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

[Heartland]

Clark:
> Science have proven that you can erase the history of an atom, or to put it
> in the pompous language you love so much, you can erase from the universe
> all information about the space time trajectory of an atom.

BEC is when atoms become undistinguishable. So what. That only means that their 
trajectories merge. Big deal. BEC doesn't "erase the history". Just because you 
cool down the atoms doesn't mean that records (as in paper/electronic records) 
tracking past locations of those atoms are being magically erased too. You propose 
and even defend this mindless rubbish and still have the audacity to criticize my 
ideas? Unbelievable.


Heartland:
>Ah, so there are two separate instances of "1" in "1+1" after all. That's 
>progress.
Now, with that established, creation of two identical brains, like writing
identical number types "1" twice, would produce two separate instances of the same
brain type. Yes? No?

Clark:
> Yes that would produce 2 separate instances of brain type, obviously, but
> there would be only one instance of mind type.


Okay. Now this is perfect. Read your sentence again and think about it. If there 
are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one instance of mind type, 
then why do you write that "there would be only one instance of mind type?" There 
is one mind type, of course, but "only one *instance* of mind type?" Are you sure 
this is your final answer?


Heartland:
>> If I throw an object along a unique trajectory it makes absolutely no
>> difference to that trajectory if I do this with a baseball or tennis ball.

Clark:
> Because baseballs and tennis balls are both made of atoms. At lest the atoms
> in those objects remain the same, unlike the atoms in brains that only stay
> for a few weeks; the atoms come into your brain do a little dance for a week
> or two and then leave.

Yes, that's the idea.


Heartland:
>> Nothing changed" means "original remains original, copy is still a copy"

Clark:
> Saying the original is the original may be true but it's not very helpful, I
> want you to point him out. Person A walks into a duplicating chamber and
> produces person B, a nanosecond later all the atoms in person B transfer
> over to person A and all the atoms in person A transfer over to person B.
> Don't tell me the original is the original tell me is the original A or B
> and tell me why.

Assuming transfers were equally gradual, A is A and B is B. Same as the last time. 
To know why, read my last 2 responses to Jeffrey where I define mind object and 
talk about trajectories of objects.

S.