From: Forrest Bishop (forrestb@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Fri Jun 14 2002 - 13:28:04 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 5:41 AM
Subject: RE: When Programs Benefit
> Louis writes
>
Someone wrote:
> > I think this is getting back into the "if two objects are identical in every
> > way are there one or two of them" argument. I have always maintained "two",
> > but this thought experiment hinges on a person's opinion of that argument.
>
> I tend to agree with you. The key point, to me, is that for some
> reason someone has referred to "two objects". Why did they do
> that? How did they do that? Evidently there is some distinction
> between them; all we need to do is ascertain what. Then, in some
> cases, we will judge the "two" to be equivalent to one, or equivalent
> in some ways.
There is no such thing as two identical objects. Each object, be it a person or a photon, is distinct from each other object. The
distinction is drawn at the epoch of the measurment- the untangling of states. For material objects larger than photons the
measurement process is (also) discretized and ongoing- each particle is measuring each other particle, either directly or through a
series of exchanges (this answers the Schroedinger's cat problem). The distinction between atoms in the same quantum state is found
in their unique relative positions in space. In the case of an electronic Bose-Einstein condensate the distinction is in the nuclear
positions *at the measurement epoch*. These last two are very unusual cases of little concern for the multiple upload problem. Since
no two objects are identical, no two experiences in the physical world can be either. Consciousness in particular is a physical
process.
> I suppose that we should consider there to be one person,
> but two consciousnesses and two experiences in duplication
> experiments. It seems odd, for example, to be unable to
> categorize completely whether or not a collection of atoms
> is having an experience by examination of local conditions
> ---in other words, it seems odd if one has to be informed
> of conditions through out the universe, past and present
> included, in order to be able to say whether an experience
> is being had, and whether it is good or bad.
The collection of atoms (or nucleons) is experiencing local particle exchanges with its members and with particles arriving from
other intervals. If the collection changes some part of its structure, in a durable manner, and as a result of the experience, a
memory of the experience is recorded. None of this requires self-awareness.
Forrest
-- Forrest Bishop Chairman, Institute of Atomic-Scale Engineering www.iase.cc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:47 MST