On 23 Oct 2008, at 17:51, John Mikes wrote:
> Who told YOU (and the other honored discutants in this thread) that
> *THIS* ONE of our existence is the one-and-only basic/original
> appearance? We, here and now, may be #37 for you and #49 for me etc.,
> -- B U T --
> could you please tell me if 'anyone' of this nightmare-topic
> remembers, or has knowledge of any other appearance of his SAME
> person (anywhere?) by QTI?
> If not, what else is the entire thread based on except for Everett's
> ingenious idea and the continuation of his line? (No matter how many
> matching equations could be drawn in the topic).
> Do we abide by a 'physical world' (Bruno?) in which a QTI transfers
> *material* with diseases, brain-damages, limbic pain and love-
> Have fun in science (but with reason?)
Science is only reason. Followed by infinity of errors and corrections
through experiments and experiences.
A theory is "we are digital machine"
A consequence is "we are immaterial machines not knowing which
computations supports us, but we know there is a relative continuum of
We still don't know where and if the white rabbits go away, so
concerning death we can only say that we are far to have solved the
Of course we can formally speculate, from our current hypothesis and
experiments, if not experience (dreams, etc.).
For Darwinian reason we can expect that in front of slow agony, the
brains releases some chemical products enhancing the probability that
if we survive such an experience we can take advantage of it. Dying
can be expected to be such an extreme experience, and we can expect
some smoothing procedure making the life-after death more akin to a
global amnesia and, who knows, a feeling of coming back to where we
always really belong.
In case of violent death, I think Saibal Mitra was correct when
invoking local amnesia and thus, just a backtracking in realities
where you follow the option which does not lead to your violent death.
It also can effectively depends on what you are really identifying
But thoses are difficult questions. Remind you that matter is already
a sort of arithmetical placebo, and that physical reality is just the
border of "our" ignorance, and we don't know who we are, really.
When your survive any experience you always feel yourself in the most
"normal" possible history with respect from your beliefs. It think
this can be learned through dreams, and inferred from mechanism and
Quantum euthanasia? Surely *some* computationalist will choose such
part, but it has to be noted that it is a religious part, meaning
there is a need for making think like that mandatory. The acts of
faith have to be acted, and any one should be able to say "NO Doctor".
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> 2008/10/22 razihassan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 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
> > 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,
> > as long as our brains are physical?
> The problem you raise is one of personal identity, and can be
> illustrated without invoking QTI. If I am copied 100 times so that
> copy #1 has 1% of my present memories, copy #2 has 2% of my present
> memories, and so on to copy #100 which has 100% of my present
> memories, which copy should I expect to end up as, and with what
> probability? What about if there are a million instantiations of copy
> #1 and one instantiation of the rest? What if there are 10^100^100
> instantiations of copies with 1/10^100 of my present memories - as
> there well might be?
> Stathis Papaioannou
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