On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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. > > > 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. If an experience is not 100% repeatable by repeating the presumed physical basis underlying it, then you are saying that there is something other than a physical basis to the experience. This something else is the mysterious non-physical entity. >> 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. Sense, motive and significance are non-physical, but the conventional view is that they supervene on the physical. You don't agree with this, so must believe that some other non-physical entity is needed. This would by definition be something magical, like a soul. >> > 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. If experience is caused by the brain and the brain is reproduced exactly then the experience will be reproduced exactly. >> 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. Bruno thinks the universe is fundamentally experiences but his view is consistent with science, eg. a close enough copy of an object will behave like the original, even if neither the copy nor the original have a basic physical existence. >> >> 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. Of course they will know where they live and how to communicate with each other. The reason you know where you live and how to communicate is that your brain today is a close copy of your brain yesterday. If something goes wrong in the copying process, like a head injury, you might forget how to do these things. >> 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. But if you copy the cells you reproduce the experience, and if you don't then something is missing. -- 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.