From: O'Regan, Emlyn (Emlyn.ORegan@actew.com.au)
Date: Thu Jun 24 1999 - 20:17:27 MDT
> Now that the "science can't explain the subjective" thing is out in the
> open, I can't help but wonder if this isn't the logical end of the
> discussion? If some folks are going to hold that science can't explain
> the subjective, then maybe there's no point in coming up with elaborate
> schemes to prove that? It seems that any scenario to prove the "failure"
> of science on this, is itself going to be a kind of science or
> engineering or materials scenario, maybe even involving "ghost energy"
> of some sort? How can any materialist or realist scenario prove that
> realism is missing an essential component?
>
>
> David Blenkinsop <blenl@sk.sympatico.ca>
>
This is all fine, except that we are considering uploading ourselves /
neural enhancement / etc as a path to trans/posthumanity. So getting a good
idea of what subjective consciousness is, and of how its continuity is
achieved/behaves, is a pretty important pragmatic, practical consideration
for those of us considering this option. It's not just a bunch of
philosophical timewasting crap, it matters, and will directly impact us.
Ignoring the issue (materialism) may just mean a very personal, subjectively
real (although non-measurable) experience of death and extinguishment of
self in the near future.
If my consciousness is extinguished inside a singularity, and there is no
one there to observe, does it piss me off? Yes!!!!
Not that any of this helps at all, of course.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:17 MST