From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Fri Dec 14 2001 - 08:40:47 MST
From: Lee Daniel Crocker [mailto:lee@piclab.com]
> > You're the one looking at the other guy. The other guy is looking at
you.
> > Can't be that hard, can it?
>
> I agree. Just because the world can't detect the difference doesn't mean
> there isn't one.
"I beg to differ: what cannot be measured /doesn't exist/. If it is, in
principle, impossible for anyone to determine which of two lumps
of matter is made from the same atoms as some earlier lump of matter and
which wasn't, then the difference cannot matter to anyone, and
anyone who cares which is which is being irrational."
The difference can not matter to anyone *externally* but if one of those
lumps of atoms were sentient, I think it would matter to that lump of atoms.
If I had an atom of hydrogen in each hand, mixed them up and the asked you
to tell which one was in which hand, you couldn't, but that does not negate
the fact that at one point in time one of them was indeed in my left hand.
Similarly, if the continual process of experience and sentience is reliant
on both the pattern of atoms and the atoms themselves, then the one group
that maintains the same atoms is the one that experiences subjective
continuity of consciousness.
If you think it is being irrational, then point out the logical fallacy of
this argument.
Assertion: Sentience is reliant on both the pattern of atoms and the atoms
themselves.
1 - Sentience and perceptual continuity is reliant on the pattern of atoms.
If someone took that atoms that made up your mind, and mushed them up, it
would not pass the Turing test let alone pass as a reasonable representation
of you in conversation. Therefore the pattern of atoms is important.
2 - Sentience and perceptual continuity is reliant on the atoms themselves
that make up the patter.
- non-Destructive copying example -
I lay on a table, a passive scanner determines the precise location of every
atom in my body, its type, and what neighboring atoms it is bonded to, and
proceeds to construct a atomic level duplicate of me. We are both awakened
and escorted to separate rooms, the 'copy' is asked if he is able to see
what the 'original' (me) sees, the 'copy' reports that he can not.
Therefore the copy is not me, as he does not experience, subjectively, what
I experience.
- non-destructive scanning with delayed destruction -
I lay on a table, a passive scanner determines the precise location of every
atom in my body, its type, and what neighboring atoms it is bonded to, and
proceeds to construct a atomic level duplicate of me. We are both awakened
and escorted to separate rooms, the 'copy' is asked if he is able to see
what the 'original' (me) sees, the 'copy' reports that he can not.
Therefore the copy is not me, as he does not experience, subjectively, what
I experience. The 'original' (me) is then killed.
Is the 'copy' me?
- Destructive copying example -
I lay on a table, a destructive scanning machine determines the precise
location of every atom in my body while disrupting the information of the
previous atom it scanned. Using the collected information, an atomic level
duplicate is made of me. This duplicate is then asked if he is the
original, as far as he can tell, he is. Did he experience subjectivity
continuity of consciousness? Given the information provided in the previous
two scenarios, it is reasonable and logical to assume he did not. 'I' the
original 'me' therefore did not experience continuity of consciousness.
Therefore sentience and continuity of consciousness relies on the material
making up the pattern as well, otherwise it is a copy experiencing its own
things.
Since this logical excursion demonstrates that...
1) Sentience and continuity of perception is reliant upon the pattern of
atoms
2) Sentience and continuity of perception is reliant upon the atoms that
make up the pattern
Then is it reasonable, logical, and scientific to assume that a 'copy' is
subjectively not me, but in fact a unique individual of its own.
To me, this argument is pretty sound, if someone feels otherwise, please
point out the fallacy in this line of reasoning. If we are primarily
concerned about subjective immortality, then we should be concerned with
making a reasonable and logical assumption based on the scientific method as
to the best way to achieve this goal.
Regards,
Michael
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:32 MST