What is the definition of “I”? -- “I” is the software which runs on neural-network-HW

[neuroclusterbrain]

The most fundamental existential question is “who am I?” – the same question rephrased in more scientific way is “what is the definition of “I”?”.
If we answer this question incorrectly then all our subsequent actions in our life are meaningless.

Let's do simple thought experiment. Suppose I am sitting in the room and I cut off my one leg and throw it out the window, and now the question – where I am left: inside the room or outside the window? The answer is obvious – I am in the room and not outside the window, which means that the location of “I” is not in the leg which was cut off. Now let’s cut off the arm and throw it out the window, and now the question – where I am left: inside the room or outside the window? The answer is obvious – I am in the room and not outside the window, which means that the location of “I” is not in the arm which was cut off. In the same way we can cut off other parts of the body and throw them out the window as well, we can replace all internal organs with artificial ones (artificial heart, etc) throwing original organs out the window, and every time when we cut off some piece of my body and throw these pieces out the window – “I” still remains in the room and not outside the window. Some people think that “I” is located in the neurons of the brain. Well, theoretically we can replace a single original natural neuron by artificial neuron which has exactly the same functionality as the original natural neuron – in that case “I” will remain unchanged. Then we can replace the second original natural neuron by artificial neuron, then we can replace the third neuron, the fourth neuron, and so on – even when all neurons in the brain will be replaced by artificial neurons – the “I” will remain unchanged.
So what is “I”, where “I” is located? Neurocluster Brain Model provides the answer to this question.

Neurocluster Brain Model defines “I” (a.k.a. “spirit”, “soul”, “consciousness”, etc) as the software which runs on neural-network-hardware (i.e. on neurons of the brain).
“I” is not the material neurons themselves however “I” is the software which runs on neural-network-hardware. “I” can be cloned/copied or ported to another hardware and can successfully run on another hardware even when the first hardware is physically destroyed – exactly in the same way as the computer program can be cloned/copied or ported to another hardware. Thus, periodical transferring of “I-software” to another new hardware provides unlimited existence time (a.k.a. “immortality”).

And this raises an interesting technical question: this definition of “I” is a materialistic or not? The answer depends on how you answer the question: information is matter or not? Information cannot exist without a material carrier, however information itself is not a matter.

More detailed description is at the address:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com

 

[theprestige]

More detailed description is at the address:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com

Also relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell

 

[abaddon]

The most fundamental existential question is “who am I?” – the same question rephrased in more scientific way is “what is the definition of “I”?”.
If we answer this question incorrectly then all our subsequent actions in our life are meaningless.

Let's do simple thought experiment. Suppose I am sitting in the room and I cut off my one leg and throw it out the window, and now the question – where I am left: inside the room or outside the window? The answer is obvious – I am in the room and not outside the window, which means that the location of “I” is not in the leg which was cut off. Now let’s cut off the arm and throw it out the window, and now the question – where I am left: inside the room or outside the window? The answer is obvious – I am in the room and not outside the window, which means that the location of “I” is not in the arm which was cut off. In the same way we can cut off other parts of the body and throw them out the window as well, we can replace all internal organs with artificial ones (artificial heart, etc) throwing original organs out the window, and every time when we cut off some piece of my body and throw these pieces out the window – “I” still remains in the room and not outside the window. Some people think that “I” is located in the neurons of the brain. Well, theoretically we can replace a single original natural neuron by artificial neuron which has exactly the same functionality as the original natural neuron – in that case “I” will remain unchanged. Then we can replace the second original natural neuron by artificial neuron, then we can replace the third neuron, the fourth neuron, and so on – even when all neurons in the brain will be replaced by artificial neurons – the “I” will remain unchanged.
So what is “I”, where “I” is located? Neurocluster Brain Model provides the answer to this question.

Navel-gazing claptrap.

Neurocluster Brain Model defines “I” (a.k.a. “spirit”, “soul”, “consciousness”, etc) as the software which runs on neural-network-hardware (i.e. on neurons of the brain).
“I” is not the material neurons themselves however “I” is the software which runs on neural-network-hardware. “I” can be cloned/copied or ported to another hardware and can successfully run on another hardware even when the first hardware is physically destroyed – exactly in the same way as the computer program can be cloned/copied or ported to another hardware. Thus, periodical transferring of “I-software” to another new hardware provides unlimited existence time (a.k.a. “immortality”).

Unsupported assertions.

And this raises an interesting technical question: this definition of “I” is a materialistic or not? The answer depends on how you answer the question: information is matter or not? Information cannot exist without a material carrier, however information itself is not a matter.

More detailed description is at the address:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com

Link spam.

 

[Loss Leader]

“I” can be cloned/copied or ported to another hardware and can successfully run on another hardware even when the first hardware is physically destroyed – exactly in the same way as the computer program can be cloned/copied or ported to another hardware. Thus, periodical transferring of “I-software” to another new hardware provides unlimited existence time (a.k.a. “immortality”).

Please provide one example where any of this has actually been done.

Please provide one real world example that can only be explained by this phenomenon, ruling out every other material explanation.

Or just continue to assert things without evidence, whatever's easiest for you.

 

[Giordano]

The OP is tremendously confused.

A lot of the programming of the brain is hard wired into it. It is represented by the physical characteristics of the neurons and how they connect. Then, additional programming is installed through experiences that modify these same physical neuronal properties and connections. Probably in theory if we were to duplicate the entire physical events taking place in our brain at a given moment, we will duplicate the same thoughts and sense of "I." I see this as reinforcing the concept that "I" is just the mundane, if very complex, manifestation of a purely physical process. As to the ability to run the "I" program on a different brain: in theory yes, in practice not for the foreseeable future. And running the program would mean setting up trillions of switches in a particular way to duplicate those in the original brain.

The irony is that this is a bit like the way software sets up the many switches in a computer to operate and respond in a particular way. But in the human brain the software is written by evolution and modified as the brain experiences more things.

 

[neuroclusterbrain]

Please provide one example where any of this has actually been done.
Please provide one real world example that can only be explained by this phenomenon, ruling out every other material explanation.
Or just continue to assert things without evidence, whatever's easiest for you.

You can see examples around you everyday. We will explain more detailed.
When “I” is defined as software that means that “I-object” is a divisible object, it can be divided into many composing parts, just exactly in the same way as the large software program can be decomposed into smaller submodules/subroutines/functions/etc.
For many practical applications in order to achieve the needed goal you do not need to copy the whole program code, it is enough to take and to copy just a small submodule/subroutine/function taken from that huge software project.
To demonstrate the general principle of copying ability it is enough to demonstrate that some small piece of software can be copied.
Let’s apply this to the human brain.
Suppose man X spends hundreds of hours thinking and trying to find solution to some problem Z and finally he succeeds. The solution which he has found in the form of information is saved into his brain neurons and this solution becomes the part of that man’s “I” (because by definition “I” is the software/information). This man X can tell and teach another man Y how to solve problem Z, the man X can copy the problem solving algorithm into another man’s Y brain. After the problem solving algorithm was copied into another man’s Y brain, some teeny-tiny portion of man X “I” was copied into man’s Y brain.
This simple example demonstrates the principle that some small teeny-tiny piece of “I” software can be copied into another hardware.

The definition of “I” as a software which runs on neural-network-hardware is completely different from 1) the views of pure-materialists and 2) the views of religious adepts.
Materialists consider themselves as the stack of material atoms, materialists consider themselves as DNA molecule, and materialists see their “immortality” via the replication of their own DNA molecule, thus materialists desperately desire to produce material children naively believing that production of children supposedly extends the existence of their own “I” – while not the exactly the true “I”, but at least a somewhat corrupted copy of “I” (corrupted copy of DNA molecule). It is interesting to note that biological children of the parents-scientists/discoverers usually do not carry on the ideas/experience of their parents-scientists/discoverers – the newly discovered scientific ideas, as a rule, are carried on only by strangers in blood, which means that biological children do not help at all to “immortalize” the ideas of their parents-scientists/discoverers.
Religious adepts consider that “I” is some kind of a “cloudlet” which can detach from physical body and which can float/travel through space, which can travel to paradise/hell or reincarnate into some other living creature/being, religious adepts are strongly convinced that observance of rules written in the sacred scriptures will somehow help “I-cloudlet” to reach the better existence conditions in post-mortal existence – the falseness of such claims are explained in details in “Neurocluster Brain Model” site.

 

[Giordano]

My apologies for my post. I appear to have misunderstand the nature of this thread. Although my post was accurate, I don't think that my points were relevant to the OP as indicated in the follow up, and so I will refrain in bringing up any naturalistic facts in the future.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Sweeping generalisations and simplistic portrayal of a materialistic view of the self, when in fact there are a few under debate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism

You are doing philosophy yet make no or scant references to explorations in this field.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I think the OP just saw the name of a bunch of Apple products and went hog-wild.

 

[neuroclusterbrain]

A lot of the programming of the brain is hard wired into it. It is represented by the physical characteristics of the neurons and how they connect. <…> And running the program would mean setting up trillions of switches in a particular way to duplicate those in the original brain. The irony is that this is a bit like the way software sets up the many switches in a computer to operate and respond in a particular way.

It does not matter whether the “I” software is hard-wired or not. Computers also contain a lot of microchips which contain hard-wired software (a.k.a. “ROM”).
=======================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read-only_memory
Read-only memory (ROM) is a class of storage medium used in computers and other electronic devices. Data stored in ROM can only be modified slowly, with difficulty, or not at all, so it is mainly used to distribute firmware (software that is very closely tied to specific hardware, and unlikely to need frequent updates).
=======================

What matters here is: what is the underlying nature of “I”, how do we define “I”?

There are myriads of books and papers written about this topic, however all these writings can be classified into two competing “schools”:
1) religious adepts consider that “I” (a.k.a. “spirit”, “soul”, etc) is some kind of a “cloudlet” which can detach from physical body and which can float/travel through space, which can travel to paradise/hell or reincarnate into some other living creature/being;
2) pure-materialists define “I” as the stack of material atoms which supposedly form some ill-defined “consciousness”.
However almost nobody defines “I” as the “software”.

The problem with “spirit/soul” is that there is no evidence which would match the scientific criteria and which would prove the existence of the “spirit/soul”.
Materialists claim that “spirit/soul” does not exist, so instead of the term “spirit/soul” they use the term “consciousness”.
However the term “consciousness” has exactly the same problems as the terms “spirit/soul” - people who use term “consciousness” are unable to provide scientific definition of the term “consciousness”, they are unable to provide the list of criteria (the list of features) which would allow to determine if object X has consciousness or not, and they are unable to provide any proof that they themselves have “consciousness”. When a man uses a term/word which he is unable to define then it is quite obvious that such man does not understand himself what he is talking about, it is obvious that his speech is meaningless by definition. The term “consciousness” is unscientific and has nothing to do with science.

People usually think that it is very easy to prove that “I have consciousness” and they provide a whole bunch of “proofs”, however it is very easy to show that all these “proofs” are incorrect and contain multiple errors.
Here are several typical examples of such erroneous “proofs”.
1) “I can feel pain and I respond to pain, as for example when my finger is cut, I remove the finger and this proves that I have consciousness”.
Let’s rephrase this argument in more scientific way: “my reaction to stimulus proves that I have consciousness”. Let’s raise a simple question: is it really so? Does reaction to stimulus really prove that object has consciousness? We will remind how the fire alarm system works. Fire alarm system has sensors for detecting fire, and when these sensors detect fire or smoke – the fire alarm system reacts instantaneously by sprinkling the water, sounding the alarm and/or accomplishing some other actions. I.e. the fire alarm system has a property of being able to respond to stimulus. However does this mean that fire alarm system has consciousness? As we can clearly see from the example with fire alarm system, “reaction to stimulus” is not the proof consciousness. 2) “I can play music and this proves that I have consciousness”.
“The playing of music” – is it really the proof of having consciousness? Ok, then what about people who are unable to play music – are these people without consciousness or not?
3) “I have goals and I achieve my goals and this proves that I have consciousness”.
Let’s raise a simple question: is it really so? Does “having goals and achieving goals” really prove that object has consciousness? Artificial intelligent agents, like for example computer game characters, have goals and they are achieving goals too. However does this mean that computer game characters have consciousness? As we can clearly see from the example with computer game characters, “having goals and achieving goals” is not the proof consciousness.
4) The list of “proofs” might be endless, however in every case it is very easy to show that every “proof” is incorrect.
The truth is that you cannot provide any evidence which would prove that you have consciousness. There is no experimental test which would enable to determine if object X has consciousness or not. In other words, there are no scientific criteria to determine if object X has consciousness or not, which means that the term “consciousness” is totally useless unnecessary ballast for describing and modeling of the behavior of living organism.

My apologies for my post. I appear to have misunderstand the nature of this thread. Although my post was accurate, I don't think that my points were relevant to the OP as indicated in the follow up, and so I will refrain in bringing up any naturalistic facts in the future.

Previous experience has shown, that all misunderstandings (about “I” topic) are based on the same common error – people erroneously assume by default that “I” is indivisible object.

Religious adepts erroneously assume that “soul/spirit” is indivisible object and such claims are written into sacred scriptures, like for example:
=======================
http://vedabase.com/en/bg/2
http://vedabase.net/bg/2/en
2.23: The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.
2.24: This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.
Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. 2.23-24
=======================

When materialists speak about “consciousness”, they also assume by default that “consciousness” is indivisible object.

The erroneous concept of “indivisibility of I” is so deeply rooted into the society that this makes almost impossible for people to detect the fundamental error in their own worldview.

 

[Sideroxylon]

It's a mess because, among other things, you don't define key terms like consciousness. You seem to be fighting straw men and not addressing any part of the 2000 years of dialogue on the subject of self.

 

[Loss Leader]

Suppose man X spends hundreds of hours thinking and trying to find solution to some problem Z and finally he succeeds. The solution which he has found in the form of information is saved into his brain neurons and this solution becomes the part of that man’s “I” (because by definition “I” is the software/information).

Wait a minute. You're saying you could lob off my arms and legs and I'd retain my sense of identity, but if you erased the quadratic equation from my brain, I would no longer be myself?

I don't see how forgetting information (and I've forgotten far more than I remember) could be any more or less damaging to the "I" than losing a limb.

I think you're reasoning by analogy, and I don't think you're doing a good job of it.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

"I" am on Theseus' ship, slowly replacing all of the planks with the help of my grandfather's axe.

 

[neuroclusterbrain]

It's a mess because, among other things, you don't define key terms like consciousness.

Neurocluster Brain Model defines “consciousness” as nonexistent hallucinatory object which exists only in the hallucinatory imagination of occultists and pseudoscientists.
Neurocluster Brain Model claims that “consciousness” is a pseudoscientific term which does not match the scientific criteria.

The term “consciousness” is unscientific and has nothing to do with science. The term “consciousness” is pure pseudoscience and has no scientific basis whatsoever – you do not agree with that? Ok, in case if you disagree then please provide at least one evidence that you have consciousness, please provide at least one evidence that you are not the agent without consciousness. And please do not come back until you have at least one evidence that you have consciousness.
=======================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agent
In artificial intelligence, an intelligent agent (IA) is an autonomous entity which observes through sensors and acts upon an environment using actuators (i.e. it is an agent) and directs its activity towards achieving goals (i.e. it is rational). Intelligent agents may also learn or use knowledge to achieve their goals. They may be very simple or very complex: a reflex machine such as a thermostat is an intelligent agent, as is a human being, as is a community of human beings working together towards a goal.
=======================

It is important to note however that pseudoscientific term “consciousness” is so deeply rooted into society that this makes almost impossible to avoid it when discussing the functioning of the brain. In Neurocluster Brain Model we use pseudoscientific term “consciousness” only for legacy reasons in order to simplify comprehension of material for the reader – sometimes a little inaccuracy saves a ton of explanation.

In computer science there is such thing as “Turing test”.
=======================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. In the original illustrative example, a human judge engages in natural language conversations with a human and a machine designed to generate performance indistinguishable from that of a human being. All participants are separated from one another. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. The test does not check the ability to give the correct answer to questions; it checks how closely the answer resembles typical human answers. The conversation is limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen so that the result is not dependent on the machine's ability to render words into audio.
The test was introduced by Alan Turing in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," which opens with the words: "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'" Because "thinking" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words." Turing's new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" This question, Turing believed, is one that can actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that "machines can think".
In the years since 1950, the test has proven to be both highly influential and widely criticized, and it is an essential concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence.
=======================

A lot of scientists write a computer programs which try to pass a Turing test, as for example one of the best human chat simulating program is “A.L.I.C.E.”.
=======================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Linguistic_Internet_Computer_Entity
A.L.I.C.E. (Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity), also referred to as Alicebot, or simply Alice, is a natural language processing chatterbot—a program that engages in a conversation with a human by applying some heuristical pattern matching rules to the human's input, and in its online form it also relies on a hidden third person. It was inspired by Joseph Weizenbaum's classical ELIZA program. It is one of the strongest programs of its type and has won the Loebner Prize, awarded to accomplished humanoid, talking robots, three times (in 2000, 2001 and 2004). However, the program is unable to pass the Turing test, as even the casual user will often expose its mechanistic aspects in short conversations.
=======================

However let’s raise a simple question: and what about human who fails to pass the Turing test (like for example man with Down's syndrome, an infant, etc)? How we should call a human who fails to pass the Turing test? What word/term we should use for denoting a human who fails to pass the Turing test? If a human fails to pass Turing test then this raises a simple question: “does such human have consciousness or not?”. As we can clearly see from the above examples, the Turing test is unable to determine if the object has consciousness or not. There is not a single scientific tool which would be able to test for the existence of consciousness which means that the term “consciousness” is 100% pseudoscientific term.

You <…> make no or scant references to explorations in this field.

You seem to be fighting straw men and not addressing any part of the 2000 years of dialogue on the subject of self.

And what is the result of “2000 years of dialogue on the subject of self”? The final result of this “dialogue” is pseudoscientific term “consciousness” which is 100% pseudoscience. Thousands of occultists and pseudoscientists discuss “consciousness” in their “dialogue” - and what is the scientific value of such “dialogue”? The scientific value is zero.
People who use term “consciousness” are unable to provide scientific definition of the term “consciousness”, they are unable to provide the list of criteria (the list of features) which would allow to determine if object X has consciousness or not, and they are unable to provide any proof that they themselves have “consciousness”. When a man uses a term/word which he is unable to define then it is quite obvious that such man does not understand himself what he is talking about, it is obvious that his speech is meaningless by definition.

The erroneous concept of “indivisibility of I” is so deeply rooted into “2000 years of dialogue on the subject of self” that it renders all this “dialogue” to worthless junk. What is the value of “references” to worthless junk?

You <…> make no or scant references to explorations in this field.

You seem to be fighting straw men and not addressing any part of the 2000 years of dialogue on the subject of self.

It looks like Sideroxylon insists on “references” to authorities which actually is a logical fallacy.

=======================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when used in argumentative reasoning.
In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism. The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.
=======================

The truth is that so called “skeptic scientists” with their insistence on “references” to authorities are no different from religious adepts. We will remind that religious adepts always desperately insist on “references” to their religious authorities exactly in the same identical way as “skeptic scientists” – the utmost importance for both of them is the question “and what did our authority say about this topic?” – the name of that authority plays the essential role – if the authority said something no matter what nonsense then this is true by definition and you should not dare to doubt it – as for example, if Jesus said that “if believers will drink deadly poison it will not hurt them” (Bible. Mark 16:17-18) then it is unquestionably true by definition, if Einstein said something no matter what nonsense then it is unquestionably true by definition, and so on.

=======================
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16&version=ESV
15 And he said to them <…>
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.
20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.
=======================

Science is not the blind faith in authorities. Science is the ability to doubt the authorities.

However we do understand that people who are not scientists will always insist on “references” to authorities. So in order to satisfy the needs of such people we will provide several “references” to authorities.

In year 1981 Roger Wolcott Sperry was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for his work with split-brain research. Roger Sperry's split-brain experiments showed that the man can have independent thoughts in the right side of the brain that control man’s behavior yet remain outside of man’s awareness.
Roger Sperry's coworker Michael Gazzaniga who worked with Sperry on the first split-brain experiments, continued to work further with split-brain patients. Michael Gazzaniga came to the conclusion that there are not two, but actually hundreds of independent, specialized modules of thinking in man’s brain that all compete for control of the man’s behavior. According to Michael Gazzaniga one of those thinking modules tries to explain all of our behavior, even though it is only in control occasionally. Michael Gazzaniga has named this module as the “interpreter module”. Thomas R. Blakeslee concluded that this “interpreter module” is actually the physical basis of what people normally call the “self”. Thomas R. Blakeslee renamed “interpreter module” into “self module”. According to Thomas R. Blakeslee most behavior of the man is controlled by other modules of the mind to which the self module has no access.
Physicist Michio Kaku in his book “The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand, Enhance, and Empower the Mind” wrote that “MIT professor Marvin Minsky, one of the founding fathers of artificial intelligence, told me that the mind is more like a “society of minds,” with different submodules, each trying to compete with the others.”.
In Neurocluster Brain Model we use the term “main personality” instead of Gazzaniga’s “interpreter module” and Blakeslee’s “self module”.

 

[LarryS]

The term “consciousness” is unscientific and has nothing to do with science. The term “consciousness” is pure pseudoscience and has no scientific basis whatsoever – you do not agree with that? Ok, in case if you disagree then please provide at least one evidence that you have consciousness, please provide at least one evidence that you are not the agent without consciousness. And please do not come back until you have at least one evidence that you have consciousness.

that's because all the really good stuff lies on the edge and outside science, except for scotch . . . and re evidence, consciousness does not need evidence, evidence needs consciousness

 

[barehl]

Neurocluster Brain Model defines “I” (a.k.a. “spirit”, “soul”, “consciousness”, etc) as the software which runs on neural-network-hardware (i.e. on neurons of the brain).
“I” is not the material neurons themselves however “I” is the software which runs on neural-network-hardware.

This is incorrect. The brain doesn't actually have software.

“I” can be cloned/copied or ported to another hardware and can successfully run on another hardware even when the first hardware is physically destroyed – exactly in the same way as the computer program can be cloned/copied or ported to another hardware. Thus, periodical transferring of “I-software” to another new hardware provides unlimited existence time (a.k.a. “immortality”).

This is incorrect.

And this raises an interesting technical question: this definition of “I” is a materialistic or not? The answer depends on how you answer the question: information is matter or not? Information cannot exist without a material carrier, however information itself is not a matter.

This is incorrect. Human consciousness is completely materialistic.

 

[barehl]

When “I” is defined as software that means that “I-object” is a divisible object, it can be divided into many composing parts, just exactly in the same way as the large software program can be decomposed into smaller submodules/subroutines/functions/etc.

Your analogy is off. A novel can be separated into chapters, pages, paragraphs, sentences, words, and letters. Which can you change and still have the original novel?

After the problem solving algorithm was copied into another man’s Y brain, some teeny-tiny portion of man X “I” was copied into man’s Y brain.
This simple example demonstrates the principle that some small teeny-tiny piece of “I” software can be copied into another hardware.

I would say that a better analogy would be the Cleco B-24 that Consolidated gave Ford in WWII.

The definition of “I” as a software which runs on neural-network-hardware is completely different from 1) the views of pure-materialists and 2) the views of religious adepts.

True which is why you are wrong.

Materialists consider themselves as the stack of material atoms, materialists consider themselves as DNA molecule, and materialists see their “immortality” via the replication of their own DNA molecule, thus materialists desperately desire to produce material children naively believing that production of children supposedly extends the existence of their own “I” – while not the exactly the true “I”, but at least a somewhat corrupted copy of “I” (corrupted copy of DNA molecule).

I've been working on cognitive theory for some time. I think consciousness is purely materialistic and I don't have kids. You might want to rethink that notion.

 

[Loss Leader]

Materialists consider themselves as the stack of material atoms, materialists consider themselves as DNA molecule, and materialists see their “immortality” via the replication of their own DNA molecule, thus materialists desperately desire to produce material children naively believing that production of children supposedly extends the existence of their own “I” – while not the exactly the true “I”, but at least a somewhat corrupted copy of “I” (corrupted copy of DNA molecule).

What a very bizarre notion. People have been having children for far longer than the mind-body problem has been contemplated. Everything has been reproducing for three and a half billion years.

Some materialists have children, some don't. Some want to have children and fail; some never want children but find themselves with them. Some materialist don't want children and never have them.

I think the far more parsimonious explanation is that reproduction is a function of life. You seem to be trying to complicate concepts that are really pretty simple.

 

[barehl]

Ok, in case if you disagree then please provide at least one evidence that you have consciousness, please provide at least one evidence that you are not the agent without consciousness.

Okay, let's cut to the chase.

For any naturally occurring organism, consciousness can be inferred from behavior. This is true because brains require energy. Larger brains require more energy than smaller brains. So, brains will allows tend towards the smallest and lowest energy configuration. Consciousness is much less complex than any other brain structure that could produce similar behavior. So, given a behavior of sufficient complexity, that could either be the result of consciousness or non-conscious brain organization, we can infer that the conscious configuration is vastly more likely.

So, the second part of this problem is what kind of behavior would be indicative of this level of complexity. Many organisms exhibit instinctive behavior which we can assume is a type of fixed pattern behavior. Behaviors that are fixed (or hard-wired) would not suggest consciousness. Random behaviors would also not suggest consciousness. You can't solve problems very well with either fixed or random behavior so conscious behavior is easier to detect when you see problem solving. However, it can be seen in certain behaviors that don't involve problem solving.

When you look specifically at humans, the level of complexity increases quite a bit. It becomes not just possible but necessary to infer conscious for certain patterns since a non-conscious brain organization would not fit within the size of the skull.

 

[Aepervius]

"Then we can replace the second original natural neuron by artificial neuron, then we can replace the third neuron, the fourth neuron, and so on – even when all neurons in the brain will be replaced by artificial neurons – the “I” will remain unchanged"

demonstrably doubtful. When neuron dies and if they are replaced the original neuron connection to the network is gone. The new one would build new connection. What you are describing , replacing the neuron with an artificial one with the same connection, is a nice gedanken experiment, but approximately as worth as the teleportation one : you start with a premise which match what you think will happen. Change the premise and the conclusion differs.

The "I" is defined by the combination at the same point in time of the hardware (neuron network) and the state of those neuron network. There is no such a thing as an I separate from the full network - there is no software. Remove 1 neuron and it is a different I , either in an imperceptible manner or in a big one. But still a different I.