BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Disturbing Notion - revived by a visit KurzweilAI

 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:47 / 29.04.02
Just checking out the Kurzweil site, and the 'How will we know it's conscious?' discussions sparked an old ghost in me:

If you flatline, brain activity ceases.
If you are revived, you are, as it were, rebooted.
The system software is the same, but it's a new instance of the software running (?)

Does that mean that you're not the same person?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
11:51 / 29.04.02
I don't think your computer analogy works, the computer is designed to work each time it's rebooted as though that were the first time it has ever been turned on. With a human, hopefully, being revived they'll still have access to all their memories and stuff. Whether they're a different person is then a similar question to whether someone with dementia or Alzheimers is a 'different person'.
 
 
Krister Kjellin
13:20 / 29.04.02
Nick, are you really sure brain activity ceases when you flatline? It sounds a bit weird to me.

I think flatlining refers to heartbeats, and that no brain activity means hoplessley, irrevocably dead. At least to medical science. That's why most parts of the world left the heart-death definition of dead for the brain-death definition.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
13:21 / 29.04.02
I'm not sure it's so much an analogy. If your brain flatlines, there's no activity. None. You've reverted to pure storage - not the natural state of the brain (ooooh, interesting side-issue - does the human brain make a memory/storage distinction? I think so, because you have short term and longer term memories...is consciousness pattern/connexion, and storage memory chemical? Don't remember. Science folks?)

So when you're revived, the system restarts and the pattern is re-produced...but it's not the same one, but rather a new but precisely similar instantiation of it.

Raises the question of what identity is, of course, and consciousness. Both of which are toughies.
 
 
Rev. Orr
13:49 / 29.04.02
I think you're tilting at windmills here, Nick. 'Flatlining' refers to the heart's activity or lack of it. A similar state of no activity or organ 'death' in the brain is just that, 'braindeath'. We can survive a cessation of the heart's activity but not the brain which is why the medical community uses the latter and not the former as a rule of thumb for pronouncing death.

I don't think that we can, given existing technology, 'reboot' the brain and if total shutdown has not occured then the question of a new personality or identity construct does not apply. Unless, you mean this in terms of a 'what if' scenario in which case feel free to assume what you like.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
14:34 / 29.04.02
Ahem.

An operational technique called standstill apparently induces 'brain death'.

From the summary of a conference at St. John's, Cambridge: "In the evening we enjoyed a remarkably successful video conferencing session with Prof. CHARLEY TART in Canada. He unfolded for us a remarkable case concerning a NDE during drastic heart and head surgery, during which all bodily functions were not only monitored but brought temporarily to a standstill. It appears that the patient noted the detailed appearance of certain instruments at a time when her EEG was flat, generally regarded as a sign of brain death."

The 'near death' experience can be explained in a number of ways, some relevant to this discussion and some not. But I would point out to you that this technique specifically induces zero brain activity, not just cardiac standstill, and that patients are (apparently) returned to full function.
 
 
grant
15:54 / 29.04.02
Dude. That's like, messed up.


Anyway, it seems like a flatlined brain would be more like a laptop that's on standby. But I'm not familiar enough with the electronics to really know for sure.

- g
 
 
Rev. Orr
15:55 / 29.04.02
Okay. I was unaware that it was possible to revive patients from this 'standstill' state. But does that really have the drastic affects you describe? If we use this as the dormant brain brain state rather than flatlining, there was evidence that some residual activity was occuring, or at least some capacity for the formation of new memory, whilst conventional monitoring equipment regardedthe brain as 'dead'.

The Tart presentation from the conference you linked to talked of clinical evidence of patients recovered from the standstill state accessing 'memories' of events that occurred whilst their eeg readings were at zero. Additionally, the implication is given that these patients recovered the levels of recall they had had prior to standstill. In other words, to continue the computer analogy, long term memory at least appears to work as ROM not RAM with some degree of permanent storage even after shut down. Whether the 'soul', personality or other such conceptual constructs are the result of such hardwired data storage or the result of a separate kernel of self more analagous to the BIOS, the evidence does not suggest the need or likelyhood of a new version being created by restarting the brain.

The information does imply that personality and memory are more robust than I had previously thought, but I don't see how that allows the split between the revival of the body and a revival of the self that you seem to be proposing. Or have I just misunderstood what you're saying?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
16:20 / 29.04.02
I'd love to say 'brain dead' was actually 'brain dormant', and yes, the 'near death' thing could be interpreted that way. But that isn't the way the bulk of the medical stuff I've looked at today views it. EEG flatline is reckoned to mean 'no function' - and even 'dormant', after the fashion of a suspended laptop, is vulnerable to my concern.

The data is stored, the actual instance of the programme running cannot be preserved. And what worries me is the possibility (not certainty, that was never the point of this topic, as the title makes clear) that the 'me' is the instance, not the data.

Continuity is one of the things many people require of anything as a condition of identity. Certainly they require it of people...for now.
 
 
Sleeperservice
18:18 / 29.04.02
Ok, I'm not a brain surgeon :P but the analogy is way out. Just because there is no eeg activity does not mean the brain is dead. It can take several minutes for the cells to die. All that has happened in the first instance is that the chemical reactions that result in the electrical impulses have stopped. They can start again given the right circumstances. Brain death would only occur if the cells were starved of oxygen for too long (or there was serious physical damage to large parts of the brain but I'm assuming not).

Dormant is a much better description. I've certainly heard of people coming back from this. What I haven't heard of is someone coming back dis-contionuously. Ie. all memory is lost and a differenent person results. If this were to happen then the resulting person would be as a new born I think. They would have to learn everything, sight, hearing, everything from scratch. I'm not sure this is possible given that the brain/body are already fully developed and not developing in
sync with the mind.

Having said that, small (even large) amounts of discontinuity are possible. Anyone who has a major brain seizure has a massive (complete?) disruption in mind function. Chaotic firing of anything from small groups of neurons to the whole brain being involved. And yet they come back as the same person.

Weird.
 
 
luminocity
22:16 / 29.04.02
yah, but is the personality formed by the interaction of symbols in a
running brain (eg Hoffstadter's ideas) or is it defined purely by
experience (memory) without dynamic construction?

I believe (as I think Nick implies) that ppl who have flatlined are not
the same person as b4, although they share the same recorded
experiences,
 
 
Sleeperservice
22:29 / 29.04.02
Or not so weird (He says having thought about it after a few pints).

Given that (some) seizures result in a discontinuity and yet the person/mind remains intact clearly memory doesn't reside in the actual electrical impulses but rather is either a result of the physical structure of the brain and/or is a result of the distribution of chemicals in the brain. Otherwise a major seizure would result in massive memory loss.

So I tend to think that 'you' are still there. Even if you can't communicate the fact to the world at large because of no electrical activity in the brain that doesn't mean 'you' aren't there. Everything that you are is there up till the time your eeg flatlined.

Do you exist if you can't communicate with other people?
 
 
Sleeperservice
22:36 / 29.04.02
I'll shutup soon

You're a different person if you flatline? No. An event occured which changed the formation of your mind (assuming you come back) yes. But this happens all the time while you're conscious. Just because your consciousness is stopped for a while doesn't mean you're not you. A different you from the one that might have been. But that's life. Flatline or no flatline.
 
 
luminocity
10:44 / 30.04.02
Is consciousness defined by the pattern present in neuron
interactions, or by the pattern of changes in that pattern?
(I can't explain this very well)

In the first case I think that yes, we'd have to be a different person
every second as we continue to experience things.
In the second case we would only become another person if the
whole system was rebooted, eg flatlining.

As SS points out, there are situations in which it appears to us that
people come back the same, after some discontinuity. This suggests
that neither of the suggestions above can be right. I think there's an
interesting implication here about the robustness and 'slack and play'
of an supposedly chaotic system (a brain).

How can we possibly be storing symbolic interactions physically?
Are there other ideas of consciousness that can cope with
discontinuity?
 
 
grant
13:32 / 30.04.02
Well, there's a scary side thought: electricity is measured in pulses or cycles, right? I mean, it has a *frequency*. Which means it's turning on and turning off *all the time*, just lots of times a second. (In normal brains, it's between 6 and 12 times a second, I think).
What if you're a new person every time a cycle is completed?

Here's an example of what I mean: "persistence of vision." It's how film works. A movie (whether a film or a video) is basically a series of still pictures shown very quickly all in a row. The movement we see is imaginary - it takes place in the space between the pictures. Little pulses of awareness at 24 frames per second (or in video 30 fps). Dirty Harry never fires his Magnum. We only see cross sections of the act of firing. Our brains, however, instinctually - or, to be more precise, pre-instinctually - fill in the blanks, so we see the finger move on the trigger and the gun jerk back in his hand. Persistence of vision.
They tried to use the phenomenon to sneak in ads, you know, subliminally, so our perceptions would be altered without us noticing it. It didn't work so well. Like a skip on a CD - too sudden a change has to get re-read as interference, because our brains want that pre-existing vision (the motion picture narrative) to continue.

So the brain is flickering all the time like a movie screen, and the mind is always filling in the blanks, giving an illusion of a fluid, ongoing perceiver made up of a sequence of flashes of perception. I think it can be argued that memory is the main tool the mind uses to create this illusion of a linear, continuous self, by giving us a continuum of past perceptions to draw from. I'm not saying memory is the Self, but that it's one of the main tools the Self uses to create itself.

In other words, in the time it takes me to write this sentence, I've been at least (6 Hz x 30 sec) 180 different people, all operating under the illusion that I'm this guy named grant.
 
 
Not Here Still
19:06 / 30.04.02
Not much to add here - but that strikes me as very similar to Buddhist thought, Grant...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
19:44 / 30.04.02
Sleeper:

Just because there is no eeg activity does not mean the brain is dead.

I'm sorry, mate, but actually quite a lot of medical sites use that as a definition of death.

Dormant is a much better description. I've certainly heard of people coming back from this.

Yes, so have I. That was where this conversation began. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

What I haven't heard of is someone coming back dis-contionuously. Ie. all memory is lost and a differenent person results.

Now that's a very different thing to what I'm talking about, and I think it's very rare, but I seem to recall something about it. I shall probe further.

My point is that if the 'mind' ceases to function, but the data acquired is retained in the brain, and then the brain is restarted, is a new 'mind' created with the old data? Person A dies, and from the materials is created Person A+1. That's what worries me. It relies on a notion of mind where mind is a process or a pattern.

But this happens all the time while you're conscious. Just because your consciousness is stopped for a while doesn't mean you're not you.

Gosh, darn it, Sleeper, I wish you'd put some of that energy into helping me junk my actual suggestion, which I would dearly like to think is wrong. Unconsciousness and 'standstill' are not, emphatically not the same.

I'd really, really rather not think about what grant said too much. That absolutely would suck ass. And there's no evolutionary reason why it wouldn't work. Gah...

Although, interestingly, there is a rhythm to human life - a frequency - which was mentioned in New Scientist the other day...I shall look for references.
 
 
Sleeperservice
22:40 / 30.04.02
Nick: "Quite a lot of medical sites use it as a definition of death"... then you agree that people can come back from this state. Me thinks the medical sites are being a bit premature. And so do you by the sound of it. I fully understand that unconscious and 'standstill' (flatline eeg?) are not the same.

What you seem to be questioning is if the same person is still there if electrical activity in the brain stops for some time period and then re-starts. Is this right? (before I answer)
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
06:47 / 01.05.02
Nick: "Quite a lot of medical sites use it as a definition of death"... then you agree that people can come back from this state.

Sleeper, if I didn't, this thread would not exist. That's the whole point: that a physical body can be revived after a flatline eeg.

What you seem to be questioning is if the same person is still there if electrical activity in the brain stops for some time period and then re-starts. Is this right?

Yup. Got it. Obviously, that person has the memory of Person A, and the body of Person A. Is that enough for them to be Person A? And if not, what other qualities are needed, and do they have them?
 
 
grant
15:33 / 01.05.02
I'd really, really rather not think about what grant said too much. That absolutely would suck ass. And there's no evolutionary reason why it wouldn't work. Gah...

Hey, I never said anything. That was some *other* guy.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
16:34 / 01.05.02
Stop that. Even reading it makes all my analogues twitchy.
 
  
Add Your Reply