<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Mar 4, 2010, Spencer Campbell wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font>So, you observed my behavior. Well of course you observed my behavior!<br>That is, as you say, literally the only way to measure anything. I was<br>interested in what you were looking for *in* my behavior to indicate<br>the presence of mind-like activity.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I was looking for intelligent behavior, and no I don't have a definition of intelligence but I have something much better, examples.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>See, you take for granted that I "sure didn't act" like I had a mind.<br>I had a pulse, didn't I?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Who cares?</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>What could possibly make my heart beat in just that way aside from my mind? </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Nerve impulses, and not all nerve impulses are involved in mind. If you doubt this then try willing your heart to stop, don't worry it's a perfectly safe activity.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>The brain does more than think</div></blockquote><div><br></div>Yea, it occupies space has mass and although I don't know this from first hand experience it probably has a taste too, but none of these properties are involved when we talk about immortality, it's the ability to think that we want to continue. And anyway I'm not interested in the brain, I'm interested in what the brain does, the mind.<br><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>I don't think, "oh, now I'm blinking" every time I blink. That would<br>be a huge waste of processing power.</div></blockquote><br><div>That's why mind is not involved in blinking, only the brain.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Syntax dictates that I should have expected an argument, here, which<br>supports the statement: "if mind scanning does not preserve objective<br>continuity, then there must necessarily be a preferred rate of change<br>in the universe". I accept unconditionally that there is no preferred rate of change in<br>the universe, but I also believe mind scanning fails to blah blah<br>blah. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that that statement is false.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That is unclear, if the statement is "I also believe mind scanning fails" then you are correct.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>The whole premise behind mind scanning is that we can copy thoughts from one medium to another. This would mean that you can copy all the thoughts out of brain 1 and into brain 2</div></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes.<br><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>whether or not the two brains are in communication.<br></div></blockquote><br>No.<br><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>I'm talking about a complex ongoing neural interaction, not a one-way data dump.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I don't understand, an old experienced brain would have lots to say to a brand new blank brain, but what would the blank brain have to say to the old brain that is relevant in this matter? In fact what would a blank brain have to say period?</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark<br><div><br></div><br></div><br></body></html>