[extropy-chat] Let's try this again

[Heartland]

Jeffrey:
"I think the advice from J. Andrew Rogers is sound and helpful. I can say for 
myself that so far my own sub-arguments and illustrations have been somewhat sloppy 
and informal. I think that now would be a good opportunity for both of us to 
solidify our argument(s)."

Let me ask you this, Jeffrey. As probably the only one person on this list who 
followed the whole thing from the beginning, do you think you at least understand 
my logic? Or is it that you, like others, still have no idea what I'm talking 
about? And if so, then could you tell me at what point I lost you? The more 
specific you get, the better. What concepts or definitions that I introduced were 
not clear? Which steps did not seem to follow from others?


Jeffrey:
"It appears that you and I have reached essentially the same conclusion. The method 
by which we both reached this conclusion seems to be different, and without a doubt 
some of the details don't match up perfectly. However, it is my impression (and 
there is a chance that I am wrong) that at least some of the spectators and 
commentators to this thread have not rejected the principle of our shared 
conclusion: That our current subjective lives are a "copy's illusion", and previous 
"versions" of "ourselves" are now permanently deceased and "experience" 
nothingness. (Heartland, please correct me if you don't share this particular 
conclusion)."

That is exactly what you and I claim, yes.


"Given that you and I (and possibly others) now roughly agree on the conclusion, I 
think that the exchanges between you and I (and possibly others) can take the form 
of a constructive collaboration, rather than a *pure* disagreement. The conclusion 
is in place, now it's time to formalize the premises and tidy up the structure, if 
this can be done."

Following the advice from J. Andrew Rogers, I wrote very short list of steps 
followed by brief explanations that encapsulates the argument for why death is 
irreversible even if the information about the original mind exists. Maybe it will 
be sufficient to show why the conclusion is true. This should appear on the list in 
a matter of days. It's not going to be something you, Jeffrey, have not seen 
before, but at least it's going to be in one short post.

Jeffrey:
"If any interested person on this list has evidence, or an argument that the 
above-mentioned conclusion is impossible or improbable, *please* share it with 
me/us. Condemning evidence or a strong counter-argument can reveal this idea as a 
dead horse, and could save us a lot of time and effort."

That's a good challenge to the list.

S.