<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Jason Resch wrote:<font size="4"><br>
<br>
Various things about uploading and duplication...<br>
</font><br>
It seems we agree on the various duplication scenarios, we just
prefer to use different terminology, but this started as a
discussion about 'Open Individualism', which I'm still no closer to
understanding.<br>
<br>
>>> Boiled down to one sentence, it is the idea that:
"There is only one person." <br>
<br>
>> Ok, well that is demonstrably not true. There are at least
two people, you and me<br>
<br>
> Can you use the fact that you are only presently aware of "now"
to refute eternalism?<br>
<br>
From what I can understand, eternalism is the view that the future,
as well as the past, is fixed. I don't think that's likely to be
true, but wouldn't know how to refute it through what I'm presently
aware of.<br>
<br>
> Can you use the fact that you are only presently aware of "this
branch" to refute many-worlds?<br>
<br>
I don't have any interest in many-worlds, it may or may not be true,
but don't really see the point in agonising about it. It has the
same status, in my mind, as the simulation argument. Can't be proven
or disproven, so maybe it's true, maybe not, and either way, what
can we do about it? Nothing.<br>
<br>
> If not, then I would argue that neither can you use the fact
that you are only presently aware of "Ben Zaiboc's POV" to refute
open individualism.<br>
<br>
I don't see how that follows, but anyway, I'm not trying to refute
it, I'm trying to understand what it means. "There is only one
person" can't mean what it seems to mean, as it's clearly not true.
There are lots of people. So what does it mean?<br>
<br>
"There is only one person in this room at this moment" is true.
"There is only one person in this town" is not. Clearly 'one person'
in Open Individualism has some special meaning that people don't
ordinarily use, or are even aware of. Can you explain what this
special meaning is?<br>
<br>
> You can experience great pain and you can experience great joy.
Those two experiences couldn't be more different from one another,
but they are both experiences you are capable of having. I would
argue then that your experience of eating an apple is not so
different from the experience of that New Zealander eating an apple
200 years ago, at least the two experiences are more similar than
the two extremes of consciousness experience you are capable of
having. All conscious experiences have in common, the feeling of
immediacy, and that is all that is required for it to feel like it
is your experience.<br>
<br>
I've no argument with the idea that two humans, no matter how
different, have lots in common. Just because two things have lots in
common, doesn't mean they are the same thing, though. Two grains of
sand have much more in common with each other than I do with some
New Zealander 200 years ago, but they still aren't the same grain of
sand. Nobody claims "there is only one grain of sand".<br>
<br>
I can't make any sense of this 'one person' thing at all.<br>
<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
</body>
</html>