Kind of a poll. I've been rolling some old philosophy of mind chestnuts around with a sci-fi twist and want to take the Nexus' temperature.

1. If you could make an atomically accurate simulation of your body in a computer would the simulation have consciousness? Would it be your consciousness or would it be a separate entity?

2. If you slowly replaced your neurons, one by one, with computer chips that act exactly like neurons would you eventually lose consciousness?

3. What if you take the neurons out of your brain and replace them with microchips, but you simultaneously rebuild the neurons back into the correct structure of your brain in a robot body. Which entity would harbor your consciousness?

1. How do you know you aren’t already a simulation in a computer?

2. What you’re asking here (and above) is if a computer can be conscious. Even more generally we can ask what can be conscious. I believe in the primacy of consciousness, so in a sense, consciousness is all that there is. But to answer the question, computer chips are not neurons, so it’s reasonable to assume that the nature of conscious experience for an assemblage of computer chips is not the same as that of an assemblage of neurons.

3. How would you know if all of your neurons were replaced while you slept last night?

Your question assumes that “you” are an actual entity. The idea of “I” is an abstraction – a convenient model used by consciousness to create a plausible explanation for a particular stream of conscious experiences.

These questions assume nothing like that. I am hoping that people with different views on consciousness will get very different results from these thought experiments. Sometimes it's fun to sit down and think through strange scenarios just to see where your beliefs get you. You don't have to go storming straight to the abstract and explain your underlying principles.

It was your final question in #3 that led me to suggest you make assumptions: “Which entity would harbor your consciousness?”

The question assumes that there is a particular kind of relationship between self and consciousness – that one owns or possesses consciousness; that consciousness is something that someone has. What I suggest is that “self” is an illusion – an abstraction – that is used (by consciousness?) to explain (to consciousness?) certain patterns of conscious experience.

Hey – you asked questions. I gave answers. Don’t cry.

Not crying. Just kickin the old bean around for fun.

So you would say in response to number 3 that neither would harbor consciousness because consciousness isn't a spatially localizable phenomena. That's cool. it'll be interesting to see what other members come up with.

I’d say that neither would harbor consciousness because neither exists. Nor does space exist. Consciousness posits the existence of a physical world as a way of explaining patterns in and relationships among conscious experiences.

Even if we accept a materialistic view of reality, isn’t this precisely what our brains do? The brain receives a continuous stream of complex sense data and, over time, constructs a model of reality consistent with the patterns and relationships present in that sense data. The brain doesn’t care what’s “really” out there – it’s just interested in creating a model that allows the organism to survive.

Consciousness appears to be abstract. My thoughts, senses and feelings are all abstract representations. I think therefore i am abstract. This is why i think this form of consciousness (me) is a simulation already. My consciousness is the representation, and therefore simulation, of the contrast i know to be the interaction that is me and you, the existence of which we are part and aware.

My atomically accurate simulation would be no different structure/interaction, therefore it would 'busy' the same abstract representation. and in the same way be conscious of that representation. If it is exactly like me and is aware of me... then it must be me (already)?