Quantum Cognition

Question is... Doctor Who?

Doctor Who is a British media franchise revolving around the tales and adventures of a humanoid alien time traveler from Gallifrey in the Constellation of Kasterborous, sailing across the Seams of Chronos and Threads of Aether, armed with a sonic screwdriver, aboard the TARDIS, almost always alongside a companion for good measure.

Oftentimes, actually quite more so than often, perhaps quite very consciously, the story arcs and concepts of the show delves with the philosophy of metaphysics and ethics. For example, the idea of Regeneration attempts to answer a fundamental question in metaphysics: how do we know we are who we are throughout our lives?

The question arises because over the years we shed dead cells off our bodies to be replaced by new ones, transforming completely over decades. Thus, after a decade or so, we are a totally new composition of cells.
Is this 'me' really biologically me or someone else with my consciousness?

See how when the Doctor regenerates he has a new body and personality? And the new body has a new level of health, strength, agility and durability; new modes of thinking due to a biologically new brain pulling the strings of hormones and neurotransmitters responsible for thought and behavior. So how do we decide that it is actually him?

Similarly, as we grow older our body sheds cells when they die and our brain patterns will constantly change,
therefore altering our personality. So, in a way, everyday, in fact every hour, every minute and every second, we are regenerating into a new person entirely.

Therefore, ten years down the line, all our dead cells will be replaced by completely new ones and we will have
a different personality overall with new likes and dislikes in response to our experiences and changes in
the chemical composition of our brains. Hence the question: new cells, new personality, new everything, so how am I still me? That is when we think about regeneration and the Doctor – how do we decide he is truly the Doctor?

Is it because of the same memories, the events that he has gone through? Are those the deciding factors to ascertain the identity of a person? Then the question arises: what if we displace all the memories of person A into the mind of person B? Is person A, now, person B? No? Why not? Let us take this a step further.

What if we displace all the memories of person A into the mind of person B and then replace every cell in
person B's body with the cells of person A – same biological and cognitive makeup. At this point, if we kill person A, would we be able to say person A is still alive since person B is now virtually person A? Or are they – are we – defined by more than just that? Ponder about the query for even a moment if you will. Thank you.

"It all just disappears, doesn't it? Everything you are, gone in a moment, like breath on a mirror... we all change. When you think about it, we're all different people all through our lives, and that's okay, that's good.

You gotta keep moving, so long as you remember all the people that you used to be.

I will not forget one line of this. Not one day. I swear. I will always remember when the Doctor was me."

— Fahim Ferdous Kibria

Virtue

Next we must examine what is virtue. Since there are three conditions arising in the soul—feelings, capacities, and states—virtue must be one of these.

By feelings I mean appetite, anger, fear, confidence, envy, joy, love, hate, longing, jealousy, pity, and in general whatever implies pleasure or pain. By capacities I mean what we have when we are said to be capable of these feelings—capable of being angry, for iristance, or of being afraid or of feeling pity. By states I mean what we have when we are well or badly off in relation to feelings. If, for instance, our feeling is too interise or slack, we are badly off in relation to anger, but if it is intermediate, we are well off; the same is true in the other cases.

First, then, neither virtues nor vices are feelings. For we are called excellent or base insofar as we have virtues or vices, not insofar as we have feelings. Further, we are neither praised nor blamed insofar as we have feelings; for we do not praise the angry or the frightened person, and do not blame the person who is simply angry, but only the person who is angry in a particular way. We are praised or blamed, however, insofar as we have virtues or vices.

Further, we are angry and afraid without decision; but the virtues are decisions of some kind, or requife decision. Besides, insofar as we have feelings, we are said to be moved; but insofar as we have virtues or vices, we are said to be in some condition rather than moved.

For these reasons the virtues are not capacities either; for we are neither called good nor called bad, nor are we praised or blamed, insofar as we are simply capable of feelings. Further, while we have capacities by nature, we do not become good or bad by nature; we have discussed this before.

If, then, the virtues are neither feelings nor capacities, the remaining possibility is that they are states. And so we have said what the genus of virtue is. But we must say not only, as we already have, that it is a state, but also if what sort of state it is.

It should be said, then, that every virtue causes its possessors to be in a good state and to perform their functions well. The virtue of eyes, for instance, makes the eyes and their functioning excellent, because it makes us see well; and similarly, the virtue of a horse makes the horse excellent, and thereby good at galloping, at carrying its rider, and at standing steady in the face of the enemy.

If this is true in every case, the virtue of a human being likewise be the state that makes a human being good and makes him perform his function well. We have already said how this will be true, and it will also be evident from our next remarks, if we consider the sort of nature that virtue has. In everything continuous and divisible we can take more, less, and equal, and each of them either in the object itself or relative to us; and the equal is some intermediate between excess and deficiency.

By the intermediate in the object I mean what is equidistant from each extremity; this is one and the same for all. But relative to us the intermediate is what is neither superfluous nor deficient; this is not one, and is not the same for all.

If, for instance, ten are many and two are few, we take six as intermediate in the object, since it exceeds two and is exceeded by ten by an equal amount, four. This is what is intermediate by numerical proportion. But that is not how we must take the intermediate that is relative to us. For if ten pounds of food, for instance, are a lot for someone to eat, and two pounds a little, it does not follow that the trainer will prescribe six, since this might also be either a little or a lot for the person who is to take it—for Milo, the athlete, a little, but for the beginner: in gymnastics a lot; and the same is true for running and wrestling.

In this way every scientific expert avoids excess and deficiency and seeks and chooses what is intermediate—but intermediate relative to us, not in the object. This, then, is how each science produces its product well, by focusing on what is intermediate and making the product conform to that.

This, indeed, is why people regularly comment on well-made products that nothing could be added or subtracted; they assume that excess or deficiency ruins a good result, whereas the mean preserves it. Good craftsmen also, we say, focus on what is intermediate when they produce their product. Since virtue, like nature, is better and more exact than any craft, it will also aim at what is intermediate.

By virtue I mean virtue of character; for this is about feelings and actions, and these admit of excess, deficiency, and an intermediate condition. We can be afraid, for instance, or be confident, or have appetites, or get angry, or feel pity, and in general have pleasure or pain, both too much and too little, and in both ways not well. But having these feelings at the right times, about the right things, toward the right people, for the right end, and in the right way, is the intermediate and best condition, and this is proper to virtue.

Similarly, actions also admit of excess, deficiency, and an intermediate condition. Now virtue is about feelings and actions, in which excess and deficiency are in error and incur blame, whereas the intermediate condition is correct and wins praise, which are both proper to virtue.

Virtue, then, is a mean, insofar as it aims at what is intermediate. Moreover, there are many ways to be in error—for badness is proper to the indeterminate, as the Pythagoreans pictured it, and good to the determinate. But there is only one way to be correct. That is why error is easy and correctness is difficult, since it is easy to miss the target and difficult to hit it. And so for this reason also excess and deficiency are proper to vice, the mean to virtue; 'for we are noble in only one way, but bad in all sorts of ways.'

Virtue, then, is a state that decides, consisting in a mean, the mean relative to us, which is defined by reference to reason, that is to say, to the reason by reference to which the prudent person would define it. It is a mean between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency.

It is a mean for this reason also: Some vices miss what is right because they are deficient, others because they are excessive, in feelings or in actions, whereas virtue finds and chooses what is intermediate. That is why virtue, as far as its essence and the account stating what it is are concerned, is a mean, but, as far as the best condition and the good result are concerned, it is an extremity.

Now, not every action or feeling admits of the mean. For the names of some automatically include baseness for instance, spite, shamelessness, envy, among feelings and adultery, theft, murder, among actions. For all of these and similar things are called by these names because they themselves, not their excesses or deficiencies, are base.

Hence in doing these things we can never be correct, but must invariably be in error. We cannot do them well or not well by committing adultery, for instance, with the right woman at the right time in the right way. On the contrary, it is true without qualification that to do any of them is to be in error.

Therefore, is like thinking that unjust or cowardly or intemperate action also admits of a mean, an excess and a deficiency. If it did, there would be a mean of excess, a mean of deficiency, an excess of excess and a deficiency of deficiency. On the contrary, just as there is no excess or deficiency of temperance or of bravery, so also there is no mean of these vicious actions either, but whatever way anyone does them, he is in error. For in general there is no mean of excess or of deficiency, and no excess or deficiency of a mean.

— Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

The Spirit, the Heart and the Soul

The human being consists of three metaphysical components: the ruh, the qalb and the nafs. The nafs (soul) is passion or the sense of one's self (ego), which is composed of pure instinct programmed for survival with
the desire to eat, sleep, procreate, etc. God installed this within us to ensure that we don't die out.

The ruh is the spirit which is the loci of life. It is composed of the will to reconcile with God. It inclines towards righteousness, piety, etc. The qalb is the component, often translated to heart, that balances between the two, keeping in check feelings of selfishness and selflessness so one maintains a calibrated scale of both in character.

Angels are composed simply of ruh because they don't need to eat, sleep, procreate, etc. and thus they have
no requirement for a control center of such desire in place. They are immortal spirits and thus they have no nafs and since they have no nafs they cannot sin because sinning is caused by the unchained passions of the nafs, that is, when the nafs desires for food and the person in possession of the nafs satisfies this desire by eating that which is not lawful, it is a sin, or when the nafs desires to procreate and the person in possession of the nafs satisfies
this desire via immoral sexual intercourse, it is a sin. Angels do not and they cannot sin under any circumstances.

Since angels have no requirement to eat or procreate, etc. they have no nafs, hence their inability to sin. They are only composed of ruh and thus they are purely righteousness and piety incarnate. The jinn, on the other hand, are capable of sinning because, like humans, they too are mortal and require instincts for survival thus they come off
the factory settings with both the nafs and ruh in place. Iblis, before his fall, was a pious jinn, Azazel, but due to
his disobedience against God was stripped of his grace and morphed into the Accursed Satan.

— Fahim Ferdous Kibria