[ExI] The atoms red herring. =|

Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com
Thu Nov 18 17:38:10 UTC 2010


On Nov 18, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Alan Grimes wrote:

> Ben Zaiboc wrote:
>> Alan Grimes <agrimes at speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>> the subject must poses the supernatural power of being able to
>>> choose his point of view.
> 
>> OK, I had given up on this, but I'll give it one more
>> try, as you've mentioned the POV.
> 
>> Just /what is it/ that has this POV?
> 
> Me. ;)
> 
>> The vilified 'uploaders', as you call them, have given
>> an explicit definition of 'Me'.  You have not.  Until
>> you actually say what the 'Me' is, you can't really
>> make any arguments about it, can you?
> 
> That has been a hotly contested issue throughout the ages.
> 
> However, there is one common feature of all things in the real world:
> They don't give a flying fuck what you, me, anyone, or everyone thinks
> about them. Science can only extract a few essentialist features from a
> thing. These pieces of information may or may not have practical value.
> However, that thing has an existence that precedes and supersedes
> everything that could possibly be said about it.

Most things have no mind with which to care.  So? You can only know about something by sufficiently valid and able to be validated means of examination.  That is where science comes in as our most dependable to date kit of such means.  Practical value is a separable issue.   Your last sentence makes no sense and seems to be unfounded assertion.

> 
> Even though it is impossible to capture the full existence of a thing,
> it is scientifically possible to measure its properties. Because there
> are no credible reports of any animal being able to swap its
> consciousness with something else one must formulate a theory that it is
> fundamentally impossible.
> 

What is this 'full existence'?  Are you sure there is any such thing?  Before humans developed flying machines many thought it was impossible.  You should check what theory actually means in science.


> Because uploading, as strictly defined by all noteworthy sources, does
> not even acknowledge the existence of the consciousness that almost
> everyone experiences every waking instant, it cannot be lent any
> credibility.
> 

What is this consciousness though?  You don't know exactly.  Neither do I.  But it arises apparently from a set of processes running on a physical, currently biological structure.  Therefore it may be possible that consciousness of this kind can run on other physical, non-biological structure.    

- samantha




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list