On 12 Nov 2011, at 23:11, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



2011/11/12 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

On 10 Nov 2011, at 14:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



2011/11/10 benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>


Spudboy100 wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 11/9/2011 7:27:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com writes:
>
> Probably  the one that is most convincing is direct experience. Try
> meditation (my favorite is just doing nothing while being aware not to > snooze or think or search for something to do,etc...), or, if you are a
> bit
> more daring and very cautious and well informed, psychdelic drugs (eg > Salvia, Mushrooms, LSD, DMT) or suspend your belief that you are just a > person for long enough (then the reality of unity tends to reveal itself > spotaneously). If you are in the right mindset and maybe a bit lucky you
> can
> experience states in  which it is directly evident that there is
> fundamentally no other, just  this consciousness that you are.
>
>
> I see, Benjamin. But unless one takes these visions as a solipsism, I
> would
> ask, what does this bring to the table? We humans are primates, and for > most of us primates, we are group animals. We need each other even though
> we
> irritate  each other.
What I am describing can be said to be a kind of solipsism; only I exist,
but I being the consciousness that we all share,

I can't make a meaning of that... we do not share a "consciousness", not in any definition of that term.

Let me try, assuming mechanism. Would you agree that in the case you are cut and pasted in two different places, the resulting individuals share a common memory-past?

They share a common past memories, but as soon as they are "duplicated", they do not share their consciousness, only past memories.

"pure consciousness" is what is invariant through the change of memories. That consciousness is a first person experience that we can share, despite we cannot communicate it. It is hard to convey because we are used to believe that consciousness has always a content. Exercises like staying lucid during sleep, or using some dissociative drugs, can help to give a sense to such a consciousness without any explicit experience and identity.




From this we can make sense of "sharing a consciousness", and may be understand that personal identity is relative. Would the original, before the duplication, die in case one of the copy will die?

I can understand that sharing consciousness can be felt as a meaningless notion, in case consciousness is defined by the first person experiences including memories,

That's how I would define it, consciousness is the first person experience.

but thought experiments can be imagined to defend the idea that we might survive amnesia (as it is commonly believed),

It's the same thing as death and playing with word. Using that definition it is obvious then that death does not exists... and at the same time it is meaningless.

I didn't say "total amnesia". It is obvious that we can survive amnesia, if only because this happens everyday. We do forget many things all the time, if only most night dream experiences. Some people can forget complete hours or larger time period in a car crash, and we don't say that they are dead.

Now imagine someone, Arthur, say, who is cut in B, and paste in W. Imagine also that a backup of Arthur's teleported state has been done in B. Imagine that Arthur dies in an accident at W, some month after that teleportation. Other persons, in B, decide to re-instantiate that person from the old backup in B. Would you say that Arthur died? Strictly speaking this is equivalent with Arthur becoming amnesic of the month-life experience in W. Personally I would not say that he died, just that he lost some memories. If not, then we die everyday.

Bruno




in which case the 'consciousness" we share might be the consciousness of the least common part to ... all Löbian machines, or even all universal machines?

We never really know who we are, it seems to me, and that ignorance makes me open to the idea that "sharing consciousness" might make some sense.

Bruno





not "I" in the sense of me
as a person (which is usually meant when we are talking about solipsism). We need others as an other to our personhood, but not as an other to us as consciousness (which is what we really are, the person being more like something we dress ourselves with). Otherness is the one seeing itself from
different perspectives.


Spudboy100 wrote:
>
> At the end of the day, can one bring information, that
> would not, logically, be known, otherwise? For instance, that Uncle, > Bruno, left a mathematical puzzle, he worked on, inscribed on page 1273,
> in the
> 1999 edition of ARS MATHEMATICA, in his old, study--something like this,
> let us  say?
You mean in a paranormal way? There are many experiental results that
suggest so (even though its validity is disputed, but the criticism if often not vindicated, in my opinion), and a lot of astounding anecdotes. But it
might not work in the way we expect, in terms of consistency,
controllability and scope.

benjayk
--
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/The-consciousness-singularity-tp32803353p32818189.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
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 .




--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

--
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 .

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
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 .



--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

--
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 .

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

Reply via email to