Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 03 Dec 2009, at 19:56, Brent Meeker wrote:

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/12/3 soulcatcher☠ <soulcatche...@gmail.com>:
  
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
    
If you were Elvis and Elvis were you, what difference would that make
to anything?
      
That would make a huge difference for me and Elvis - my (and his)
subjective experiences would be very different. And, as these
experiences are by definition "private and ineffable" (is it right?),
that would make no difference for anything but me and Elvis.
Sorry, maybe I just don't understand your question ...
    

OK, let's leave Elvis out of it since he is dead. Suppose you and I
switch places. What would change? To find out, I'll just wave my hands
in a special magical way and - poof! - it's done. You now have my mind
and body, while I have your mind and body. So really it isn't the
original me writing this, it is the original you, who only thinks he
is the original me since he has my mind and body; and over there it
isn't the original you reading this, but the original me who only
thinks he is the original you.

Do you see the problem in the above exchange? It assumes there is some
metaphysical "me" and "you" that can be conceptualised as flitting
about from one body and mind to another. But such a notion seems to me
absurd, meaningless, worse than wrong.


  
Exactly.  It is the magical "I" that is swapped.


That "I" is magical. It is like swapping both the mind (or 1-I) and the body (or 3-I).
Eventually this is the reason why absolute sample of the observer moment does not work, and we need relative self self-sampling. Which neither with QM (without collapse) or just digital mechanism is obvious to derive.

The mind can swap its body for brain or another
??  You mean "or brain"?

, or survive through a digital back-up. Rigt?
This mean the notion of "I" still make sense.
But it doesn't make sense to swap two minds and their bodies (i.e. perspectives).  That's just interchanging positions and isn't generally thought to affect who is who - although read Stanislau Lem's "The Star Diaries".  And if you suppose the mind is embodied in the brain or digital machine then swapping minds with Stathis implies swapping the essential aspects of the brain or machine.

Both the 1-I, and the 3-I makes sense, it is the link between them which is "magical", and made harder to figure out than people usually believe, like with the identity thesis, physical supervenience, etc.

Now, when you see that people have some difficulty to understand thought experience without amnesia, thought experience with amnesia are perhaps premature. I am not sure. It depends on your familiarity with such kind of thought.

I'm not sure what "thought experience with amnesia" is, but taken rigorously it sounds impossible.

Brent


Bruno



--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to