<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;">Okay. What then is the subject of the adjective 'I'?<br><br>I wasn't asking you to prove the soul didn't exist. I was asking you to elaborate on what <span style="font-style: italic;">you</span> mean by the word self. I think you have still managed to avoid telling us.<br><br>I suspect that, although you are quick to criticise me for a perceived belief in a soul, it is yourself that is clinging to some kind of essential self...how else can your closing statement, "my body" be understood? If 'I' does not include this body, then what exactly is it that you are referring to? It seems very much like you are still trying to use the word I as a noun.<br><br>I have a lot of respect for what little I know of Liebniz. However, I dispute that
position is irrelevant to our discerning of different objects. Position is surely all that differentiates one atom from another. Position is what determines an object's relationship with other particles surrounding it. I suppose the point I'm getting at is, how do we isolate an object's state from it's position? Surely its state includes its position, as a different position will place it in a different relationship with the rest of the world. The simple fact is, that spatial position does go a long way towards making two things discernible. <br><br>Finally (sorry if it seems like I'm disagreeing with everything you say!) I think we are unwise to talk about there being "facts" of language. We all know red, just like 11, and just like I, are commonly used as nouns. One person may say we are wrong to do so but that doesn't mean there is an objective truth to the meaning of a word. There are simply different usages.<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 9:08:47 PM<br>Subject: Re: [ExI] Uploading and selfhood<br><br>
Michael Miller Wrote:<br><br>> I for one would argue that "red" is entirely metaphysical: unless you can<br>> point to a physical object which fits the noun red<br><br>"Red" is an adjective as is "eleven" and "I", this is a fact however much<br> third grade English teachers misinform their students.<br><br>> if you think the self is comprehensible via the scientific method, can you<br>> elaborate on precisely what it is that the word points to?<br><br>I can't prove that the soul doesn't exist. And maybe some atoms really do<br>have your name and only your name scratched on them in a way the<br>scientific method cannot detect. And maybe by pure coincidence in your<br>entire life you only ate drank and breathed atoms that just happened to<br>have your name scratched on them. And maybe the other 6 billion people<br>on the planet also just happened to eat drink and breathe atoms that had<br>their names scratched on them too. Maybe, but I doubt
it.<br><br>> Regarding the two groups of identical atoms idea - one of my basic<br>> problems with this is that they will not be experiencing precisely the<br>> same thoughts, because they are located in different spaces.<br><br>Position cannot possibly be the key to identity because of The Identity<br>Of Indiscernibles; Leibniz discover the idea about 1690. He said that<br>things that you can measure are what's important, and if there is no<br>way to find a difference between two things then they are identical<br>and switching the position of the objects does not change the physical<br>state of the system.<br><br>Leibniz's idea turned out to be very practical, although until the<br>20th century nobody realized it, before that his idea had no observable<br>consequences because nobody could find two things that were exactly<br>alike. Things changed dramatically when it was discovered that atoms<br>have no scratches on them to tell them
apart.<br><br>By using The Identity Of Indiscernibles you can deduce one of the<br>foundations of modern physics the fact that there must be two classes of<br>particles, bosons like photons and fermions like electrons, and from there<br>you can deduce The Pauli Exclusion Principle, and that is the basis of the<br>periodic table of elements, and that is the basis of chemistry, and that is<br>the basis of life. If The Identity Of Indiscernibles is wrong then this<br>entire chain breaks down and you can throw Science into the trash can.<br>Believe it or not I'm not exaggerating, it really is that important!<br><br>One of the first and greatest discoveries in Quantum Mechanics was The<br>Schrödinger Wave Equation. It proved to be enormously useful in<br>accurately predicting the results of experiments, and as the name implies<br>it's an equation describing the movement of a wave, but embarrassingly<br>it was not at all clear what it was talking
about.<br><br>Exactly what was waving? Schrödinger thought it was a matter wave, but<br>that didn't seem right to Max Born. Born reasoned that matter is not<br>smeared around, only the probability of finding it is. Born was correct,<br>whenever an electron is detected it always acts like a particle, it makes a<br>dot when it hit's a phosphorus screen not a smudge, however the probability<br>of finding that electron does act like a wave so you can't be certain<br>exactly where that dot will be. Born showed that it's the square of the wave<br>equation that describes the probability, the wave equation itself is sort of<br>a useful mathematical fiction, like lines of longitude and latitude, because<br>experimentally we can't measure the quantum wave function F(x) of a<br>particle, we can only measure the intensity (square) of the wave function<br>[F(x)]^2 because that's a probability and probability we can measure.<br><br>Let's consider a very simple
system with lots of space but only 2 particles<br>in it. P(x) is the probability of finding two particles x distance apart,<br>and we know that probability is the square of the wave function, so<br>P(x) =[F(x)]^2. Now let's exchange the position of the particles in the<br>system, the distance between them was x1 - x2 = x but is now<br>x2 - x1 = -x.<br><br>But The Identity Of Indiscernibles tells us that because the two particles<br>are the same, no measurable change has been made, no change in probability,<br>so P(x) = P(-x). Probability is just the square of the wave function so<br>[F(x) ]^2 = [F(-x)]^2 .<br><br>>From this we can tell that the Quantum wave function can be either an even<br>function, F(x) = +F(-x), or an odd function, F(x) = -F(-x). Either type of<br>function would work in our probability equation because the square of minus<br>1 is equal to the square of plus 1. It turns out both solutions have<br>physical significance, particles
with integer spin, bosons, have even wave<br>functions, particles with half integer spin, fermions, have odd wave<br>functions.<br><br>All that came from The Identity Of Indiscernibles, it's the foundation of<br>the idea of Exchange Forces, if it's wrong then most modern physics is<br>gibberish.<br><br>> If you ask me a question, I will respond, if you ask the other group the<br>> question, I will know it is not directed at me.<br><br>Yes, if you put them into an uncontrolled environment the world will soon<br>treat them differently and then they will diverge and you would have 2<br>individuals not one. I would not be happy about having my body destroyed<br>unless I had a copy that was made right now. How long is now? About a<br>second, maybe two.<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>