that with an electron or another point particle and you could only have its discontinuos 'jump' to a single state(detection).

Why? You don't believe in emergent properties of complex systems?

My point was against being overly confident in materialism. Yes it DOES work in explaining a whole LOT(why?), but in its naive street interpretation - it's dead.

OK well, I'm not confused. My book example explains why. The words in the book are full of complexity that is completely independent of the ink with which it is written. If the ink, instead of being a chemical pigment were, unbeknownst to you, a "chromatic quantum stringy phenomenon", would that mean your study of the book's story is meaningless?

Well certainly no, the study wouldn't be meaningless, but if the book simply looked solid and in a single state(but was not), i would withhold judgement on what the story truly is.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't deny that, but i am genuinely wondering why this process works, given the fact that... this is difficult to put down without risking a misunderstanding, but one could say that matter is not made out of matter(not in the traditional sense of solid stuff that you could represent spatially).

What I don't understand is this:

What is it about consciousness that you think it cannot be due to chemical and electrical properties of a system? Do you have any reason (evidence) to suggest it requires more? It sounds like you're borrowing trouble.

 

[Max™]

I am the universe experiencing itself from one particular angle.

The manner in which the physics of the early universe unfolded led to complex combinations of interacting particles, of which carbon is readily produced by stars. Stars being readily produced by reef galaxies.

As such it is no surprise to find that when a star ignites within a sufficiently enriched cloud of material (by the death of previous generations of stars) that there is energy freed to initiate various forms of interactions.

One curious quirk of carbon is that it interacts in interesting manners when liquid water is present with certain impurities, and self-reinforcing feedback loops can autocatalyze. Given enough time, eventually a feedback loop will find a way to not just stabilize its own structure, but to reproduce it, and lo' life as we know it starts.

After that it is just a matter of the various energy demands induced by the shifting positions of the continents, and the energy reaching the planets surface. The ability to reproduce led to competition for resources, natural selection, evolution, and a few scant mega years ago the uplift of the mountain ranges around the rift valley in africa led to formerly tree dwelling apes wandering around in grasslands, seeking new sources of food.

Their awareness, as has been common for many lifeforms, in particular the vertebrate line, was designed to recognize other life which may both be edible, and aggressive.

Quirky adaptations such as social recognition, organisms being something besides food or predators, but instead cooperative partnerships on a more deliberate level than the original symbiotic types.

The demands of the cycling ice age era that resulted from antarctica settling at the south pole (thus limiting the circulation of heat globally somewhat) led to a selective pressure favoring curiousity, problem solving, and in particular the use of tools.

From there the modern humans eventually wandered out of the grasslands, and in a geological blink of an eye reached the present state, with a very high population density.

As such it is far more likely that I would be alive now, as opposed to then, if I were to find myself as a human observer. The ability to recognize that my self is different from others is useful for social interactions, but it is also an artifact of our macroscopic size scale induced by the carbon biological processes.

It is not useful for a grassland ape descendant to identify itself as being located in multiple positions, or as multiple individuals, so it is not odd to find us "locked in our own heads", but nonetheless I have multiple selves which I identify myself as.

I am Max™ here and on several boards, I am Max Thyme on others, I had another birthname which I discarded years ago, I have online game personalities, pen and paper RPG identities, and it is arguable that the "me" I seem to observe when I dream is distinct from the "me" I observe when I wake.

I am not connected directly to your sensory systems, but if I were able to receive the proper input from both of our sensory suites, I would argue that I was both of us, would I not?

 

[brainstorm]

I am not connected directly to your sensory systems, but if I were able to receive the proper input from both of our sensory suites, I would argue that I was both of us, would I not?

You could, but you could also argue that you were the puppeteer of both who is ultimately separate from either. The psychology of identification is very malleable, which makes empathy and various forms of collective identity possible. However, up to this point I don't believe it is possible to interface with another body in a way that let's you fully experience all its sensory inputs and fully control its musculature. If such became possible, identity psychology would become more important because people could actually control other people's bodies as puppets, which they might see as expendable if they could return to their own body afterward.

 

[Max™]

I look forward to that day, I would much like to see the future take a similar route as Ghost in the Shell.

I'm dreadfully aware of how limited my biological lifespan is, upgrading is definitely on my "to do" list.

 

[rustynail]

Conscience :

Con - From latin "cum" meaning : together, with.

Science : The collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods.

Ethymologically, conscience could mean the sum of knowledge acquired by different experiments. I think the fact you are conscient in your own body comes from the fact that conscience is what your brain makes of the data your senses sends to it. Your brain stores data, analyzes it, generates abstract concepts, compares them. It receives that information from your senses, which send them to the brain using your nervous system.

 

[kfmfe04]

Ultimately, all the thought experiments I have listed above are trying to do is probe the answer to the question:

Is consciousness physically transferable?

The possibility implies the potential for literal immortality (not the figurative kind where you have kids, or create great works of art, etc...), as mechanical and electronic parts are easily replaceable.

 

[brainstorm]

Ultimately, all the thought experiments I have listed above are trying to do is probe the answer to the question:

Is consciousness physically transferable?

The possibility implies the potential for literal immortality (not the figurative kind where you have kids, or create great works of art, etc...), as mechanical and electronic parts are easily replaceable.

Think of it this way: suppose I told you that you were going to have surgery and I was going to transplant your brain into another body and that would transplant your consciousness. Then, while you were asleep, I actually just transplanted the memories (including all knowledge) from another body into your brain. That way, when you woke up, all your memories would be from the other body.

Would this be any different from if I had transplanted the consciousness from the other body into yours? After all, the only thing your memories tell you is that you were another person before the surgery. They don't tell you whether your consciousness itself was transplanted from the other body or just the memories/knowledge.

Then, let's say the person the memories were transplanted from was left unharmed by the procedure. In that case, that person would say that s/he was the true owner of those memories/knowledge. But of course you would not have any other memories/knowledge to tell you that you were not the transplanted version of her/him. So are you both at that point clones of the same personality? Is there anyway to know whether your consciousness was transferred along with the new memories/knowledge or if it is still the same consciousness you had before the transplant?

 

[kfmfe04]

Okay, brainstorm, you are asking a different question - whether memories are a clear part of our consciousness, and my answer to that is a definitive yes. You cannot be the same person without your memories.

The harder question is, as a third party observer of any consciousness+memory transplant, how can you prove or disprove that the transplant was successful? This is especially hard to do (or at least harder to believe) when transferring from man to machine.

 

[brainstorm]

The harder question is, as a third party observer of any consciousness+memory transplant, how can you prove or disprove that the transplant was successful? This is especially hard to do (or at least harder to believe) when transferring from man to machine.

That was my whole point. If you received a total memory/knowledge transplant from another person, you would experience your consciousness as having been transplanted from the former bodies your memories were derived from. You would simply remember life in your former body, not having any memories of your current body. So even if you were the same consciousness that you were before the transplant, the new memories would make you feel like your consciousness had been transplanted along with the memories. This is because without memories of yourself in your current body, you would identify with the body in your memories, not the body you'd actually lived in your entire life before the transplant/implant.

I.e. your consciousness doesn't know where it's been - it only knows what it remembers. If the memories are false, they would still be the only source of identity for your consciousness. Without memories you have no way of knowing whether your consciousness has always been living in the same body or whether it's been transplanted multiple times through multiple bodies and sets of memories.

 

[DaveC426913]

I.e. your consciousness doesn't know where it's been - it only knows what it remembers. If the memories are false, they would still be the only source of identity for your consciousness. Without memories you have no way of knowing whether your consciousness has always been living in the same body or whether it's been transplanted multiple times through multiple bodies and sets of memories.

Not entirely true. Conscious memories are not the only place that knowledge of your body is stored. So-called "muscle memory" and reflexes are examples where your conscious memory might remember one thing but other parts of your mind may remember others.

 

[inflector]

Conscience :

Con - From latin "cum" meaning : together, with.

Science : The collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods.

Ethymologically, conscience could mean the sum of knowledge acquired by different experiments. I think the fact you are conscient in your own body comes from the fact that conscience is what your brain makes of the data your senses sends to it. Your brain stores data, analyzes it, generates abstract concepts, compares them. It receives that information from your senses, which send them to the brain using your nervous system.

It could mean that yes, but it doesn't. The "science" in "con-science" doesn't come from the word "science" directly and therefore does not mean science as we know it. The word-part "science" inside the English word "conscience" and the English word "science" both come from a common Latin root: "scire" which means "know" in Latin. Other words that come from "scire", omniscient from "omni" - "all" plus "scire", prescient etc.

Etymology for conscience: Middle English (also in the sense [inner thoughts or knowledge] ): via Old French from Latin conscientia, from conscient- ‘being privy to,’ from the verb conscire, from con- ‘with’ + scire ‘know.’

 

[kfmfe04]

Not entirely true. Conscious memories are not the only place that knowledge of your body is stored. So-called "muscle memory" and reflexes are examples where your conscious memory might remember one thing but other parts of your mind may remember others.

Good point - I think knowing how to play the piano or the violin, or even waltz or pole vault, may be some examples... ...I have a feeling even yoga requires some degree of muscle memory.

 

[brainstorm]

Not entirely true. Conscious memories are not the only place that knowledge of your body is stored. So-called "muscle memory" and reflexes are examples where your conscious memory might remember one thing but other parts of your mind may remember others.

True, but how would that be any different from having your consciousness transplanted into a new body and having to deal with the "muscle-memory" or reflexes of the new body. If you would implant new memories/knowledge, you would remember yourself being able to play violin or do yoga more comfortably and need to train your "new" muscles to be able to achieve what you used to with your "old" body. Basically, your memories/knowledge would just trick you into believing you were the person that the memories/knowledge were transplanted from, I think.

 

[DaveC426913]

True, but how would that be any different from having your consciousness transplanted into a new body and having to deal with the "muscle-memory" or reflexes of the new body.

Muscle memory and reflexes are in the brain, not the body. You would have the muscle memory and reflexes for your original body, not your new body.

If you would implant new memories/knowledge, you would remember yourself being able to play violin or do yoga more comfortably and need to train your "new" muscles to be able to achieve what you used to with your "old" body. Basically, your memories/knowledge would just trick you into believing you were the person that the memories/knowledge were transplanted from, I think.

Yes, I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of this statement:

Without memories you have no way of knowing whether your consciousness has always been living in the same body or whether it's been transplanted multiple times through multiple bodies and sets of memories.

There are lots of ways you would be out-of-place in a new body, even if all your conscious memories said it was the correct body.

 

[brainstorm]

There are lots of ways you would be out-of-place in a new body, even if all your conscious memories said it was the correct body.

Here you're confounding my whole point. I never said anything about transplanting consciousness into a new body. What I said was that if you transplanted memories and knowledge from one body into another, the consciousness of the receiving body would BELIEVE it originated in the other body, even though it didn't.

 

[kfmfe04]

Here you're confounding my whole point. I never said anything about transplanting consciousness into a new body. What I said was that if you transplanted memories and knowledge from one body into another, the consciousness of the receiving body would BELIEVE it originated in the other body, even though it didn't.

But the consciousness of the receiving body would quickly reconcile the difference between the memories/knowledge from the former body and its current physical condition... ...or go insane trying.

There's nothing to believe - imagine if the memories/knowledge from a woman were transplanted into the consciousness of a man - I actually have a hard time understanding what this really means, but this is brainstorm's thought experiment.

 

[brainstorm]

But the consciousness of the receiving body would quickly reconcile the difference between the memories/knowledge from the former body and its current physical condition... ...or go insane trying.

There's nothing to believe - imagine if the memories/knowledge from a woman were transplanted into the consciousness of a man - I actually have a hard time understanding what this really means, but this is brainstorm's thought experiment.

The reconciliation might not happen quickly. The point is that the consciousness would identify immediately with its memories and knowledge more so than with its body, which is why it would experience itself as having been transplanted from the source-body of the memories/knowledge even if that consciousness itself had not been transplanted.

It's really not a hard thought experiment to do for yourself. Just imagine you wake up and your memory of life before waking up all took place in a previous body. Would you assume these memories were false or that you had been transplanted into a new body? It would be harder to assume your memories were false than to assume your body was false because it didn't match the body you had in your memories.

Here's the really creepy question: who would mourn the lost memories and knowledge that were replaced when the new ones were transplanted into you? Basically you're whole self and personality would have been erased, but since your body continues to live, people would not comprehend the loss, I think. Certainly you yourself wouldn't if you had no memory of your former self.

 

[kfmfe04]

The reconciliation might not happen quickly. The point is that the consciousness would identify immediately with its memories and knowledge more so than with its body, which is why it would experience itself as having been transplanted from the source-body of the memories/knowledge even if that consciousness itself had not been transplanted.

It's really not a hard thought experiment to do for yourself. Just imagine you wake up and your memory of life before waking up all took place in a previous body. Would you assume these memories were false or that you had been transplanted into a new body? It would be harder to assume your memories were false than to assume your body was false because it didn't match the body you had in your memories.

Here's the really creepy question: who would mourn the lost memories and knowledge that were replaced when the new ones were transplanted into you? Basically you're whole self and personality would have been erased, but since your body continues to live, people would not comprehend the loss, I think. Certainly you yourself wouldn't if you had no memory of your former self.

What doesn't make sense is, if your memory and knowledge has been completely transplanted by someone else's, you would not even be aware that this has happened! All you would know is, there is psychological dissonance between your memories and who you are, physically, right now. If that dissonance is large enough, you go crazy. If there is little dissonance (you got a transfer from an identical twin), you may not even know it has happened.

How would I even be aware of lost memories?? That makes no sense to me. The only way is to deduce it somehow from what has happened on top of knowing about the availability of this type of technology.

Anyhow, if you are interested in this line of thought, you can just go watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

I am more interested in knowing if consciousness, with its memories and experiences, is transferable. If it is, the implications are much, much greater.

 

[nismaratwork]

Here you're confounding my whole point. I never said anything about transplanting consciousness into a new body. What I said was that if you transplanted memories and knowledge from one body into another, the consciousness of the receiving body would BELIEVE it originated in the other body, even though it didn't.

...Or you'd have a psychotic break... who really knows?

 

[Max™]

http://molinapsychology.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/worst-case-of-amnesia-ever/

Memory is not consciousness.

 

[brainstorm]

I am more interested in knowing if consciousness, with its memories and experiences, is transferable. If it is, the implications are much, much greater.

My whole point is that if consciousness itself were transferable, the net effect would be the same as if someone else's memories and knowledge were transplanted into your body with your consciousness still in it. All you would know is that your body seems new to you, because your memories and knowledge are of yourself living in another body. Presumably, if you kept transplanting your consciousness from body to body for centuries, you would start to lose track of very distant memories of lives past. You would probably just hold onto select memories of each body you had lived in.

 

[SMERSH]

The paradox in this thought experiment (which duplicated "copy" will "I" subjectively be in ?) I think touches on something that I think is still very poorly understood in current scientific and philosophic discourse.

As I have posted in some other threads, I think this is the concept of a fundamental "identity" that remains unalterable and non-duplicable (even in an infinite multiverse) that defines what this "I" is rather than another "I" over there. There is some sort of fundamental "address" that this "I" occupies that can not be changed because it is inseperable from what "I" is.

Therefore in my view whatever the result of such a thought experiment described elswhere in this thread - the dublicated copy that "I" will subjectively be in will always be ONE or ZERO, but not more than one. (Even in a multiverse). The exact set of laws by which this would occur is of course I have no idea and I don't think anyone does.

Of course there are many ways to criticize such a notion. For example the thought experiment does not address what "matter" or atoms etc really is. This could alter the thought experiment significantly. Many question the notione of "I", but I think Descartes was right - if I'm not sure of the "I" existing then I will never be sure of anything. I believe "I" is real and other "I"s also exist - other conscious minds.

This concept of unique identity I think is a feature of the "whole" universe (or infinite metaverse if you think of multiple universes).

The "whole" has laws, emergent properties and constraints BUT these constraints need to "keep track" of these subsets with some coherence - otherwise there is no way for subsets of the whole to remain consistently identifiable for these constraints to act on them.

In other words, the global constraints that may somehow affect local events need to "know" which local part they are affecting as opposed to other local parts - a unique address system that identifies each local subset.

All models of reality that do not include this notion of a unique address system I think remain doomed at really making progress on the problem of understanding consciousness, qualia and the like.