[ExI] What should survive and why?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 05/05/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> One would like the objective and the subjective evidence to match up,
> > but if they don't, what basis is there for choosing one over the other?
> > If your brain has been tampered with as expertly as you propose isn't
> > it also possible that the objective evidence in the form of video tapes,
> > other peoples' testimonials and so on, has also been tampered with?
>
> We are fast approaching the problem you describe in the courtroom.
> These days, just how reliable can pictures (and soon videos) be?
> The solution---advocated by David Brin, I believe---is that testimony
> from real, live, 3D people must be provided, or at least via networks of
> reliability.
>
> Believability then becomes a matter of Bayesian statistics, sort of like
> it always has been  :-)
>
> *Assuming* that right now your brain is not being tampered with, and
> *assuming* that you are not living in a temporary simulation, then it
> is possible to gingerly reach out and begin establishing reliability
> footholds. We do it in science all the time, for example, say, in
> gathering
> astronomical data. And so did they who first dared to try to quantify
> "hot" and "cold" on a linear scale.
>
> They had to constantly go back and forth between the objective and
> subjective, until things began falling into place, and they could begin
> building instruments more reliable than their own senses.
>
> So it could turn out with brain science. We now postulate that we
> are conscious, and that the higher animals are also, presumably,
> conscious, but not quite at the human level. Already comparisons
> between subjective accounts and objective brain scans are made
> by researchers. And so forth.


You can't escape subjectivity so easily when the subject *is* subjectivity.
When I say I want to survive into the future, what I mean is that I want my
subjectivity to survive. I don't really care what the objective facts are
except insofar as they affect my subjective experience. If there is some
precise neurological correlate of consciousness then that's good, because it
means if I have my brain rewired I can be reassured that everything will
continue as before. However, it would be OK with me if my subjectivity
continued the same as before despite flouting all the known objective
correlates of consciousness and personal identity. This begs the question,
how could I possibly know that I have survived if I lack any objective
evidence that I have survived? And if I can't know does that mean it would
be pointless wanting to be resurrected in the far future, or in Heaven,
because I simply couldn't be sure that I was me?

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070505/3137a971/attachment.html>