[extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent)

[John K Clark]

"Randall Randall" <randall at randallsquared.com>

> It's possible, hypothetically, to erase all record to the level at which
> no person can ever know that Trotsky existed

Absolutely true.

> and that's all that's  required  for this thought experiment.

Absolutely false.

> I find it deeply weird that you suggest  that  if no one knows
> or has the capability to find out a fact, that fact  ceases  to exist.

Yes, that would be indeed be deeply weird, if I had suggested it.

> And that's why I included the bit you snipped about the random number
> generator.

I snipped that bit for 2 reasons:

1) I wasn't entirely sure I knew what the hell you were talking about.
 I'm not to this day.

2) This random number stuff, as near as I can tell, was designed to counter
the runtime theory, a theory NOT proposed by me, therefore I felt no great
need to defend it. Personally I can't see why running the same program a
million trillion billion times is much better than running it just once.

> Of course, you may be saying that "this unit" of John K  Clark  with
>:which I'm speaking would try to continue to exist regardless  of the
> fate of other units, but if so, then your position reduces to  mine.

Bullshit. Why do I get out of the way of a runaway killer car? I gave you a
logical reason, an emotional reason, and a evolutionary reason. All three
reasons are absolutely ironclad and only one needed to do the trick. You're
toast. You think I'm just bragging?  Come on, try to pick apart my
reasoning, I dare you!

> If you remove one unit [....]

No no no, I'm not letting you off the hook that easily. In my thought
experiment I removed precisely nobody, I EXCHANGED the position of the brain
of you and your "vastly different" copy, and guess what; subjectively nobody
noticed, objectively nobody noticed, and even the universe didn't notice!
Leibniz says that means they are the same thing and if it's good enough for
Leibniz it's good enough for me.

> a mind is merely a process running on a brain.

Yes, and your point being ...

> I would expect that this view of "mind" as something which doesn't require
> any physical component [.....]

I would never be so foolish as to say mind doesn't require a physical
component, but the physical part is generic, anything will do. Asking for
the position of mind is like asking what the number 4 smells like.
And I'll make you a deal, if you tell me exactly where mind is I'll tell
you exactly where the number 42 is hiding.

> No one is disputing that the copy survives, John.

The original, discuss, the copy, discuss; for God's sake people grow up! If 
you really believe
in this putrid crap then one of 2 things about you must be true:

1) You reject the Scientific Method as Heartland does and believes in the
sanctity of certain atoms.

2) You believe in the soul and you believe even Nanotechnology cannot
duplicate the soul.

I believe both beliefs are incredibly fantastically comically stupid, but
that's just my opinion I could be wrong. But I'm not.

 John K Clark