From: Jason Joel Thompson (jasonjthompson@home.com)
Date: Thu Dec 07 2000 - 13:11:06 MST
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Clark" <jonkc@worldnet.att.net>
> Jason Joel Thompson <jasonjthompson@home.com> Wrote:
>
> > you'll note my emphasis of the word "particular." As it stands, MY
> > discrete experience of reality is contained within a -particular-
pattern.
>
> A pattern is nothing but information, if it's the same information then
it's
> the same particular pattern.
Sorry dude, you can keep saying this 'till the cows come home, but if I
delete my mp3 of my favorite Metallica song, I'm fairly certain your
collection will remain unscathed. My version is a *discrete copy* with a
reality independent of yours.
>
> > Unless you are proposing a means by which that particular discrete
reality
> > experiencer is able to transition to a new substrate,
> I am proposing such a mechanism, use a pattern to know how to arrange off
> the shelf atoms in the same way they were before, the result is another
you.
This is not a transition John-- there is no movement of the consciousness.
> > *I* (by definition)
>
> I'd like to hear what your definition of "I" is. I'll give you two of
mine, both work pretty well.
> 1) I am John Clark's thoughts.
> 2) I am matter that behaves in a John Clarkian way.
Discrete reality experiencer.
> > Well, that's sort of a fast and loose definition of death,
>
> Except for pure mathematics I don't think precise definitions are very
important but
> If you have a better definition of death than having a last thought I'd
love to hear it.
Death = Permanent termination of the experience of reality. (I can offer
further precision if you want to investigate my usage of the term
"reality.") Perhaps you can envision modalities into which we might evolve
where the concept of "having a thought" is irrelevant to our existence.
> >its difficult to even call the new pattern MY thoughts, since they
are discrete
> >from the original.
>
> What's discrete about it?
Necessarily seperate.
> And what's "the original"?
The one with which we started.
> > What if you were to make 10 copies? Would they all be my thoughts?
>
> Certainly, they would all be Jason Joel Thompson's thoughts.
> As time progressed they would start to diverge into different people due
to
> differences in the environment they experience or just because of random
> fluctuations, but at the instant they were made they'd all be you.
How long is that instant? Is there an actual effective reality in which
they are all "me?"
>
> > How are you transferring my subjective experience of reality across
the two
> > humans?
>
> Superbly.
HOW? Magic?
>
> >If you don't destroy the original, do I somehow get to experience
> >both realities simultaneously in a single brain?
>
> Only if both of you are in a identical environment, but then experiencing
> two identical environments is undistinguishable from experiencing one.
In what -scientific- fashion is one of the brains simultaneously doing what
you describe above, and what possible substance does it have?
>
> > you could create such a copy covertly and I, unawares, could walk
out onto
> > the street and get hit by a bus-- does my subjective experience then
> > mysteriously jump across to the clone?
>
> Yes, assuming the copy was made a nanosecond before the bus hit.
By what science does my subjective experience mysteriously jump across to
the clone? Why is it important that the copy was made within a single
nanosecond?
Let me get this straight: is it your contention that my discrete experience
of reality will, at the instant of impact, jump across to the (just
activated) copy?
> >You -will- have pleasing and effective results if the copying
resolution is
> >fine-grained enough-- I don't dispute that. But should you leave
the 'original'
> >intact, you now have TWO discrete experiencers
>
> Let's cut to the chase, there is one way and one way only that could be
true,
> if the holly rollers turned out to be right and the human soul exists. I
consider
> the likelihood of that to be too low to worry about
Huh? As far as I'm concerned, -you're- the one who believes in a human
soul-- there's got to be *something* making that mystical jump across into
the new substrate, since you aren't proposing any science to handle it.
Belief in a soul might support your contention that there is only ONE
discrete experiencer around after a copy is made-- personally I believe that
we can clone discrete entities to our heart's content without worrying
whether God has enough souls to hand out.
--
::jason.joel.thompson::
::founder::
www.wildghost.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:15 MST