Not at all. All that is required for me to be correct is that experience not be 100% repeatable, which, because an experience cannot ultimately be limited to anything except everything in the entire universe, is automatically true on that level. For me to be incorrect there would have to be a mysterious non-physical entity which separates any particular event from eternity. 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. > I only get offended because you have no idea what I'm talking about, so you strawman it as some kind of weird idealism. Everything that I refer to is either Matter, Energy, Time, Space, Sense, Motive, Entropy, or Significance - all of which can be ultimately reduced to sense. There is nothing else, and I claim nothing else. > >> 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. Except that it happened already and will never happen again - just like every experience. > 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. > You're not seeing that it begs the question though. No matter what I say, you won't be able to imagine that the universe could be fundamentally experiences rather than objects. The whole notion of 'copies' or 'exact' is based purely on sensitivity. If you have cataracts, it becomes harder to tell people apart and the Jack of Diamonds looks like an exact copy of the Queen of Hearts. If you factor out sensation from the start, everything that comes afterward is misconception. > >> 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. > No, your assumption of duplication is not necessarily possible. If you clone everyone in New York City, and drop them into a model you have built of New York, they aren't suddenly going to know where they live and how to communicate with each other. You are assuming that particles are disconnected generic entities which have no past of future. I am saying that precisely the opposite is also true. > 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. > If it's not white, it must be blacker than black! There must be consequences for heretic thoughts! This kind of Manichean compulsion has generally been a hindrance to science. > > >> 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. > Because you aren't cells, you are the experiences of cells, molecules, organs, people, civilizations. The cells are like the fuel which experience burns. "Copying" is an intersubjective relation. It just means that in our particular state of mind two things seem identical. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.