[ExI] The atoms red herring. =|

[John Clark]

On Nov 15, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Alan Grimes wrote:

> "The case in point being the accusation that I associate identity with a certain set of atoms. This accusation has been repeated several times now. Seriously, this argument needs to come to a screeching halt"

Ok, now that you have abandoned the idea that atoms are the key to identity I will speak no more about it. But the odd thing is you still insist the copy (or the upload) would not be you, if so then The Original must have something the copy does not; if its not atoms and it's not information then what is it?  The only one word answer to that and the only thing that could make The Original be so original starts with the letter "S", but I think that word has zero chance in helping us understand how the world works.

> "I want you, right now, to try to mind-swap yourself into your cat, or your computer or anything else you might find more suitable. I presume the experiment will fail. So why did it?"

Insufficient hardware.

> "What evidence do you have that the experiment will succeed if certain pre-conditions are met?"

If the cat remembers being me then it worked, if not then it hasn't. 

> "You are using an argument based on science/compsci, which I have already
> argued, is mute on metaphysical issues such as identity."

Alan, you are certainly not mute on metaphysical issues such as identity, so how did you obtain this information? Oh I'm sorry, I forgot, you don't think information is important. 

> "Stop pretending that the tools, techniques, and assumptions, we use to describe and manipulate strings of letters on a piece of paper mean anything whatsoever in the context of yourself."

Thus, because I know nothing about Alan Grimes except that he has produced several strings of ASCII characters, I have no way of knowing Alan Grimes's opinion on the identity issue.
> 
> "Webster's dictionary: Metaphysics (1) A division of philosophy that [...]"

Why did you quote that string of characters, why did you think it meant anything whatsoever? The definition is made of words and every one of those words also have definitions in Webster's dictionary and they too are made of words that also have definitions made of words in Webster's dictionary and....

> "you need to jump outside of science"

When one jumps blindly one is likely to jump into male bovine fecal material. 
>  
> "What you have done is turn science into a religion."

Wow, I never heard that putdown before! 

> "You are using "science" to try to escape irrefutable evidence that you can't upload."

I must have missed that post please resend, because from the posts I've seen you have made it very clear what your theory of identity is NOT based on but you have said nothing about what it IS based on other than its not science. It almost seems like you're embarrassed to clearly spell it out.

> "Now, let me let you in on a little secret. One that will rock your world up one side and down the other. The pattern of your neural interconnections is not static"


Duh.

> "Which scan is you?"

Yes.

   John K Clark
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20101117/208d2743/attachment.html>