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

[John K Clark]

Heartland, you wrote "This "self" concept is too overrated in a sense
that it has no influence over whether my subjective experience exists
or not" if true I can't help but wonder why you used the word "my".
But no matter, when I mentioned that my copy would be able to
experience the presence in the moment you responded "So what. Meanwhile, you
would be dead". Do I really have to point out the profound contradiction in
this?

> "The number of instructions needed to specify an object?" Do you honestly
> think it's that simple?

That is the definition of a dimension, 3 sets of instructions is not enough
for me to find an object, 4 is, that why we say there are 4 dimensions. But
of course it is all irrelevant as mind is not an object.

> "My copy" is not me.

Ah, the constant song of the true believer, but why not, what "me" property
does the copy lack, a soul? I make a copy of you
as exact as Heisenberg allows and destroy the original a nanosecond later.
No conscious entity can report a subjective difference; No conscious
entity can report a objective difference, and yet you insist even though it 
is
imposable to detect a difference in ANY way by ANYONE there is still a huge
difference.  That is not science that's not even philosophy, it's theology
and that is crap.

> 99% of people on the street and vast majority of
> transhumanists would say that preserving brain structure is enough for
> "resurrection."

I could be wrong but I have a hunch I have more experience in this matter
than you do. I can remember having this same argument over on Cryonet about
10 years ago, a place where you would think people would be more enlightened
and know better than average. Almost daily for about a year I defended my
viewpoint from many many many different people, I had no allies, not one.
Poster after poster insisted I was wrong and atoms are sacred and despite
all evidence to contrary screamed "But it wouldn't be ME!". And things are
not radically different on this list, a few may agree with me but most
don't. So don't try to pretend you're some sort of radical rebel advancing
a deep theory, your theory is dull conventional superficial and foolish and
believed by almost everybody.

And I might add, a man that says he is on the cutting edge but who has
views on anesthesia that would be in perfect harmony with an 18'th century
peasant just does not compute.

> Two copies produce two instances of a mind.

Why? If the 2 copies are exact and running in parallel then there are 2
brains but only one mind. Mind is what a brain does so if 2 brains are doing
the exact same thing then there is only one mind.

> How does a water stream know when another joins it?

Turbulence.

>Is there a communication channel?

Yes.

>Is it affected by distance?

Yes.

>Is it instantaneous?

No.

>Could this new method of combining liquids be commercialized?

It's not new and already has been commercialized long ago.

> How can I get Coca-Cola company interested?

No need to, they've been using it for years.

I played fair with you, I answered all your questions so you've got no
excuse not to answer the questions I put to you 2 posts ago. You said "any
additional thread of processing reality would be subsumed by the original
process". So if a copy of me would suddenly appear in the Hydra cluster 8
billion light years away if would act differently, it would get "subsumed"
because I exist 8 billion light years away. How does it work? Does A get
subsumed into B or B into A? How could the threads know it is time for one
of them to get subsumed? How does one thread even know about the other
thread? There must be a communication channel, explain how that works. Is it
effected by distance? Is it instantaneous? Could this new method of
communication you have discovered be commercialized? How can I get the cell
phone companies interested?

  John K Clark