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

[John K Clark]

"Heartland" <velvet977 at hotmail.com>

>Now you claim that cooling down the atom erases all the
>records tracking past locations of that atom?

Yes, that is exactly precisely what I am claiming.

> I think this discovery should make front page news at
> PhysOrg.com, don't  you think?

It most certainly did make front page news back in 1995 when it was
confirmed experimentally, it was even discussed extensively on this very
list at the time. In fact it did more than make the front page, the 3
scientists who discovered it won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2001 for it.
As spectacular as their results were it didn't come as a huge surprise; Bose
and Einstein predicted the effect theoretically in 1924. You seem to be a
bit behind the times.

For God's sake I've used the term several times before, take a little time
off from pontificating about trajectories through space time and do some
research on Bose Einstein Condensations.

> Excuse me. You've just tried to convince me that there is a single
> instance of "1" in "1+1".

What I said in very clear language is that when two identical brains are
thinking about 1+1 there is only one thought. Clearly in your sentence above
there were two ASCII symbols of the number one but I don't give a hoot in
hell about ASCII symbols, I'm only interest in subjectivity. And no, I don't
believe I can excuse you.

     Me:
>> But let me propose another thought experiment, I make an exact copy of
>> you  as before but after that atom by atom I start moving one of the
>> original high holy atoms over to the comparable spot on the lowly copy
>> and moving one  of the evil sleazy atoms of the copy over to the glorious
>> original. After an hour or two all the atoms have swapped places, but
>> neither knows it was happening and in fact during the entire transfer
>> both brains were  synchronized with each other. Which one is the original
>> and which one is the copy?

    You:
> And you still go on about these atoms.

You've made this exact same complaint about me before, but then immediately
after you start droning on and on again about space time trajectories. And 
I've
asked this exact same question before but like many many others that you
have no answer for you just ignore them, but I'll try one last time, try
reading my lips, IF YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SPACE TIME
TRAJECTORY OF ATOMS WHAT THE HELL ARE THE TRAJECTORIES OF!

> I'll just indulge you one last time. After your experiment nothing
> changes.

What the hell does that mean? Of course SOMETHING changed, there are now two
bodies, two lumps of protoplasm and both claim to be you. So for once don't
weasel out, don't just ignore difficult questions, which one is you, don't
tell me nothing changed just tell me which one is you. After that tell me
which one is the original and most importantly WHY, just what is original
about it and why should anyone care?

I look forward to your answers but I am not hopeful, you'll probably just
ignore them again or dismiss them with an idiotic two word answer like
"nothing changes".

      Me:
>> What the hell is a mind object?

> Before you ponder these advanced questions [....]

Look buddy you're the one who introduced the Looney Tunes term "mind object"
not me; so it is entirely appropriate to ask you what you meant. It is now
clear you didn't mean anything by it, you were just punching keys on a
keyboard.

 John K Clark