<div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 at 07:56, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">You don't experience the passage of time while you're dead. So even if Tipler's or some other Omega point happens a trillion years from now, from your point of view you experience it immediately after you die. You feel as though you are instantaneously resurrected Jason</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif">How do you know these things? Has some resurrected person told you? bill w</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It follows from the definition of the terms that if a person has a period of unconsciousness they do not experience it.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif"></font></span></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:45 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:16 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Jason Resch said:<br>
<br>
"<font size="+1"><tt>Special relativity implies spacetime, which
means there is no such thing as an objective present point in
time. This implies "block time" the idea that in reality the
universe is a static unchanging 4 dimensional block rather than
a 3d one evolving through time. Thus, all times are equally
real, every thing in every time exists eternally and has always
existed.</tt></font>"<br>
<br>
I think you are over-interpreting the significance of such theories.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Can you explain why you think so? Was Einstein wrong about his own theory?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
And this idea of 'block time' is irrelevant to people's actual
lives, which begin and end. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But you never die from your first-person perspective.</div><div><br></div><div>Living eternally in every moment of your life is equivalent in effect to living your life over and over again forever. You might not care, but perhaps someone might find some comfort in knowing someone isn't gone, just present in a different time. (As Einstein through Besso's wife might when he explained that to her).</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>I'm not interested in whether I'm
eternal in some sense because of an interpretation of a theory, I'm
interested in extending my lifespan beyond its natural limit. For
that, things must be done. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is a consequence of quantum mechanics. You need not do anything if quantum mechanics is true.</div><div><br></div><div>Special relativity and quantum mechanics are the two cornerstones of modern physics. Both of them imply different forms of living forever.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>For your 'immortality', what does anyone
need to do? Nothing. Frank Tipler's Omega Point is just something
that may happen in the far distant future. Without any input from
me, or anyone else. Not interesting or relevant. In fact, it might
as well be a religious concept. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's relevant. You don't experience the passage of time while you're dead. So even if Tipler's or some other Omega point happens a trillion years from now, from your point of view you experience it immediately after you die. You feel as though you are instantaneously resurrected.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>This '4-dimensional block time'
doesn't prevent anyone from dying, does it? </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>To be completely precise and avoid misinterpretation, I would phrase it as "Special relativity doesn't imply one's one's temporal borders will extend indefinitely into the future." (But quantum mechanics does imply this, from a first-person perspective).</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>It doesn't prevent
people from growing old and decrepit. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Neither special relativity nor quantum mechanics prevent you from becoming older and more decrepit, but reincarnation through low-entropy brain state intersection (as implied by mechanist/materialist theories of mind) give you immortality without continued ageing, only loss of memories.</div><div><br></div><div>If you want immortality, and continued accumulation of memories, then you need to posit a large universe and the simulation hypothesis. Then you have the possibility of awaking as an immortal being who collects lifetimes worth of memories as one might collect stamps.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>In fact, it doesn't make one
iota of difference to their lives. It applies just as much to Thog
the Caveman, </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I thought it was Og.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>Rameses the second, Mrs Miggins and Napoleon as it does
to me. So where is the progress, the improvement, and the expansion
of human capabilities? There is none. It is simply irrelevant, an
intellectual curiosity of no practical value.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You asked for an explanation of how special relativity implies eternal life. I can't make you like it.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
To paraphrase Woody Allen, I want immortality through not dying, not
through being embedded in 4-dimensional block time.<br>
<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Then you can study the consequences of the other theories I mentioned, which contain more favorable forms of continued experience.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
<br>
"<font size="+1"><tt>I defined consciousness as awareness of
information, and said that it can arise in any information
processing system which can enter different states based upon
that information</tt></font>"<br>
<br>
Ah, yes, so you did.<br>
Now I know why I didn't remember it.<br>
<br>
Seeing as nothing can be aware of anything but information, you're
saying "consciousness is awareness". Great. Can you come up with
something a little less trite?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Any definition is going to be simple if its to be inclusive about minimally conscious entities.<br></div><div><br></div><div>If you dislike "awareness" you can substitute "awareness" with "having knowledge of" so the definition of consciousness becomes "having knowledge of information".</div><div><br></div><div>What's your definition? Can you do better?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
And can you prove that it can arise in any information processing
system? Well, any system that processes information can be said to
be 'aware' of the information, otherwise it wouldn't be able to
process it. Entering different states is implicit in the word
'processing'. An information processing system that doesn't change
its state in response to incoming information isn't processing the
information.<br>
<br>
It seems we have a problem.<br>
<br>
Perhaps I should modify my question: How do you define
'consciousness' without using circular definitions?<br>
<br>
Yes, sorry, it's a trick question. I don't think it's possible.
'Consciousness' is just one of those wooly words that doesn't really
mean anything definite at all.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>So you have no definition and think there cannot be one?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
I propose we drop the word altogether, and just talk about
Information Processing instead. This has the advantage of avoiding
any potential supernatural implications or associations. Then we can
get on with more interesting and useful questions, such as what kind
of structure does an information processing system need to have in
order to solve complex problems, model other such systems, model
itself, remember the past, make predictions about the future based
upon information gathered in the past, etc.?<br>
<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I can agree that debating "what is conscious" is the same class of question as "what is alive", there's no simple definition or boundary because there is a broad range of complexity of different things you might call alive.</div><div><br></div><div>Nonetheless I still think consciousness is a useful word. It seems we agree it is related to information processing.</div><div><br></div><div>Jason</div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Stathis Papaioannou</div>