Who are we, really? : . : Consciousness : . : Do we have souls?


: . : It certainly has been a while since I've been at this, hasn't it? Remember the days when things were so much simpler? When every couple of months, another freaky article in this little online 'zine' hit the net and made you question either your sanity or my own? I doubt those days will ever return. Whether I've mellowed and become less paranoid with age, or if I've just become complacent in my ranting, I just don't have the urge to do this like I once did. This one has been in the works since 2004. Most of this was written in the beginning of 2005, and slowly added to ever since, so forgive me if it is somewhat disjointed, and lacking conclusion (like I ever give you resolution anyway). So why did it take so long to be released? This one is much more philosophical than its peers, and I've had a great deal of trouble making it make sense, and have a point. The irony of my inability to coalesce my thoughts on consciousness has not been lost on me either. This is a topic that I'm really going to go out on a limb on. I've hinted on the hypotheses that are the major theme in this article several times in the past, but I've never extensively delved into it all, largely because it's just too wierd, too 'out there', and too much thinking required on my part, for something that I suspect only I'm going to understand (perhaps because I'm the only one who finds it this wierd. And boy do I ever find it wierd. And boy do I ever not care that I just started two sentences in a row with 'and.'

: . : As a student of philosophy (as if you haven't noticed), I've read an awful lot of ramblings and babblings on consciousness, what it is to think, what it is that makes us human, and what it is that makes a damn good cookie. Now, while Plato, Buddha, and Sartre are truly interesting folk, and did a fine job of outlining the world as they saw it, I would like to add my own little opus on thought to dwell upon.

: . : Someone once asked me which I thought would be worse: going to Hell, or simply ceasing to exist. I must admit, those are two very unfortunate things that may happen after death, and neither of which had I put a whole lot of serious thought into. While going to Hell certainly doesn't seem like a walk in the park, what with the whole eternal torment and such . . . but ceasing to exist? Now there's a rough one. To simply wink out, because you are nothing more than a bunch of well arranged carbon and hydrogen molecules that have finished what they were doing, and are ready to make fertilizer. If you go to Hell, at least you still exist, in one way or another. There will still be a Liz, or a Geraldo in the universe. But to close your eyes, and never think, never feel, never exist again. That thought scared me even more than going to Hell. The cold harsh reality of forever ceasing to exist. You would end, and you would never know it. No answers, no 'walking into the light', but instead instant oblivion.

: . : Why? Number one, because it's entirely impossible to fathom. How do you imagine a lack of you? A lack of thought or being. A complete void of self. It's hard to wrap your mind around it, if you think about it too hard. Thinking about an end of thought almost seems antithetic in nature. Though I suppose many schools of thought seek after this state. Another thing that I now realize bothered me about it, is the demeaning nature of the assumption. In that ceasing to exist, that snuffing of your so called life, it would be proven to you that you were nothing more than a chunk of randomly collected organic matter. Only you wouldn't even know it. There would be no proving, for you would die and never see it coming. You cannot be aware of the ceasing of your own awareness.

: . : Step two. The new technology of teleportation, which I mentioned in one of the first articles. It's a remarkable concept, but there are a few confusing philosophical snags. Let's get overcomplicated, shall we? When a particle, (let's call him Fred), is teleported, it is simultaneously making use of two natural properties of this universe: the first law of thermodynamics and the happenstance of quantum entanglement. Fred is going from point A to point B in an instant. Now, Fred is an extremely creative fellow, and he's about to do something quite interesting. The first law of thermodynamics states that "Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed." Now Fred can't go all Star Trek and convert his matter to energy, because he hasn't the technology nor the nohow to do it. But without becoming energy, how does he get to B in an instant? He becomes entangled. According to quantum mechanics, two particles in space and time may become 'entangled' with each other. When entangled, the two do exactly the same thing, at exactly the same time, and share all the same attributes, so much so that they ARE in fact, the same particle. Even if they are on the opposite ends of the universe. So how does Fred use this to his advantage?

: . : Fred entangles the space he exists in at point A, with the space at point B. Fred then does something drastic. He destroys himself. He utterly demolishes his existence in every way, tearing himself right out of the fabric of space. If Fred suicidal? We'll decide that later. Fortunately Fred now appears to be at point B, entirely unscathed. Since matter cannot cease to exist, another Fred was forced to literally pop into existence on the other side of the entanglement. Is it the original Fred? For all intents and purposes yes, but in actual fact, no, this is not the Fred we had grown to know and love. Fred B is identical in every possible way, and the sole reason he is not Fred A is - because he's not. He's brand spankin new. Confused? Well you should be. Most quantum physicists are. It's kinda how they get things done.

: . : Is Fred A dead? Think about that for a minute. Fred B is definily alive. He's a living, breathing, spiraling lepton (subatomic particle), and his consciousness continues on where Fred A's left off. It's the exact same consciousness, and he wouldn't even have been aware of the transition. Similarly, Fred A wouldn't have even been aware of it either. Simultaneously, one ends and one begins. It's close. Perhaps Fred is still alive, and there is no A or B, but just a big F (for Fred). How does one draw the line on what it means for Fred A to die? He has been completely destroyed, and recreated elsewhere. Sounds pretty dead to me.

: . : Let's say he's not dead, for those of you who think it's all the same. At what point would it be considered that Fred A had died? If Fred B was slightly different? If his body had changed a little, maybe lost a toe in the process, he'd still be the same old Fred, wouldn't he? I mean, it's just a toe, big deal. Alright, so the physical doesn't matter so much. What if his consciousness had been altered in some minor way? Not exactly the same person anymore. But people change all the time. They're aware of this changeing, mind you. Fred A ceased to exist, and Fred B doesn't feel like anything's amiss.

: . : The situation is looking grim for Fred A if Fred B doesn't even think the same way as A did. So let's say that it's the change of consciousness, without being aware of this change. But wait! Every time you wake up in the morning, your mind and consciousness have undergone changes. Brain chemistry is leveled out, new cells and pathways are created and altered. Your brain uses this time for making repairs, memories are rearranged and new ones even created, almost entirely without you being aware of it. You can't notice most of the changes either, because they're changes in you. You wake up a slightly different person than you were when you went to bed. Does that mean that the You that went to be is dead? They seem to be about as dead as Fred A is.

: . : A little bit of brain rearranging while you sleep isn't gonna kill you though, is it? Those changes are the tiniest of things, and they hardley make a difference. But this is your brain we're talking about. Stroke victims often suffer the damage or alteration of small to large portions of their brains. The families of many survivors come to find that their loved one has actually become an entirely different person (although this is not always the case by any means). We're not talking about a lisp, a twitch, or a love for pickled eggs. We're talking about a completely and obviously different personality that is nothing like what it once was. A stiff man with a deep seeded anger and violence becomes a pleasant fatherly fellow who loves tending his garden. Or vice versa. Their families often have difficulty staying with them, because things become so strange, living with a complete stranger. The strangest part? They usually don't think they've changed at all - they're completely unaware of the change they have undergone (this isn't always the case). Did the person who was before the stroke die, and a new person awake? Their consciousness has been completely altered, some memories erased, some broken and incorrent, brain pathways rerouted, rewritten, and redesigned to accomodate for the damage done. These massive personality changes can result from surprisingly small amounts of brain damage. For many of these people, only their body remains the same, so what makes them the same person? Their soul? The social insurance number? If they're not the same person at all, it would definitely stand to reason that Fred A in this case has died. A blood clot formed in his brain, and another person woke up in his body when the surgery was over.

: . : Will you die when you fall asleep tonight - your brain silently rearranging itself, altering your very self while you slumber - with another person waking up in your place? You wouldn't even know.