John, It's not a scientific question, it's a philosophical question. Early 
Christian thinkers such as Augustine considered preservation of personal 
identity when you died and went to heaven. The fact that there is no heaven 
does not invalidate the *philosophical* point any more than the scientific 
impossibility of teleportation would invalidate conclusions drawn from such 
thought experiments. So, suppose God destroyed your body at A and then created 
a perfect copy at B: would you survive the procedure? If not, then in what 
sense have you survived the last few years given that all the atoms in your 
body have been replaced by natural processes?Stathis PapaioannouFrom: [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: ASSA and Many-WorldsDate: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 
17:00:11 -0500

maybe it is a postulate that (in my mind) what you write 
does not make sense? 
A Cc generated/operated by tissue - partially transferred 
to parts unknown  without (the?) tissue and still 
functions? I am a simpleminded primitive peasant, cannot condone that you, a 
'thinking' person (no insult meant) accept the drawing of final conclusions 
our present insufficient knowledge base. 50 years ago everything was explained 
as a telephone switchboard, 150 years ago as a steam-engine.
Always by metaphors we did not (yet) quite know and 
science was happy. Even things like phlogiston or vitality survived for some 
time. Today it is comp on equipment and process exceeding the present technique 
and things borrowed from sci-fi. And people take it SSOOO seriously! 

E.g. your calculation of the speed of thought upon the 
physical registrations of visual measurements. It is the inertia of the tool we 
use. Thought,  by all metaphors, is timeless/spaceless, you can 
experimentally proove it to yourself by 'thinking' of Dzhingis Kahn, Cleopatra 
and Hitler around a table in South america. Or: on the  Moon. 
You wrote:(I added the asterisks)
"... *if I found myself* 
continuing to have similar experiences despite teleportation, ..." -- what 
I would read as  corrected into::
"... *if I think about myself as*...."  making a 
difference for me in drawing conclusions. And you emphasized this in your 
subsequent sentence in
"IF... THEN" -  by the capitalization. So: if 
not, not.  A typical 'sowhat'. 
I was hoping that you refer a bit to my ideas, not just repeat yours. 

But, alas, so are the lists....
Have a good weekend

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  Stathis Papaioannou 
  Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:55 
  Subject: RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds
  John, I guess my brain is generating my consciousness, 
  but I regard this as a contingent fact. My conciousness is that which I 
  experience, and if I found myself continuing to have similar experiences 
  despite teleportation, brain transplant, resurrection in Heaven or whatever, 
  then I would have survived as me. Note that I am not saying these things are 
  possible (perhaps this is where you are scornful of the fantastic scenarios), 
  just that IF in these situations I continued to think I was me, THEN ipso 
  facto, I would still be me, despite losing the original body and 
  brain.Stathis Papaioannou
    Many-WorldsDate: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:54:32 -0500
    interesting.  See my additional question after your 
      Original Message ----- 
      Stathis Papaioannou 

      Friday, January 26, 2007 9:03 AM
      RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds
      John Mikes writes: > Stathis:> your 
      concluding sentence is> " But my brain just won't let me think this 
      way."> *> Have you been carried away?> Who is "your 
      brain" to make decisions upon you? (maybe you mean only that the 
      of your brain, the main tool "YOU"  use in mental activity, is not 
      predesigned for such action?) So: is there a pre-design (ha ha)?> 
      More importantly: who is that "me" in conflict with 'your'  
      brain?> How do you 'want' to 'think' something (which involves your 
      brain) when 'your brain' won't let it happen?> OK, let's introduce 
      "you", the homunculus, who wants to think some way and your 'brain' did 
      not reach the sophistication of the design (yet?) to comply - as a reason 
      for "won't let me".> With what 'tool' did "you" WANT to "think this 
      way"? How many people are you indeed?> *> I am asking these 
      stupid qiestions in the line of my search for SELF ("I"), vs. the total 
      interconnectedness of our personal existence with 'the rest of the 
      I expect that you may provide useful hooks for me in such respect.> 
      John"I" am the product of a consciousness-generating mechanism, my 
      brain, in the same way as "walking" is the product of a 
      locomotion-generating mechanism, my legs. "I" am not identical to my 
      just as "walking" is not identical to my legs. Now, of course "I can only 
      think what my brain will let me think", and of course "I can only walk 
      where my legs will let me walk", but these statements are not tautologies 
      in the way that saying "I can only think what I can think" or "I can only 
      walk where I can walk" are. Stathis 
      so you consider the biologic tissue-grown (stem-cell 
      initiated) BRAIN the origin of a thinking person? Life growing out from 
      'matter' - which is the figment of our explanatory effort to poorly and 
      incompletely observed impact received from parts unknown? Funny: you 
      invested so many posts into the (partial) teleportation and copying into 
      other universes - did you really MEAN
      the transfer of tissues (like in StarTrek?) How 'bout 
      the multiple  'copying' of matter?  How can you duplicate the 
      atoms for copying? StarTrek had only 1 copy and that, too, by 'physical' 
      Save the wrong conclusion: I am not defending this line, 
      I find it unreal and just mention the position of yours and others on 
      list for argument's sake. 
      I find it 'interesting, but amazing' that different 
      brains (see: the multiplicity of humans and other animals among 
      themselves) behave like mental clones in accepting very similar "3rd 
      person views" into their 1st person ideas, to form images of the 
      world' etc. Mental images, that is, which, however you would make 
      into their own origination? Are we all (and the world, the existnce 
      etc.) only fiction of ourselves? 
      Then again I feel that the 'consciousness' you generate 
      by the brain may be very close to personality, self, the "I" we are 
      talking about. Which would close the loop:  "there must be the 
      'primitive matter' forming the brain and out of that comes the 
      'not-so-primitive' matter, the mental complexity and all"??? 
      I agree withBruno to disagree in the absolute primitive 
      matter concept. IMO 
      It is only an explanatory imaging in this 
      universe's consciousness activity to order the part of the system we so 
      far detected. Together with space-time and OUR pet-causality - the 
      model' ordering.
      PS I still would appreciate to be directed to a short 
      text explaining the essence of ASSA (RSSA?). J
  Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows LiveT Spaces friends 
  list. Check it 

  No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free 
  Edition.Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 
  1/26/2007 11:11 AM

Personalize your homepage with the news, weather, and photos you care 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to