[extropy-chat] Survival tangent.

[Ian Goddard]

John K Clark wrote:

>> that 2 things cannot be at the same place and time 
>> has nothing to do with "evolutionarily derived 
>> notions of self" (what I'm saying just happens to
>> apply to notions of "self" as well) but everything 
>> to do with the law of conservation of mass/energy.
> 
> We've known for over 70 years, ever since the 2 
> slit experiment was done with electrons, that one 
> thing can be in 2 places at once. 


 It's a big leap from that to the view that one
mind/self can be in two locations at once. When an
electron passes through two slits, its behavior is
wave-like, and a wave can be in two places at once.
But macroscopic analogies like 'particle' and 'wave'
don't lend themselves to the subatomic. You need to
justify that leap... Why should properties of a
mind/self resemble quantum properties of electrons?
 
 I suspect one day a copy of a brain could be made,
containing a synthetic sentient being. And it's likely
that for the copy, it recalls the life of the original
as if it where its own. But I see no reason to assume
that the self of the original brain would be somehow
connected to its copy. The copy brain would just be
someone else out there. So if 'I' was uploaded just
before I died, it would only ensure that there'd be
someone else who accesses a database (ie, memory) that
implies they were me. But for me, I'd be as dead as
I'd be without the upload. ~Ian 




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
(http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited)