Chapter 1 rerevised F half 6

From Aware Theory
Jump to: navigation, search

File chapter 1 rerevised 11:59 A.M. Wednesday, June 13 2001 file was chapter 1 revised 94 01:31 pm Friday, October 31 2008


The science of conscious existence and identity


I do not expect that my ideas will be adopted all at once; the human mind adjusts itself to a certain point of view, and those who have looked at nature from one standpoint, during a portion of their life, adapt new ideas only with difficulty; it is, then, for time to confirm or to reject the opinions which I have brought forward.

Chemist Antoine Laurent Lavoisier


CHAPTER 1 CIDENTIREPLICAS

EXPERIMENTS WITH IDENTICAL FUNCTIONING REPLICAS

THE RATIONAL EXPERIMENT

The sfxmc theory is rational coherent scientific theory of conscious existence and identity. The acronym is an abbreviation for the five major parts of the theory. These parts are: structure, functioning, “ I experience it, multiplicity, and continuum. Part of the basis for the sfxmc theory of conscious existence and identity are the results of a series of rational experiments concerning human bodies and their corresponding consciousnesses or minds. The results of these experiments produce theories of consciousness that are scientific, mathematical, explanatory, predictive, useful, positive, optimistic, and as we are finding with many new ideas in science, unexpected, bizarre, and fascinating. Like many different scientific theories, these theories produce a change or paradigm shift in how we look at the universe and our place in it. The sciences based on the sfxmc theory and their moral, epistemological and technological applications, I believe, will have far reaching consequences for conscious beings and their societies. The first basic question that Identity Theory of Consciousness deals with is "What is the difference between the consciousnesses (minds-- mentality) produced by two exactly structurally and functionally identical conscious bodies?". The answer, according to the Identity Theory of Consciousness is simply, there is no difference in the consciousness produced. The obvious second question is: Why is this question and answer important? This second question is much more complex and will be answered in many different ways through out this book. The simplest answer is that it is the foundation for a “beautiful” mathematical/scientific theory of consciousness, the mind and even theories of “life after death” based on our best scientific knowledge (scientific materialism). What is interesting is that we usually do not consider that scientific materialism can support any kind of a theory of “life after death”. But the rational/ empirical consequences of scientific materialism do support a very complex yet understandable theory of consciousness based immortality -- itomortality.

???? The results that are predicted in this book are empirically based logical deductions from what we presently know about ourselves and our world through science and mathematics, but their consequences can be unprecedented and revolutionary-- a major paradigm shift in the way we think about ourselves and other conscious beings. ??? About Rational experiments

Scientists cannot physically perform (many of) the experiments that the identity theory of consciousness is based on at this time because of their complexity. But, because of their importance toward understanding our mind’s, consciousness, and ourselves, they need to be examined carefully. What we can do is perform what are called rational experiments. A rational experiment is like a computer simulation or a mathematical proof. The results of a rational experiment, mathematical proof or computer simulation are only as valid as are the original assumptions, axioms, information or input data, language, structure of the processing, the logic used, and its coherence with the rest of science. Scientists have used, through history, rational experiments for many reasons and in many situations. Galileo used a rational experiment to show that heavy objects would fall at the same speed as lighter objects in a vacuum. Galileo had to use a rational experiment because he could not create a vacuum to produce the actual experiments in. A rational experiment is an experiment that is carried out logically in an ideal setting, a setting that we may only be able to create theoretically. The rational experiment can allow an experiment to be set up on the drawing board, so to speak, before it is actually performed (if it can be). It allows the scientist to check out ahead of time problems that might occur with the experiment and make appropriate changes in the experiment. Rational experiments are nothing new to science and are an integral part of scientific hypothesis and theory making. Most theoretical sciences are based on rational experiments before the actual experiments can be done. This allows experiments to be designed that can either support or refute scientific theories. Seldom are the results of these rational experiments totally correct in relation to the actual experimental results. However, they usually serve the purpose of creating hypothesis that science can go on to verify or refute; leading in the end to better predictive and explanatory scientific theories. There are many types and versions of rational experiments that can be developed and used. The reason that the identity theory of consciousness is based on rational experiments rather than actual experiments is because the actual experiments cannot yet be performed due to the complexity of biological systems that produce consciousness. I believe that some day these experiments can be done or approximated so this theory can be directly tested and verified. What the rational experiments in this book are based on is a scientific - materialistic view of consciousness. Which is that consciousness can be understood in the terms of the structure and functioning of matter and energy What is used to support the consequences of the theory is our current scientific knowledge of consciousness, the brain and nervous system, the body, matter, and energy. Any theory that does not have some possibility of being proved incorrect is not a scientific theory. Taken as a whole, there is overwhelming evidence for this theory. Because it is logically coherent with and supported by current scientific knowledge. But in reality, until we know everything we know nothing for certain.

What is an Identireplica?

In this book we are going to create and analyze a number of rational experiments, and develop a system of scientific and mathematical knowledge based on these experiments. We are going to use in these rational experiments objects and concepts that have very specific and sometimes complex properties. So these concepts, objects and their properties will be simple, concise and not confused with other terms, concepts, or ideas, they will be named, defined and used throughout the book when needed. The first of these terms is the identireplica. It is a term that is made by combining the words identical and replica. What his term denotes is an exactly identical replica of some object. In most cases, in this book, it will be an identical replica of a conscious being like a person but the concept can be applied to any object. What I mean by an exactly identical replica is an object that has all the same physical properties like structure, composition, orientation of atoms, appearance, etc. as the object that it is identically replicating i.e., the original. Usually when we make or find a replica of some object there is an original that the replica is a copy of. The identireplica will have all the same physical properties that the original has. No matter how carefully we look at the identireplica and the original they will be exactly alike. There will be no scientifically discernable difference between the original and the identireplica except the identireplica is made of different matter/ energy and is in a different place (and or time). The identireplica represents a point in time for the original because everything eventually changes including the original. The identireplica represents one identical point in the history or life of the original. The identireplica can be represented with indices so we can be more precise about its meaning. There are four major indices for an identireplica. They are (O,M,S,T). The letters O,M,S,T represent variables that stand for: O; the original, M; the matter and energy used, S; the space, T; the time. A well-defined identireplica will define its original, the matter and energy used , the space, and the time that it exists in. A specific example of an identireplica of an object would be; O (the original) is the picture the mono Lisa, M defines the material that it is made of, in particular if any of the matter is from the original, S defines where the identireplica is located in relation to the original, and T defines at what time the identireplica exists in relation to the original. A very limited definition can be mono lisa, .05% of the matter of the original, long. 85.32 lat. 33.23 earth, 02:49 p.m. Tuesday September 19, 2021. This gives the name of the original, the percent of the matter in the identireplica that was in the original, the place and time that the identireplica comes into existence. The indices can represent any amount of knowledge that is necessary for defining or denoting the identireplica. An example of this elaboration process for the indicie M would be specifying where every atom is in relation to every other atom, what types of molecules that they form, and their structure and function in the system.

Introduce the idea of change to the identireplica

What is a cidentireplica?

Over time changes occur to objects including people, originals, and identireplicas. It is a scientific - materialistic belief that when the right changes occurs in matter in the right sequence consciousness is produced. This belief is based on many scientific experiments and observations where, when the functioning of the nervous system in a body of a human or other animal is changed enough and in the right way there will be a corresponding change in the behavior and/or consciousness of that body. When we consider a replica of some object like a statue we realize that the replica exists in an environment (or leads a life) different from the original. Different things can happen to the replica than happens to the original. The original and the replica seldom stay the same for long because their environments are different as a consequence of not being in the same place. Sometimes they do not even exist in the same time. This means that over a period of time what happens to each is different and the end results are two different statues with wear and tear in different places. Eventually one may get broken or damaged in ways that the other is not. Even with repair the two can become less and less alike. If the original and the replica continued to be exactly identical, at each instant, over a period of time it continues to be an identireplica and during that period of time we call it a continuing identireplica or cidentireplica. The letter c at the beginning of the word “continuing” is placed in front of the word identireplica to form this new word. The cidentireplica is functioning identically to the original. This means that whatever happens to, or changes in, the original also occurs in the cidentireplica in exactly the same way and in the same time frame. The cause can be different as long as identity is maintained. There will not be at any time any scientifically discernable difference between the cidentireplica and the original in looks, structure, and functioning. If science could detect a new factor such as a physical based “mind” substance (which it has not), and if there were any difference between the two, the conditions of being a cidentireplica would not be met. For this discussion, proofs, and the rational experiments involved we will not need an additional x factor or mind substance. We can apply the same indices to a cidentireplica as we can to an identireplica. So we have cidentireplica(O,M,S,T) or Cid(O,M,S,T) as a shortened form. With these indices we can define the cidentireplica as carefully as we like at a point in time. Within the indice O we can define the original as carefully as needed. For the cidentireplica we need one more indice and that is C. This indicia “C” defines the change over time in the original. The indicae “C” not only defines the end point of the change in the original but all the points in between. Thus a cidentireplica is mathematically represented as cidentireplica(O,M,S,T,C). The cidentireplica(O,M,S,T,C) is well defined when the indices are each adequately defined. A cidentireplica can also be defined with varying indices rather than exact ones. When we talk about a replica we can also talk about the original that the replica is from. The original can have all the same indices as the identireplica and cidentireplica so we can have original(O,M,S,T) corresponding to one point in time for the original, or original(O,M,S,T,C) corresponding to a line containing a number of points in time for the original or C representing a continuous flow of change. If we are talking about a person with the name Joe we can represent him as joe(O,M,S,T,C) and his cidentireplica as C@joe(O,M,S,T,C). We use C@ as a convention for “the cidentireplica of” in this case Joe. Or we can say the cidentireplica of Joe for the cidentireplica with (O,M,S,T,C). parameters

1st experiment

The first rational experiment that we will consider is that of the existence of a cidentireplica of a living conscious person. By definition, in the first experiment, what we have is one living conscious person and one continuously, identically functioning replica. What we specifically want to know about in this first rational experiment is: What are the mental and conscious attributes of the cidentireplica? Does it have a sense of self and is that sense of self identical to that of the original’s? The first thing that we can observe is that the original and the cidentireplica look exactly alike. This is no surprise because it is in the definition-- an identical replica is going to look identical to the original or it will not be an identical replica. If the original did not all of a sudden die, the cidentireplica could be observed having the some kind of behavior as the original such as sleeping, talking, moving, etc. What would the cidentireplica do or how would it behave? By definition the cidentireplica will be functioning exactly the same as the original. So, if a muscle is contracted in the original it will be contracted in the cidentireplica. If the vocal cords are being vibrated, as occurs in human speech, in the original they will be vibrating exactly the same way in the cidentireplica. If the blood pressure in the original is 120 over 80, with a heart beat rate of 85 per minute then the cidentireplica will have the same exact readings at the exact same time. Every physical aspect of the cidentireplica is the same as the original, and every change in the original is exactly the same as is every change in the cidentireplica. But the cidentireplica does not occupy the same place as the original nor does it contain the same matter or energy as the original. The behavior that the cidentireplica displays will be exactly the same as the original. Why would one body behave exactly like another if their bodies have the same structure and function identically? For the bodies to function identically each part of the bodies must function identically. So each neuron must fire at the same time. Each muscle must contract at the same time. Even every atom must move in the same direction at the same time. What's more, every photon or other subatomic particle must be emitted and absorbed at the same time in the same direction with the same amount of energy. If nerve impulses were sent to the arm to move in the original person's body, then by definition the exact same signal would be sent in the exact same way in the body of the cidentireplica. All movements are the same for both individuals. All changes in both the original and the cidentireplica are the same. As a result their manner of conducting themselves is the same. By definition their behavior is the same. If the original says a word then the cidentireplica says the word at the same time in the same way with the same apparent emotion. All outward signs of emotions, feelings, passion, etc. are the same. However, the original person by definition is not causing the cidentireplica to act or vice versa. They are functioning identically in unison by definition. If any behavior is different then they are not functioning identically and the conditions of the experiment are violated. So far, based on the premises of this rational experiment, the cidentireplica looks and behaves like a person. Unless we have other information about this cidentireplica’s body that would negate his “personness” we would consider the cidentireplica to be a person. In this rational experiment the only other information that we have, or are given, about the cidentireplica is that he is a cidentireplica. It may be possible that being a cidentireplica means that you are not a person but there is no proof or good reason to believe that this is the case. If no one knew that the cidentireplica was a cidentireplica he would be considered a person, and would be considered the original if, his cidentireplica status was not known and the original was not around. Most people, if they didn't know otherwise, would consider the cidentireplica as being just another person and the or an original. A cidentireplica can take the place of the original for all external and behavioral purposes. We have established that an exact functioning replica of a person will be a person in all external characteristics…or aspects. This is not a surprising result it follows from the definition of a cidentireplica. This leads us to the questions of what are the mental attributes e.g. feelings, memories, desires, abilities, knowledge, etc. of the cidentireplica? Scientifically we can not yet look into the mind or consciousness of the cidentireplica for the answer, unless you are the cidentireplica, but we can ask questions to the cidentireplica and see how the cidentireplica responds. The cidentireplica will be able to respond if the original can, and he will respond exactly in the same way as the original does as long as his body functions identically to that of the original’s. If you asked the original if he has a mind or was conscious his response could be any number of responses from "no!" to "yes!" and any version in between. For instance, he might say "Certainly I have a mind! I am consciously answering you. What a stupid question! I have the desire to knock you up the side of the head for questioning such a thing!". If this was the response of the original then it would be the response of the cidentireplica or visa versa, because their behaviors are identical. One type of question might be: “Tell me something that only you would know about your inner consciousness like memories, feelings, or ideas etc. that you have had and have shared with no one else?” Again, because the cidentireplica functions exactly like the original he will respond exactly like the original. How did he know the correct answer? Within the structure and functioning of the cidentireplica is this personal information. The same way it is stored in the original. (Identical behavior and personality argument) If we gave the original a number to remember then asked the cidentireplica what number it was the cidentireplica would give the same answer as the original. If the original remembered the answer correctly the cidentireplica would have also. If the original forgot some of the digits and replaced them with other he though were correct the cidentireplica would do the same. If the original decided to make up a completely different number just for the heck of it the cidentireplica would give the same number. And if later asked why he did this the cidentireplica would say I did it just to be different just like the original said he did it for. (Identical knowledge argument) If we asked the cidentireplica about his past life he will describe it with just the same emotions, feelings, and accuracy as the original does with bouts of crying when thinking about dead friends and relatives to pride for the accomplishments in his life like saving lives, fighting in a war, having children, building houses etc. The cidentireplica would believe that he actually experienced these things himself if the original believed it. He would even believe memories of things that never happened to him if the original believed they happened to him but in fact did not. (Identical memories argument) The cidentireplica will have the same knowledge, memories, behavior, personality, as the original and produce them at the exact time as the original. It is not the specific matter, space, time, that carries the memories, skills, information of experiences, numbers, the originals life’s memories, expressions of feelings, emotions, desires, intentions, and motivations, of a person, it is the structure and functioning of that matter and energy of the body specifically the brain that produces all these abilities . Passing a verbal, behavioral etc. quiz no matter how extensive, does not prove that the cidentireplica has a mind nor that he is conscious. What it does show is that the cidentireplica seems like he has a mind and consciousness but this might only show that he is a complicated processor of verbal and other types of information. Information that is stored within the structure and functioning of the cidentireplica’s body. We also cannot prove that the original has a mind or consciousness either. Unknown to us, the original may be a cidentireplica and not the original after all or an unconscious automaton. We can only tell if we ourselves have a mind or consciousness, not if other people do. Our own judgement of our own consciousness is totally subjective. You/we may only seem to ourselves to be conscious when in reality we are in fact not. We make the assumption that other people are conscious because we have been taught that other people are conscious. We also have experiences that tend to support the belief that other people are conscious. One reason is because they seem to behave like us in similar situations. Another reason, I think, is because we want to believe that there are other conscious beings or consciousnesses besides one’s own in the universe --- we do not want to imagine ourselves as totally alone in the world full of unconscious but animate beings. It is also an unlikely possibility that you (I) should be the only conscious being that exists. Because you have to ask yourself why you of all people should be the one and only conscious person that exists or possibly has ever existed. There are few persuasive rational reasons for this. No matter what human science has done yet it has never been able to see the mind or consciousness within another being. As a result science cannot tell if a person or thing is conscious and what that consciousness is. The scientific materialist view is that some how the functioning of the brain and nervous system produces consciousness. It is mine and many other scientists and philosophers belief that some day we will be able to look at the structure and functioning of the brain and nervous system, and predict much more information about the consciousness that is being produced than we can know. What scientists can do now is look at some of the functioning, changes, or processes that are occurring in his own brain when he is conscious and then compare that to other’s brains to see if the same type of functioning is occurring. If it is, then the assumption is made that, consciousness is occurring in others. When these types of functioning are not happening within the brain, scientists and doctors make the judgement that the person is brain dead and no longer conscious. Scientists also know that when certain areas of the brain do not function or function improperly, irregularly, or divergently there is a loss or divergence in certain types of consciousness. It is very clear, scientifically, that the brain’s structure and functioning is what is producing and changing human consciousness.

What the mentality of the cidentireplica might be can be organized into several generalized possibilities. The first possibility, and the one that I believe is the simplest, most logical and the one we have the most scientific evidence to support, is that the cidentireplica is conscious in exactly the same way as the original. In other words the cidentireplica and the original are the same person mentally with the exact same sense of self. This does not mean that they are conscious of each other or have a spiritual connection or psychic communication of some sort. Under most circumstances they would not even be aware that each other exists. It is very important at this point to understand what this possibility actually means. Since you are your mentality, the cidentireplica is not just another person with your mentality, it is actually “you” within another person. If a cidentireplica exists of you there will be two of you. We are not talking about clones of you. Clones of you will have different consciousnesses than you do unless they have (nearly) identical physical structure and functioning. A Cidentireplica will have the same DNA as the original however, normally clones will not have the same physical structure and functioning as the original because they have not had the same exact environmental conditions as the original. The body of a clone can have one of many physical constructions that are different from the original and can function with any one of the many different permutations of the original’s functioning thus producing many different permutation or versions of consciousness. This simple concept that identical structure and functioning of bodies produce identical consciousness is at the foundation of the following Science of consciousness. Even if this Science is not totally complete (scientific theories become more complex over time) it lays the foundation for a very informative scientific and mathematical study of consciousness. If you cannot accept the first possibility then consider the reasons against the following possibilities being as valid or as likely.

First experiment predictor argument

The original can be considered the first experiment of what happens under a certain set of conditions or circumstances. It is a scientific concept that if we duplicate all the conditions that goes to produce the consequence of an experiment exactly we will get the same results. Usually for an experiment all the original conditions are not necessary to get the same result. For most experiments time, space, and the identical matter have changed from one experiment to the next. Consequently, these conditions can change and you get the same results. The original is an experiment the consciousness produced by the original is one of the results. The cidentireplica can be considered the second experiment.

Most scientific experiments are based on the assumption that space, time, and the replacement of matter and energy with identical matter and energy will create the same results for an experiment.

If you had to make a choice of all the possible results of an experiment given the results of the first experiment and knowing that all of the determining factors are identical, the most reasonable prediction would be that the results will be the same as in the first experiment. If you do the second experiment and find that the results are not the same there has to be a determining factor that is different. First experiment predictor argument applies to all of the nine possibilities

Experimental conditions of importance argument

Experiments have shown over and over materialistic conditions that apply and ones that do not apply. For chemical experiments temperature, pressure, the types and amount of different chemicals and elements used, the degree of mixing, structure of those elements, type and amount of radiation are some of the controlling and determining factors. What conditions can you change in an experiment and not change the results? In other words what physical conditions can you change and still have the same results? Change in place, time and identical elements, molecules -- certain properties of matter


If the cidentireplica does not have identical consciousness as does the original then you have a controlling factor that is not identical



By purposing that a cidentireplica is producing the consciousness of the original we are not purposing that it can not be part of some other consciousnesses or be producing one or more separate consciousness. So we do not have to prove that identical consciousness is the only consciousness that is produced.


The second possibility (non conscious existence/zombie argument)

The second possibility is that the cidentireplica has no mental attributes, is not conscious or has no mind, even though the cidentireplica behaves like it is conscious. This possibility would imply that people can exist and behave like a person with normal brain functioning yet have no consciousness. The consequence of this is that a functioning apparently normal brain does not always produce consciousness. For this possibility to be correct means that the original has to have some tangible quality that the cidentireplica does not. Since we make the assumption of scientific materialism we will not say that the original has a “mind substance” or a soul and the cidentireplica does not. Science has not found, nor has good reasons to believe that, mind substances or soul exist. The only scientific difference between the original and cidentireplica is that they are not made of the same matter and energy and they are not in the same place. What, in being in a different place or being made of different but identically functioning matter and energy, can cause there to be a difference in the consciousness? We are left with the assumption that only certain matter and energy in certain places will produce consciousness. We can divide this into two conditions the placement of matter, and the constituent of matter. If the placement of matter is what causes consciousness then if conscious beings move into areas in (livable) space where consciousness cannot exist they will no longer be conscious until they move out of those spots. If an original can move into and out of those spots so should a cidentireplica be able to. Thus making the cidentireplica conscious along with the original. Humans are constantly in motion on the earths surface as it rotates. The earth surface is in constant motion around the sun. The sun is in motion around the galaxy and the galaxy is in motion in the universe. Although it is possible, it is unlikely that we are in the same place twice in the universe twice. I do not experience coming in and out of consciousness in this movement through space. And science has not found any existence of such events. If they had, it certainly would be a big deal. So, in respect to the production of consciousness, space appears to be uniform, at least where we are currently traveling through. Consequently, the particular space is not effecting the production of consciousness and a cidentireplica in a different (liveable) place than the original should still be conscious. To just assume, without scientific justification, that space in of itself effects consciousness is requiring a more complex theory because we must explain why and how this effect happens and functions. If it is the particular matter and not only the functioning of the matter that produces consciousness then we will have certain atoms of matter that will produce consciousness and certain atoms of matter that will not. This makes for a much more complicated theory of matter and energy, because we now need to explain why, for example, some sub atomic particles, atoms, and molecules, will produce consciousness and why some will not. We have to be able to determine and understand why photon A, quark A, carbon atom A, DNA molecule A, or cell A can be a functioning part of consciousness, and identical photon B, quark B, carbon atom B, DNA molecule B, or cell B cannot produce or be a functioning part of consciousness. We also have to explain what happens when non conscious producing matter is intermingled with conscious producing matter. I am not talking about drugs or poisonous foods. Drugs and poisonous chemicals are a different arrangement of chemical elements that effect the functioning of the brain. If these elements were arranged into different non toxic chemicals they would not have these effects on consciousness. I am using the term non consciousness rather than unconsciousness because people are frequently unconsciousness due to sleeping, drugs, comas or brain trauma. If one piece of non consciousness producing matter is introduced into a conscious person does that person become unconscious even though everything else especially the functioning of the brain is the same? I think this is a very unlikely possibility and we have no scientific reason to believe it can or does occur. In a practical situation, if it is the specific matter and energy not only its structure and functioning that is responsible for consciousness, since all of us eat and drink and breathe new matter (food, water, air), we then could also become non conscious as we utilize to much of the “wrong” kind of matter. If there is a lot of this “wrong” kind of matter in the world, it could easily spread through the wind and rain making us all susceptible to becoming non conscious. We know that we can take matter (in the form of food, water air) from any part of the earth and we have conscious people (children) develop and survive from that matter. This is because people grow up eating food made of matter that comes from all around the world and are not non conscious because of this matter. If there were this weird kind of matter that effects consciousness in ways other than through its structure and functioning, what people would feel is the coming in and out of awareness of themselves and their environment like being in and coming out of comas. Thus peoples’ behavior would vary from acting normally to lying down unconscious like a vegetable. Or on the other hand, you would be acting normally and functioning normally and not being conscious at all about what has happened to you in these periods of non consciousness. People would find themselves in the middle of a place that they do not remember going to, with people telling them things that they did, that they have no memory of doing. Some people do say that things happen to them -- that they are totally unaware of. In most of the cases we know it is drugs or alcohol that produces this. In other situations it is the abnormal or malfunctioning functioning of the brain caused by stroke, disease or injury. Being objective about my subjective consciousness I do not experience non consciousness. Even if there does exist these types of complexity with matter and energy and space a cidentireplica will be just as likely to produce consciousness as any original if it is in the right place made of the right matter. Although we cannot be sure of any one else's consciousness most people believe that other people are conscious which supports the belief that most matter in most space can in fact produce consciousness. Consequently, all then that would be necessary for the cidentireplica to be conscious would be the correct matter in the correct places exactly the same as for any original person. There is now only one situation that is so specific that we cannot ever produce a conscious cidentireplica. This is the case where matter, energy and space is consciousness specific. This means that there is no space and, or, no matter besides what the original utilizes at that particular time that can produce a specific consciousness. For this to be the case we have to say that this particular atom has be in exactly this place at this time and all the other atoms in this conscious body have to be at their correct place at this time and at every future time as long as that body is conscious. We can again break this into two sub cases. The first case is where one place has to be tied to one consciousness. If the conscious body is not in its correct space at the correct time no consciousness is produced. But since we are traveling through space we would have the condition that a particular consciousness has to be tied to a long thin volume of space. Because each atom is moving itself, each atom is progressing through a very thin ribbon of space within but unique from the whole body. If this is the case any time the conscious body or even an atom within the body moves out side of its necessary domain in space it will not be conscious( produce consciousness). And it will not be conscious until it moves back into that space. This makes a world where if I step or am pushed into the wrong place I will no longer be conscious until I come back into the right place. There is the even more difficult problem of what space all the atoms should be in. This is because they are in random motion due to heat. So one random cosmic ray that knocks out of place just one atom will make the body non conscious. If we have to have exactly the right matter to produce consciousness we have an even greater problem because we are consuming and expelling energy, atoms, molecules, and cells, then replacing them all the time. If only one set of matter is correct for each conscious body at any one time, if we eat or breath in but one wrong subatomic particle or prematurely lose a cell or even a heat produced infrared photon we will no longer be conscious. If the correct atoms were lost into the environment it would be next to impossible to find that correct collection of matter again. For there to exist uniqueness of consciousness produced by the uniqueness of space and matter not just its uniqueness of functioning and structure, we would have to be able to explain why each unique ribbon of space and flow of matter and energy through the body produce a particular consciousness. And only that particular consciousness. This is obviously much more complex than just postulating that the structure and functioning of the matter and energy is the determining factor. If either or both of these situations existed consciousness would not be as abundant as it appears to be in people. We have dealt with the possibility where a cidentireplica of a conscious original has no consciousness now we will swing to the other extreme where the cidentireplica has a more complex consciousness than the original. The mere possible existence of zombies is used as an argument against materialism. The assumption is always that if there is a zombie the factor causing it will be a non physical cause. The possible existence of zombies could just as easily be a physical cause. Since there has been no good non physical cause of zombies postulated it is just as likely to be a physical cause.

POSSIBILITY THREE (the cidentireplica is more conscious argument)

Possibility three is where the cidentireplica has a consciousness that is more complex or more conscious than the originals. We have scientific proof that the more complex the structure and functioning of the nervous system the more complex the behavior and usually the consciousness that is produced. Generally a more extensive (larger) nervous system can have a more complex structure and functioning. But a more extensive nervous system does not necessarily imply more of any particular type of consciousness. For example some whales have larger brains than humans but the consciousness that this extra size produces is predicted to be a lower level consciousness because much of this extra brain capacity deals with the extra nerves coming from the larger body. The brain has the ability to slow down both its consciousness and its behavior. For example, when we are sleeping our consciousness and behavior are at lower levels of functioning complexity than when we are awake. This shows that the extent and amount of functioning in a brain will effect consciousness. Human brains are larger and more complex than those of mice, as a result our behavior is much more complex than that of a mouse. Thus we believe that we are more conscious than a mouse. This does not mean that a mouse or other life form with smaller and less complex brains cannot experience a consciousness different than what we can. For example a bat has a consciousness that relates to a type of sonar which we do not. We do not know how complicated the bats consciousness about sonar is. It may be complex but not integrated into higher levels of consciousness or awareness that humans have. There are people that have brains as large as normal but clearly do not produce the behavior that we take to mean that they are as smart or consciousness in the way that normal people are.


We can summarize this principle: Generally simpler structure, functioning and less extensive neural systems will have a lower level of complexity of behavior and consciousness than more extensive neural systems with more complex structure and functioning. When this principle is applied to cidentireplicas they should produce a consciousness that is approximately as complicated as the originals. In specific terms a mouse will generally not be producing behavior or consciousness that is as complex as a human’s consciousness. But the mouse will generally produce a more complex behavior and consciousness than a cockroach. It seems reasonable that we can eliminate many consciousnesses for the cidentireplica that are more complex than its functioning would allow. If we can eliminate the upper extremes of consciousness for a particular cidentireplica we can also eliminate the lower extremes as well with the same argument in reverse. Since our nervous systems are not the simplest of the different animals the complexity of our behavior and consciousness will not be the simplest either. We are left dealing with a band complexity of consciousness and behavior centered around the consciousness of the original. (Complexity of functioning and specificity of structure argument) (Complexity argument)

Fourth possibility (divergent normal consciousness argument)

The Fourth possibility is that the cidentireplica is conscious, about the same level of complexity as the original but the consciousness is totally different from that of the original. Because of arguments against possibility 2 and 3, we can eliminate extremes in divergence in complexity of consciousness in the cidentireplica. We thus have a band of complexity of consciousness within limited bounds around the originals consciousness. This consciousness is, as or more different than two strangers with different lives and body structures, but it corresponds to this reality and has a relatively normal psychology. It is a difference that we can relate to. It is a consciousness based on a reality of trees water, television, dreams, love, children, pain, etc. This possibility is not likely because of the identical functioning of the original’s and cidentireplica’s brains. The cidentireplica will always give the impression of having the same consciousness as the original because he will be behaving exactly like the original. Because of the “identical sf produces identical behavior argument” What would make the original and cidentireplica have this much difference in their consciousnesses, yet, describe themselves having the same consciousness? When the original and the cidentireplica are asked any same sequence of questions they will always respond the same. If the cidentireplica does not respond the same he is not a cidentireplica of the original by definition. The answers to any questions that are asked about the cidentireplica’s consciousness, to the cidentireplica, will be exactly the same as the original’s answers. Since in this case the cidentireplica is conscious he will be hearing his answers to the questions and processing these answers into his view of reality. If the answers to the questions are not what he is really feeling or conscious of there will be an awareness of it. An example of this is the original is asked “What do you feel?” he says, “I feel pain.” The cidentireplica asked the same question says “I feel pain.” but because his consciousness is different does not in fact feel pain. He is conscious that he said he felt pain (because he can hear his response). This will produce a paradox in his mind “Why am I thinking and feeling one thing and saying and/or doing another? Do I really control my speech -- body or not?” If his consciousness actually the functioning of the brain, sooner or later the cidentireplica will respond or behave differently than the original because his behavior is not corresponding to his feelings, desires, needs, emotions, beliefs, memories, ---- how he thinks that he should or wants to behave. And when this happens he is obviously not a cidentireplica. I will call this concept “The paradox of the consciously different (from the original) but identically behaving and functioning cidentireplica” -- cidentireplica paradox or Cid paradox for short. -- (Self awareness of behavior and consciousness argument) If consciousness controls behavior, or if consciousness corresponds to or is the behavior of the nervous system and two consciousness are different enough their behavior will eventually diverge. It is a paradox if this does not happen. If the divergence of consciousness carries out to a difference in behavior such as the cidentireplica saying that he is not in pain but the original saying he is, we can trace this change back in time through the muscles moving differently in the mouths vocal cords to the nerves firing differently that stimulate these mouth muscles. At some point before this overt behavior of speech there has to be a first difference between the functioning of the cidentireplica and that of the original because they are identically functioning at one point. What caused this divergence and what was the consciousness before this point of divergence? It does not take a little change in the functioning of the brain to say that the individual is in pain or not so the difference of functioning either has an external source of change or a slow progressional internal source of change. Since before the change in external behavior that the resolved cid paradox would produce, there has to be a change in the functioning in the nervous system that produces the change to this external behavior. Scientifically, the brain will have to be functioning differently for this change in consciousness to be occurring before the change in external behavior. If it is not then there has to be some non materialistic reason for it happening. But our theory is based on scientific materialism which would eliminate this possibility without considerable experimental and logical proof, and that proof does not exist. An unresolved cid paradox could lead a normal conscious person to psychosis but not psychotic behavior in a cidentireplica unless the original produced psychotic behavior. You may get used to the fact that your body does not properly respond to your conscious commands especially if you grew up this way.


If the cid paradox exists, what has to be explained is why the cidentireplica’s conscious mind cannot control his body, but the original can or thinks that he can control his body. And why the cidentireplica has that particular consciousness that produces the cid paradox rather than any other possible one? Specifically, why these particular thoughts, feeling, memories, etc. and not any other ones? This again makes for a more complex theory that we have no reason to accept based on what the scientific evidence is. There is also the logical nature of consciousness where it is usually based on observable physical aspects of the body. If your stomach is full of food, you will feel full. If you have the flu you will feel sick. If you got burned you will feel a burning sensation. There are many physical aspects of your body that can be externally observed with their corresponding feeling and sensation that should go with them. To postulate that the cidentireplica will actually be hungry when he just ate a very big meal and his stomach is full is not a likely consciousness for the cidentireplica if the original says that he is full. Why would the original say that he is full and actually experience being full where as the cidentireplica says he is full with a full stomach and actually experience a different aspect of consciousness i.e., that of being hungry? Normally people experience hunger when they have not eaten for long enough periods of time. Why would the cidentireplicas be different from other people in this sense and any or ever other cases that can be externally observed? The most likely consciousness of the cidentireplica will be a consciousness that is very much like that of the original just because of the nature of human bodies. (This is called the normalcy argument) mapping of physical aspects of the body to mental aspects produced by the body Another problem is if there is no scientifically discernable difference between the cidentireplica and its original and yet there is a difference between their consciousnesses, and there is not a scientific way of relating the change in matter, space and/or time, to the change in consciousness, we have lost our ability to determine scientific information about how the brain produces consciousness. This is because there will be no way to scientifically explain and predict the changes in consciousness based on physical differences between the original and cidentireplica because there would be none. We would not be able to explain or predict the consciousness of the cidentireplica, nor the originals either. If we could correlate the functioning of the original’s brain with a certain consciousness it would only be good for that particular original and only on weak inductive grounds. An example of this is the case of mixing baking soda and vinegar. What happens is you get fizzing because you get a gas by product. But what happens if the first time you do the experiment you get the fizzing gas but the second time with all variables the same you do not get fizzing you get a blue solution. Then the third experiment nothing happens. The fourth experiment you have an explosion like a firecracker. The fifth experiment you have made a plastic. The sixth experiment you have created a lizard. If this was the case, we could not predict what the next mixing will bring. Will it bring one of the first six results or will it be something entirely new? (Duplicatability of natural Scientific experiments argument) Duplicatability is the basis for science and technology. Imagine if there is no duplicatability in nature: we make an exact copy to an original workable computer but it does not work. The next exact copy #2 is not like the previous two so it has to work, but differently than the first two copies of the computer for instance 2+2 =3, green for the original computer is now blue for copy #2. If this is the case computers would be worthless. The original is the first experiment as to what physical properties produce what consciousness. The cidentireplica is the second. In science if you did an experiment once and carefully redid the experiment again keeping all the variables the same, if you had to make a prediction on what the outcome would be for the second experiment before it happened, you would predict that it would be the same outcome as the first experiment. If the results in the second experiment were different from the results in the first you ask what was there different in the second experiment to produce this difference? (Scientific prediction through induction argument)


Idoriginal argument If it is just the concept of the cidentireplica that makes it have a different consciousness, it could be the original could be a cidentireplica itself. This may seem unlikely but we have no ideas how many universes are out there and how long they have existed for so we have no way of really determining if there have ever been an original copy of an cidentireplica or not. If cidentireplicas always have a different consciousness than their original only applies to Why does the cidentireplica making process alone produce a difference in consciousness? If this is the case we invent the concept of the idoriginal -- a naturally occurring original that happens to be identical to some other original. It could have existed before during or after the original in time but produced in exactly the same way as the original was. Where as it does not matter how a cidentireplica comes to be the way it is such as the instantaneously assembly of matter

I do not want to imply with this argument that only one consciousness can be produced from one brain at a time but there will be the consciousness of the original produced in the brain of the cidentireplica. Nor does this argument purpose that there can not be an observer consciousness that experiences all the conscious characteristics of the original. (Perspective on a consciousness argument) It is fairly easy to imagine experiencing what some one else's sensepath is. This is imaging smelling, seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting something different. It is harder to sense his actual other consciousness aspects that he is experiences. But we can also imagine this also like having the feeling of sadness, happiness, or foreboding. Or for skills like understanding a foreign language, mathematics or playing a piano. Does this make you the original or the cidentireplica no but it does give you insight into his life. How do you create this experience for you? You start with your brain now and you modify the signals to replicate the nervous system signals coming in from your senses. Then you modify the your brain to feel the emotions etc that the original feels. It must be kept in mind that the exact same nervous system signals that effects the original will not likely have exactly the same effect on you. So a modification will have to occur for you to experience the consciousness of some one else as an observer will require a different sf than that of the cidentireplica or original so an observer can experience the consciousness of the original and cidentireplica it will be a different consciousness produced with a different sf.


Fifth possibility

Explain the problem Explain the empirical argument of that abnormal structure and functioning of the brain produces abnormal consciousness normal structure and functioning produces normal consciousness. If the original has abnormal structure and or functioning then here should be the abnormal consciousness in the cidentireplica. If not abnormal functioning and structure in the original then there should be normal consciousness produced in the cidentireplica


Fifth possibility (insane, crazy) The consciousness that the cidentireplica produces, in this possibility is out of touch with reality or sense experience to some degree. It could be called totally psychotic or swinging between normalcy and periods of psychosis. This means that it is producing a consciousness that is in various ways not connected to reality or produces a conscious reality that is disjointed etc. This is different from a cid paradox, but could be the result of the cid paradox that is not resolved. We know through scientific research that a brain that does not function within certain parameters has difficulty fitting into society, being happy, behaving normally, essentially it has psychological problems. Many bizarre types of consciousness fits into this category. Crazy or bizarre consciousnesses corresponds to bizarre, crazy, or abnormal behavior and abnormal brain functioning and structure. We know that deviant behavior corresponds to abnormalities in brain functioning. produces differences in brain functioning from not non deviant behavior. Deviant brain functioning produces deviant behavior argument (Deviant behavior argument)(Abnormal functioning abnormal consciousness argument) The cid paradox will not necessarily cause a problem here if you already have sufficient enough psychological problems your body behaving and communicating differently than you want it to may seem normal or seem like part of the psychosis. Enough crazy thoughts will eventually produce crazy behavior. If we consider that the crazy thoughts are totally disconnected from the behavior so that crazy external behavior never occurs, what consciousness do we have connected to the behavior, that is corresponding to or producing the behavior of the original? The brain could input the sense information like the original does. Because the consciousness is crazy it does not matter how the sense information effects the consciousness. But for a crazy (disconnected, disjointed disorganized, incoherent, or illogical) consciousness to produce no change in behavior there would have to be no effect of consciousness on the working of the neurons. We consequently, have a case of epiphenomenalism but we made the stipulation of scientific materialism--- consciousness is produced by the functioning and structure of the neurons.

There are three possibilities: 1. The original can be crazy and the cidentireplica can be normal. 2. The original can be normal and the cidentireplica’s consciousness is crazy (abnormal). 3. The consciousness of the original is abnormal and the cidentireplica is different and abnormal also.

==

Insane demented deranged, drug induced, injury induced, sensepath induced, environmentally induced, or genetically induced it is changing the functioning of the brain


We will never see this psychotic behavior. We have no way to tell that it exists in the cidentireplica. The psychosis can only be visible in the behavior if the original behaves psychotically and /or if the cidentireplica is no longer a cidentireplica of the original.

If this kind of consciousness can exist it can exist within any one including the original.

All these arguments apply to the insane case except the cid paradox but is there a unique argument for the insane case? The cid paradox will apply in many cases because there are all sorts of levels of physiological problems and just because you have one does not mean that you are not aware of the different behavior of your body in comparison to your thinking and trying to control it

It is unreasonable to think that there will be more of these insane consciousness in cidentireplicas that there is in real life for the originals and there are really only a few originals in real life that would be happy with their behavior being completely different than their minds want.

If the crazy consciousness is not (controlling) corresponding to the behavior, what is controlling the behavior of the cidentireplica? The functioning of the brain which is exactly like the functioning of the originals brain.

A crazy brain is a radically different consciousness from the original’s consciousness. For there to be this much difference in consciousness there must be some controlling factors that is affecting the cidentireplica that is not effecting the original’s brain.


When scientist studies the brain of people with crazy behavior they find that their brain are functioning differently than a normal persons brains are.

How can a person with an abnormal/ crazy consciousness produce normal behavior at the same time? It is reporting that it is perfectly fine when you ask it questions about how it is doing? Normal consciousness and crazy behavior people act abnormally with normal consciousness for various reasons like entertainment to empress, control etc.

If the cidentireplica is producing a crazy consciousness but not crazy behavior and the original consciousness is normal and corresponding to that behavior, The consciousness has to be totally disconnected from the brain that supposedly produces it.


The argument for reduction to materialism what is the rule for reducing a non physical thing to a physical thing. How do you explain the knowledge in a novel

If a property, cause, thing, is believed to be non physical and can not be reduced to physical concepts how do you reduce it into becoming a scientific concept. You tie it into the web of scientific belief. Do all ideas have to be tied into scientific beliefs and materialism?


What is the argument that one piece of matter such as an atom will supply some other factor necessary for some specific consciousness and the exact same atom will not? (Replaceability of matter argument)


Arguments that do apply

Multiple cidentireplica argument-- MC argument

Multiple videntireplica argument--VC argument


Infinite cidentireplica /close videntireplica finite consciousness argument Infinite physapath finite awarepath argument ---- IPFA argument



Not needed in chapter 1=====

for continuity arguments necessity of sf continuity or continuousness not necessity of ixperiencit or consciousness continuity or connectedness there appear to be many ways to get from one sf to the next. If continuity or continuousness is necessary it is not for the purpose it is just because this is the only physical way to get from one consciousness point to the next an analogy it may be impossible to be to the moon by building a pyramid but a rocket is possible, warping space may be a possibility also or not. primitive technology can produce an original it can also produce a cidentireplica but the probability is very small unless the universe repeats itself in time or is so complex it can repeat itself in space.


======Move down

==