Jason wrote: > > > 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.
This seems to rest on an implicit idea that the OMs are "out there" and that "you" are a person independent of them, a person to can sample them or experience them. This is contrary to the idea of OMs which is that OMs are atomic units of persons. You are a sequence of OMs. There is no extra-OM "you" who can sample them or experience them. > > 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. I'm not sure about "logical reason" but the whole idea of OMs is that a person is constituted by a sequence of them. If there is nothing to link them then there is no sequence and no person; and the thing to be explained has vanished from the explanation. Brent Meeker >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 > together. > > 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? The are never the same in the sense of identical. Two OMs may be part of the "same person" if there are in a sequence defined by some linkage, such as continuity of spatial viewpoint and memory reference. How or whether such a sequence can be said to exist was the subject of a long discussion between Stathis and me. Brent Meeker > > > 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. > > Jason > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
