On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Russell Standish wrote: [Jack wrote] > > What I am trying to do is to look at the consequences of the > > claims made by the quantum suicide camp. The claim is that consciousness > > 'flows into' possible continuations of oneself and is, in effect, > > conserved as long as such continuations exist. I by no means accept this > > claim. However I see no reason why you say it would deny the existence of > > copying machines. > > Because copying machines increase one's measure, but not effective > probability, which remains normalised.
I agree with that statement but don't agree that it's consistent with QS. > In this copying machine incident, we assume that a person experiencing > the event has a 50% chance of experiencing being either copy. However, > each Jane will be fully concsious - there is no diluting of that > conciousness. An outside observer will be unable to distinguish who > was the "real Jane". Neither would an inside observer. I maintain that the distinction is meaningless. [I wrote] > > If the problem is that QSers may deny that measure is conserved, > > that problem is not my fault. By their other words it is clear that they > > believe it is. (You may be included in the group I mean by 'them'.) I am > > the one using the term correctly. [this paragraph still applies] > I still don't see what measure has to do with conciousness! That is the problem. From: Higgo James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >We of the 'quantum suicide camp' deny absolutely that consciousness, or >anything else 'flows'. Flow is a function of time, which is subjective, not >an objective feature of reality. To say consciousness flows, is like saying >a program creates the hardware on which it runs, and the programming >language in which it is written. I'd say there's a split in your camp - and you have been on both sides of it! I don't see how you can say the above but reject the SSA. >Consciousness is not some special property you can bottle, for God's sake. >But if I am conscious in this universe, and the next one is virtually >identical, then I am virtually certain that I will be conscious in that one. The above paragraph is incomprehensible, starting with your use of the letter 'I'. I am not sure what this letter is supposed to signify in that context. - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/