[extropy-chat] What should survive and why?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 02/05/07, Heartland <velvethum at hotmail.com> wrote:

Stathis to Damien:
> > And yet you leave your fortune to your tomorrow-self, rather than
> blowing it
> > all before you go to sleep tonight. How do you know that tomorrow-self
> isn't
> > just some guy who happens to have all your memories?  If someone claimed
> > that criterion X is a sure sign of death, and it so happens that
> criterion X
> > occurs every night to every person, wouldn't you answer that - even
> without
> > knowing the details of criterion X - it must be a load of crap because
> you
> > know you *don't* die every night?
>
> It seems that you first assume, "I don't die every night" and then tailor
> your
> definition of death and all the other statements about survival to fit
> that
> assumption. It should be the other way around. Only after you find out
> what death
> is first you can begin answering questions such as, "When do I die?"


That's the very question I'm asking: how would you define death? Given that
we can agree on whether or not criterion X has occurred, how do we then move
on to decide whether or not X is a good criterion for death?

Stathis to Lee:
> > The alternative situation
> > is to have memories removed and false memories implanted while you are
> > asleep. If this were to happen to a sufficient extent tonight, then it
> would
> > be equivalent to death.
>
> Wouldn't you agree that this is an arbitrary definition of death?


The arbitrariness of the definition of death - yours and mine - is what is
at issue.

After all, every
> portion of Lee's body would function properly and without interruptions,
> including
> the brain. Would it really make sense to say Lee died during the night
> even though
> Lee's body (all of it) has remained in perfect health throughout the
> night? Would
> you be successful in convincing any practicing physician to issue a death
> certificate for the "deceased?"


Losing all your memories and personality would be like the end stage of
dementia. If you knew you were going to wake up tomorrow in this state it
might be a little bit better than not waking up at all, but not much better.
The status of these patients in hospital is similar to the status of
patients in a persistent vegetative state, except that there is sometimes a
hope that the latter might recover.

Stathis to Lee:
> > So you could physically die but survive mentally,
>
> Then I'm afraid you believe in soul. Mental supervenes on the physical. If
> the
> physical is no more, the mental is no more too.


I believe that the mind can survive in different hardware. You have agreed
to as much when you allowed that swapping out the atoms in your brain for
"different" atoms does not necessarily kill you. However, you claim that
even brief interruption of the activity in the brain *does* kill you. If the
mental supervenes on the physical, and the same atoms are going about their
business in the same way a moment later, then the same mental process should
be being implemented despite the interruption. That is, if the
post-interruption physical state is exactly the same as if it would have
been had there been no interruption, and yet the interruption gives rise to
a different person, then the difference must be due to some non-physical
factor. Worse than that, the difference must be due to some non-mental
factor as well, since if the physical state is the same the mental state
must also be the same. So the interruption causes a non-physical, non-mental
change which results in one person dying and another being born in their
place. Even if this were coherent (and I don't believe it is), it would
imply the existence of a soul.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070502/348fb85c/attachment.html>