With apologies to Douglas Hofstadter* and um...others...
I want to offer a little variation on a theme having to do
with a point that came up in the post on Bob Ellis below.
Here's the situation.
Bill wants to live 2 places at once for a couple of months;
one where he works, and one where he relaxes and plays.
Bob has invented a machine that can make a copy of Bill
including his very "essence" i.e. personality, memory,
attitudes, beliefs, etc. a perfect duplicate of Bill in every
physical, mental, emotional and spiritual way.
Bob's done it for a number of others successfully,
and now Bill wants Bob to do it for him.
Okay, so Bill hops in Bob's machine and Bob scans Bill,
and simultaneously quantum fluctuates the space/time
matrix to generate a perfect copy Bill to Puerto Vallarta,
seemingly out of nowhere.
(Ok maybe Paris... no, not from Paris, to Paris not PV.)
Anyway, afterward, when Bob does his usual checks
to see if every thing's cool he discovers something
went seriously haywire.
Seems everything went well in the copying process
except for the physical stuff.
Some of the atoms got switched around while
scanning the original and the result is not pretty.
Instead of Bill having the best of both worlds
for a few months, here's what's happened instead.
Bill 1 (the original) will die in a week of heart faillure.
But not to worry, says Bob kind of sheepishly.
Bill 2 is a perfect duplicate.
So, here's the question. Other than having
to fly back home from Mexico (or France) early,
attend his own funeral, and (begrudgingly)
going back to work, is being Bill #2 still ok?
And more to the point.
Is Bill #2 still Bill?
—————————————————
Douglas Hofstader is best known for his book
Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid.
This thought experiment is loosley based
on a passage from I am a Strange Loop,
a sequel to the first book, wherein Hofstader
discusses the question, "what exactly do we
mean when we say 'I' or 'me'?"
45 comments:
Are identical twins the same person or different and unique individuals? The moment Bill2 was created he ceased to be Bill because he began to create new and unique variables that would impact his existence. He is no different than a natural twin; Identical in physical design with a limited pattern of shared experiences that devolves as Bill1 and Bill2 separate.
Oooo. Good answer.
That would be especially true if Bill#1 got to stick around a while.
But is one week long enough to make the difference?
I suppose so, huh?
What I get from your idea is that we are who we are based on our experience, our environment, and our relationships.
That's what makes us unique, not our bodies and minds in isolation, and not ever our DNA blueprint (pattern.)
Is that correct, or am I adding too much to what you meant to say?
Am I to believe that this machine can duplicate the soul, as well?
Neal, yes, whatever that means... but yes.
It's a great question.
Would you care to expand on it?
Please.
Whatever it is that animates the individual. Whatever it is that provides the personality, the feelings, the identity. Whatever it is that appears to leave the body when it dies. I call that a soul.
I don't believe a soul can be duplicated (every snowflake is different), so I just can't go along with your thought experiment.
Bill #2 would not be the same as Bill #1.
Sounds like you're going along just fine, Neal.
I submit, as Hofstader does, that we make imperfect
copies of each other all the time, and the closer we are to someone the more of "them" we have in us.
Personally I think the "life force" is something quite different than you describe, universal, not "personal" that there is really only one soul. But hey, that's just me.
I don't actually disagree with that, Bill. I too think that all that exists is just One big thing, and that we as individuals are merely parts of the whole. I suppose the same concept can be applied to the soul as well. I won't quarrel with it.
There is the illusion of individuality, however, and that is something to be recknoed with.
Right, Neal. Hence my post.
But it's more than just an illusion, isn't it Bill? There's some substance there, no? Or do you really believe that you and I (and everyone else) are indistinguishable?
That's kind of the question, isn't Neal.
Are our egos real?
Or did WE just make them up?
You are talking about egos, right?
Or are you talking about something else?
p.s. Neal, by "substance," what do you mean, exactly? Are you talking "atoms" or "energy" or something else?
i.e. Are we going beyond Einstein into metaphysics here? No problem if we are. I just want to be clear.
I don't know what you mean by "ego," Bill. Are you equating ego with what I previously described as the soul?
Whatever it is that animates me is real, even if I just made it up.
If you're talking about the notion of individuality, I think that's real, too.
When I say there's "substance" to the illusion that we are distinct, I'm talking metaphysics. Meaning, there is something real, and meaningful, about our individuality, even if it's just an illusion.
Such is the case with many (if not all) big questions like this: the illusion is real, and what appears to be real is an illusion. You just have to surrender to the mystery.
You also have to recognize the limitations of language and communication. Words are symbols. Symbols never completely capture the whole. Similarly, if all that is is just one big thing, any discussion about a particular part of that thing will likely fail to do justice to the whole.
As to "ego" Neal, Hofstader does.
Ego, soul, self. All the same.
I know there are other nuances, depending on your psychological theory of choice. Freud, Jung, Sartre, etc. There are also different connotations of the other words.
I'm referencing that thing some Buddhists call "mind" i.e. the various personalities of the ongoing voices dialoguing inside our heads, and the associated emotions and thoughts that ensue.
How's that for a start?
And yes the language is nearly impossible with this one. Seems like every time someone tries to write the "truth" of what I think we may be pointing to down, it descends into strict, codified belief systems and authoritarian dogma very quickly.
The upshot is usually that what was once a transcendent liberating experience degrades instead into an authoritarian dogma of hey "just believe this, and don't ask questions."
Paradoxically the oceanic experience of oneness is thus much more "personal" in a way than the arbitrary dogma that "everybody is suppose to believe this: You all have individual souls!"
So which is really the more generic?
You know? By the way, do animals have souls? Egos? Selves?
I don't really care what you call it; they are all different words for the same concept.
Wait. Maybe not.
I don't agree that mind and soul are the same thing. One (soul) is innate, while the other (mind) is maleable, and a product, in part, of environment.
I also don't agree that the self is the same as the ego and the soul. The ego/self seems to be what we think of ourselves. The soul is more fundamental. It's what we are, our essence. Not what we think about what we are.
Our soul is the news; our ego/self are the pundits.
What is it that's driving your body around? Your mind might be behind the wheel, but your soul is what's in the gas tank.
But that analogy doesn't hold up very well, because your soul can't be depleted the way gas can.
Or can it? I don't know, but I think I'm starting to sound like you.
Of course animals (and plants and anything else that is alive) have a soul. It may differ both qualitatively and quantitatively from other souls, but the essence is the same. The life force is the same. The compulsions (eat, sleep, stay alive) are the same.
But what I think you're getting at is, what's more real? Our oneness with others or our indiduality? I've got no answer for you, other than both, and neither.
Both onenness and individuality are required for life to have meaning.
Neither oneness nor individuality is the primary condition. They are but different sides of the same coin.
I think you get my point Bill. We are unique and individual because of our own oneness. All of our thoughts, experiences and environmental influences, change our perspective and position within the universe. This could be what our soul really is. It is our personal micro-cosmic slice of the universal oneness. A slice of the whole is both a separate entity and still inherently connected to the balance of the whole. Bill#2 is his own slice, regardless of how the slice was derived.
What do you think?
"It is our personal micro-cosmic slice of the universal oneness. A slice of the whole is both a separate entity and still inherently connected to the balance of the whole."
I like this a lot. Very well put.
One person (Thaddeus Golas) explained it like this, Donna and Neal.
"We are all equal beings and the universe is our relationship with each other."
At first I thought the he was talking about people, and that it was a nice political idea, but it didn't really apply to the whole universe, did it?
Then, in the late 70's I started learning more about biology and ecology and the difference between classical mechanical physics (Isaac Newton) and Einstein's relativity and reality on the quantum mechanical level and the idea kept getting deeper and deeper and more and more profound, up to the point where I really couldn't understand it any more.
I also started meditating a lot, learning how to let go, because sometimes I'm just such a control freak and it gets me in trouble. (Big surprise, huh?)
Fast forward... the most current ideas about the universe coming from people like Frank Wilczek the theoretical physicist, have a ring to them that sure reminds me a lot of what Golas and the mystics like Rumi, and others from all the other religious traditions have been saying all along.
It seems that what we think of as empty space isn't empty after all, but rather it's this incredible superconducting matrix that has made pretty much everything there is out of nothing.
In other words, we are, quite literally the sons and daughters of light. Anyway that's the gist of it, the hypothesis, if you will.
So the idea is were wave forms. Harmonies. Vibrations. All the same, and yet each totally different, All verbs, not nouns. Interacting, not just acting. And if that's NOT happening there IS no is.
The math guys say this with far more precision than I ever will here of course, and of course I don't really understand that language, except for a few select equations that knock me out exactly the same way Beethoven and Matisse and Monet and other artists do.
And sunsets.
And sometimes when get surprised by those things I can feel myself maybe starting to shine, just before I lose all sense of myself completely.
Those are the most beautiful times in my life. Those times when I'm "we" not "me".
When I knock on my ego's door and the sign says, "gone fishin'"
Because then, for as long as the sensation holds, (usually not long) it feels like we've all come home.
Namaste.
Let me put it more succinctly, Bill:
Thou art that.
Yes.
So Neal, did you vote on the experiment?
And FB pal, do you think I should have included a "Well, yes... and No" option for an answer?
I see we have votes in every category. Pretty cool.
"It seems that what we think of as empty space isn't empty after all, but rather it's this incredible superconducting matrix..."
This touches on the dark matter/dark energy problem, which I'm sure you're well aware of...
I haven't voted in the poll, but I'll do that now.
Thanks for the interesting conversation, BF and FB.
Sure Bill, I would enjoy another choice. They are both the "real" Bill and unique Bills. Both are rooted in the reality of the one Bill and separated now by individual consciousness. Oddly enough it is probable that both of these realities are happening simultaneously anyway, leaving open the possibility that there were always two Bills.
So I guess a Yes and No choice would work for me...
And as an aside, the dialog between you two is very enlightening. Best I have felt in weeks.
Yes. Thanks FB and Neal. Good conversation.
Let's do it again soon.
Any other topics you two would like to discuss?
Let me know and I'll put them up.
p.s. FB pal, I just voted
"I don't know"
because "I" don't.
(...let's see now, how many entendres is that?)
Very interesting topic and discussion.
If you believe in the multiverse theory, or believe that the universe in infinite, then there are already an infinite number of Bills.
But if you don't, then Bill #2 is not Bill #1. For example, maybe Bill #1 has never been to Paris. This experience makes him a different person. The only way they could remain "the same" is if they experienced the exact same stimuli, and thus had the same thoughts, throughout their lives.
Ok, now the scientific argument I keep hearing is that what makes Bill BILL, is his DNA.
I'm getting that for a number of very interesting reasons, most of the people posting here would take exception to that.
Would that be correct?
In other words, Bill is much, much more than an inert set of molecular instructions as to how to assemble his physical organs and tissues.
Yes? No?
Braden writes: "The only way they could remain "the same" is if they experienced the exact same stimuli, and thus had the same thoughts, throughout their lives."
Actually, this is the case for the most part in the thought experiment. Bill#2 is only a few minutes "old" materially speaking, exactly the same age as Bill#1 experientially.
So are you saying that just one different moment of "experience" makes Bill #2 a different person?
And if so, wouldn't that also be the case in multiverses or an infinite universe?
i.e. isn't there a defacto, a priori difference between one universe and another?
It seems Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Schrödingers wave equation would certainly come into play in the context of infinity.
In other words, there's a huge diff between "high probability" and "absolute certainty," especially when you're dealing with the infinite?
I'm starting to think I may be a different person every split second, even though there's really only one of me.
"So are you saying that just one different moment of "experience" makes Bill #2 a different person?"
Yes. If the moment was one in which not much occured, the difference would be slight. But say that somebody took a shot at Bill #2 in that moment. That experience would change him into a much different person than someone who didn't experience it.
"And if so, wouldn't that also be the case in multiverses or an infinite universe?"
No. In an infinite multiverse or universe, there are an infinite number of Bills who are almost identical to Bill. Maybe they had Coco Puffs instead of toast for breakfast one day, and that was the only difference.
But, in an infinite universe, there are also an infinite number of Bills, who are EXACTLY like Bill in every single way- DNA, emotions, experiences, everything.
"i.e. isn't there a defacto, a priori difference between one universe and another?"
Yes, but if there is an infinite number of universes, then the nature of infinity requires there be a universe exactly like this one in every single way.
"In other words, there's a huge diff between "high probability" and "absolute certainty," especially when you're dealing with the infinite?"
I think you're confusing infinite with just "really, really, really freakin big." An infinite universe has no end, it goes on forever. So it is an absolute certainty that something or someone will exist twice, in fact, an infinite number of times.
Braden says:"...almost identical"
That's the point, Braden.
By the way, you're getting into "Gödel" country with your "infinite set of infinities."
You're familiar with that work, right?
Gödel's Proof clearly states that you can't lock down on this nearly as neatly as you'd like to claim you can.
It's mathematically and rationally impossible.
I know, I know, Bertrand Russell was pissed too.
Blew his whole "Principia Mathematica" thingy all to hell.
For Braden:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theorems
This is all a bit "heady" for me.
No, I had never heard of Gödel before, it was very interesting.
I see where he is coming from. Even if logic dictates that there be an infinite number of something in an infinite universe, it would never be provable or possible to determine.
Then again, could we ever really know if the universe was, in fact, infinite? Probably not.
Regarding the infinite universe, I think this is a commonly misunderstood concept.
I think Braden and Bill are using "infinite" in a different way than most people do when they talk about this, but most people think it means that the universe is infinitely large, in terms of size.
But this isn't the case.
The universe is expanding -- i.e., getting larger. So it can't be infinitely large, because if it was, there wouldn't be any room to grow. The idea of infinity + 1 is nonsensical.
The really interesting question is, if the universe is expanding, that means there's an outer edge. What's on the other side of that edge?
I start to bail out on these conversations once the idea of multiverses and parallel universes come up, because it makes conversation -- already difficult in this area -- nearly impossible, and virtually meaningless.
Don't mean to discourage you guys, though. Forge on ahead.
Good points, Neal. Originally I was just talking about going to Mexico for a few weeks. Braden and I kind of got sidetracked.
As to infinity/space/time, that's the basic thrust of my latest installment above where Time=Distance, especially at light speed. In other words, space and time are really just two aspects of the same thing.
The "infinity" as far as that idea is concerned is "now."
I've always had a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that space and time are the same. I've thought about it and read about it quite a bit, and I'm still not entirely sure I get it.
I hear ya, Neal.
That's because relative to light, we move sooooo slooowly.
Do you recall Einstein's thought experiment about the streetcar running away from a light beam light that just bounced off a clock? That's the one that turned the lights on for me (pun intended.)
Oh yeah, guys, about those infinities?
I can think of several that pretty well describe the world we see around us. I'm thinking circles (orbits, life cycles, etc.), the Golden Section (harmony in music, art, design, the proportions of life, the key to all pentagonal forms, the proportions of the human body, etc) and fractals (describes self similar patterns from microcosm to macrocosm in all living and non-living things, weather patterns, turbulence, chaos, etc.)
Those are all infinities, right?
Doesn't the whole thing revolve around cognition anyway? The Universe has no influence on Bill2 until Bill2 has influence on the Universe. What are space and time unless they are acknowledged or at the very least, experienced?
I know I may be dipping into the cognitive-theoretic model of thinking here, however this exercise has made me re-evaluate some of Langan's work.
Well that pretty much is where this conversation seems to be headed anyway, right FB pal?
A conscious cosmos engaged in a complex net of feedback loops?
I have a gut feeling that it might be important to distinguish "consciousness" from "conscious awareness" at this point. i.e. the idea that "consciousness" has a deeper meaning than just being awake and paying attention.
Any discussion on that, all?
And yeah, here we go with the word challenge again— trying somehow to speak and write about the ineffable.
I do enjoy the notion though, that living— indeed existing at all— is not in fact a passive— but rather an a dynamic and ultimately creative act.
We only think we can choose not to do it, and we even do it with our absence. (...make up what IT is.)
There is no option as to whether to play or not.
Pretty yinny-yangey, huh?
(p.s. Let me disclaim that I don't technically "know" any of the people in this conversation. I at least I don't think I do. I think that's relevant to what I'm trying to express with this entry somehow.)
FB pal said,
"What are space and time unless they are acknowledged or at the very least, experienced?"
Isn't this the same as saying, "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make any noise?"
I have a hard time going along with that. I have a hard time believing that the universe did not exist until someone was around to notice it.
BF said,
"I do enjoy the notion though, that living— indeed existing at all— is not in fact a passive— but rather an a dynamic and ultimately creative act."
Oh yeah, man, me too. Makes me think of a quote I stumbled upon the other day...
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, 'Who am I to be brilliant?'. Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world."
-- Marianne Williamson
Neal,
I hope that wasn't what I was saying. My belief that we are all intrinsic pieces of the universe is key to my belief that Bill2 is unique. Because he can recognize and establish himself in the Universe, then space/time become relevant. Of course the universe exists with or without acknowledgment, it just has no meaning to a non-sentient object. I think this was how some saw Bill2: a soulless object. I guess I was drawing too heavily on Langan's garden slug illustration when forming my thoughts.
"Of course the universe exists with or without acknowledgment, it just has no meaning to a non-sentient object."
Okay, I gotcha now. I didn't realize that you were focused on meaning. I agree with you.
Post a Comment