(March 25, 2015 at 8:20 am)Mezmo! Wrote: They are basically the same problem. Anyone, but Heraclitus, can see that from cradle to grave, Joe is still Joe. And anyone, except Parmenides, can see that Joe has changed in material composition, size shape, and capacities. I wish there was a philosophical tradition that could somehow resolve this dilemma. Hmmmmm....
Seriously though the experience of the higher Self is the profound experience of moving beyond the ego awareness of “I” and merging with the Divine. What to the ego appears to be a sterile concept turns out to feel very expansive and liberating.
Sure, him and Theseus, and everyone who notices that while Joe is asleep, Joe isn't Joe (at least the mind part, not the body which changes in a more chemically straightforward fashion.)
Or the split brain folks where Joe either can or can't find the word for chicken when shown a chicken depending on which eye it is shown to.
Or the people with dissociative identity disorder where Joe comes and goes and gets replaced by Ralph or Fred.
No, to the outside world, the thing that corresponds to Joe is the set of organized brain states which, by social convention, is recognized as 'Joe' when it is seen and recognized as 'Joe.' You might make an argument that from Joe's perspective, Joe always exists and it is reality that keeps coming and going. It's simpler and more consistent with observation for the rest of us to posit a continuous reality and an intermittent Joe. From outside Joe, all we can see is the brain states and try to understand how they interact to give Joe the sensation of being Joe.
Self aware neural networks are pretty easy to make: all that needs be done is to train one to recognize itself. This can be observed in the brain as input from the body is integrated and resolved into somatic markers which provide substrate on which to base decision making which is eventually reported to the conscious circuitry. The mystery of what is 'I' is being unpeeled for anyone who will see and accept that not being able to be someone else does not preclude understanding how that someone else can be constructed. Koch defined a set of rules by which contagious diseases could be attributed to specific causes: Koch's postulates. Application of these rules does not prove that the flu virus causes flu but it does give a framework on which to base decisions and actions as if it did. I expect there will, and probably soon, be a parallel but more complicated set of rules pertaining to observations of brain states which can similarly be used to define when a 'self' is there or not and whether that 'self' can be expected to return. At that point, philosophers discussing qualia, like those learned physicians who advocated the 'miasma theory' for the cause of cholera will have to shut up and die off.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? 
