Atlantis: Ghost in the Machine

[clearspira]

The soul is ''you''. It is the bit of you that is looking out of your eyes reading this. It is the bit that is perhaps typing out a response to me right now; picturing your words, articulating your points, drawing from your experience, talking to yourself in your head. It is the bit that carries all of your thoughts, feelings, emotions and desires. In other words, your soul is every cluster of your brain that fires when ''you'' is about to do ''you'' things.

A clone isn't ''you''. Even if you were to copy your brain exactly, ''you'' are still behind your own eyes, looking out whilst someone else, who thinks like you but isn't ''you'', is staring back. The Arnold Schwarzenegger film ''The Sixth Day'' is a very good example of this in how it treats its clones as completely different people who think like the original.

Now, maybe, in fantasy sci-fi land, ''you'' can be removed and put somewhere else. But in real life, I find it hard to believe any such procedure would be anything more than a copy and paste.

[Frustration]

The soul is ''you''. It is the bit of you that is looking out of your eyes reading this. It is the bit that is perhaps typing out a response to me right now; picturing your words, articulating your points, drawing from your experience, talking to yourself in your head. It is the bit that carries all of your thoughts, feelings, emotions and desires. In other words, your soul is every cluster of your brain that fires when ''you'' is about to do ''you'' things.

That can be duplicated.

What do you think "copy and paste" *is*?

[TGLS]

If I understand what clearspira is trying to say, he's saying that the soul is the thing that's experiencing everything. If someone were to xerox a copy of you like Riker was in "Second Chances", then the soul is the thing that differentiates the two.

[Frustration]

Except it was their divergent experiences that made it possible to distinguish Riker One from Riker A.

At the moment the duplication happened, they had identical 'souls'.

[Swiftbow]

The soul is ''you''. It is the bit of you that is looking out of your eyes reading this. It is the bit that is perhaps typing out a response to me right now; picturing your words, articulating your points, drawing from your experience, talking to yourself in your head. It is the bit that carries all of your thoughts, feelings, emotions and desires. In other words, your soul is every cluster of your brain that fires when ''you'' is about to do ''you'' things.

That can be duplicated.

What do you think "copy and paste" *is*?

Duplicated, sure. But then both are independent entities.

Unless you're arguing that, if you were cloned, you would simultaneously experience the life of both you and whatever the clone was doing? I don't think that's your argument.

In any case, I agree with cleaspira for real life. I believe, for example, that if you remove the soul, a lifeform becomes an automaton, incapable of making choices that aren't purely instinctual or logical breakdowns. (I thus believe that ALL life has some form of a soul... and that AI could possibly one day have such as well. This definition of a soul is often called "consciousness," but I think they're the same thing.)

However, in my prior post, I was largely arguing as to how SG-1 treats the subject, not my own beliefs.

[clearspira]

Except it was their divergent experiences that made it possible to distinguish Riker One from Riker A.

At the moment the duplication happened, they had identical 'souls'.

OK... let me try and put this another way. This is a copy and paste.



''You'' that is to say ''you'' the one who is reading this right now, is the O'Brian standing up. You are not in control of the O'Brian on the floor. He is someone else who merely thinks like you. Therefore he is you, but he is not ''you''.

This is the scene from ''The Sixth Day'' I was referring to.



''You'' are the guy bleeding on the floor whilst another you who thinks that he is you is kicking your ass. ''You'' have no control over this entity.

This is a hive mind.



''You'' are no longer there. There is merely a body, a vessel, a shell. The ''soul'' has been dispersed.

I can't explain it better than that.

[Madner Kami]

First and foremost, I do not like using the word "soul", as it has a very strong ecclesiastical or religious connotation which I strictly reject. A "soul", in my understanding, isn't strictly a function of our biological vessel, but something distinct. Something which can be proverbially "spirited away", which can keep existing if the body perishes or can be removed from the body and exist apart. I strictly deny that possiblity.

As for what Clearspira described in one post as the "conciousness", I have to preface that I presume each and every one of us functions fundamentally in the same way, I do. This is something which I can not conclusively prove or verify in any way, as I am literally incapable of looking into your collective "heads" and even taking your word for it, I can not test whether I was truely capable of transporting my thought and the concept properly or not. Anyways, to the point:
This "conciousness", this "I" exists. It's an integral part of our brain's function. It watches what happens, analyzes, judges, percieves, it's this voice in our head. I very much dispute though, that this "I" is actually who we are, what we are. This "I" is a function of our brain, which roughly functions as a rational observer which can reflect on situations in ways our subconcious, our instinctual self can not and which is also capable of extrapolating future developments based on it's observations and perceptions to a much higher degree, than our subconcious can do.
This subconciousness, I'll refer to as "It" in this context, is also a kind of I. In a way, it's the autopilot of this biological system and it will be in control of this body the entire time. It's what controls my movements, decides on whether I'll drink something or not and is also capable of more complex tasks, like writing these lines or having a chat and most of the time, this "It" is what we interact with, when we interact with each other, rather than the "I".

Why do I think that "I" am merely or, rather, mostly a passenger? Well, this body is capable of completing complex tasks without any sort of input by "I". I often experience myself going through entire days without the "I" doing more than "looking around". I rarely think, ok, I should put this here and move that over there and say this sentence in that conversation and this is something I especially percieve as a fact, when I have a conversation with someone. "I" may have a vague concept in my head in regards to what I want to say, but I generally do not formulate entire sentences in "I's" head, before "I" say them or type them into this neat little box here. Oftentimes, the sentence will already be on screen or have left my mouth, before "I" become fully aware of how exactly I formulated the thought. Sometimes "I" disagree or percieve a certain composition of words or letters as disadvantageous or misleading in terms of transporting a thought-construct and then "I" will correct this. At other times, I am not sure whether I can formulate a thought or thought-construct properly and then "I" will think about what I say or type, before I put the thought down in words.

As you can see, "I" fully am convinced, that "I" am rarely in actual control of this body or the I at all, though at times the I or "It" will defer to "I's" judgements and suggestions when it comes to tasks that "It" feels it's incapable of handling properly. By nature of our constant co-existence, the "I" and the "It" will have matching interests, perceptions, judgements for the most part, though it's quite possible to have the "I" and the "It" in disagreement over situations. Like my eczema. It itches. "I" know that scratching will solve the itch in the short term, but the itch will come back harder and the scratching will wound or weaken the skin and thus harm the body for no good reason. Yet I scratch. "It" decided to scratch, because scratching gives a short-term relief and a good feeling, which "It" percieves as benefitial and disregards the long-term consequences, because they'll usually be minor. "I" often have to make a concious decission and "put a foot down" to stop the scratching when it becomes more than a short scratch. Or sometimes "I" am not aware of the scratching and another person in the same room calls me out for it. "It" stops the scratching, because of both "I" becoming aware and strongly suggesting to stop it and "It" being aware of the scolding and implied judgement by other people's "Its" and "Is".
Same happens with other things that are not benefitial to me. Like eating these damn cookies. I'm not hungry, I'm well-fed. Too well fed in fact, as I weigh roughly 120kg with a 1.9m frame. Not fat, but I got quite some blubber which is clearly not helping with my health and constitution and yet, "It" eats them, despite "I" telling "It": No. Bad "It". Stop that! You are harming ourself!" "It" very much has it's own interests and is not always capable of making proper judgements, as it operates on a more instinctual level, rather than a rational level. Now that doesn't mean that "I" am super-rational. "I" have my own biases, localized perceptions and am not always fully aware of everything that is going on, but "I" am capable of working with situations on a level that the "It" simply can't, because it's "closer to the hardware" than "I" seem to be (without fully being part from the "hardware", for lack of a better word). Emotions still influence my "I", but "I" am capable of "stepping outside" of some of the trappings that "It" is subject to and can't escape easily or, arguably, at all.
Wierdly enough, "I" think that "It" is entirely capable of shutting "I" down in a manner of speaking, because "It" controls what "I" percieve or don't, at least to a limited degree. "I" will not be aware of this, though "I" can become aware of this by observing what I do and how I behave and feel and sometimes this moment of becoming aware of my lack of control creates an opportunity to gain a sort of control over "It" and me. Other times, this moment of becoming aware is just fascinating and I keep watching. Other times, it's outright horrifying.

Either way, I don't think "I" or "It" are capable functioning apart from the me, or this body, this physical entity. If someone clones me, it will create a distinct physical entity with it's own "It" and "I". If someone copys me, it will create a possibly identical copy of the "It" and the "I", but they're still going to be distinct entities from this body's "It" and "I". They initially may make functionally the same decissions, due to having an identical base of experiences to work off of, but they'll make their own judgements and decissions from the first moment of existence and will become increasingly distinct from me over time.
Similarly Transporters as described in Star Trek. I will stop existing and an identical copy of me will begin existing at the end of the transporter. "I", "It" and this body will cease to exist the moment I am dematerialized, because neither "I" nor "It" can exist without the body, as we are strictly functions of this body, particularly the brain, the neural network within this body. A functionally identical copy of me will be made and a new "I", "It" and I will start existing, but the original I, "I" and "It" are gone forever. Now whether that's a horrifying thought or, rationally viewed, is irrelevant, since this new I will very likely act and experience things in the same way the old I would have and develop along the same lines, is quite likely, so I could percieve this new I as a continuation of my previous existence, without it actually being one, well, this I am not certain about. That's something where my "I" and "It" are in disagreement with. Ironically enough, the "I" and "It" will take over the other's judgement of the situation and switch positions at times. It's... interesting to watch and percieve this and that's something "I" feel both "I" and "It" find an amusing concept.

[Fianna]

I don't think transporters necessarily work like that. Yes, they turn your body into energy before reassembling it at the other end, but we've seen plenty of living beings in Star Trek that are made of pure energy, so being turned into energy doesn't mean you're not still alive.

[Swiftbow]

First and foremost, I do not like using the word "soul", as it has a very strong ecclesiastical or religious connotation which I strictly reject. A "soul", in my understanding, isn't strictly a function of our biological vessel, but something distinct. Something which can be proverbially "spirited away", which can keep existing if the body perishes or can be removed from the body and exist apart. I strictly deny that possiblity.

As for what Clearspira described in one post as the "conciousness", I have to preface that I presume each and every one of us functions fundamentally in the same way, I do. This is something which I can not conclusively prove or verify in any way, as I am literally incapable of looking into your collective "heads" and even taking your word for it, I can not test whether I was truely capable of transporting my thought and the concept properly or not. Anyways, to the point:
This "conciousness", this "I" exists. It's an integral part of our brain's function. It watches what happens, analyzes, judges, percieves, it's this voice in our head. I very much dispute though, that this "I" is actually who we are, what we are. This "I" is a function of our brain, which roughly functions as a rational observer which can reflect on situations in ways our subconcious, our instinctual self can not and which is also capable of extrapolating future developments based on it's observations and perceptions to a much higher degree, than our subconcious can do.
This subconciousness, I'll refer to as "It" in this context, is also a kind of I. In a way, it's the autopilot of this biological system and it will be in control of this body the entire time. It's what controls my movements, decides on whether I'll drink something or not and is also capable of more complex tasks, like writing these lines or having a chat and most of the time, this "It" is what we interact with, when we interact with each other, rather than the "I".

Why do I think that "I" am merely or, rather, mostly a passenger? Well, this body is capable of completing complex tasks without any sort of input by "I". I often experience myself going through entire days without the "I" doing more than "looking around". I rarely think, ok, I should put this here and move that over there and say this sentence in that conversation and this is something I especially percieve as a fact, when I have a conversation with someone. "I" may have a vague concept in my head in regards to what I want to say, but I generally do not formulate entire sentences in "I's" head, before "I" say them or type them into this neat little box here. Oftentimes, the sentence will already be on screen or have left my mouth, before "I" become fully aware of how exactly I formulated the thought. Sometimes "I" disagree or percieve a certain composition of words or letters as disadvantageous or misleading in terms of transporting a thought-construct and then "I" will correct this. At other times, I am not sure whether I can formulate a thought or thought-construct properly and then "I" will think about what I say or type, before I put the thought down in words.

As you can see, "I" fully am convinced, that "I" am rarely in actual control of this body or the I at all, though at times the I or "It" will defer to "I's" judgements and suggestions when it comes to tasks that "It" feels it's incapable of handling properly. By nature of our constant co-existence, the "I" and the "It" will have matching interests, perceptions, judgements for the most part, though it's quite possible to have the "I" and the "It" in disagreement over situations. Like my eczema. It itches. "I" know that scratching will solve the itch in the short term, but the itch will come back harder and the scratching will wound or weaken the skin and thus harm the body for no good reason. Yet I scratch. "It" decided to scratch, because scratching gives a short-term relief and a good feeling, which "It" percieves as benefitial and disregards the long-term consequences, because they'll usually be minor. "I" often have to make a concious decission and "put a foot down" to stop the scratching when it becomes more than a short scratch. Or sometimes "I" am not aware of the scratching and another person in the same room calls me out for it. "It" stops the scratching, because of both "I" becoming aware and strongly suggesting to stop it and "It" being aware of the scolding and implied judgement by other people's "Its" and "Is".
Same happens with other things that are not benefitial to me. Like eating these damn cookies. I'm not hungry, I'm well-fed. Too well fed in fact, as I weigh roughly 120kg with a 1.9m frame. Not fat, but I got quite some blubber which is clearly not helping with my health and constitution and yet, "It" eats them, despite "I" telling "It": No. Bad "It". Stop that! You are harming ourself!" "It" very much has it's own interests and is not always capable of making proper judgements, as it operates on a more instinctual level, rather than a rational level. Now that doesn't mean that "I" am super-rational. "I" have my own biases, localized perceptions and am not always fully aware of everything that is going on, but "I" am capable of working with situations on a level that the "It" simply can't, because it's "closer to the hardware" than "I" seem to be (without fully being part from the "hardware", for lack of a better word). Emotions still influence my "I", but "I" am capable of "stepping outside" of some of the trappings that "It" is subject to and can't escape easily or, arguably, at all.
Wierdly enough, "I" think that "It" is entirely capable of shutting "I" down in a manner of speaking, because "It" controls what "I" percieve or don't, at least to a limited degree. "I" will not be aware of this, though "I" can become aware of this by observing what I do and how I behave and feel and sometimes this moment of becoming aware of my lack of control creates an opportunity to gain a sort of control over "It" and me. Other times, this moment of becoming aware is just fascinating and I keep watching. Other times, it's outright horrifying.

Either way, I don't think "I" or "It" are capable functioning apart from the me, or this body, this physical entity. If someone clones me, it will create a distinct physical entity with it's own "It" and "I". If someone copys me, it will create a possibly identical copy of the "It" and the "I", but they're still going to be distinct entities from this body's "It" and "I". They initially may make functionally the same decissions, due to having an identical base of experiences to work off of, but they'll make their own judgements and decissions from the first moment of existence and will become increasingly distinct from me over time.
Similarly Transporters as described in Star Trek. I will stop existing and an identical copy of me will begin existing at the end of the transporter. "I", "It" and this body will cease to exist the moment I am dematerialized, because neither "I" nor "It" can exist without the body, as we are strictly functions of this body, particularly the brain, the neural network within this body. A functionally identical copy of me will be made and a new "I", "It" and I will start existing, but the original I, "I" and "It" are gone forever. Now whether that's a horrifying thought or, rationally viewed, is irrelevant, since this new I will very likely act and experience things in the same way the old I would have and develop along the same lines, is quite likely, so I could percieve this new I as a continuation of my previous existence, without it actually being one, well, this I am not certain about. That's something where my "I" and "It" are in disagreement with. Ironically enough, the "I" and "It" will take over the other's judgement of the situation and switch positions at times. It's... interesting to watch and percieve this and that's something "I" feel both "I" and "It" find an amusing concept.

I don't know if your thinking goes QUITE this far, but viewing your body and yourself as separate entities is often considered a psychosis.

Regardless of that... I think you're equating what might be called "muscle memory" or "instinct" as "It." That is, the part of you that can run kind of on "autopilot." However, that isn't a separate "You" so much as the part of you that you've trained to handle the mundane tasks of living.

I can't speak to the conversation part... Thinking and talking are in real-time. Your brain processes FAST. (Faster by orders of magnitude against any supercomputer. Even faster than the number Data quotes for himself in one episode.) You're in control.

That said, there IS a subconscious part of your brain. I regard this as the pure instinctual level (the part that would function without a soul/consciousness/whatever you want to call it.) This part of your brain handles breathing, hunger, etc. and its one and only goal is to keep you alive.

It doesn't always do the best job of this... as evidenced by people who freeze up or panic in stressful situations. But this is the result more of malfunctioning (or possibly insufficient training). These sections of the brain aren't entirely theoretical, either... they're observable. The prefrontal lobe (the most recently evolved section) seems to be the area where the consciousness lives. The other, more primitive sections (often called the "lizard brain") are more similar to less advanced animals.

That said, even lizards have evolved a prefrontal cortex. (And birds have a slightly different model that accomplishes the same task.)

If we're getting metaphysical, I think that the consciousness/soul is formed through the act of living, and, as an energy field, could logically survive the death of the organism. Though, obviously, in a state we don't fully understand.

[Madner Kami]

I don't know if your thinking goes QUITE this far, but viewing your body and yourself as separate entities is often considered a psychosis.

I do not consider the "I" or the concious thought as a separate entity to the body in such a way as you seem to describe. The "I" is a part of the overall entity that is the person standing in front of you, if we were speaking eye to eye right now. This person is the "It", is the "I" and is the body/basic bodily functions rolled into one, a kind of consensus in a manner of speaking.

Without the "I", I'd functionally be barely more than an animal. This may happen in certain circumstances, when a situation forces me into a, for lack of a better word, "pure survival mode". Say, when I panic, for example, though even that would be temporary.
Without an "It", I'd have to micromanage everything I do, from more basic tasks like movements to more complex tasks, like say conversations. I'm not quite sure whether I can think of a situation where this would happen. Best I can come up with is a situation where I am entirely unfamiliar with what I am doing, say learning a dance or indulging in a conversation about a topic that I am interested in but have no in-depth knowledge about. But in those situations the "It" isn't absent, it and, well, "It" just defers any kind of control on the topic at hand to the "I" entirely.
Without either an "It" and an "I", I'd be comatose, a vegetable. I may still breath (it stands to reason, that there's a more basic entity controlling these functions, which plays no vital role in any sort of higher task, but that's besides the point) and so on, but that's about it.

Regardless of that... I think you're equating what might be called "muscle memory" or "instinct" as "It." That is, the part of you that can run kind of on "autopilot." However, that isn't a separate "You" so much as the part of you that you've trained to handle the mundane tasks of living.

That's not quite what I mean. I choose the example of a conversation for this exact reason. I feel the "It" is quite capable of performing complex tasks. I probably shouldn't call "It" an "It" and rather use the word "subconciousness", but I feel the prefix "sub-" creates a sort of hierarchy that I do not feel is quite justified.

I can't speak to the conversation part... Thinking and talking are in real-time. Your brain processes FAST. (Faster by orders of magnitude against any supercomputer. Even faster than the number Data quotes for himself in one episode.) You're in control.

"I" can take control, yes. But "I" am not always in control. Basic conversations are one such very prominent moment where "I" percieve this lag between what I do and what "I" think. Maybe you know the expression of "I didn't mean to say that, I was talking faster than I am thinking"? That kind of thing. I feel that what we describe as the "conciousness" may be quite literally an afterthought. A reflection of the "It", a function of the brain that analyzes complex situations in a way the "It" can not. The brain may be fast, but it has limits and we all know that we can decide things before "we" decide things, which implies a situational hierarchy that runs counter to the classic implications of "conciousness" and "subconciousness". That however doesn't mean, that the "subconciousness" is in complete control
Maybe the distinction is more along the lines of "planning conciousness" and "executing conciousness"? But that doesn't seem quite right, as my "It" seems very capable of executing complex tasks without "I's" direct intervention, though I am not entirely sure if this may very well be "trained reflex" in a more complex manner than one usually thinks of it or not. Either way, either can supercede the other, but neither is in absolute control to the detriment of the other and from an outside view, the personality at hand will always be a sort of consensus of "I" and "It", except under extreme circumstances, as described above.

If we're getting metaphysical, I think that the consciousness/soul is formed through the act of living, and, as an energy field, could logically survive the death of the organism. Though, obviously, in a state we don't fully understand.

I do not subscribe to the possibility of a personality being able to exist without a physical hardware to run on, be it mechanoelectrical or biological in nature. I do ceede the possibility however, that on a quantum-level we're more than just these physical entities, for lack of a better word, as ultimately we're only a conglomerate of statistical probabilities on a quantum level.