[extropy-chat] Let's try this again

[A B]

Hi Heartland,
   
  Heartland wrote:
  "...do you think you at least understand 
my logic?"
   
  Generally speaking, I *understand* what you are *saying*, although I have had many *disagreements* with you. I would say, that I probably have a greater understanding of what you write, than you frequently think I do. In other words, I do understand the point you are trying to make, but I have frequently disagreed with the logic you have used, and with the validity of the point itself. Although on several important points, we have agreed fully, and we do both agree on the conclusion at least.
   
  I would definitely not say that I "have no idea what you are saying" (paraphrasing from below). I generally feel that I fully comprehend the specific sentences that you write. As you have indicated, you may unconsciously be taking some of your own explanations for granted, without sharing them with us.
   
  Heartland:
  "...could you tell me at what point I lost you?"
   
  This thread is soooo long that this is a difficult question to answer. I currently lack a perfect memory or the time available to review all the different posts under this thread. In the course of this debate, you have entered many new terms, definitions, and explanations and some of them don't really seem back-compatible. I would recommend, that we basically resume with a *blank slate* and provide strict and robust definitions as J. Andrew Rogers suggested. You and I, and others, can all widdle away at these terms and definitions until we are all satisfied that they are adequate. The same applies for the concepts we introduce.
   
  Heartland:
  "...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."
   
  I very much look forward to reading this, and providing feedback.
   
  Best Wishes,
   
  Jeffrey Herrlich 
   
  Heartland <velvet977 at hotmail.com> wrote:
  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.

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


		
---------------------------------
Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060507/1e54161e/attachment.html>