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

[A B]

Hi Heartland,
   
  First I just want to express how happy I am that the ExI list will remain. This is great!!
   
  I am also very curious by what means of reasoning you've reached the same conclusion.
   
  But, I don't personally find the conclusion depressing, at all. If anything, I find it relieving. It has, with finality, convinced me that permanent death is really nothing to fear. It is only an unfulfilling life that I still fear. The foreknowledge of one's death and the uncertainty that goes with it, has for so long, brought so much grief to humanity. It is probably the single most responsible "event" that has frightened people into forming irrational and frequently destructive religions. Why does this conclusion depress you?
   
  Please do not misconstrue what I'm saying. Involuntary permanent death, in the sense of destruction of the brain, is horrible. It robs other minds of the experience of the individual, and it robs the individual of the (hopefully) pleasant illusion of life. I very much look forward to the day of indefinite human lifespan.
   
  I can't write for long. I have to go take a final exam for History. Yay! I'll attempt to respond to the technical points below at a later time.
   
  Best Wishes,
   
  Jeffrey Herrlich  
   
   
  Heartland <velvet977 at hotmail.com> wrote:
  Jeffrey:
"But as I said before, trajectory does not effect the functionality of any atom. 
Lets say I'm doing an open-skull surgery on a living, conscious human brain. I 
decide to remove a Carbon atom from a neuronal membrane. I can then insert *any* 
Carbon atom from my handy supply of Carbon atoms. It won't effect the functionality 
of that membrane in the slightest bit. The trajectory of an atom is a *byproduct* 
of the atoms existence and function; it doesn't give that atom any special 
properties, none. Trajectory from the past doesn't "run" a mind, real-time atoms 
do."


I think we've addressed this issue before. Trajectories "don't run the mind." I 
don't think I ever said that. What I said was that trajectories give an objective 
observer the ability to distinguish between instances. That's it. They are only 
measurements of location of matter, nothing else.

I'm not sure, but maybe you are confusing "trajectory" with "mind object". Perhaps 
a closer inspection of the definition of mind object I gave recently will be 
helpful. I said: "Mind object consists of all matter but only that matter which is 
presently and actively involved in energy exchanges that produce the mind (e.g. 
electrons streaming down synapses). Brain object consists of all nonessential 
matter that merely "contains" that energy exchange process (e.g.
atoms of brain tissue)."

So mind object consists of *only* that matter which is *presently and actively* 
involved in producing the mind. So, if you exchange one instance of matter for 
another, the old instance no longer makes up mind object and so, accordingly, 
trajectory of mind object no longer includes the trajectory of that old instance of 
matter.


Jeffrey:
"Consider this, Heartland. During ~10^29 Planck Intervals when no neurons are 
discharging, the "mind-process" is absent."


I don't agree with this assertion. Mind process is powered by energy and that 
energy is being conserved during ~10^29 Planck Intervals. It's like you throw a 
ball upwards. Just because a ball becomes still at the highest point doesn't mean 
that during this time frame the energy that will force the movement of the ball 
downwards disappears.

Besides, mind process necessarily consists of many consecutive brain states (any 
shorter chain of states would be just a non-mind process) each one taking longer 
than ~10^29 Planck Intervals. You can't declare mind process absent by considering 
arbitrary time frames like PI. My whole argument occurs in 4D, not 3D where t=0. 
Mind process is an *object in time*.

Finally, Jeffrey, let me end this response with a surprising and depressing 
thought. You have been correct. It occurred to me very recently that we are really 
dying; not constantly, but "from time to time." Funny thing is that I reluctantly 
reached this conclusion using completely different reasoning from yours, based 
instead on my own argument justifying the "death occurs when mind process stops" 
part (i.e., the remaining part of my argument you disagree with). We are dying for 
a different reason but our present subjective experience is indeed a copy's 
illusion. I hate this.

S.


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


		
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060504/cf247f29/attachment.html>