On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
