On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:09:40 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Craig Weinberg > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > "1. Do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case > of > > the Restorers, even though you no longer remember it? If not, why not." > > > > Yes > > > > > > "2. If yes, do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in > the > > case of the Duplicators? If yes, please explain, if not, please > explain." > > > > The idea that atoms can be duplicated is an assumption. If we only look > at > > the part of a plant that we can see and tried to duplicate that, it > would > > not have an roots and it would die. I think of the roots of atoms to be > > experiences through time. Just having a person who seems to be shaped > like > > you according to an electron microscope does not make them you. > > > > 3. Both scenarios I think are based on misconceptions. Nothing in the > > universe can be duplicated absolutely and nothing can be erased > absolutely, > > because what we see of time is, again, missing the roots that extend out > to > > eternity. I find it bizarre that we find it so easy to doubt our naive > > realism when it comes to physics but not when it comes to consciousness. > > Somehow we think that the idea that this moment of 'now' is mandated by > > physics to be universal and uniform. > > What is to stop duplication of, say, the simplest possible conscious > being made up of only a few atoms?
Because I suspect that conscious beings are not made of atoms, rather atoms exist in the experience of beings. Experiences cannot be duplicated literally, because I suspect that unique is the only thing that experiences can literally be. Sometimes the objection is raised > that an exact quantum state cannot be measured (although it can be > duplicated via quantum teleportation, with destruction of the > original), but this is probably spurious. If duplication down to the > quantum level were needed to maintain continuity of consciousness then > it would be impossible to maintain continuity of consciousness from > moment to moment in ordinary life, since the state of your body > changes in a relatively gross way and you remain you. > Can the year 1965 be duplicated? If you wanted just one millisecond from 1965. What I am suggesting is that the entire assumption of the universe as bodies or particles be questioned. The universe is unique variations of a single experience, with a continuum of 'similarity' in between, contingent upon the experiential capacity of the participant. > > So what you have to explain Craig is what you think would happen if > you tried to duplicate a person using very advanced science, If you tried to duplicate a person's body, then you get an identical twin - my guess is probably a dead one. > and why > you don't think that happens when a person lives his life from day to > day, Because the cells of the body exist within experiences, not the other way around. We aren't spirits or bodies, we are lifetimes. having his brain replaced completely (and imprecisely) over the > course of months with the matter in the food he eats. > It's like saying the cars on a freeway are replaced constantly so it is no longer a freeway. What makes the traffic is the participation of drivers who employ vehicles to take them places. Understanding the phenomenon as just a statistical pattern of positions and frequencies, or of objects in a spatial relation are both interesting and useful, but without the underlying sensory-motive grounding, it's ultimately meaningless to the big picture. Craig > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
