Hello,

jamikes wrote:

> As much as I enjoyed last years's discussions in worldview speculations, I
> get frustrated by the lately emerged word-playing about concepts used in
> just different contents from the conventional.
>
>  May I submit a (trivial) proof for immortality in this sense:
>
> Death (of others, meaning not only persons) is a 3rd person (fantasy?),
> either true or imagined. NOBODY ever experienced his/her own death and the
> "time" after such, so "immortality" is the only thing in consciousness.

Eh? If I understood this statement then I must object. I have quite clear
memories
of before-death, during-death, and after-death. I realize that within the
context
of the narrow communication style prevailant here that this claim means
nothing.
But your statement  would seem to attempt rewrite my experiences as false by
default.

I resent that.



> The
> world (experienceable worldview) does not include otherwise.
>
> To the forgotten things existing in another (branch of?) world:
> If I 'forgot' something: that dose not necessarily build another world of
> those things I forgot. Alzheimer patients are not the most efficient
> Creators.
> And please do not 'rationalize' about 'near death' and similar fantasies in
> this respect.

These statements *ignore* alternate forms of consciousness. It (in my opinion)
arogantly assumes that the consciousness emphasized for sequential thinking and

logic is the only perspective worth analyzying and building understanding upon.



>
>
> Excuse my out-of-topic remark to the topic.
>
> John Mikes
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 6:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Conventional QTI = False
>
> Hal Finney wrote:
> > Saibal writes:
> > > According to the conventional QTI, not only do you live forever, you can
> > > also never forget anything. I don't believe  this because I know for a
> > > fact that I have forgotten quite a lot of things that have happened a
> > > long time ago.

The consciousness you are aware of cannot access the information. It does not
mean it's gone. This is a wreckless assumption.


>
> >
> > Right, but to make the same argument against QTI you'd have to say,
> > you don't believe this because you have died.  But this is not possible.
> > So the analogy is not as good as it looks.  You do exist in branches where
> > you have forgotten things, as well as in branches where you remember them.

Sounds more like the spiritual model for consciousness. One simply assumes a
vehicle
for conscious expression and can express (remember etc) based on the
capabilites of
the vehicle while traveling along the landscape of conscious-all if you will.

>
>
> That is true, but I want to make the point that branches where I survive
> with memory loss have to be taken into account.
>
> In the case of a person suffering from a terminal disease, it is much more
> likely that he will survive in a branch where he was not diagnosed with the
> disease, than in a branch where the disease is magically cured. The latter
> possibility (conventional qti) can't be favoured above the first just
> because the surviving person is more similar to the original person.
>
> You could object that in the first case your consciousness is somehow
> transferred to a different person (you ``jump´´ to a different branch that
> separated from the dying branch before you were diagnosed), but I would say
> that the surviving person has the same consciousness  the original person
> would have if you cured his disease and erased all memory of having the
> disease.

Or you could stop assuming consciousness is sequential and limited to
simplistic
concepts of identity like: "My name is joe and I'm the only expression of
awareness
of me there is since I'm not aware of anything else...".

Another blatently wreckless assumption.

>
>
> Saibal

Robert W.


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Reply via email to