Over a single decade every cell in the human body will die and (generally) be replaced.
The exception to this are small concentrations of cells in the brain's cerebral cortex and heart which are 'permanent' and irreplaceable.
Yet over this same period of time, despite the near total replacement of one's physical body, there is a self perceived continuity of consciousness (of memory and sense of self)
How can one explain this apparent contradiction? I can think of only 3 plausible explanations:
1. An individual's consciousness resides somewhere within these small bundles of brain and/or heart cells. In regard to consciousness, everything else is superfluous; or
2. An individual's consciousness does not reside solely within these small concentrations of primordial cells, and consciousness either erodes over time as these other cells are lost, or the new cells replacing them are somehow integrated into the seat of consciousness, wherever that may be; or
3. An individual's consciousness does not reside in the body or perhaps at all. Consciousness itself may be an illusion resulting from a continuity of qualia
There was never any mechanism for continuity of "self" to begin with and there is no paradox. "Self" is a convenient concept for grouping together the brain activity of a given organism from moment to moment.
Cooper Robinson
Your brain cells don't regrow. There's just a lot of them so when they die it's nbd. So it's more likely the self is the network created in the brain. Nothing to see here.
Caleb Flores
But consciousness is self-evident to oneself right? Ego cogito sum? If we know nothing for certain we at least know that we are a conscious entity that knows its knows nothing?
Anthony Adams
They don't regrow but they do grow as the organism matures
What I meant to say in the OP is that a small cluster of cells in the heart and brain develops in the embrio and continues throughout the lifecycle of the organism, unless they die prematurely. Is this the essence of oneself?
Jace Martinez
>Ego cogito sum There are a lot of problems with that proposition, but probably the most obvious thing that's been criticized about it is the "ego" part. Setting aside the rest of it and allowing for the sake of argument that thinking is definitely known, all that tells you is there are thoughts, not whether those thoughts belong to some unified "self" entity.
Oliver Phillips
>I can think of only 3 plausible explanations: The obvious explanation that most people actually believe is "consciousness lies in the *pattern* of cells, not any individual cells". Meaning you can replace unlimited numbers of them without damaging consciousness at all.
Angel Robinson
So every time Captain Kirk and Spock use the teleportation beam, are disintegrated and then reconstructed on the surface of some distant planet, they emerge as the same exact people with a continuity of consciousness?
Chase Cox
>with a continuity of consciousness There was never any continuity of consciousness to begin with. Brain activity from moment to moment is similar mostly because of memory content being similar. Brain activity from ten minutes ago doesn't teleport into brain activity from nine minutes ago any more than brain activity from a source brain would teleport into brain activity from a new artificial brain created using that source brain.
Logan Baker
Scientists say that animals haven't the consciousness of themselves, they just don't think "hey I'm alive" and that is because their brain is not as complex as ours so seems logical to me that consciousness resides in our brain cells (obv some animals are more or less intelligent than others)
