Consciousness, Individuality and the Soul

[Flash525]

Plenty of light subjects here, thought I'd try something a little heavier, specifically a subject expanding from a brief discussion on the Altered Carbon topic within the Misc TV section of the forums. To summarise (I'll expand in a moment) but what is Consciousness and Individuality and is there such a thing as a Soul; whether that be from a religious perspective or otherwise.

We've all seen a science fiction series, episode or film where ones consciousness is copied, uploaded or shared to another body, a cloned body, a robot or a virtual reality, but what exactly is being copied, uploaded or shared, and at which point do we die - or do we? What specifically makes us ... us?

In the TV Series Altered Carbon, we are stored in discs at the top of our spine, and we're frequently backed up to a server (of sorts) every so many hours, so if we die between backups, we're stored ready to inhabit another body - except that whatever we do between backups is lost if we die in between.

In the sci-fi film(s) Skyline, our brains are extracted from our bodies and are placed in a new ... vessel (for lack of a better word), but we can still regain our individuality - except we're not in an alien host.

In Star Trek, the Vulcan soul (the Kat'ra - if I'm not mistaken - of Surak) can be transferred between individuals when close to death - to otherwise preserve the ancient Vulcan's soul.

There's various Stargate and Star Trek episodes that deal with virtual realities and consciousness too, in addition to other films like Surrogates where we can inhabit (or pilot) an artificial copy of ourselves.

Needless to say, how much of us needs to remain for us to be ... us? What constitutes as us? If we're uploaded into a server, do we die but our memories live on? Do we live in the server as ourselves? If our consciousness is transferred into another body (biological or technological) is that still us, or is that a new person with our memories, personality and (possibly) appearance?

I find this a fascinating discussion, and one that has an element closer to reality in the not-so-distant future than science-fiction would otherwise imply.

 

[squeekness]

I believe in the soul and I'm not afraid to say I think humans aren't the only ones who have them. I don't know that a soul can be transferred into a device, though, maybe only memories which I suppose could be data. I think we move on when we die.

 

[Mike_D202]

If your brain is put into another body, it's still the same age and will continue to age and decay. If your consciousness is "saved/uploaded" to a server or robot, it still won't be you. Maybe a machine that has your memories, but you are you and will go onto the next plane of existence (whatever that may be) after your body dies.

Immortality only exists in movies and books. Live life and leave your legacy so nobody will forget your name.

 

[chaseter]

I believe in a soul and a purpose. Otherwise, life doesn’t matter and we are all but a spec in an uncaring cosmos with life from nothing more than insurmountable happenstance.

I do not think that can be transferred or created into another body or machine. It’s uniquely you.

 

[Lighthouse]

If your brain is put into another body, it's still the same age and will continue to age and decay. If your consciousness is "saved/uploaded" to a server or robot, it still won't be you. Maybe a machine that has your memories, but you are you and will go onto the next plane of existence (whatever that may be) after your body dies.

Immortality only exists in movies and books. Live life and leave your legacy so nobody will forget your name.

And even if it was possible, think of the terrifying implications of it. Someone could put your consciousness into an actual "Hell" simulation for eternity if they wanted to.

 

[moviedoors]

Uploading consciousness is all well and good, but IF there's no continuity of experience, I don't see how a clone or a digital simulacrum could ever be ME. The original me is still gonna die, one way or the other.

As far a soul? Nope. We're thinking meat. The self is an emergent property of this biological machine, and when it dies, so does the self.

 

[Greens]

There is no soul, and by transferring your brain to a machine you would just be making a copy of yourself. The original you dies.

 

[Dr.]

...by transferring your brain to a machine you would just be making a copy of yourself. The original you dies.

But if it's a perfect copy - a perfect reproduction of memories and personality - what would be the difference?

 

[Greens]

There wouldn't be a difference to the outside world experiencing you, but YOU wouldn't be in that machine. The person you are right now wouldn't experience the sensation of being transferred to a machine so in the end you still die. Some other entity lives on with your brain matter.

 

[Lighthouse]

There wouldn't be a difference to the outside world experiencing you, but YOU wouldn't be in that machine. The person you are right now wouldn't experience the sensation of being transferred to a machine so in the end you still die. Some other entity lives on with your brain matter.

The game SOMA tangles with this issue.

 

[Dr.]

There wouldn't be a difference to the outside world experiencing you, but YOU wouldn't be in that machine. The person you are right now wouldn't experience the sensation of being transferred to a machine so in the end you still die. Some other entity lives on with your brain matter.

But even if you “die,” what difference would it make if there’s an identical copy of you to take your place?

Believe it or not, the fanciful transporter technology of Star Trek has been used to explore the philosophy of identity. E.g., does the transporter simply zap the same you from place to place? Or does it destroy the first copy and create an identical second copy? And if the latter, are you still you?



And for a more general primer:



(This is only one episode of the multi-part “Crash Course Philosophy” series. But if you have the time, I highly recommend watching the whole thing.)

 

[Lighthouse]

But even if you “die,” what difference would it make if there’s an identical copy of you to take your place?

Believe it or not, the fanciful transporter technology of Star Trek has been used to explore the philosophy of identity. E.g., does the transporter simply zap the same you from place to place? Or does it destroy the first copy and create an identical second copy? And if the latter, are you still you?



And for a more general primer:



(This is only one episode of the multi-part “Crash Course Philosophy” series. But if you have the time, I highly recommend watching the whole thing.)

I believe "Second Chances" frighteningly confirmed it's exactly that.

 

[Greens]

I mean, the answer is pretty simple: no. You're not you. To the WORLD you're still you, but the consciousness you are inhibiting right now would be gone so you would be dead. You're gone, just like before you were born.

 

[Dr.]

I mean, the answer is pretty simple: no. You're not you. To the WORLD you're still you, but the consciousness you are inhibiting right now would be gone so you would be dead. You're gone, just like before you were born.

Well... if you’re religious, I suppose you could just assert - as a theological principle - that the mind/soul is unique and “copy protected.” End of discussion. But if you’re willing to grant the OP’s sci-fi conceit that future tech will be able to make an exact duplicate of mind and memory - and transfer said duplicate into a different host (either biological or artificial) - I’m not sure on what basis you’d argue that the prior person has “died” if s/he lives on in an alternative iteration. To quote William James (and Mr. Spock ), “A difference which makes no difference is no difference.”

 

[squeekness]

It might make a difference to the individual that has moved on, what they experience. The original might get whatever you get as an afterlife, while the rest of the world gets your copy which would go on to make new memories. If that makes sense.

 

[Jh7058622]

I guess this also goes into the territory if one believes in karma and the ability to have your soul continue in other life also. This is tricky because even if one were to go by that thought process digital copying is still not karmic either because karma requires natural death vs. a synthetic one.

Yes I believe in souls astrology to some degree and maybe even karma and karmic debt and soul progression as esoteric and elitist as that seems to some.

 

[DrCosmic]

I think this highlights a key difference between science fiction and legit metaphysics. Sci-fi can copy scientific things: data, but data does not have value or meaning outside of how it is interpreted. Everything that "matters" about person is beyond the realm of science, and is either entirely subjective, or is defined by some metaphysical authority.

On Altered Carbon for instance, they die, and data is taken and used to direct a new body. If this data *is* the person, then people are machines that run programs, and things like choice, identity, consciousness and such are all simply illusions, vagaries of perception, with no objective meaning. In AC especially, identity is a commodity, as opposed to something considered a natural entitlement, like breathing. Which is fine, because the idea of rights is simply a perception, and it could just as simply be perceived a different way by a firmware update to people's sleeves.

For Star Trek and its katra, they appeal to a metaphysical energy. They also imply that this energy follows the transporter, even though the transporter technology is not aware of this energy, since teleported Vulcans still have their katra. They don't get into what happens if there's a clone because physics just can't be metaphysics, by definition.

So I think the question is: What is Identity? and: Says who?

 

[Dr.]

It might make a difference to the individual that has moved on, what they experience. The original might get whatever you get as an afterlife, while the rest of the world gets your copy which would go on to make new memories. If that makes sense.

Given the subject matter, we’re forced to use extremely hypothetical examples. And this means that we get to define the parameters of our own examples. So I’ll just declare that God - being the eminently wise individual that he is - only transports your soul to heaven upon actual (permanent) death. And having your intact personality and memories merely transferred to a different vessel doesn’t constitute actual death. Therefore, in this case, there wouldn’t be two yous - a “real” one in heaven, and a “fake” duplicate in a new body on Earth. You’d still be the same you because you haven’t (yet) died.


Though… if we switch the hypothetical from religion to sci-fi, then the classic “malfunctioning transporter” scenario could create two (or many) copies of you.

 

[C. Lee]

Some people feel that each person has distinct individual electrical impulses in the body that constitute your soul. So if it became possible to distinguish which impulses these were, and were able to copy or transfer them from the original body, then it could be possible to extend one's "soul" life in another body.

 

[Greens]

Well... if you’re religious, I suppose you could just assert - as a theological principle - that the mind/soul is unique and “copy protected.” End of discussion. But if you’re willing to grant the OP’s sci-fi conceit that future tech will be able to make an exact duplicate of mind and memory - and transfer said duplicate into a different host (either biological or artificial) - I’m not sure on what basis you’d argue that the prior person has “died” if s/he lives on in an alternative iteration. To quote William James (and Mr. Spock ), “A difference which makes no difference is no difference.”

I don't think theological arguments have any bearing on reality. This is the perspective I'm coming from...everything that is you is in your brain. You are your brain, that is a fact. Everything you experience happens in your brain. If you were to copy the contents into a machine, that machine would act upon the variables that make you you, but it wouldn't BE you. Your consciousness wouldn't transfer over. It would, in its behavior, be a perfect copy of your consciousness to the outside world but you wouldn't experience any of it. I could be wrong, but I think the only way to truly achieve this would be to perform a physical brain transplant.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

AFAIC, the soul is a human construct, it has a meaning in human spirituality and what we think made us human, the concept helps us to cope with our existence but it has no scientific meaning. Do other mammals beings have a soul or just us, do non mammals have a soul ?
It's a metaphysical question asked by the only being we think are sentient, us, human.

 

[Dr.]

...everything that is you is in your brain. You are your brain, that is a fact. Everything you experience happens in your brain. If you were to copy the contents into a machine, that machine would act upon the variables that make you you, but it wouldn't BE you. Your consciousness wouldn't transfer over. It would, in its behavior, be a perfect copy of your consciousness to the outside world but you wouldn't experience any of it. I could be wrong, but I think the only way to truly achieve this would be to perform a physical brain transplant.

Well, if you believe that the mind is a property of the physical brain, then a hypothetical brain transplant doesn’t pose any existential issues. When the living brain gets transplanted, the mind goes with it.

Things only get contentious (apparently) when we conjure various sci-fi scenarios (“electronic” mind uploads, transporters, etc.). Then, it’s just assumed that this futuristic tech will inevitably fail to capture some essential aspect (the soul?) of personal identity. Therefore, “you” will no longer be “you” by definition.

But in my view, if the sci-fi technology is able to transfer a perfect copy of the mind in all its respects (personality, memories, “soul”), what essential aspect would be missing?

 

[moviedoors]

But in my view, if the sci-fi technology is able to transfer a perfect copy of the mind in all its respects (personality, memories, “soul”), what essential aspect would be missing?

Continuity of experience.

 

[Dr.]

Continuity of experience.

Which is defined as…?

As mentioned in one of the videos I posted, going under general anesthesia (or just being asleep) might be called a break in subjective “continuity” (a mini “death”). But as long as personality and memory appear intact upon awakening, we assume we’re the same person. Conceivably, a sci-fi “mind transfer” procedure would work in a similar manner.

 

[KevanG]

I believe in a soul and a purpose. Otherwise, life doesn’t matter and we are all but a spec in an uncaring cosmos with life from nothing more than insurmountable happenstance.

I do not think that can be transferred or created into another body or machine. It’s uniquely you.

I'm kinda the opposite. I don't really get why we 'need' to have a soul or other thing beyond death beyond the idea of existing after we die being nice. I also think that we make our own purpose and if there is a huge 'plan/destiny' for everything in the universe then it makes all of our achievements as individuals and as a species pointless. If there is no 'guiding hand' then everything we do for better or worse is upon us. No blaming a god or devil. Just us.

I've also personally seen zero evidence for or against any type or afterlife so I'm more in the middle of that debate.

Also, as for transferring the mind to other vessels, sure. I mean it's all just data and we've made great strides to connecting our brains to computers and transferring data between them. I could see days ahead where we transfer the minds of people into clone bodies or cybernetic doodads.