On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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. That's what you suspect, but in order for you to be correct there must be a mysterious non-physical entity that cannot be duplicated, even with advanced scientific methods. This is equivalent to saying it is magic. You get offended when I say this, perhaps because it has a pejorative connotation, but that's what it is. Calling it something else does not change the facts. >> 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. There is no reason in principle why the year 1965 could not be replicated. In fact, in several models of cosmology it *is* duplicated. Even if there is only one universe but it is infinite in extent, given a large enough volume there is bound to be an exact copy of anything you care to name. >> 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. If it's dead then you would have made some mistake in the duplication. If you haven't made a mistake and it's still dead then there is magic involved, which science will not be able to fathom no matter how advanced. >> 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. Cells and cell components are constantly being replaced yet you survive. Therefore, it is possible to make a copy of you using inanimate matter; for that is in fact what you are. -- 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.
