[ExI] Continuity of experience.

[Spencer Campbell]

John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> I don't understand this philosophical distinction, it's all just a question
> of putting atoms (including electrically charged electrons) here rather than
> over there.
(snip)
> But if you magnetize the clock's parts it will stop ticking, and thermal
> effects will change the length of a clocks pendulum and thus its speed. I
> don't get the philosophical point you are trying to make.

It's really more of a tangent than a point. A supplemental tidbit, a
sidenote, to the argument which concludes that mind-scanning is
self-destructive*.

You are correct. In concrete terms, electrical and chemical properties
ARE structural properties. The particles are just arranged in such and
such a way. I was addressing the whole thing from a very abstract
perspective, as is my wont.

We can drop it. It's an ancillary topic. I just thought it would
clarify what I mean by "absolute brain death" and such, but, clearly,
I have confused more than I've clarified.

*I'm not sure if this is a pun or a double entendre or, for that
matter, a single entendre.


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> Spencer Campbell wrote:
>> I am forced to argue that when it comes to people who've woken up from
>> comas (say), the mind's existence has ALWAYS continued without a break
>> objectively.
>
> Well that is just untrue, if you go into a coma on Monday and come out on
> Wednesday then objectively your mind did not exist on tuesday, but
> objectivity is of trivial importance, subjectivity is not.

I don't think objectivity is trivial at all! What makes you say my
mind *objectively* did not exist on Tuesday? How are you measuring?

We may be talking about very different things, here.


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> Spencer Campbell wrote:
>> It seems to me that subjective continuity and objective continuity cannot be
>> disentangled
>
> Well of course they can! If you put me under general anesthesia I'll swear
> up and down that it's Monday even though the calendar says it's Wednesday.

Yeah, see. I think I know what you're talking about, but I don't think
you know what I'm talking about.


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> Spencer Campbell wrote:
>> Mind scanning does not preserve objective continuity, as more gradual uploading methods do ...
>
> That would imply there is a preferred rate of change in the universe and the
> evidence for that is as good as there being a preferred reference frame in
> the universe. None.

You could potentially convince me if you elaborated on that a bit,
but, at first glance, I don't think I agree. I don't see any
implication of the sort. One of the "more gradual" uploading methods
I'm thinking of is, for example, replacing the brain with synthetic
neurons one by one.

The rate of change doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned. What
matters is whether or not the old brain is in constant communication
with the new "brain" right up until the old brain is completely gone,
so that you can't draw a clear line between the end of the old mind
and the beginning of the new mind.

It could take eons or jiffies for the transition to take place. Maybe
I should have said "incremental" instead of "gradual".


John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> Spencer Campbell wrote:
>> Man, John, it's disorienting to see you displaying such wanton civility.
>
> I don't know what you mean. I have been on the Extropian list for 15 years
> and in that time I have always treated fellow list members with all the
> respect they deserved.

Precisely my point.