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

[Heartland]

John Clark wrote:
> 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?

I see none. By "you" and "me" I try to imply a sense of two physically separate 
instances of SE, not a concept of "self."


>> "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.

How many times do I have to tell you that there is an objective way to tell the 
difference? A log of trajectories of 4-D mind object is all that's needed.


>> 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.

First of all, you are the one in this debate who believes in resurrections. How do 
you think that sounds to me? Yes, Jesus was dead for 3 days and then, miraculously 
came back to life too.

No offense, but judging by what you've been saying, your thinking on this subject 
is so confused and based on fundamentally false assumptions that it would probably 
take effort to bring you back to the level of someone who has never faced this 
issue before.

You simply do not comprehend what I'm saying. Just because my conclusion might be 
similar (honestly, I'm not sure how it's similar) to the one witnessed on Cryonet 
you apparently have convinced yourself that "atoms are sacred" is also my position. 
If my conclusion is anything like the one you've spent years trying to defeat then 
my reasons for thinking that death happens when mind process stops are completely 
different. Instead of fighting ghost arguments from the past focus on what is 
actually being said.


> 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.

Strange = wrong? Isn't that exactly what you were cautioning me against in your 
previous post? And now you apply the same "logic" to suit your POV? How convenient.

Instead of saying "yuck," endlessly, try to prove any part of my argument wrong and 
I might take what you're saying seriously.


>> 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.

Forget about anything I said about dimensions and let's talk about the most basic 
assumptions here. So, according to you, two brains produce a single instance of 
mind? Really? So if I write 1 and then 1 (two ones are exactly the same) you're 
saying that I wrote 1 once?

Without establishing an agreement on this very point, further discussion makes no 
sense.

S.