To understand self, I think, we have to consider some theoretically possible situations, though practically a fair way off.
Consideration 1 – Programs can be written to collect data, store, interpret, learn, copy (reproduce) and evolve. The trends, to me, clearly indicate it is only a matter of time before “artificial intelligence” is created that can mimic what we call life, and intelligence. There are some good science fiction movies (I recommend “Artificial Intelligence”) that present pertinent points to consider. I don’t think it should matter whether feelings, memories, and thoughts are programmed by man or nature; they are both equivalent.
Consideration 2 – Living beings reproduce in different ways. Amoeba (A), for example, divides itself into two (A1 and A2). It is not accurate to say A is dead. It now lives as two individuals. At the instant of division, A1 and A2 both have the same past. In a few seconds, their pasts would be distinct. Similarly, cloning results in two beings with same genetic code exposed to different experiences. Clones, in effect, have two individuals with same genetic codes but different experiences and memories. Similar situations result if in a teleportation an individual is copied elsewhere without destroying him/her here. There would two individuals with the same past, but with different futures.
Consideration 3 – We repeatedly see individuals disowning themselves of their past selves. For example, I can admit my mistakes of say 20 years ago more easily than the mistakes of the present moment (we always cling to a redeeming feature; I was forced, or but at least I am accepting my mistake, s/he is not). Similarly, we would prefer 10 years of suffering in our past than 10 minutes of suffering in the present future.
The last two considerations clearly indicate that individual identity is defined only in the present moment. Past identity is easily disowned; future can be non-unique, i.e. two/many equally original versions of us can exist. There is no way to tell now which is the “real”; because all of them are equally real and will have equally valid claims to the original unique person of the past. Of course, they would be unique an instant after their creation.
If combined with consideration 1, the definition of an individual is self evolving program with unique data (memories). For example, two clones will start off with the same code, but will evolve themselves into different programs based on their experiences and innate quantum randomness of nature. So if we define the individual as the code with which s/he is born, it is built by parts of the two parents. We are a combination of our parents, responding to different experiences and evolving our thoughts (programs) based on that. So in a way, none of us ever die. We only evolve. Only our memories are deleted at our death. However, I am not sure even our memories are deleted. Presently, with our technology, we are able to analyze a small bone of a million years ago and build the whole organism. Maybe a sufficiently superior civilization can derive our lives from our little nail, and restart us at exactly the instant of our death with the same memories in a non-decaying body. It is also worthy of remembering consciousness is conscious of itself only when conscious. Our memories may die; we (the programs) will continue surviving and evolving.
Free Hit Counter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the ideas were based on Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained".
