Oh, no, more that we can probably define 'mind-space' or
'consciousness-space', in which every point represents a possible
(conscious!) mind-state and has an associated spectrum of possible physical
substrata, and that there is a probability function defined across the space
such that for any two points there is a probability of experiencing one
after the other.

In other words, if I drop a ball I am likely to observe the ball dropping
and hitting the ground - a set of highly probable trajectories along

It's not so much consciousness moving from one state to the other, as to
which conscious state I shall find myself in next.

/apologies for incoherency; I've not eaten yet and had to clean up at least
6 typos while writing this....

--------- 3-line Narnia ---------
C.S. LEWIS: Finally, a Utopia ruled by children and populated by talking
THE WITCH: Hello, I'm a sexually mature woman of power and confidence.
C.S. LEWIS: Ah! Kill it, lion Jesus!
--------- McSweeney's ---------

2008/10/22 Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Michael Rosefield wrote:
> > 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.
> You seem to implicitly assume that the subject's consciousness is a single,
> unified "thing" that can move hither and yon in the Hilbert space of the
> universe.  But the multiple-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, on
> which
> the above scenarios are based, says that the physical basis of
> consciousness
> splits almost continuously into non-interacting subspaces.  Are we to
> suppose
> that your other brains in Hilbert space are empty of consciousness until
> you
> "move" to them?
> Brent Meeker
> >
> >
> > 2008/10/22 razihassan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:
> >
> >
> >     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 

Reply via email to