On Apr 19, 10:34 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even if there is in a sense just one mind perceiving all OM's simultaneously
> (Platonia, the mind of God, the Universe), there is still the fact that the
> OM in Washington does not directly share the experiences of its counterpart
> in Moscow. If it did, then they would not be distinct OM's. From the third
> person perspective, there is no mystery in duplication: where previously
> there was one, now there are two. The paradoxes arise from the fact that we
> have the sort of minds which consider that one OM has a particular
> relationship to another OM, based partly, but not entirely, on memory. For
> example, if I am to be copied tomorrow and one of the copies tortured, I am
> worried, because I feel there is a 50% chance that I will be the one; but
> come tomorrow, and I am not tortured, I am relieved, and feel pity for my
> copy screaming in the next room. This doesn't really make sense: today I
> anticipate being both copies, and neither copy has greater claim to being
> "me" than the other, but tomorrow the situation is completely different. But
> the subjective view doesn't have to make sense. It's just the way we think,
> a contingent fact of evolution.

Do you agree that under ASSA, the fact that you find yourself as an
observer who was spared from torture should give you no relief, as
your next OM is equally likely to sample the tortured perspective as
it is to experience the spared perspective?  Shouldn't you be equally
as worried if anyone in the world (your copy or not) was to be
tortured, as the next sampled OM could be that person's.

RSSA has never appealed to me because I see no logical reason to link
two observer moments from one time to another when those two observer
moments are not the same.  Intuitively it feels that each mind is on a
set track to only experience those OM's that follow from the birth of
an observer, but logically there are too many problems with this.

Possible problems with RSSA:

Quantum mechanics means each observer follows multiple paths, some of
which intersect with what might have been considered a different
observer previously, this forms a spectrum linking all observers

Time by its nature implies change, an observer's brain state is in
different from one time to another, if the brains are different the
observers are different.  By what rule set can two different observers
be said to be the same?

Common intuition and experience play many tricks on us.  It makes us
think that the current time (present) is special, because it is the
only thing point in time we are aware of.  It makes us think that the
current laws of physics and universe we see around us is special,
because it is the only set of laws we are aware of.  I propose the
same is true of personal identity, it makes us think that the self is
special, because it is the only observer's perspective we are aware
of.  For those who believe in block time, the present is no more
special or real than any other time.  To those on the Everything list,
the universe we perceive now is no more real than any other.  Our
current OM remembering previous OM's experienced from the same
observer's viewpoint creates the illusion that said observer is
travelling into the future and bound to experience the next logical OM
for this observer, but I hold this is only an illusion.

ASSA is closer to a one mind/all perspectives experienced
simultanesouly view because it removes the notion of observers that
travel through time from one OM to the next and treats only observer
moments.  Consider the infinite set of all OMs, by definition, the
existance of an OM necessitates its being experienced, but without a
multiplicity of observers who can say "who" is experiencing them?
There is no who, just the fact that each is being experienced.  Since
this set exists in the plentitude (which is timeless) then it follows
that all perspectives are being experienced simultaneously.

The existance of a spectrum of related OM's means there is a choice in
interpretation of this infinite OM set.  Either you can hold that each
OM constitues its own mind, or if you believe there is any
relationship between OM's (i.e. You experience now AND you will
experience 10 seconds from now) then you must conclude there is only
one mind.  This is just my viewpoint on the issue and I invite others
to give their opinions on it and poke holes in it.


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 

Reply via email to