[extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0

[Heartland]

Heartland:
>> Subjective experience - Collective sense of perception and/or
>> cognition.
>> Process/activity by which mind experiences reality.

Samantha:
> What is the "collective" for?  Collective among what?  Would "sum of"
> be better?

Sure, "sum of" could work just as well.

>What about self-identity or reflection?

All part of the "sum."

Heartland:
>> Death/Nonexistence - Subjective experience of nothingness. Absence
>> of that part of
>> mind process which is responsible for producing subjective
>> experience. (A type of
>> subjective experience one would have if one did not exist at all).

Samantha:
> Death is a subjective experience?  Really?  I thought you agreed it
> is a lack of any experience.  How can that which does not exist have
> any experience?

The point of "you would experience nothingness" is to help the audience imagine 
that experience. I'm just using poetic license here to make that particular point 
across.

It's absolutely the case that, "subjective experience of nothingness <=> subjective 
experience doesn't exist." Or just "subjective experience doesn't exist."

Heartland:
>> Life - Subjective experience of being in the present moment. It is
>> the presence of
>> that part of mind process/activity which is responsible for
>> producing subjective
>> experience.

Samantha:
> Huh?  This is the total of your definition of "life"?

Remember that this argument deals exclusively, as it should, with the physical 
substance of life, not its *content* or meanings of that content. So, physically, 
that's precisely what life is.

Heartland:
>> Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space
>> consisting of all
>> matter, but only that matter which is presently and actively
>> involved in producing
>> the mind. It is a process consisting of chain of activity of matter
>> and energy in
>> time and space.

Samantha:
> This is circular and meaningless.  A delimited subset of all matter
> "involved in producing the mind" cannot be a definition of "mind".

You misinterpreted the definition. Mind isn't a "subset of all matter." It's a 
subset of all "activity of matter in time and space," that produces the mind. 
There's a huge difference. I will adjust this definition to better reflect the true 
meaning.

Heartland:
>> Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space that
>> consists of all
>> matter that currently does not make up mind object but is necessary
>> to support its
>> existence.

Samantha:
> What?  You have mind as a material object as far as I can tell but
> brain as some other material object not part of "mind object"?   This
> is confusing.    You need to have mind as a process and not an object
> to make this work I think.

I hear you loud and clear. There will be no more "objects" in the next iteration of 
this argument. It's just too confusing to people and makes them miss the whole 
point.

Mind, as any process/activity, requires matter, among other things, to exist. When 
I say "mind object," it gives the audience wrong impression that mind is *just* 
static matter. It's not fair to "other things that allow activity to exist" to 
leave them out of the term.

Heartland:
>> Trajectory of an object - Space-time path of matter making up that
>> object. It is a
>> list of all present space-time locations of all matter that
>> currently makes up the
>> object.

Samantha:
> What is this useful for?  There is only one space-time location for
> an object at any moment.  Are you speaking of across the entire
> existence of said object?

Objective observer uses trajectories to distinguish between instances of matter or 
activities of matter in time and space, including instances of the same type, 
across the entire existence of an instance.

Heartland:
>> Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and
>> space.

Samantha:
> Nope.  You can't have identity be the same as the trajectory because
> then you leave the question "trajectory of what" unanswered.

But that answer is always automatically assumed before the process of 
distinguishing between instances can begin. Hence, "identity of an object," instead 
of "identity." We can't distinguish between things if we don't already know what 
these things are in the first place.

Heartland:
>> Type - A category of things that share some characteristic. For
>> example, apples and
>> oranges are types of fruit. In this case "fruit" is the type.

Samantha:
> All three are types.  Apple and Orange are more specific types of Fruit.

They are, but their instances would require matter to exist. Types are 
dimensionless and matterless so they can't store matter. In other words, types 
(information) do not have physical presence in this universe. Only instances 
actually exist.

Samantha:
> With the above broken definitions you have no basis for an argument.

I'll just need to slightly adjust few descriptions, not meanings, that's all.

Thank you for your feedback.

S.