<div>Hi Heartland,</div> <div> </div> <div>I don't mean to put you on the spot (well, okay, maybe just a little bit ;-} ) but I wrote something in an old post that you never specifically addressed. Here is an extract of the post:</div> <div> </div> <DIV>Me:</DIV> <DIV><EM>"So *how exactly* can a "copy" be distinguished from an (recently dead) "original"?:</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM>Subjectively there is no difference. Objectively there is no difference. The copy detects no difference. The dead original detects no difference... obviously. So, where can the difference possibly lie?</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM>The answer is that we, right now, *are* copies (imperfect ones) of the person who existed a moment before. He or she, the "original", has permanently died; they "experience" nothingness. If you doubt this assertion, ask yourself this question:</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM>Where the
hell is the 5 year old "version" of "me"? I know he existed once, where did I put him? The answer is that he is permanently deceased. He is not detectable either subjectively or objectively. He does not detect himself. He is dead. In my case, I am a "copy" of him (a dramatically imperfect copy - due to the large number of successive copying events that have already occurred since then). The copying event occurs once every few Planck Intervals (possibly once every single Planck Interval, but more likely at least 2). In this context a copying event is equivalent to any physical change in the brain (and remember that changes occur as time proceeds).</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM>My entire "time-slicing" argument is not even necessary in order to show that the above is correct. A person will be copied many, many times within ~10^29 Planck Intervals. But, I hope that it helps to make the point."</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV>How do
you refute this? It seems impossible to refute from my perspective, but perhaps that is to be expected. ;-)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Wishes,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jeffrey Herrlich </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div><BR><BR><B><I>Heartland <velvet977@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Heartland:<BR>>> BEC doesn't "erase the history".<BR><BR>Clark:<BR>> It most certainly does, it means it's imposable to distinguish the history<BR>> of one atom from the history of another.<BR><BR>But by then mind is gone forever anyway according to my argument so BEC is <BR>meaningless in the context of this discussion. I've said so at the beginning.<BR><BR>Heartland:<BR>>> Just because you cool down the atoms doesn't mean that records (as
in<BR>>> paper/electronic records) tracking past locations of those atoms are<BR>>> being magically erased too.<BR><BR>Clark:<BR>> Those paper records are useless because after atoms formed a BEC it will<BR>> never be possible to know which atom your paper records refer to. Your paper<BR>> records may say that one particular hydrogen atom, let's call him Bob, did<BR>> this that and the other thing, but after Bob became part of a BEC it is<BR>> imposable to say which of the billions or trillions of atoms is Bob the<BR>> atom.<BR><BR>Same as above. BEC is when mind process definitely stops which results in death. <BR>Paper records are only needed when minds are alive.<BR><BR>Heartland:<BR>>> If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one<BR>>> instance of mind type, then why do you write that "there would be<BR>>> only one instance of mind type?"<BR><BR>Clark:<BR>> If two phonographs are in perfect
synchronization and both are playing<BR>> Beethoven's Ninth Symphony then only one symphony is playing;<BR><BR>9th Symphony is a *type* of music. If you play 9th Symphony it becomes <BR>instantiated. If you use 2 CD players, each pumping out the 9th, then you have two <BR>instances of the type "9th Symphony". It doesn't really matter if you synchronize <BR>the players or not. You need to count each instance. If there are 2 instances of <BR>brain type AND each instance produces one instance of mind type, then this MUST add <BR>up to 2 instances of mind type. Yes or no?<BR><BR>Clark:<BR>> and if you<BR>> destroy one phonograph the music does not stop.<BR><BR>But you deleted one instance. Type remains, not the instance. People are instances, <BR>not types. The concept of type is meaningless in the context of our survival. I <BR>suggest you think about this for a while before you start questioning these ideas.<BR><BR>Clark:<BR>> So there is one question you must
ask yourself, is the mind more like a<BR>> symphony or more like a brick?<BR><BR>In a pure physics sense it is definitely more like a brick, a 4-D object, an <BR>instance of activity.<BR><BR>Heartland:<BR>>> A is A and B is B. Same as the last time.<BR><BR>Clark:<BR>> No last time you told me the original is the original, this time you tell me<BR>> A is A; both responses were quite true and both were quite useless.<BR><BR>Don't blame me for not specifying in your question what answers would be useful to <BR>you. I don't read minds. I just analyze what they are.<BR><BR>Actually, the way you specified the question, no possible answer could be useful <BR>unless we use my terminology. So if by "A" I designate a volume of matter on the <BR>original trajectory "F" and "B" as the volume of matter along parallel trajectory <BR>"G" then if I gradually shift the atoms from volume B to A and B to A then F=F and <BR>G=G.<BR><BR>Heartlalnd:<BR>>> Brain object
consists of all nonessential matter<BR><BR>Clark:<BR>> If it doesn't do anything then why even talk about it, and why even use the<BR>> word "brain" to refer to it?<BR><BR>Because if I didn't, then nobody would know what I'm talking about. My argument is <BR>structured. There are distinctions between concepts (e.g. brain vs. mind, instance <BR>vs. type) with precise definitions for each of them. This brings order to a debate <BR>where everyone usually brings their unique and often bizarre interpretation of what <BR>"brain" is. What happens then is that you get bunch of people screaming at each <BR>other because the referents for the terms they use are different. With clear <BR>definitions of concepts everyone is on the same page so that debate we can move on <BR>to debating the actual argument.<BR><BR>S. <BR>_______________________________________________<BR>extropy-chat mailing
list<BR>extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org<BR>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p>
<hr size=1>Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on <a href="http://farechase.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFpMnJnZ3IxBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHNlYwNtYWlsLXRhZ2xpbmVzBHNsawNmYXJlY2hhc2UtMDQyNzA2
">Yahoo! FareChase</a>