Hi, 1) My thoughts are that an act of euthanasia would be more likely to 'push' the consciousness of the patient to some hitherto unlikely scenario - any situation where death is probable requires an improbable get-out clause. The patient may well find themselves in a world where their suffering is curable/has been cured. Might even be brains-in-jars time.
2) I think that neural systems possess a quality called something like 'graceful decline;' the brain can undergo a lot of random damage before its function is significantly affected. But once it does start to go down the toilet, I'm not sure what the conscious experience of that would be. Presumably it would be something like Alzheimers or a pretty bad case of the mornings, and everything would appear to be rather scattershot and disconnected. From the perspective of the victim (I would say 'patient' again, but let's face it - this is one mean scenario!) I wonder if this weakens the connection to this particular context, and they'd find it more likely to move in the direction of universes in which the process is reversed or nullified. 2008/10/22 razihassan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Hi all > > First post! I'm happy to have found this list as much of it coincides > with what I've been thinking about in the past few years, esp. after > reading about quantum roulette and realising, as many others have > done, that this leads to quantum immortality. > > 1) Lately, I've been thinking about euthanasia and the QTI. > Previously, being somewhat of a liberal in these matters, I've always > held that, assuming proper checks and balances (BIG assumption), > euthanasia was ok, as it relieved the suffering of the patient as well > as their loved ones. > > If QTI holds then "killing" the patient won't work (from the patient's > frame of reference), so you're not actually alleviating their > suffering. You may of course be relieving the suffering of the > patient's loved ones (from THEIR pov) but I think we're on dangerous > ground when you consider whether or not you should kill someone solely > for their' families' sake. > > So, should QTI-ists be campaigning against euthanasia, not because of > the traditional 'life is sacred' objection, but because it simply > doesn't work? Can anyone see an alternative - based perhaps on > anaethetising the patient indefinitely? > > 2) I'd like to propose a thought experiment. A subject has his brain > cells removed one at a time by a patient assistant using a very fine > pair of tweezers. The brain cell is then destroyed in an incinerator. > > Is there a base level of consciousness beyond which, from the pov of > the subject, the assistant will be unable to remove any more cells, > since conscious experience will be lost? ie is there a minimum level > of 'experience' beyond which nature will appear to act to always > maintain the physical brain? > > If there is, does the second law of thermodynamics not suggest that > all brains inexorably head towards this quantum of consciousness, for > as long as our brains are physical? > > Razi > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
