[extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain

[Heartland]

> On Apr 25, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Heartland wrote:
>> 1. Minds are not information aka. pattern of brain structure, but a
>> 4-dimensional
>> object (space + time). That's why "mind stops during a multiple of
>> Planck Interval"
>> argument is false because it simply reduces to a "mind stops if we
>> inspect a single
>> snapshot of brain state" argument which works exclusively within 3
>> dimensional
>> space. Minds can only exist in time (enough time for minds to
>> arise), not just
>> space.
>
>
> Your argument is premised on an invalid assumption, or at minimum a
> misunderstanding of the concepts you are trying to use.  Every aspect
> of a dynamic process can be trivially represented in a static
> snapshot.  If that instantaneous (and therefore static) information
> is preserved, the very next state will be exactly what it was if it
> had never stopped, even if time-shifted.

As I said before, I don't expect anyone to understand what I wrote just by thinking 
about it for few minutes. What you are saying is obviously true, but you are 
talking about representation of a process and I'm talking about what a process 
actually is. Even though I agree with what you said, I don't think this has much of 
an impact on the validity of my argument.



>> 3. A person can run only one instance of SE.
>
> True enough for unaugmented meat people, though even then you can
> stretch it.

People who will undergo suspension will probably be unaugmented.


>> I hope this is sufficient.
>
> It is not sufficient.  The assumptions and reasoning appear to be
> invalid on many points, or at least suspect (some of it did not parse
> clearly enough to make a determination of validity).  Even if death
> is irreversible, I do not see how that assertion is remotely
> justified by the arguments provided.
>
> Cheers,
>
> J. Andrew Rogers

It should be sufficient, but that is only my opinion. True disagreement is based on 
understanding, not misinterpretation. I don't really think that anyone disagrees 
with me, yet.

S.