And why do you want to restrict a 'person' to a cut view of its neurons only? Isn't a person (as anything) part of his ambience - in a wider view: of the totality, with interction back and forth with all the changes that go on? Are you really interested only in the dance of those silly neurons?
John M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 9:07 PM Subject: Re: Reasons and Persons > > There must exist a ''high level'' program that specifies a person in terms > of qualia. These qualia are ultimately defined by the way neurons are > connected, but you could also think of persons in terms of the high-level > algorithm, instead of the ''machine language'' level algorithm specified by > the neural network. > > The interpolation between two persons is more easily done in the high level > language. Then you do obtain a continuous path from one person to the other. > For each intermediary person, you can then try to ''compile'' the program to > the corresponding neural network. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 02:29 AM > Subject: Re: Reasons and Persons > > > > > > Russell Standish wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:15:33PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't see why you are so sure about the necessity of passing through > > > > non-functional brain structures going from you to Napoleon. After all, > > > > there is a continuous sequence of intermediates between you and a > > > > fertilized ovum, and on the face of it you have much more in common > > > > mentally and physically with Napoleon than with a fertilized ovum. > > > > However, technical feasibility is not the point. The point is that > *if* > > > > (let's say magically) your mind were gradually transformed, so that > your > > > > > >We need to be a bit more precise than "magically". In Parfit's book he > > >talks about swapping out my neurons for the equivalent neurons in > > >Napoleon's brain. Sure this is not exactly technically feasible at > > >present, but for thought experiment purposes it is adequate, and > > >suffices for doing the teleporting experiment. > > > > > >The trouble I have is that Napoleon's brain will be wired completely > > >differently to my own. Substituting enough of his neurons and > > >connections will eventually just disrupt the functioning of my brain. > > > > I agree that Parfit's simple method would probably create a nonfunctional > > state in between, or at least the intermediate phase would involve a sort > of > > split personality disorder with two entirely separate minds coexisting in > > the same brain, without access to each other's thoughts and feelings. But > > this is probably not a fatal flaw in whatever larger argument he was > making, > > because you could modify the thought experiment to say something like > "let's > > assume that in the phase space of all possibe arrangements of neurons and > > synapses, there is some continuous path between my brain and Napoleon's > > brain such that every intermediate state would have a single integrated > > consciousness". There's no way of knowing whether such a path exists (and > of > > course I don't have a precise definition of 'single integrated > > consciousness'), but it seems at least somewhat plausible. > > > > Jesse > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/353 - Release Date: 05/31/06 > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
