[ExI] Pascals wager

Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com
Wed May 5 02:44:11 UTC 2021


On Wed, 5 May 2021 at 11:15, Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> And yet many philosophers would disagree with you. I forget their exact
> arguments, something about souls…
>
It is the same analysis if our consciousness is due to a physical brain or
a magical soul. If there is no objective and no subjective difference,
there is no difference at all.

*From: *Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, May 4, 2021 8:20 PM
> *To: *ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Cc: *Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [ExI] Pascals wager
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 5 May 2021 at 09:34, Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> The only way to scientifically test a theory regarding consciousness, such
> as the uploading theory, is to have a consciousness perform the
> observations of tests on itself or entities that are similar enough. If the
> consciousness cannot detect any effect or change whatsoever, then
> scientifically one must conclude that there was no effect on consciousness.
> If uploading was performed gradually such that simulated neurons gradually
> replace the biological ones through some connection, then the consciousness
> could observe any noticeable changes. In a proper upload(correctly
> simulates all the neurons and accompanying molecules), the subject cannot
> notice a change because a proper upload preserves behavior. Therefore there
> cannot be any observation that gives evidence that a proper upload does not
> preserve consciousness.
>
>
>
> The belief that uploading does not preserve consciousness then must stem
> from a conviction that there is some attribute to consciousness that is not
> observable, even to the subject herself. This is of course an unscientific
> belief, but many, even seemingly rational, people believe in such ethereal
> things. I think people like attaching mysterious attributes to
> consciousness because it makes them feel special, that they transcend the
> material world.
>
> The most serious problem with the idea that there is an aspect of
> consciousness which is not observable even to the subject herself is not
> scientific, it is logical. A difference that is neither objective nor
> subjective us no difference at all. If I had an injury requiring a part of
> my brain to be replaced and I had the choice of an electronic implant for
> $5000 or a magical implant for $6000, and knew that neither I nor anyone
> else would be able to tell any difference between them, why would I choose
> the more expensive option?
>
> --
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20210505/8516ca2f/attachment.htm>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list