Continuity of Consciousness

[Penumbra]

Some religions assert that there is an eternal self. Other religions assert that the self is temporary but that something lives on.

My question is, what is it, philosophically speaking, that links one moment of consciousness to another moment of consciousness that allows it to be considered the same being?



Thought Experiment One:
The movie, "The 6th Day", with Arnold Schwarzenegger (spoilers ahead, but it's a ten year old movie), is about cloning. In this future, technology exists to not only clone humans, but to accelerate their growth. In addition, memories can be captured and placed into a clone.

Arnold comes home one day to find that a clone of himself is inside with his wife and kids. He goes on an action-packed quest to get to the bottom of this. In the end, it turns out that he was the clone, not the other one that was in his house that night. He had the body and memories of the original, so he thought he was the original. He incorrectly assumed he had a continuous consciousness when in reality, he's a very young being that simply has memories of another implanted into him. (In the movie, clones are purposely given a mark so that they can be identified. That's how he finds out he's the clone.)

Suppose that while sleeping, you are killed and replaced with a clone with your memories. This clone would wake up and never knew anything happened. The original would be dead, but the second one would mistakenly assume that it has had a continuous consciousness when in fact it's a new being.

What makes our bodies continuous? I've read that most of our cells are replaced every few years. Some studies have said that there are areas in the brain where the cells last our entire life. If cells are replaced in small amounts over time, and eventually the entirety is replaced (even those brain cells), is consciousness continuous or no? How would we know?

Thought Experiment Two:
So far, science seems to have revealed that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, either in total or in part. For instance, damage to the brain can drastically alter one's personality or render the person unable to be conscious anymore, either temporarily or permanently.

So suppose that you die. You wake up in an afterlife. Is this person that wakes up still you? Is it a copy, or is it a continuous consciousness of the original? How can it be determined? If it's merely a copy, then to the original person, they have no afterlife. The copy experiences the afterlife, but not the original.

Thought Experiment Three:
I've seen some proponents of reincarnation say that when one dies, they are reincarnated in a new form. The new form probably won't have your memories, might be another gender and born in a totally different culture, and may or may not have remnants of your personality (people I talk to have had different notions about this last part). What makes this reincarnated version still "you", rather than a wholly separate being?

 

[Madhuri]

Great question!

I will speak from a Vedic perspective.

There are two 'selfs': the eternal Self and the temporary self.

The temporary self is an illusion. It is associated with our current life and body. We think that this is who we really are- this individual who is shaped by our biology and social influences. When the body dies, this self dies as well.

But this temporary self is not YOU. You are the eternal 'I', the eternal Consciousness, that moves from one body to another. You are a perceiver. 'You' are not a girl or boy, or an atheist or conservative, you are not a 'nice' person or a liar. All of these aspects of personality are influenced by your life experiences. If you were to go back in time and something was changed, you would be a much different personality now. But it would still be YOU. What is that you? The perceiver.

This material world plays an important role- it is the play ground by which the Self experiences in order to evolve. The metaphor that helps me to think about the evolution that occurs with the soul is to think of the Self as starting its journey asleep. As it evolves, it slowly awakens from this sleep. At the point that the individual, through the use of the physical body, reaches Realisation (enlightenment), the soul completely awakens. At this point of full awakening, the Self no longer depends on a physical body to experience.

So I have explained very briefly two important things: who 'I' am, and the purpose of the this other 'self', the temporary material body.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Atman and Paramatman, yes?

 

[Meow Mix]

Thought experiment 4: in some sci-fi programs like Star Trek, teleportation is depicted as scanning/destroying the original and producing an exact copy on the other end. That's always raised some consciousness continuity questions for me. I would never use such a device because I would suspect that "I" would be dead and "me prime" would be on the other side -- a duplicate of me, but not my consciousness.

 

[Penumbra]

Thought experiment 4: in some sci-fi programs like Star Trek, teleportation is depicted as scanning/destroying the original and producing an exact copy on the other end. That's always raised some consciousness continuity questions for me. I would never use such a device because I would suspect that "I" would be dead and "me prime" would be on the other side -- a duplicate of me, but not my consciousness.

Totally agreed!

Believe it or not, that exact thing was going to be one of my listed thought experiments but I wanted to keep the wall-o-text to a minimum.

Another thought experiment was going to concern the idea that artificial intelligence is created in software form, and then copied.

 

[Storm]

Some religions assert that there is an eternal self. Other religions assert that the self is temporary but that something lives on.

My question is, what is it, philosophically speaking, that links one moment of consciousness to another moment of consciousness that allows it to be considered the same being?

I believe consciousness is a primal element of reality. Over time, it evolves, coalesces into ever more complex forms. My answer to your question is that it's the same unit of consciousness experiencing events.

Thought Experiment One:
The movie, "The 6th Day", with Arnold Schwarzenegger (spoilers ahead, but it's a ten year old movie), is about cloning. In this future, technology exists to not only clone humans, but to accelerate their growth. In addition, memories can be captured and placed into a clone.

Arnold comes home one day to find that a clone of himself is inside with his wife and kids. He goes on an action-packed quest to get to the bottom of this. In the end, it turns out that he was the clone, not the other one that was in his house that night. He had the body and memories of the original, so he thought he was the original. He incorrectly assumed he had a continuous consciousness when in reality, he's a very young being that simply has memories of another implanted into him. (In the movie, clones are purposely given a mark so that they can be identified. That's how he finds out he's the clone.)

Suppose that while sleeping, you are killed and replaced with a clone with your memories. This clone would wake up and never knew anything happened. The original would be dead, but the second one would mistakenly assume that it has had a continuous consciousness when in fact it's a new being.

What makes our bodies continuous? I've read that most of our cells are replaced every few years. Some studies have said that there are areas in the brain where the cells last our entire life. If cells are replaced in small amounts over time, and eventually the entirety is replaced (even those brain cells), is consciousness continuous or no? How would we know?

And yet, they are continuous. Our bodies are more than a collection of cells, they are the synergistic result of those cells.

Thought Experiment Two:
So far, science seems to have revealed that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, either in total or in part. For instance, damage to the brain can drastically alter one's personality or render the person unable to be conscious anymore, either temporarily or permanently.

So suppose that you die. You wake up in an afterlife. Is this person that wakes up still you? Is it a copy, or is it a continuous consciousness of the original? How can it be determined? If it's merely a copy, then to the original person, they have no afterlife. The copy experiences the afterlife, but not the original.

We covered my thoughts on the afterlife, or lack thereof, in your other thread.

But it is a thought experiment, after all. If I were to "wake up" in an afterlife, and still feel like myself, I would assume I was the original.

Thought Experiment Three:
I've seen some proponents of reincarnation say that when one dies, they are reincarnated in a new form. The new form probably won't have your memories, might be another gender and born in a totally different culture, and may or may not have remnants of your personality (people I talk to have had different notions about this last part). What makes this reincarnated version still "you", rather than a wholly separate being?

Again, I touched on this in the other thread. Lifeforms are events, interactions. The divine consciousness remembers all of them, and is defined by none.

 

[Storm]

Thought experiment 4: in some sci-fi programs like Star Trek, teleportation is depicted as scanning/destroying the original and producing an exact copy on the other end. That's always raised some consciousness continuity questions for me. I would never use such a device because I would suspect that "I" would be dead and "me prime" would be on the other side -- a duplicate of me, but not my consciousness.

Since I don't believe consciousness is based on matter, this wouldn't be an issue for me.

 

[Meow Mix]

Totally agreed!

Believe it or not, that exact thing was going to be one of my listed thought experiments but I wanted to keep the wall-o-text to a minimum.

Another thought experiment was going to concern the idea that artificial intelligence is created in software form, and then copied.

I had this discussion with a friend once (not about copying AI in software and copying it) but about continuity of consciousness and how it might be feasible to transfer a mind to a computer. We decided that it might work to convert a small amount of the brain at a time to computer components -- always leaving it "on" and always making sure the person is capable of consciousness during every step of the way. Like an Archimedes' ship of consciousness.

We also decided it would be best if we didn't discuss how much we could change at a time while safely feeling like we were preserving continuity of consciousness, we just plugged our ears and went "la la la la" if either tried to raise THAT business...

Oh, we also decided not to try tackling the question of what happens if it's possible to reassemble the brain after it's been completely piece-by-piece converted to computer. I think we decided that since it was "off" that it would then constitute a clone and not a continuous consciousness, but tip toed around it for the most part.

 

[Penumbra]

Great question!

I will speak from a Vedic perspective.

There are two 'selfs': the eternal Self and the temporary self.

The temporary self is an illusion. It is associated with our current life and body. We think that this is who we really are- this individual who is shaped by our biology and social influences. When the body dies, this self dies as well.

But this temporary self is not YOU. You are the eternal 'I', the eternal Consciousness, that moves from one body to another. You are a perceiver. 'You' are not a girl or boy, or an atheist or conservative, you are not a 'nice' person or a liar. All of these aspects of personality are influenced by your life experiences. If you were to go back in time and something was changed, you would be a much different personality now. But it would still be YOU. What is that you? The perceiver.

This material world plays an important role- it is the play ground by which the Self experiences in order to evolve. The metaphor that helps me to think about the evolution that occurs with the soul is to think of the Self as starting its journey asleep. As it evolves, it slowly awakens from this sleep. At the point that the individual, through the use of the physical body, reaches Realisation (enlightenment), the soul completely awakens. At this point of full awakening, the Self no longer depends on a physical body to experience.

So I have explained very briefly two important things: who 'I' am, and the purpose of the this other 'self', the temporary material body.

What makes the perceiver the same over time? For instance, right now, the Self in me is perceiving. Tomorrow, the Self in me is perceiving again. It's the same Self in both instances, right?

But my Self is not your Self. They are perceiving separately.

The question is, what makes my future Self still my Self rather than a totally different Self? What keeps it continuous?

 

[Member71934]

Perhaps from a New Age perspective, the simple answer to that would be the soul. If we’re actually souls visiting earth in an attempt for “soul evolution”, so to put it, then the soul connects all our stages of consciousness. From before we’re on earth, to while we’re on earth, to after we’re on earth…and then possibly back.

 

[Tathagata]

Some religions assert that there is an eternal self. Other religions assert that the self is temporary but that something lives on.

My question is, what is it, philosophically speaking, that links one moment of consciousness to another moment of consciousness that allows it to be considered the same being?

According to the Dalai Lama:

"In the Buddhist doctrine of selflessness, or "no soul" theory, the understanding is that there is no eternal, unchanging, abiding, permanent self called "soul." That is what is being denied in Buddhism.

Buddhism does not deny the continuum of consciousness. Because of this, we find some Tibetan scholars, such as the Sakya master Rendawa, who accept that there is such a thing as self or soul, the "kangsak ki dak" (Tib. gang zag gi bdag). However, the same word, the "kangsak ki dak", the self, or person, or personal self, or identity, is at the same time denied by many other scholars.

We find diverse opinions, even among Buddhist scholars, as to what exactly the nature of self is, what exactly that thing or entity is that continues from one moment to the next moment, from one lifetime to the next lifetime. Some try to locate it within the aggregates, the composite of body and mind. Some explain it in terms of a designation based on the body and mind composite, and so on.... One of the divisions of [the "Mind-Only"] school maintains there is a special continuum of consciousness called alayavijnana which is the fundamental consciousness."

Mindstream - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Madhuri]

Atman and Paramatman, yes?

Not exactly. Atma refers to the individual, Paramatma is God within in the Self. Even I find the concept of Paramatma a complex and difficult to explain one.

 

[Madhuri]

What makes the perceiver the same over time? For instance, right now, the Self in me is perceiving. Tomorrow, the Self in me is perceiving again. It's the same Self in both instances, right?

It is the same Self, the individual soul/life-force.

But my Self is not your Self. They are perceiving separately.

Also correct.

The question is, what makes my future Self still my Self rather than a totally different Self? What keeps it continuous?

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean.
The Self is an eternal individual (according to my particular beliefs). It is the soul/atma. It enters a body when that body is conceived and is released from the body when the body dies.

What do you mean by continuous?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Some religions assert that there is an eternal self. Other religions assert that the self is temporary but that something lives on.

My question is, what is it, philosophically speaking, that links one moment of consciousness to another moment of consciousness that allows it to be considered the same being?



Thought Experiment One:
The movie, "The 6th Day", with Arnold Schwarzenegger (spoilers ahead, but it's a ten year old movie), is about cloning. In this future, technology exists to not only clone humans, but to accelerate their growth. In addition, memories can be captured and placed into a clone.

Arnold comes home one day to find that a clone of himself is inside with his wife and kids. He goes on an action-packed quest to get to the bottom of this. In the end, it turns out that he was the clone, not the other one that was in his house that night. He had the body and memories of the original, so he thought he was the original. He incorrectly assumed he had a continuous consciousness when in reality, he's a very young being that simply has memories of another implanted into him. (In the movie, clones are purposely given a mark so that they can be identified. That's how he finds out he's the clone.)

Suppose that while sleeping, you are killed and replaced with a clone with your memories. This clone would wake up and never knew anything happened. The original would be dead, but the second one would mistakenly assume that it has had a continuous consciousness when in fact it's a new being.

What makes our bodies continuous? I've read that most of our cells are replaced every few years. Some studies have said that there are areas in the brain where the cells last our entire life. If cells are replaced in small amounts over time, and eventually the entirety is replaced (even those brain cells), is consciousness continuous or no? How would we know?

From baby to adult. The infant you once were has literally and completely died along ago. Are you conscious as that baby? Do you have any of its cells still living in you?

Thought Experiment Two:

So far, science seems to have revealed that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, either in total or in part. For instance, damage to the brain can drastically alter one's personality or render the person unable to be conscious anymore, either temporarily or permanently.

So suppose that you die. You wake up in an afterlife. Is this person that wakes up still you? Is it a copy, or is it a continuous consciousness of the original? How can it be determined? If it's merely a copy, then to the original person, they have no afterlife. The copy experiences the afterlife, but not the original.

Think about the time your born and your own detailed and accurate memories as a baby in the first day and week. Definitely experienced all of it no doubt and cant deny of it it didn't occur but...try to recall...It works like that. Life and death tends to be the same. Consciousness is continuously linked moment to moment in pieces. Frame to frame akin as in a movie, we can only relate consciousness when fluid conditions permits of which triggers familiarity with the previous conditions.

If something happens such as trauma or illness affecting memories, once that chain of conscious breaks, a new chain of consciousness manifests of which can no longer relate to the old chain. Winston Cup driver Bobby Allison of Nascar fame is a prime example of this of which he has no conscious memories of the final win of his racing career even in face of overwhelming proof from his fans, family, trophies , and media. Bobby was never consciously there according to Bobby himself.

Thought Experiment Three:

I've seen some proponents of reincarnation say that when one dies, they are reincarnated in a new form. The new form probably won't have your memories, might be another gender and born in a totally different culture, and may or may not have remnants of your personality (people I talk to have had different notions about this last part). What makes this reincarnated version still "you", rather than a wholly separate being?

A re-birth (instead of reincarnation) of which we clearly see new life manifesting around us all the time as much as we see death and dying around us all the time. You actually remain you in way of molecular/atomic composition, and separation in way of ego sense of self.

In essence, you will still be you, but "you" are separate from "you", keeping in mind this is the dualistic version, as this is a consistent, seamless, and fluid process eliminating the perceptive duality of life and death, you and not you.

 

[Madhuri]

Thought experiment 4: in some sci-fi programs like Star Trek, teleportation is depicted as scanning/destroying the original and producing an exact copy on the other end. That's always raised some consciousness continuity questions for me. I would never use such a device because I would suspect that "I" would be dead and "me prime" would be on the other side -- a duplicate of me, but not my consciousness.

This is a perfect example of how the individual, the 'I', is the Consciousness rather than the body and the memories.
People really seem to struggle with that concept. So this is a great example.

 

[LuisDantas]

Madhuri, so the Atman transcends time itself, and is in some sense "above" its own manifestations as material (and temporal) incarnations?

 

[Madhuri]

Madhuri, so the Atman transcends time itself, and is in some sense "above" its own manifestations as material (and temporal) incarnations?

Yes, it transcends time and space. It is a Spiritual thing, so transcends everything Material.
But what do you mean that it is above its 'own manifestations'? To be very accurate, it should be noted that a soul does not manifest as a material body- it enters a material body.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, it transcends time and space. It is a Spiritual thing, so transcends everything Material.
But what do you mean that it is above its 'own manifestations'? To be very accurate, it should be noted that a soul does not manifest as a material body- it enters a material body.

I guess I have been exposed to some rather materialistic concepts of reincarnation (which I knew to be true, but didn't realize it how seriously so).

I usually think of reincarnation as a "soul made flesh". But you are telling me that the body and soul are fairly independent from each other instead, correct?

Do you believe that a living body could hypothetically lack a soul and function to some degree as a normal human being? If so, how different would it be from a body with a soul? Could other people perceive the difference, and if so, how?

 

[Penumbra]

I believe consciousness is a primal element of reality. Over time, it evolves, coalesces into ever more complex forms. My answer to your question is that it's the same unit of consciousness experiencing events.

Thanks for the response.

I'm going to bring this up to other people that have posted as well- I find the concept of a soul or a unit of consciousness as being somewhat of a placeholder. A gap filler for something that is not quite known.

It can be said that it's a primal element of reality, but can it be shown or proven? When it comes to other things, when we break them down, we can begin to describe characteristics to them, like the fundamental particles of physics. But can this be done with consciousness?

And yet, they are continuous. Our bodies are more than a collection of cells, they are the synergistic result of those cells.

We covered my thoughts on the afterlife, or lack thereof, in your other thread.

But it is a thought experiment, after all. If I were to "wake up" in an afterlife, and still feel like myself, I would assume I was the original.

You would assume you were the original, but so did Arnold from that movie when in reality he was a clone. And more than a movie, if it were to happen such that we were to wake up somewhere, whether it's as a clone with inserted memories or in an afterlife or something like that, we would have no way to determine whether we were the original or not.

To the second one, the one that "wakes up" in an afterlife or the clone that wonders whether it's the original or not, it doesn't really matter. Because for them, it's the same either way.

But it matters to the original, because they either continue to exist or die, depending on what the answer is. If I clone a person, copy their memories into the clone, and then kill the original, then the clone might not realize or even care whether it's the original or not because it feels like it's the original. But the first one is dead now. From the perspective of the first one, it matters whether consciousness is continuous or not.

Again, I touched on this in the other thread. Lifeforms are events, interactions. The divine consciousness remembers all of them, and is defined by none.

How do you differentiate the divine consciousness from individual units of consciousness? What is their relationship?

 

[Storm]

Thanks for the response.

I'm going to bring this up to other people that have posted as well- I find the concept of a soul or a unit of consciousness as being somewhat of a placeholder. A gap filler for something that is not quite known.

It can be said that it's a primal element of reality, but can it be shown or proven? When it comes to other things, when we break them down, we can begin to describe characteristics to them, like the fundamental particles of physics. But can this be done with consciousness?

Not yet.

You would assume you were the original, but so did Arnold from that movie when in reality he was a clone. And more than a movie, if it were to happen such that we were to wake up somewhere, whether it's as a clone with inserted memories or in an afterlife or something like that, we would have no way to determine whether we were the original or not.

To the second one, the one that "wakes up" in an afterlife or the clone that wonders whether it's the original or not, it doesn't really matter. Because for them, it's the same either way.

Yes, precisely.

But it matters to the original, because they either continue to exist or die, depending on what the answer is. If I clone a person, copy their memories into the clone, and then kill the original, then the clone might not realize or even care whether it's the original or not because it feels like it's the original. But the first one is dead now. From the perspective of the first one, it matters whether consciousness is continuous or not.

I believe it is.

How do you differentiate the divine consciousness from individual units of consciousness? What is their relationship?

I was using them interchangeably, forgive the imprecision.