[extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0

[Samantha Atkins]

On May 8, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Heartland wrote:


>
> 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.
>

When you are supposedly attempting to be more rigorous is a poor time  
to wax poetic.  The cessation of consciousness  does not allow you to  
experience anything including that cessation.   All cessations of  
consciousness are not death.

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

No, it isn't.

> 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.
>

No, it isn't.  Your definition is subjective, not physical, not  
objective and is woefully incomplete.

> 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.

Same objection.  You are defining "mind" using "mind" as part of the  
definition.

>
> 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.
>

I did not have this impression.  The problem is your tenuous link  
between brain and mind.  The definition you use is a set up for the  
entire hypothesis you attempt to claim.  It is part of a  
rationalization rather than an attempt to get at truth.

> 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.
>

Would you like to rephrase?  That is still very murky.

> 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.
>

Look.  You just wrote that identity of an object *is* the trajectory  
of an object where *an object* already implies/requires *identity of  
an object*.   This be messed up.

> 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.

Not so.  Concepts and categories are not non-existent, merely not  
physical.

>
> 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.

This is a mug's game.  Your meanings are confused and twisted to get  
to a conclusion you are all to invested in.

- samantha