A philosophical question about what it means to "be"

[Genowyn]

My roommates and I just had a discussion about this, and I want to see how you all feel about it.

The conversation started out being about Math and eventually became about the concept of being.

My one roommate and I have been having this debate for a year or so centered around a game we both played. In one character's route, she has two possible endings: She takes a cyanide pill and dies, or she takes a cyanide pill and survives, but loses all her memories.

My belief is that for the girl as of her taking the pill, this is the same experience. The 'her' that took the pill has ceased to be and is replaced by a blank slate, regardless of whether or not her physical body was still living. My roommates disagreed. I will get more into the details of the discussion later, but for now I have to go to bed.

The question is: Would losing all of your memories be the same as the current 'you' dying? Why or why not?

[73109]

By definition, no. Death is the end of life. Therefore, she wouldn't die. Would she be a practically new person, perhaps. So many things come into consideration when dealing with what makes a person that person. Genetics, enviroment, etc. Odds are, there would be some similar aspects and some differences, but no, she would not be "dead" by any definition.

All in my opinion of course.

[Ħ]

I say no.  We are more than just our memories.  But definitely something would be lost.

[j]

No.

-J

[Genowyn]

To me, the loss of all my memories would be the same as losing the person I am right now. This personality would stop being aware and simply stop existing, to be replaced with a new one. I feel like that's the same as my current personality dying. My body may still be alive, but it's not me anymore.

[rumborak]

The problem I see by just keeping this to memories is that a person isn't just memories. It's also the genetically determined personality, and that would remain.

rumborak

[Genowyn]

Even if you had the exact same personality, I feel like there would be a break in awareness...if I lost my memories, the me now would not be aware that I kept going, and the me after I lose the memories obviously is not aware that there was a me before.

If I'm not aware that I'm still alive, that seems the same as being dead, metaphorically, to me.

[lordxizor]

It depends on what you consider to be "you." You are dead if you consider your memories to be you. You are still very much alive if you consider your body, brain and the way it's been genetically programmed to think to be you.

I tend to side with the latter.

[Chino]

You could lose every memory you ever formed, but as long as the brain still hold the information to keep you bodily functions working ( heart beat, lungs, etc...) then you have not died.

[Ben_Jamin]

Its like when people become a whole different person. Basically your whole life has changed, your not "you" your "you, but not"

Also, it depends on how old, and how dear you hold those memories.

But then, She's starting a new, new mind new personality. Others will notice its not "her" but her physical form is still there.

Now the question...What defines "you"? Is it all your memories, personalilty and actions?

[Chino]

Now the question...What defines "you"?

Your deoxyribonucleic acid.

[Scheavo]

I think you'd cease to be, as you. Maybe it would be akin to what Buddhist think happens to the "soul" after someone dies, and some part of you would be aware that something just happened; but you would not know you for you, you would not exist.

Oddly enough, my justification comes from Artificial Intelligence. Early on, artificial intelligence was cocksure computers would lead to human like intelligence, and rather easily and quickly. The reason this didn't happen is because researchers philosophically ignored experience and the World, and how this forms and creates intelligence. Once Hubert Dreyfus made everyone aware of this oversight, a shift was made and robotics and other interactive computers because the main focus of artificial intelligence... and since then, computers have gotten a lot smarter and more capable of not just learning, but what we would consider truly intelligence behavior.

Memory, and our World, are fundamental to who we are.

[Chino]

what we would consider truly intelligence behavior.

One day you put a human brain into a box and a computer into another box. One day you present the boxes with a series of questions and problems. If the human brain is what we define as truly intelligent, and the person asking the questions can not determine which answer came from which box, the computer must also be considered truly intelligent.

[Scheavo]

what we would consider truly intelligence behavior.

One day you put a human brain into a box and a computer into another box. One day you present the boxes with a series of questions and problems. If the human brain is what we define as truly intelligent, and the person asking the questions can not determine which answer came from which box, the computer must also be considered truly intelligent.

What right do you have to remove the human brain from the body? Doesn't this ignore how the brain came to develop? Brain plasticity clearly shows that how the brain functions, and how a person thinks, are responsive to nurture. The stomach is also called by some the second brain; it has a lot of neurons, performs a lot of functioning, and also often informs us and helps us understand what is true. Also, how comfy of a chair you're sitting in affects you're ability to bargain; what we are experiencing from our bodies at every single moment of existence informs our decision making process, and cannot be separated from intelligence.

I'm not saying that artificial intelligence won't be possible; I'm saying the Turing Test isn't possible without an embodied computer, a computer that can learn, interact with an environment, and take things in context. It's false to say that human intelligence is equatable to a digital process in a computer.

[Chino]

what we would consider truly intelligence behavior.

One day you put a human brain into a box and a computer into another box. One day you present the boxes with a series of questions and problems. If the human brain is what we define as truly intelligent, and the person asking the questions can not determine which answer came from which box, the computer must also be considered truly intelligent.

What right do you have to remove the human brain from the body? Doesn't this ignore how the brain came to develop? Brain plasticity clearly shows that how the brain functions, and how a person thinks, are responsive to nurture. The stomach is also called by some the second brain; it has a lot of neurons, performs a lot of functioning, and also often informs us and helps us understand what is true. Also, how comfy of a chair you're sitting in affects you're ability to bargain; what we are experiencing from our bodies at every single moment of existence informs our decision making process, and cannot be separated from intelligence.

I'm not saying that artificial intelligence won't be possible; I'm saying the Turing Test isn't possible without an embodied computer, a computer that can learn, interact with an environment, and take things in context. It's false to say that human intelligence is equatable to a digital process in a computer.

I didn't mean take the human brain out of the human. We'll say the experiment will consist of a human in a box, and a robot comparable to Andrew from Biccentanial Man in a box. If you can't differentiate who's answers are who's, and you believe the human brain is what defines intelligence, the the robot must also be regarded as intelligent.

[Scheavo]

FOr all practical purposes, ya... but I don't see what the means in the context of what I'm saying. A robot you're talking about would have to have had built up experiences, just like Andrew from Biccentenial man. But I personally don't believe the brain says everythign there is to say about our conscious behavior and experience.

[Rathma]

Obviously it's not the same thing strictly speaking, but I would say "Yes" rather than "No". A better way might be to think of a friend losing all memory with absolutely no chance of regaining it.

It depends on what you consider to be "you." You are dead if you consider your memories to be you. You are still very much alive if you consider your body, brain and the way it's been genetically programmed to think to be you.

This is a good point, and "you" could go even further than this. If you view your identity to be one with, say, your tribe, then as long as your tribe lives on. If you believe your fundamental identity is your immortal spirit, then you never die, for the purpose of "death" in this thread.

[senecadawg2]

to lose all of my memories would be, essentially, loss of life. To properly answer this question you need to clearly define your beliefs on life after death. Some believe that death is the end and that what comes after is nothing. Technically this is not the same as 'loss of life'. However, if you believe in life/continued existence after death of the physical body, than what comes next may be very similar to 'loss of life'. I like philosophy.

Long story short, I voted yes.

[slycordinator]

Now the question...What defines "you"?

Your deoxyribonucleic acid.

I disagree. Identical twins are different people often with different personalities despite sharing DNA. And if I were to clone you as an infant then put the 2nd child in a totally dysfunctional environment, I'd end up with notably different people. Also, just on the level of DNA, the environment effects how genes are expressed.

[Super Dude]

To me, the loss of all my memories would be the same as losing the person I am right now. This personality would stop being aware and simply stop existing, to be replaced with a new one. I feel like that's the same as my current personality dying. My body may still be alive, but it's not me anymore.

I think you should read that manga I mentioned to you.

Anyway, I'm with Cole on this one: death is physical, and particularly brain, death.  To say what you're saying I might say that person's personality is gone, and maybe that the person they were is dead, but that would serve as only a metaphor imo.  That person as a human being is not dead.  I don't know.  I guess I can sort of see what you're saying, but I don't think the dots connect.

[hefdaddy42]

If I'm not aware that I'm still alive, that seems the same as being dead, metaphorically, to me.

Metaphorically, perhaps.  But metaphorically, by definition, does not equal literally.

[ddtonfire]

There's a whole lot more that makes you than just what you can consciously remember.

[Silver Tears]

Voted no; biologically you'd still be alive. I see what you're meaning but as people have pointed out who you are is defined by more than just you're memories, so your question depends on how you define yourself.

[Horatio]

The "blank slate" thing is largely a myth. If your memories were wiped and you had to relearn everything you would still likely end up with a similar personality than before (though not exactly the same, of course, because you would be going through different experiences than the first time around and learning at a different level of physical maturity). You could call the person "dead" metaphorically (e.g. "he's dead to me") depending on how different they are from before, but obviously they're not dead physically. People can "die" metaphorically without memory wipes anyway, since a person's "identity" is constantly changing every moment of his life (and the rise of the Internet should make it clear enough that a person can have several often very different identities at any given time).

Re: the off-topic artificial intelligence discussion going on, I think this quote by John Searle is extremely relevant:

'Could a machine think?' My own view is that only a machine could think, and indeed only very special kinds of machines, namely brains and machines that had the same causal powers as brains. And that is the main reason strong AI has had little to tell us about thinking, since it has nothing to tell us about machines. By its own definition, it is about programs, and programs are not machines. Whatever else intentionality is, it is a biological phenomenon, and it is as likely to be as causally dependent on the specific biochemistry of its origins as lactation, photosynthesis, or any other biological phenomena. No one would suppose that we could produce milk and sugar by running a computer simulation of the formal sequences in lactation and photosynthesis, but where the mind is concerned many people are willing to believe in such a miracle because of a deep and abiding dualism: the mind they suppose is a matter of formal processes and is independent of quite specific material causes in the way that milk and sugar are not.

A "true" human-level artificial intelligence couldn't ever be developed, because human intelligence and the human mind are dependent on the biological processes of the human body (and the other way around). You can't separate the mind and body; they're one and the same thing. A human-level AI, if one is ever developed, would have simulated intelligence (i.e. a simulation of the biological processes that take place in the human body -- see artificial neural nets for one example), not "true" intelligence (though for all practical purposes, there's no real difference). As far as I know there aren't any current robots that I would say are even approaching truly intelligent behavior; it's just a bunch of specializers. Some can play games, some can read handwriting, some can navigate a maze, some can wait a table, etc., but none can do all of these things using the exact same algorithms and processes (again, as far as I know).

[Dublagent66]

No.  The memories may not be gone forever, so if you're still alive, they have a chance to come back.  If they don't, then you're making new memories.  I'm not sure where the question of existence comes in.

[Adami]

Horatio it always amazes me how you seem so 100% certain about philosophy when the entire concept of philosophy is not 100%.

[Scheavo]

A "true" human-level artificial intelligence couldn't ever be developed, because human intelligence and the human mind are dependent on the biological processes of the human body (and the other way around). You can't separate the mind and body; they're one and the same thing. A human-level AI, if one is ever developed, would have simulated intelligence (i.e. a simulation of the biological processes that take place in the human body -- see artificial neural nets for one example), not "true" intelligence (though for all practical purposes, there's no real difference). As far as I know there aren't any current robots that I would say are even approaching truly intelligent behavior; it's just a bunch of specializers. Some can play games, some can read handwriting, some can navigate a maze, some can wait a table, etc., but none can do all of these things using the exact same algorithms and processes (again, as far as I know).

If it wasn't obvious from my earlier quote, I completely agree that the dualism of mind/body is a fabrication, and that the body/mind are indistinguishable; but I disagree with your positive statement that we can never recreate such circumstances. There is no reason to assume we have to recreate ever facet of the human body in order to achieve artificial intelligence; the primary factor involved seems to be sensory input. Needing to have dialysis done doesn't seem to affect one's intelligence. Programming robots to respond and react with the world is possible, but the more enigmatic question becomes what is "human" intelligence, and is it special. There really isn't a good reason to say that human's are special, in fact everything we once thought was special about is us shared by other animals.

Are we there yet? No. We will ever get there? Not sure, but there's no reason to think it's impossible if done correctly.

[Horatio]

Horatio it always amazes me how you seem so 100% certain about philosophy when the entire concept of philosophy is not 100%.

Dude I've posted in like 2 topics in this section of the forum, you can't be "always amazed" by anything I do yet =P. Just preface everything I say mentally with an IMO if you want. Obviously I can't see 100% and I can't be 100% certain of the truth of anything I say, but that's pretty much a given in any discussion. I try to be fairly terse; I mean it should be obvious when something's "just" an opinion, and I don't think I've ever said anything super-controversial in this section anyway, but sorry if I came off a bit too strong at any point.

I completely agree that the dualism of mind/body is a fabrication, and that the body/mind are indistinguishable; but I disagree with your positive statement that we can never recreate such circumstances. There is no reason to assume we have to recreate ever facet of the human body in order to achieve artificial intelligence; the primary factor involved seems to be sensory input. Needing to have dialysis done doesn't seem to affect one's intelligence. Programming robots to respond and react with the world is possible, but the more enigmatic question becomes what is "human" intelligence, and is it special. There really isn't a good reason to say that human's are special, in fact everything we once thought was special about is us shared by other animals.

Yeah, it was basically reinforcing what you were saying earlier. Not every facet would have to be recreated, but whatever intelligence is or can be defined as, it's as tied to our biological body processes as anything else. The main point was that, unless some sort of biorobotics cyborg thing starts taking off, those processes would have to be simulated in software as opposed to hardware. My use of the word "true" probably muddled things up a bit, I was trying to clarify that future AIs probably won't be intelligent in the same biological way that you or me or a monkey are intelligent. I wasn't at all saying that they wouldn't ever be able to exhibit what we consider as intelligent behavior (though like I said, currently I don't think we're even near to that point). It sounds like a pedantic distinction to make now, but I think it'll grow in importance as AI gets more advanced; for example, an artificial intelligence "mind" wouldn't necessarily have to be tied to a particular type of physical body if the AI's entire knowledge of its body was simulated. And I don't believe in elevating human consciousness or brain processes either, yeah.

[lonestar]

Will the person continue existing in the same enviornment after taking the pill, because said enviornment would treat her the same, and would gradually push her into some semblance of the person she was before.