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 mind-space. 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 animals. 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: > [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
