<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">John, you raise some interesting points. I for one would argue that "red" is entirely metaphysical: unless you can point to a physical object which fits the noun red, then what else can it be but metaphysical?<br><br>As regards the self, I think we get further in understanding others' points of view by asking what they believe rather than telling them. This is what I am trying to do - if you think the self is comprehensible via the scientific method, can you elaborate on precisely what it is that the word points to?<br><br>Regarding the two groups of identical atoms idea - one of my basic problems with this is that they will not be experiencing <span style="font-style: italic;">precisely</span> the same thoughts, because they are located
in different spaces. If you ask <span style="font-style: italic;">me</span> a question, I will respond, if you ask the other group the question, I will know it is not directed at me. Whether an entirely identical group of atoms is actually possible or not is a moot point, but (as I think has been discussed) as soon as they are separated, the experiences will begin to diverge. This divergence would be even greater if one is a 'virtual' collection of atoms, designed by humans to replicate the processes and interactions of the material one...unless we were to go so far as to replicate the entire universe 1-to-1. Given how little we know about the material workings of the universe at this point, I would venture some kind of epistemological gap which will make such <span style="font-style: italic;">complete</span> rendering quite impossible.<br><br>I think the basic point I'm making here, is that there is not a 1-to-1 correlation between human concepts and
words, and static material processes. Semantics always serves to create a generalisation which colours our thinking (and even our root perception) about the world. "Me" is a very simple word, but I think if we're trying to look for an objective entity fitting that description we will be very disappointed. It is, like red, entirely metaphysical...and this is not to say supernatural in any but the most metaphorical sense.<br><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">----- Original Message ----<br>From: John K Clark <jonkc@att.net><br>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><br>Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 3:45:34 PM<br>Subject: Re: [ExI] Uploading and selfhood<br><br>
Michael Miller Wrote:<br><br>> the self and thoughts are not reducible to the machinery<br>>which generates them, whatever that machinery may be.<br><br>Then it is not detectable with the scientific method and the word you are so<br>desperately trying to avoid is "soul".<br><br>> to think that it can be 'transferred' from one set of<br>> hardware to another is to posit some kind of supernatural<br>> or metaphysical entity as the self.<br><br>The self is just as metaphysical as "swiftly" is, or "large", "red" or the<br>number eleven. Not very.<br><br>> The self, whenever we use the concept, is better understood<br>> as being based in social action.<br><br>So if I put you on a desert island with plenty of food but without a cell<br>phone you would cease to exist.<br><br>> I have never experienced an identical set of atoms to my body<br><br>I haven't either, yet.<br><br>> if I were in that situation I would
probably argue that my<br>> conscious experience correlated with what was happening<br>> to only one of those groups.<br><br>And that other group of atoms would be having exactly precisely the<br>same thoughts, and if I pushed a button and claimed that you and<br>that other group of atoms exchanged positions you'd have no way<br>of knowing if I was telling the truth or not and thus no reason to care.<br><br>> I think we're barking up the wrong tree as soon as we start<br>> trying to pin down 'me' to a specific material object.<br><br>And that contradicts what you were saying just one sentence ago.<br><br>> unless we're positing some kind of non-physical essential self<br><br>You're the one postulating something vastly important that cannot<br>be detected with the scientific method not me.<br><br>> There's no such thing as 'me'.<br><br>Well you would know, however there is such a thing as me.<br><br> John K
Clark<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>extropy-chat mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br></div><br></div></div><br>
<hr size=1>You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47523/*http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
">one month of Blockbuster Total Access</a>, No Cost.</body></html>