Don’t you have to be conscious to want to preserve the self? In the example I gave with the cells that sacrifice themselves to promote the survival of other cells in the fruiting body, doesn’t the cell have to have a self for the act to be out of self-preservation? From what I understand, a cell is just an unconscious entity (like a computer, just acting because it’s programmed to behave in a certain manner.) Like when something is programmed to kill itself (PC), you can’t really argue that the PC did the act because it wanted to preserve the self (the driving force behind the action was not a need to preserve the self)
The action was not done out of a need or want to preserve the self, the action was done because it was programmed to do so. Now, what is the fundamental difference between a something that is programmed to behave in a pre-determined way and a cell that does the actions to preserve itself? Doesn’t the cell develop an ability an as a result it is beneficial and survives, and we incorrectly interpret that as the cell doing the action to preserve the self? The cell did not choose to have the ability, it merely emerged, it survived, and we incorrectly label that action a “want” to preserve the self. The action is not done to preserve the self. I want to bring the discussion back to the example of the computer
A computer does not do its actions out of freewill, we have programmed it to behave in a certain manner.
Therefore…
If cells are indeed unconscious, they don’t differ from a computer. The cell and the computer behave in a similar manner. Their actions are deterministic (we can program it) The self does not exist, therefore when this cell acts; the action is not out of self-preservation because the self does not exist. The actions are deterministic. This leads us to conclude that when this computer “evolves” say it develops an ability that allows it to live longer, the computer or cell does not choose the ability, it was random mutation. So there is a machine that develops an ability, it survives, then we incorrectly label the action as the computer or cell being “self-interested” But we have already concluded that the “self” does not exist. The computer is simply following code (being deterministic). It does not care if it dies or not. If it develops an ability where it shuts down, it dies. If it develops an ability that gives it higher CPU power, it will live. We must realize that these actions are not done out of a “want” or a “need’ to survive. The computer is following simple or complex code (if that code keeps it going, it will go). We can look at evolution in this light. In my opinion, there is no such thing as self-preservation or altruism. If these were to exist, it would assume that there is a “self” or a “soul” that governs our decision making. Isn’t this a fundamental flaw in our current reasoning?
If you do argue that cells are indeed conscious, then in actual fact this cell that feels is not different from the cell that doesn’t possess a self. To assume that the self decides our actions is illogical. That would require the affects of the chemical reactions in your mind to make your decisions. Rather, the codes in your body are completely deterministic, the feelings or sensations have nothing to do with the physical actions (except being a result of those actions) Even if there are two machines, the one conscious and the other not, they would both behave in a deterministic manner. The conscious aspect does not influence the decisions it makes, as the experiential aspect is as a result of physical activity. The physical activity governs all that is going on. The physical activity does not “care” or have a “self”.
I’m sorry if this sounds like I’m attacking someone. |