2010/1/14 Nick Prince <m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk>:

> Also if QTI is true then my birth OM could be just the consistence
> extension of the consciousness of someone who has died.  QTI implies
> we always have a next observer moment.  Somehow this begs the question
> as to whether consiousness is conserved somehow. Hence there never was
> an (initial) original birth OM for me just like there will be no cul
> de sac one.

You don't need QTI or a multiverse if you want to say that your birth
OM is the consistent extension of someone who just died; it's
trivially true anyway, since at the moment of death and the moment of
birth (or perhaps somewhat earlier) there is very little conscious
content. This also implies that there will be cul de sacs of a sort
even if the QTI is true, since you could go down the path of
increasing dementia.

I'm not sure how the probabilities should be calculated in the case of
partial memory loss. Suppose you are destructively scanned and eleven
copies of you are made. One of these copies (call it type A) is
perfect but the other ten copies (call them type B) are brain damaged
with only 10% of your memories and other attributes intact. What is
your expectation that you will end up a type A or a type B copy? A
reasonable-sounding answer might be 1/2 for each, incorporating a
weighting for number of copies and degree of fidelity. But what about
the zillions of conscious beings in the universe who may each have one
zillionth of your mental attributes?

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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to