DAVID: Teleportation involves digitalizing a person's body and reproducing it elsewhere. Is one's self the same is the question raised by this philosopher. I cannot edit this as all the thoughts must be presented from the author who believes self is an illusion:
https://aeon.co/ideas/if-i-teleport-from-mars-does-the-original-me-get-destroyed?utm_so...

DAVID’s comment: What is true is that the body I had at the beginning of my life and that which grew into full adulthood is not the body I inhabit now. Much of the bone structure is the same and much of the original neurons in my brain are the same or direct descendants. What is the same is my memory of my life and my current personality structure. I have an immaterial image of myself which is a lifelong image. I am not the same as the author's image of a long lasting poker club which is the same but with all new members.
I think my teleported twin would look like me but like the author I do not think I would think of me as me. I doubt if we can digitalize an immaterial soul. So I agree with him even if I start from a different premise, that a soul exists.

dhw: The author begins:
I don’t think there is such a thing as a soul, or some ghost that inhabits my machine. I’m just the result of the activity among my 100 billion neurons and their 100 trillion distinctive connections. And, what’s more, that activity is what it is, no matter what collection of neurons is doing it. If you went about replacing those neurons one by one, but kept all the connections and activity the same, I would still be me.

I don’t think he believes in a soul, but who cares? This is philosophical game playing. Ah well, for what it's worth, my view is that regardless of whether there is a soul or not, yes I am me, but no I am not exactly the same me as I was twenty, thirty, forty years ago, either physically or mentally. Experiences change us. So if I left one me on Mars, the me that returned to Earth would have different experiences from the me that was left on Mars (including the experience of being left on Mars and of returning to Earth). They’d both still be me, but neither me would always be the same me.

The key is I am me, a immaterial concept based on memory and construct called personality.

DAVID’s comment: What is true is that the body I had at the beginning of my life and that which grew into full adulthood is not the body I inhabit now. Much of the bone structure is the same and much of the original neurons in my brain are the same or direct descendants. What is the same is my memory of my life and my current personality structure. I have an immaterial image of myself which is a lifelong image. I am not the same as the author's image of a long lasting poker club which is the same but with all new members.
I think my teleported twin would look like me but like the author I do not think I would think of me as me. I doubt if we can digitalize an immaterial soul. So I agree with him even if I start from a different premise, that a soul exists.

The author begins:
I don’t think there is such a thing as a soul, or some ghost that inhabits my machine. I’m just the result of the activity among my 100 billion neurons and their 100 trillion distinctive connections. And, what’s more, that activity is what it is, no matter what collection of neurons is doing it. If you went about replacing those neurons one by one, but kept all the connections and activity the same, I would still be me.

I don’t think he believes in a soul, but who cares? This is philosophical game playing. Ah well, for what it's worth, my view is that regardless of whether there is a soul or not, yes I am me, but no I am not exactly the same me as I was twenty, thirty, forty years ago, either physically or mentally. Experiences change us. So if I left one me on Mars, the me that returned to Earth would have different experiences from the me that was left on Mars (including the experience of being left on Mars and of returning to Earth). They’d both still be me, but neither me would always be the same me.

https://aeon.co/ideas/if-i-teleport-from-mars-does-the-original-me-get-destroyed?utm_so...

Comment: What is true is that the body I had at the beginning of my life and that which grew into full adulthood is not the body I inhabit now. Much of the bone structure is the same and much of the original neurons in my brain are the same or direct descendants. What is the same is my memory of my life and my current personality structure. I have an immaterial image of myself which is a lifelong image. I am not the same as the author's image of a long lasting poker club which is the same but with all new members.

I think my teleported twin would look like me but like the author I do not think I would think of me as me. I doubt if we can digitalize an immaterial soul. So I agree with him even if I start from a different premise, that a soul exists.

dhw: Emotions are reactions to perceptions, whether sensory or psychological, so of course there is no “fundamental” difference – they are both perceptions which can also be called experiences.

QUOTES relating first to existing theories: “In other words, emotions aren’t a response to what our brain takes in from our observations, but, rather, are intrinsic to our makeup.” But the new theory sees “emotional states as similar to other states of consciousness.”

The existing theory as reproduced here simply conflates reaction with the nature of the reaction. The emotions we feel, just like our decisions, our social behaviour and all our other “states of consciousness” ARE a response to perception/experience. But the WAY we respond is intrinsic to our makeup. All our states of consciousness follow the same obvious pattern: experience precedes reaction. Is it really possible that nobody thought of this before?

I feel your objections to this theory are highly relevant. Our consciousness develops its relationships to reality by experiencing reality.

I find it hard to believe that this is a new theory, but I’m not sure whether that is my fault or the fault of the arguments offered.

QUOTE: Emotions are not innately programmed into our brains, but, in fact, are cognitive states resulting from the gathering of information, New York University Professor Joseph LeDoux and Richard Brown, a professor at the City University of New York, conclude.

You won’t have an emotion unless you have something to be emotional about (information), just as you won’t have a memory (information) unless you have something to remember. Has anyone ever argued the contrary?

QUOTE: "'We argue that conscious experiences, regardless of their content, arise from one system in the brain," explains LeDoux, a professor in New York University's Center for Neural Science. "Specifically, the differences between emotional and non-emotional states are the kinds of inputs that are processed by a general cortical network of cognition, a network essential for conscious experiences."

If consciousness arises from a general cortical network (the “one system in the brain”), then it’s not exactly a revelation that all states (emotional and non-emotional) relating to consciousness are processed by a general cortical network in the brain which is essential to consciousness. This seems to me to be talking in circles.

QUOTE: “As a result, LeDoux and Brown observe, "the brain mechanisms that give rise to conscious emotional feelings are not fundamentally different from those that give rise to perceptual conscious experiences."

Emotions are reactions to perceptions, whether sensory or psychological, so of course there is no “fundamental” difference – they are both perceptions which can also be called experiences.

QUOTES relating first to existing theories: “In other words, emotions aren’t a response to what our brain takes in from our observations, but, rather, are intrinsic to our makeup.” But the new theory sees “emotional states as similar to other states of consciousness.”

The existing theory as reproduced here simply conflates reaction with the nature of the reaction. The emotions we feel, just like our decisions, our social behaviour and all our other “states of consciousness” ARE a response to perception/experience. But the WAY we respond is intrinsic to our makeup. All our states of consciousness follow the same obvious pattern: experience precedes reaction. Is it really possible that nobody thought of this before?

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-02-emotions-cognitive-innate.html

"Emotions are not innately programmed into our brains, but, in fact, are cognitive states resulting from the gathering of information, New York University Professor Joseph LeDoux and Richard Brown, a professor at the City University of New York, conclude.

***

"'We argue that conscious experiences, regardless of their content, arise from one system in the brain," explains LeDoux, a professor in New York University's Center for Neural Science. "Specifically, the differences between emotional and non-emotional states are the kinds of inputs that are processed by a general cortical network of cognition, a network essential for conscious experiences."
As a result, LeDoux and Brown observe, "the brain mechanisms that give rise to conscious emotional feelings are not fundamentally different from those that give rise to perceptual conscious experiences."

"Their paper—"A Higher-Order Theory of Emotional Consciousness"—addresses a notable gap in neuroscience theory. While emotions, or feelings, are the most significant events in our lives, there has been relatively little integration of theories of emotion and emerging theories of consciousness in cognitive science.

"Existing work posits that emotions are innately programmed in the brain's subcortical circuits. As a result, emotions are often treated as different from cognitive states of consciousness, such as those related to the perception of external stimuli. In other words, emotions aren't a response to what our brain takes in from our observations, but, rather, are intrinsic to our makeup.

"However, after taking into account existing scholarship on both cognition and emotion, LeDoux and Brown see a quite different architecture for emotions—one more centered on process than on composition. They conclude that emotions are "higher-order states" embedded in cortical circuits. Therefore, unlike present theories, they see emotional states as similar to other states of consciousness."

Comment: Their work is a more reasonable theory than what existed previously, in my opinion. Newborn children bond to their mothers through hormonal connections (oxytocin) automatically, but as they develop they learn to think about that love. I think envy, jealousy and others must be developed as life is experienced.

DAVID: ...true materialism does not explain consciousness while dualism appears to by including materialism on one side of its duality.

dhw: We are all wrestling with very complex matters here. However, I don’t think either dualism or materialism explains consciousness. Materialism claims that materials must be the source of consciousness, and dualism claims that consciousness is independent of materials. “True” dualism, in my view, can only lead back to some sort of God, but even that is not an explanation – it’s merely a statement: that consciousness has always existed as the first cause.

DAVID: That is the only answer. Consciousness is the appearance of an inorganic universe inventing a way to study itself! First life ( against all odds) then introspective consciousness appears. All by chance. Consciousness first is the only reasonable conclusion.

dhw: That was not the point I was answering. You said that dualism appeared to explain consciousness. Nothing explains consciousness. Your belief in a universal, eternal consciousness does not EXPLAIN consciousness: it merely tells us that consciousness was always there.

which to me explains why consciousness in humans exists.

dhw: We are all wrestling with very complex matters here. However, I don’t think either dualism or materialism explains consciousness. Materialism claims that materials must be the source of consciousness, and dualism claims that consciousness is independent of materials. “True” dualism, in my view, can only lead back to some sort of God, but even that is not an explanation – it’s merely a statement: that consciousness has always existed as the first cause.

DAVID: That is the only answer. Consciousness is the appearance of an inorganic universe inventing a way to study itself! First life ( against all odds) then introspective consciousness appears. All by chance. Consciousness first is the only reasonable conclusion.

That was not the point I was answering. You said that dualism appeared to explain consciousness. Nothing explains consciousness. Your belief in a universal, eternal consciousness does not EXPLAIN consciousness: it merely tells us that consciousness was always there. My comment was only meant as a minor, slightly pedantic correction to detail!

dhw:I am making two points here. One, that materialism and dualism are not incompatible. But two, we are no nearer to solving the question of whether there is such a thing as a consciousness which can live on as a functioning, communicating, observing “I” after the death of its material source. That would require the purest possible form of dualism, with consciousness preceding materials – a concept that lies at the very heart of most religions and inevitably leads to God. I am not arguing against it, or against the possibility of an immortal, observing and thinking soul, as seems to be suggested by NDEs. I am simply saying that none of the hypotheses (quantum information, morphic field, everlasting energy) are of any help in settling the issue, and I would suggest that science is incapable of doing so, since it is restricted to a materialist approach to the whole subject. That’s why I like Penrose’s caution: “It’s possible,..can exist…perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.” We shall just have to wait and see – or not see!

DAVID: Bravo. Brilliant analysis! However, true materialism does not explain consciousness while dualism appears to by including materialism on one side of its duality.

dhw: Thank you. We are all wrestling with very complex matters here. However, I don’t think either dualism or materialism explains consciousness. Materialism claims that materials must be the source of consciousness, and dualism claims that consciousness is independent of materials. “True” dualism, in my view, can only lead back to some sort of God, but even that is not an explanation – it’s merely a statement: that consciousness has always existed as the first cause.

That is the only answer. Consciousness is the appearance of an inorganic universe inventing a way to study itself! First life ( against all odds) then introspective
consciousness appears. All by chance. Consciousness first is the only reasonable conclusion.

DAVID: Bravo. Brilliant analysis! However, true materialism does not explain consciousness while dualism appears to by including materialism on one side of its duality.

Thank you. We are all wrestling with very complex matters here. However, I don’t think either dualism or materialism explains consciousness. Materialism claims that materials must be the source of consciousness, and dualism claims that consciousness is independent of materials. “True” dualism, in my view, can only lead back to some sort of God, but even that is not an explanation – it’s merely a statement: that consciousness has always existed as the first cause.

dhw:I am making two points here. One, that materialism and dualism are not incompatible. But two, we are no nearer to solving the question of whether there is such a thing as a consciousness which can live on as a functioning, communicating, observing “I” after the death of its material source. That would require the purest possible form of dualism, with consciousness preceding materials – a concept that lies at the very heart of most religions and inevitably leads to God. I am not arguing against it, or against the possibility of an immortal, observing and thinking soul, as seems to be suggested by NDEs. I am simply saying that none of the hypotheses (quantum information, morphic field, everlasting energy) are of any help in settling the issue, and I would suggest that science is incapable of doing so, since it is restricted to a materialist approach to the whole subject. That’s why I like Penrose’s caution: “It’s possible,..can exist…perhaps indefinitely, as a soul” We shall just have to wait and see – or not see!

Bravo. Brilliant analysis! However, true materialism does not explain consciousness while dualism appears to by including materialism on one side of its duality.

I’ve had another look at this, and I think Penrose has a major problem which I’ll come onto later, because first I want to try and formulate my own “reconciliation” between materialism and dualism. This entails synthesizing some of the theories we’ve been discussing, but my starting point is very different from all of them. I pointed out in the “brief guide” that someone on a planet billions of miles away with a powerful enough telescope would be able to view the crucifixion. Light is energy, and theoretically the visual image generated by a material event goes on for ever. The source is material (the actual crucifixion), but the image in the form of energy is not. It survives the death of the material source.

If we take this as an analogy, we can argue that although the material brain may be the source of the consciousness which contains all our non-material attributes – our thoughts, emotions, memories etc. – these are also a form of energy, or in other words the “image” produced by the materials is not material.

This ties in with two of the ideas we have already discussed: emergence, as the process whereby the property of the whole cannot be explained by the properties of its parts, and Sheldrake’s morphic field, which I take to mean all the attributes and information that comprise the identity of the individual. Once we think of consciousness in terms of energy produced by materials, and we link it to the analogy of the image produced by light, it seems to me that we have a reconciliation between materialism (materials are the source of consciousness) and dualism (the energy exists independently of the source).

We now come onto the subject of the “immortal soul”. My crucifixion analogy is limited because it is fixed, whereas consciousness is not. It continues to absorb and produce information so long as it exists, and this is where my hypothesis, Penrose’s and Sheldrake’s run into the same difficulty. My “energy”, Penrose’s “quantum information”, and Sheldrake’s “morphic field” are all immaterial products of the material being, and they may survive the death of the individual body in the sense that their already formed information can be accessed by others (like the image of the crucifixion). But that does not necessarily mean that the immaterial information/ energy/ morphic field is capable of undergoing any change once its source is extinguished. Penrose agrees with Hameroff that consciousness is “merely information stored at a quantum level”. But consciousness is not information; consciousness is awareness of information. It contains information – all the information that makes us what we are – but even if we can argue that the information itself may last for ever, the extra dimension of the conscious “I” which is aware of and uses the information cannot be explained as itself BEING information. To go back to my crucifixion image: the being with the telescope could theoretically observe every incident of my whole life, and if he was telepathic he could theoretically read every thought I ever had: all that information lives on. But it can’t go beyond what has already taken place.

I am making two points here. One, that materialism and dualism are not incompatible. But two, we are no nearer to solving the question of whether there is such a thing as a consciousness which can live on as a functioning, communicating, observing “I” after the death of its material source. That would require the purest possible form of dualism, with consciousness preceding materials – a concept that lies at the very heart of most religions and inevitably leads to God. I am not arguing against it, or against the possibility of an immortal, observing and thinking soul, as seems to be suggested by NDEs. I am simply saying that none of the hypotheses (quantum information, morphic field, everlasting energy) are of any help in settling the issue, and I would suggest that science is incapable of doing so, since it is restricted to a materialist approach to the whole subject. That’s why I like Penrose’s caution: “It’s possible,..can exist…perhaps indefinitely, as a soul” We shall just have to wait and see – or not see!

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/728897/LIFE-AFTER-DEATH-consciousness-continue-SOUL

The heading of this thread echoes the sensational distortion of the subheading of the article:

LIFE AFTER DEATH
Shock claims of evidence showing consciousness may continue as a SOUL
Subheading: the human conscious lives on after death, scientists have sensationally claimed.

“May continue” is suddenly transformed into “lives on” in the article, and “soul survives” in David’s heading (complete with exclamation mark).

Contrast this with Penrose’s own words: “If they’re not revived, and the patient dies, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.”

It’s possible…can exist…perhaps indefinitely. A sensibly cautious hypothesis, as opposed to a sensational claim.

However, many thanks for an illuminating article which fits in with some of the ideas I am trying to formulate with a view to reconciling dualism and materialism. I will get there eventually!

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/728897/LIFE-AFTER-DEATH-consciousness-continue-SOUL

"While scientists are still unsure about what exactly consciousness is, the University of Arizona’s Stuart Hameroff believes that it is merely information stored at a quantum level.

"British physicist Sir Roger Penrose agrees and believes he and his team have found evidence that protein-based microtubules – a structural component of human cells – carry quantum information – information stored at a sub-atomic level.

"Sir Roger states if a person temporarily dies, this quantum information is released from the microtubules and into the universe. 

"However, if they are resuscitated the quantum information is channeled back into the microtubules and that is what sparks a near death experience.

"Sir Roger added: “If they’re not revived, and the patient dies, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.”

"Researchers from the renowned Max Planck Institute for physics in Munich agree and state that the physical universe that we live in is only our perception and once our physical bodies die, there is an infinite beyond.

"Dr Hans-Peter Dürr, former head of the Max Planck Institute for Physics, has said: "What we consider the here and now, this world, it is actually just the material level that is comprehensible. 

“'The beyond is an infinite reality that is much bigger. 

“"Which this world is rooted in. In this way, our lives in this plane of existence are encompassed, surrounded, by the afterworld already... The body dies but the spiritual quantum field continues. In this way, I am immortal.” 

"Dr Christian Hellwig of the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen, added: "Our thoughts, our will, our consciousness and our feelings show properties that could be referred to as spiritual properties. No direct interaction with the known fundamental forces of natural science, such as gravitation, electromagnetic forces, etc. can be detected in the spiritual."

“'On the other hand, however, these spiritual properties correspond exactly to the characteristics that distinguish the extremely puzzling and wondrous phenomena in the quantum world.”

Comment: this theory has been around several years. It fits my feeling about how 'soul' works after death, and certainly fits the NDE discoveries in resuscitated patients. More background:

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/content/hameroff-penrose-review-orch-or-theory

http://nautil.us//issue/30/identity/what-happens-when-you-cant-talk-to-yourself

"What would you do if you lost your inner monologue? You know, the one where you tell yourself “I don’t want to get up yet,” or “This is one delicious burger.” That’s what happened to Tinna Geula Phillips.

"In 1997, Phillips suffered a massive stroke, which left her without the ability to communicate in any meaningful way. She went from being fluent in six different languages to virtually mute. “I cried inside, because I cannot communicate. My mom, others, Chinese! I don’t know. Is not communicate, nothing. I, six languages, gone!”

***

"Between 25 and 40 percent of people who suffer a stroke will have aphasia. Damage tends to be in two brain areas: Broca’s area, in the posterior left prefrontal cortex, and Wernicke’s area, which is in the posterior left temporal cortex. In Brocha’s aphasia, people have problems with fluency, muddling the order of the words in a sentence, and disregarding grammar. Wernicke’s aphasia affects how much sense the speaker makes. Their language becomes confused, or even nonsense. It can also limit a person’s rhythm, impeding fluency and word formation.

"Phillips was diagnosed with global aphasia, which is the term used to describe a severe loss of the ability to communicate and comprehend language. For two years, she says, she was unsure whether she would ever recover the means to communicate, even in a limited sense. “One year, two year, nothing. Before, going to parties. Thirties, I learning English, English, English, going to parties gone. Now, 40s, I ask ‘Why 30s [gone by]?’ Very emotion. Is very hard.”

"But one of the most profound effects was losing the ability to speak with herself. Her inner monologue disappeared for several months, leaving her unable to process her own thoughts in what is considered a psychologically “normal” way. The ability to converse with one’s self, known as “self-talk,” or “inner speech,” is essential for conceptualizing our emotions, processing our memories, and for predicting the future. It is inherently associated with our sense of self.

"The relationship between language and the self is made clear in child development. As infants gain the ability to understand and use language, they also become more aware of themselves and their place in their environment. When infants don’t develop their language as expected, it is often a sign of a larger issue, such as autism spectrum disorder, which is also associated with a lack of self-awareness and sociability.

"Phillips is just one of three people with aphasia that documentary filmmaker Guillermo F. Flórez has profiled in a new film about the condition, Speechless. In it, Phillips describes her internal silence as a total loss of identity. Some research has even suggested that internal speech is necessary for higher consciousness. But American philosopher Jerry Fodor proposes an alternative idea, called the “Language of Thought” hypothesis. He argues that in addition to our consciously perceived internal monologues, we have a second internal language that is codified into the brain—a kind of “mentalese,” that we don’t consciously perceive. (my bold)

"Fodor uses the analogy of a computer: There is the set of operations that occur when a particular binary sequence is executed, and there are coding languages that can be used to make those binary sequences. The brain, he argues, works in the same way: There is a base language that is tied to cognition and thought, and then there are other, developed languages that are used to express these thoughts. In this view, higher consciousness can survive even without an internal monologue.

"Phillips’ husband, Jeff, points out that no one else will ever appreciate how Phillips felt during that time. Other aphasia sufferers may describe their experience very differently, and have had very different outcomes. What is clear is that some degree of recovery is possible. Volin says that people such as Phillips really prove the fact that the adult brain has a far higher degree of neural plasticity than previously thought."

Comment: Our consciousness is clearly closely related to our inner dialog and our sense of self. Only humans have this. We are different in kind from all other animals.

http://www.livescience.com/56505-do-you-have-a-soul.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&u...

I present only this paragraph from Physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne:

"In fact, it's quite difficult to understand what's the carrier of continuity for a person in this life. Here am I, an aging, balding academic — what makes me the same person as the little boy with the shock of black hair in the school photograph of years ago? It's not atomic material continuity — the atoms in my body are totally different from the atoms in that schoolboy. It's not the atoms themselves, but the pattern in which those atoms are organized in some extraordinary, elaborate and complex sense. And I think that's what the human 'soul' is. It is the information-bearing pattern that is the real me.'"

Comment: What is continuous is our consciousness in which our 'self' develops. Each self is individual and different from all others. What might be a soul is discussed in the article but the key point is every cell in a body is not the same as it was at birth. As pointed out the atoms are all different, but we have a continuous self which maintains itself from birth to death. This is what consciousness does for us, a mighty tool managed by the brain.


> dhw: You refuse to accept the possibility of autonomous (i.e. without divine guidance) cellular intelligence as the driving force of evolution because, according to you, cells cannot be conscious as they do not have a brain. You believe consciousness IS possible without a brain, as shown by NDE research, but you believe it is NOT possible without a brain, as in autonomous cellular intelligence. I see that as a contradiction. 
> 
> (NB, just to avoid repetition of earlier discussions, consciousness does not mean human levels of self-awareness. It means sentience, plus the autonomous ability to absorb and process information, communicate, cooperate, take decisions etc.) - In regard to cells, the only sentience I see is the reception of stimuli, and the responses are a series of algorithmic automatic mechanisms, based on information in their genome. All cells I have every studied act that way.


> DAVID: How many times do I have to repeat the brain acts as a receiver of consciousness, which I believe has the ability as a separate entity to enter afterlife.
> 
> dhw: No need for you to repeat it. If you think your consciousness, together with all the immaterial elements of your identity such as your memories, intelligence, ideas etc., can exist separately from a receiving brain, just explain why you think consciousness CANNOT exist separately from a receiving brain.-But it does in NDE's per research. I don't follow your objections