[ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality.

[John Clark]

On Jan 2, 2011, at 4:38 AM, The Avantguardian wrote:
> 
> I am not saying that there is something "missing" from the copy. I am saying 
> that both the original and the copies will have unique reference frames.

In my thought experiment the two were not moving with respect to each other so I see absolutely  nothing unique about their reference frames, and even if they were I'll be dammed if I can see why it would matter. And anyway I thought you said the copies were perfect

> These reference frames will be physical in the sense that they will sweep out distinct 
> world lines in space-time

Space-time lines of what, Space-time lines of every atom that was once part of your body including that atom you pissed down the toilet when you were in the third grade?

> Call it the autocentric sense, if you will

Yet another euphemism for the soul. And please explain why this "autocentric sense" cannot be copied in a perfect copy.

> The label "you" implies "over there". Me implies "here".

But as I have said before and will continue saying, if the two are identical and you exchange "here" for "over there" even the very universe itself will not notice any difference, and remember that both you standing here and that fellow over there are also part of the universe and you'd be no better detecting that exchange than any other part of the universe. And as I have also said before this is not just some skittering abstraction but the bedrock behind one of the most important ideas in modern physics, exchange forces. 

> You don't feel like a different person by moving  from one spatial coordinate to another because the reference frame moves with you

So if I give you general anesthesia, put you on a jet to a undisclosed location and then wake you up Stuart LaForge will be dead and there will just be an impostor who looks behaves thinks and believes with every fibre of his being that he is Stuart LaForge
>  
> The autocentric sense does not track your absolute position in space, there is 
> no such thing, but your position relative to external objects including any 
> copies of you that may be around.

But just what is "your position"? If you are reaching down into a deep dark hole trying to manipulate something by feel your position is the tips of your fingers, if you're using a remote control device in Ohio to operate a robot defusing a bomb on the great wall of China then you're position is in the orient, and your position is almost never inside a container made of bone.

> And regardless of your autocentric sense, you have a physical position and associated reference frame relative to the fixed stars. 

Without your senses there is no way to even know where your brain is, so I sure don't see how it could have anything to do with consciousness or identity. For most of human history people thought the brain was an unimportant organ that had something to do with cooling the blood and the heart was the seat of consciousness; even though those ancient people literally didn't know where they were I still think they were conscious.

  John K Clark

  



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110102/b6587e6d/attachment.html>