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

[John K Clark]

"Heartland" <velvet977 at hotmail.com>

> 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.

Ok, so you think mind is a "4-D mind object", so please give me the 4-D
coordinates of some of the important things the constitute mind; please give
me the 4-D coordinates of fun and red and fast and logic and love and fear
and the number eleven.

But maybe I misunderstand you, maybe you really are talking about an object.
If so it can only be a brain, and brains are made of atoms that constantly
get recycled, so we're right back to the sacred atoms dogma. In addition
because atoms are generic it is possible to erase information about the
history of a particular atom from the universe making it imposable even in
theory of making a "4-D space time trajectory (that sound so much cooler
than knowing where its going and where its been) of it. If I got some of the
atoms that were in your body when you were 10 and cooled them down until the
formed a Bose Einstein condensate it would be imposable to include them in
your wonderful trajectory through space time. Would you stop existing then?

So you have 2 equally dumb ways of making your theory stupid. You decide

> you are the one in this debate who believes in resurrections.

I believe there is no law of physics that would make resurrection imposable;
I don't know if it will ever be practical.

And nobody should ever forget that you are the one who believes anesthesia
is equivalent to death. Should we start arresting anesthetists for murder?

> How  do  you think that sounds to me?

That depends, if you are a muggle you probably think I'm a Jesus freak, if
you have a scientific inclination and are a transhumanist to boot then you
don't.

> You simply do not comprehend what I'm saying.

Of course I comprehend, I believed the same thing when I was about 6. I've
been hearing the exact same silly arguments for well over a decade, I
thought there were stupid then I think they are stupid now.

> you apparently have convinced yourself that "atoms are sacred" is also my
> position.

You keep babbling on about space time trajectories, if it's not a trajectory
of a bunch of atoms then what the hell is it a trajectory of?

> Forget about anything I said about dimensions

The smartest thing you said so far.

 >So, according to you, two brains produce a single instance of mind?

It's possible under certain conditions.

> Really?

Yes really.

>So if I write 1 and then 1 (two ones are exactly the same) you're saying
>that I wrote 1 once?

Your brain will not be in the same state when you write those two numbers,
more important you're talking about actions, I was talking about thoughts.
If you thought about the number 1 and a brain in the Hydra cluster was in
the same state as your brain as he thought about the number one then there
would be one thought not 2.

John K Clark