A baffling concept of the Self
©H.Rulot / Ph.D. in Physics, Systems Analyst
December 2009 - February 2010
Keywords: self-awareness, existence, artificial intelligence, process, identity.
AI translated from spanish to english by chatGPT, who also made the abstract.
This philosophical exploration delves into the intricate concepts of self-awareness and consciousness, challenging conventional beliefs about the nature of the Self. The text discusses the idea that self-awareness resides in a process rather than in a machine, proposing thought-provoking questions about identity, existence, and the continual flux of consciousness. It contemplates the transient nature of the "Self" and raises inquiries about the essence of individuality and the existential significance of consciousness. Through a series of reflections and inquiries, the text prompts readers to reevaluate their understanding of the Self and contemplate profound notions about the nature of consciousness and the intangible essence of identity.
Humans have always believed themselves to be the center of the world. In times before Copernicus, this idea was even literal: we thought the entire universe revolved around our Earth. And before knowing Darwin's work, we were sure of being unique beings, special and different from all other inhabitants of this world. Even today, despite acknowledging our animal kinship, our vanity persists, and we remain convinced that we possess something that distinguishes us absolutely from the rest of creation: our (self)consciousness.
This text discusses self-awareness, how it can arise, and how it can be related to what we all call "Self", without really knowing what it is. The "Self", that kind of inner vision that distinguishes us, we believe, from other animals; that spark that looks outward, contemplating the world and feeling it, the only thing that is truly certain to exist.
This reflection is made from a point of view that can be called "simplistic", as it is common to consider consciousness and the "Self" as much more complex realities than how they are presented here. But there is no well-demonstrated reason for it to be that way, so we allow ourselves to adhere to the idea that the simplest explanation is usually the best.
Without further ado, let's present the first idea:
The apparent simplicity of the previous title is not so much. If we stick to this simple definition, we can acknowledge that all kinds of self-aware beings may exist. We do not say that "self-aware" implies the existence of a "Self", so we do not hurt our sensibility as proud humans.
In particular, using a very worn-out model, we can easily imagine a self-aware computer. That is, a computer into which we have introduced a program capable of modeling the world and that, after deep analysis and learning of the data we provide it about that world, comes to build a concept or abstraction that represents itself (its sensations, its body-computer, etc.) in contrast to the rest of the concepts it encounters in the world. Obviously, if the computer has to name this new concept, it will call it "I".
Nothing extraordinary so far: it is acknowledged that many animals are self-aware, dogs, cats, even recently, pigs. The mirror test is usually used to demonstrate this, admitting that if an animal can recognize itself in a mirror, it is self-aware; in other words, it knows what "I" is. And admitting that an artificial system could achieve this is not so shocking, although it could still be a topic of debate.
More difficult to accept is that:
This is a great step. There is great resistance to taking it. It implies upfront that all animals we admit as self-aware are also "persons" who perceive and feel like us. What's worse, it means that any machine can come to feel, since we believe we can build a self-aware machine.
It is tremendously tough on our pride, and furthermore, discussing it reopens the debate about the existence of the soul "that makes us unique". To avoid this, from now on, we will adopt the non-dualist point of view, which assumes that there is no soul separate from the body.
And technically, it is undemonstrable. We can never be sure if the person in front of us is a "philosophical zombie" (a self-aware being but does not "feel") or is actually a being with "qualia" (who "feels"). Throughout the text, we will be physicalists (materialists) and will admit that if something is indistinguishable, it is the same. We will delve into the idea that there are no philosophical zombies, only self-aware entities, and qualia is nothing extraordinary, no matter how much we want to believe it is.
And the most secure path to achieve this is to consider the construction of a self-aware machine. A system capable of modeling the world to the point of creating the concept "Self" and reasoning about it. Think of a computer, in a reasoning program capable of learning and building high-level abstractions. A program that, deduction after deduction, will start thinking, reasoning with abstractions that can become metaphysical and/or spiritual; a program that thinks of itself. Such a program, according to our definition, would be a self-aware program.
A program that thinks and, ultimately, realizes it is "I".
A program "running" on a machine. In other words, a process. The one who thinks is the process.
Then, the main idea emerges:
This is a clarifying thought. Obvious in a way, but profound in the sense that it explains many of the difficulties in understanding what the "Self" is. Self-awareness exists as long as the program (we could speak informatically of a "thread" of parallel processing) is running and disappears when it stops. The machine can continue operating, running other processes on it, but without the thread of consciousness, self-awareness disappears.
Let's say it again: from within, the one who sees himself is the thread of consciousness. That is the conscious entity that is reasoning and feeling. The thread or process, which is actually an uninterrupted sequence of calculations or events, something dynamic that is constantly changing. And when it stops, it vanishes.
Doesn't that remind you much of the concept we have of the "Self", of a spirit?
And to imagine this entity, it is not necessary to resort to strange quantum waves running through the brain, as Penrose does. It is simply a wave of processing, of neurons firing at each other uninterruptedly, successively triggering one abstract concept after another.
Interesting. But the truly cruel idea is the other one:
Because that consciousness resides in the rolling thread. If we stop the thread, the process, the entity "process" disappears, ceases to exist. It only reappears, returns to existence if the calculation or program called "consciousness" is restarted. If that calculation is reactivated.
Doesn't this sound like what happens when "we lose consciousness"?
We always think that, in some way, we continue to exist as long as we can "regain consciousness". False. Our body does continue to exist. But our consciousness, the "Self", does not. It disappears exactly the same way it does when the body dies. The program has stopped. It is no longer a process.
This is a familiar concept in computing: we routinely speak of "killing" a process. And it is not a euphemism: a dynamic entity is actually being destroyed, wiping out all its associated (temporary) information.
Unpleasant and uncomfortable. "I" do not exist at all when I am unconscious.
But if my body is not dead, "I" come back into existence as soon as I regain consciousness.
True.
Or not.
What is the identity of a process? When can we say that one process is the same as another one? This doubt now becomes a crucial question. Everything suggests that the "Self" that feels will be the same only if the process is the same.
But this is very difficult to specify. Certainly, if we stop a process and erase all its associated information (temporary) (its state), we can affirm that if we resume the calculation, it will be a different process (a new calculation, even with the same data and results). It is more doubtful what happens if we save all the information and resume the calculation right where we left it off; in this case, we could say it is the same... but it could also be another one that continues where the previous one left off.
In other words, and here is where our unease reaches its peak, we have arrived at the idea that:
Because regaining consciousness simply means that our brain has reactivated a thread of consciousness. The new thread restarts from the data stored in our memory and recognizes itself and situates itself in the world based on that data. The new "Self" naively believes it is the same as before because it self-identifies from memory, but in reality, it is only identifying itself with its body, which stores memories. We have no reason to assume that the new "Self" necessarily has to be the same as the one who became unconscious. As far as we and the new "Self" are concerned, the new "Self" is as different from the previous one that resided in the same brain as it is from any other "Self" that has resided or resides in any other body.
We may believe, to console ourselves, that our brain restarts the thread of consciousness right where it left off, so we are "I" when we wake up. But it doesn't make much sense. Why would the brain bother with such a thing? Do we not have a sense of disorientation when we wake up, do we not take a few seconds to orient ourselves? These are precisely the symptoms of a new thread that is rebooting, not one that continues where it was: in this latter case, we would continue with the same thought right where we left off when we fell asleep (or passed out, an appropriate word).
All of the above leads us to assume that we are born today into existence, that our "Self" exists, lives, and feels for the time we remain conscious, and then cruelly fades away. Tomorrow, another "Self" will take possession of our body.
Is this a sensible thought? Totally. Nothing proves that yesterday we were in the same body as today. Not even that we existed. Our only reference is the memory stored in our body... and we would remember exactly the same thing if we were new in it.
Those who believe in the soul will simply argue, without evidence, that it is "the same soul" and therefore the same "Self". But even so, we could debate whether it is another different soul that has reincarnated in the same body, and "Self" comes or goes elsewhere: memory resides in the body.
We have turned the problem of death into a frenetically everyday problem.
Every day we rediscover the world with a new existence.
Today we are in this body, to which these things have happened. What about tomorrow?
Will we exist tomorrow? Terrifyingly, the answer is the same as "does reincarnation exist?".
And, admitting the idea of daily extinction, the problem of existence remains. The only thing we are sure exists is precisely our "Self". From the outside, from the materialistic perspective of others, there is no difficulty; but from our internal point of view, the disappearance of the "Self" equals the disappearance of everything that exists. And the appearance of the Self equals the creation of the world.
Do we exist outside of this world? Only in this way can we survive tomorrow. Perhaps it is convenient for us to believe in spirits.
Rest in peace. Tonight.
The thread of consciousness is a very powerful idea, which reaffirms its credibility; it provides us with a simple model with which to coherently address all kinds of questions related to our identity and consciousness.
With this idea:
Is immortality possible? It doesn't make sense: we die every day. However, hypothetically, a being that never loses consciousness could be immortal. Sorry, Ray.
Is the universe self-aware? Yes, certainly. It is multiple self-aware as it is a machine capable of running multiple threads of consciousness simultaneously: us.
Is it possible to transfer our "Self" to a machine to live indefinitely? Illusory. I am not interested: if someone achieves it, it will be another "Self", not the "Self" that disappears tonight. To ensure my ideas live on, I'd better write a book. And... Who says they are "my" ideas? Do the conclusions belong to the brain that stores them or to the process that constructs them? And, well, if someone proposes it for this afternoon, we would have to replace my brain with a machine, without stopping my thread of consciousness. Extremely difficult. Ha! and the machine should be capable of keeping me conscious indefinitely.
Would it be possible to bifurcate my thread of consciousness at any time to create two (or more) threads? Who would be "I"? One of them or none: the identity of the process is lost as soon as the data and/or sequence are separated. Note: we are assuming that the unit of identity depends on the unit of thought; when the reasonings diverge (cease to behave as a single calculation: the different threads stop sharing data), the identity also disappears.
If I am duplicated, am I still "I"? If you are duplicated without losing knowledge, yes. Although it doesn't matter much. The duplicates the next morning are as much "I" as you are.
Is my duplicate "I"? No. Obviously, it is a new thread of consciousness, in another machine, yes, starting from a copy of the same data and state. See also "bifurcation".
Can they teleport me? Will I be "I" on the other side? Ambiguous answer, depending on the teleportation method. If the atoms of your body are instantaneously transferred without stopping any bodily process, we can say that your "Self" appears on the other side since the thread of consciousness has not ceased, its data are the same, and even the machine is the same. If it is an identical copy with destruction of the original, see previous answers.
Is it possible for an intelligent being to be non-self-aware or without qualia? No. By our own definition, any entity with intelligence equal to or greater than ours has a "Self". In reality, any being of superior intelligence, let's say, to a dog, has it.
Why should I worry about tomorrow if I only exist today? For altruism towards your next "Self". The same reason as always, a bit diluted.
Extreme humility is another good reason to accept the aforementioned ideas, as they imply giving up all pretensions of being special beings, and this is what nature itself has repeatedly shown us that we are not. Our "Self" is simply a process running in the machine of our brain. It is ephemeral, only lasts a few hours. It is very similar to the "Self" that any sufficiently abstract-thinking animal possesses. Any machine can feel just like us because it can have the same type of "Self".
In the universe, there is an endless dance of "Selves" appearing and disappearing without pause.
Ephemeral sparks of consciousness that never see tomorrow.
By the way... it's time to go to bed: I humbly bid you farewell.
Forever.
We must thank this text to the "Self" that existed during the afternoon/evening of February 16th, 2010, which, although based on the ideas and conclusions of its predecessors, was the one who ultimately dedicated part of its existence to putting them into writing. It is to him that we will remember.
http://www.inteco.cl/articulos/013/texto_esp.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Zombie
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciencia
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
http://www.kurzweilai.net/artificial-general-intelligence-now-is-the-time
http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/imaging/can-machines-be-conscious/1
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/16-what-makes-you-uniquely-you