[ExI] The Soul

Mon Apr 27 22:38:15 UTC 2020

On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 at 07:56, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> You don't experience the passage of time while you're dead. So even if
> Tipler's or some other Omega point happens a trillion years from now, from
> your point of view you experience it immediately after you die. You feel as
> though you are instantaneously resurrected  Jason
>
> How do you know these things?   Has some resurrected person told you?
> bill w
>

It follows from the definition of the terms that if a person has a period
of unconsciousness they do not experience it.

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:45 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:16 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Jason Resch said:
>>>
>>> "Special relativity implies spacetime, which means there is no such
>>> thing as an objective present point in time. This implies "block time" the
>>> idea that in reality the universe is a static unchanging 4 dimensional
>>> block rather than a 3d one evolving through time. Thus, all times are
>>> equally real, every thing in every time exists eternally and has always
>>> existed."
>>>
>>> I think you are over-interpreting the significance of such theories.
>>>
>>
>> Can you explain why you think so? Was Einstein wrong about his own theory?
>>
>>
>>> And this idea of 'block time' is irrelevant to people's actual lives,
>>> which begin and end.
>>>
>>
>> But you never die from your first-person perspective.
>>
>> Living eternally in every moment of your life is equivalent in effect to
>> living your life over and over again forever. You might not care, but
>> perhaps someone might find some comfort in knowing someone isn't gone, just
>> present in a different time. (As Einstein through Besso's wife might when
>> he explained that to her).
>>
>>
>>> I'm not interested in whether I'm eternal in some sense because of an
>>> interpretation of a theory, I'm interested in extending my lifespan beyond
>>> its natural limit. For that, things must be done.
>>>
>>
>> This is a consequence of quantum mechanics. You need not do anything if
>> quantum mechanics is true.
>>
>> Special relativity and quantum mechanics are the two cornerstones of
>> modern physics. Both of them imply different forms of living forever.
>>
>>
>>> For your 'immortality', what does anyone need to do? Nothing. Frank
>>> Tipler's Omega Point is just something that may happen in the far distant
>>> future. Without any input from me, or anyone else. Not interesting or
>>> relevant. In fact, it might as well be a religious concept.
>>>
>>
>> It's relevant. You don't experience the passage of time while you're
>> dead. So even if Tipler's or some other Omega point happens a trillion
>> years from now, from your point of view you experience it immediately after
>> you die. You feel as though you are instantaneously resurrected.
>>
>>
>>> This '4-dimensional block time' doesn't prevent anyone from dying, does
>>> it?
>>>
>>
>> To be completely precise and avoid misinterpretation, I would phrase it
>> as "Special relativity doesn't imply one's one's temporal borders will
>> extend indefinitely into the future."  (But quantum mechanics does imply
>> this, from a first-person perspective).
>>
>>
>>> It doesn't prevent people from growing old and decrepit.
>>>
>>
>> Neither special relativity nor quantum mechanics prevent you from
>> becoming older and more decrepit, but reincarnation through low-entropy
>> brain state intersection (as implied by mechanist/materialist theories of
>> mind) give you immortality without continued ageing, only loss of memories.
>>
>> If you want immortality, and continued accumulation of memories, then you
>> need to posit a large universe and the simulation hypothesis. Then you have
>> the possibility of awaking as an immortal being who collects lifetimes
>> worth of memories as one might collect stamps.
>>
>>
>>
>>> In fact, it doesn't make one iota of difference to their lives. It
>>> applies just as much to Thog the Caveman,
>>>
>>
>> I thought it was Og.
>>
>>
>>> Rameses the second, Mrs Miggins and Napoleon as it does to me. So where
>>> is the progress, the improvement, and the expansion of human capabilities?
>>> There is none. It is simply irrelevant, an intellectual curiosity of no
>>> practical value.
>>>
>>
>> You asked for an explanation of how special relativity implies eternal
>> life. I can't make you like it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> To paraphrase Woody Allen, I want immortality through not dying, not
>>> through being embedded in 4-dimensional block time.
>>>
>>>
>> Then you can study the consequences of the other theories I mentioned,
>> which contain more favorable forms of continued experience.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "I defined consciousness as awareness of information, and said that it
>>> can arise in any information processing system which can enter different
>>> states based upon that information"
>>>
>>> Ah, yes, so you did.
>>> Now I know why I didn't remember it.
>>>
>>> Seeing as nothing can be aware of anything but information, you're
>>> saying "consciousness is awareness". Great. Can you come up with something
>>> a little less trite?
>>>
>>
>> Any definition is going to be simple if its to be inclusive about
>> minimally conscious entities.
>>
>> If you dislike "awareness" you can substitute "awareness" with "having
>> knowledge of" so the definition of consciousness becomes "having knowledge
>> of information".
>>
>> What's your definition? Can you do better?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And can you prove that it can arise in any information processing
>>> system? Well, any system that processes information can be said to be
>>> 'aware' of the information, otherwise it wouldn't be able to process it.
>>> Entering different states is implicit in the word 'processing'. An
>>> information processing system that doesn't change its state in response to
>>> incoming information isn't processing the information.
>>>
>>> It seems we have a problem.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I should modify my question: How do you define 'consciousness'
>>> without using circular definitions?
>>>
>>> Yes, sorry, it's a trick question. I don't think it's possible.
>>> 'Consciousness' is just one of those wooly words that doesn't really mean
>>> anything definite at all.
>>>
>>
>> So you have no definition and think there cannot be one?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I propose we drop the word altogether, and just talk about Information
>>> Processing instead. This has the advantage of avoiding any potential
>>> supernatural implications or associations. Then we can get on with more
>>> interesting and useful questions, such as what kind of structure does an
>>> information processing system need to have in order to solve complex
>>> problems, model other such systems, model itself, remember the past, make
>>> predictions about the future based upon information gathered in the past,
>>> etc.?
>>>
>>>
>> I can agree that debating "what is conscious" is the same class of
>> question as "what is alive", there's no simple definition or boundary
>> because there is a broad range of complexity of different things you might
>> call alive.
>>
>> Nonetheless I still think consciousness is a useful word. It seems we
>> agree it is related to information processing.
>>
>> Jason
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200428/fffdaae6/attachment.htm>