[ExI] dualism

William Flynn Wallace foozler83 at gmail.com
Wed Apr 5 13:22:56 UTC 2023

Freudian slip?  Nah.  True materialist - that's me. Sorry for the mistake.
bill w

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:31 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On 04/04/2023 21:54, bill w wrote:
> > en, if it were possible to copy my brain contents into a clone or a
> > computer, it would be another me in a sense, but I can't see how I
> > could be conscious in both 'bodies'.  So, yes, true dualist. Otherwise
> > it's just magical thinking in my opinion.  It follows that if a copy
> > were made and put into a clone after I am dead, my consciousness is
> > still dead - there is no more 'me'.  Although the copy would fool
> > anyone.   bill w
> Sorry, you've confused me now.
> Earlier, you said you are not a dualist, now you're saying "yes, true
> dualist". I assume that was a mistake, and you meant "true materialist"?
> Your statement above classifies you, for me, as a cryptodualist. "Yes a
> copy of me would be me in a sense, but I can't see how I could be
> conscious in both bodies". Full rejection of dualism requires acceptance
> of multiple instantiations of the self. Two independent you's, both
> equivalent to the original in every sense, including consciousness
> (independent but initially identical constiousnesses, no 'group-mind or
> anything like that). Weird, yes I know, and takes quite a bit of
> pondering to wrap your head around (certainly did with me, anyway), but
> logically necessary. I find the example of an amoeba dividing to be a
> good way of thinking about it. Think of your mind as an amoeba, dividing
> into two identical amoebas, which then separate and go about their
> individual lives. There is no 'original amoeba', they have exactly equal
> status, but where there was one, now there are two.
> The thing that most people can't seem to get past, is the idea that
> there can only be one you. That any 'extra you' has to be 'not-you' in
> some sense (as if the amoeba had a 'special' organelle that for some
> reason can't be copied, and has to be handed to only one of the two
> daughter amoebas). I can see that this is natural, seeing as we've never
> had to think about this idea in the past, but again, as with my post
> about the language we use (see that I'm not exempt from this either, I
> still say 'your mind', etc.). if there can only be one you, even when
> everything about you is copied, then there must be /something else/,
> that's not copyable. That impllies magic, the idea that 'mind' and
> 'soul' are in fact different things, one subject to the known laws of
> nature, one not. That's dualism.
> Ben
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230405/c2660ac3/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list