On Friday, February 15, 2013 6:48:03 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >> 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
> > 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.
No, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that the idea of something
repeating is a subjective concept. No moment can be repeated. When I was
writing those words, it was a few seconds ago. In that time, the TV show on
in the background has changed, a quantity of snow has fallen in my back
yard, etc. If I say "No moment can be repeated" again, nothing as been
repeated 100%. The repetition arises from our sense to compare remembered
experiences and string them together as similar enough to be considered
> >> 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
> > strawman it as some kind of weird idealism. Everything that I refer to
> > either Matter, Energy, Time, Space, Sense, Motive, Entropy, or
> > - all of which can be ultimately reduced to sense. There is nothing
> > and I claim nothing else.
> Sense, motive and significance are non-physical,
No, they are physical, but they are private.
> 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.
Just the opposite. It is the conventional view which requires a belief in a
magical non-physical never-never land in which our private experience takes
place. Once you realize that the conventional view is impossible, then you
can begin to look for more realistic alternatives based on the concrete
reality of experience rather than the abstract theory based on measuring
interactions of public bodies. I say that every presence is physical.
Thoughts, feelings, dreams, symbols - all physical, all physics. The
relevant distinction within physics should be private time vs public space,
not "real" vs "illusion".
> >> > Can the year 1965 be duplicated? If you wanted just one millisecond
> >> > 1965. What I am suggesting is that the entire assumption of the
> >> > as
> >> > bodies or particles be questioned. The universe is unique variations
> >> > 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.
Experience isn't caused by the brain, any more than the internet is caused
by your computer. Reproducing your computer from 2000 won't resurrect
Napster of 2000. Nothing, and I mean nothing at all has ever been
> >> 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
> > 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.
> > you have cataracts, it becomes harder to tell people apart and the Jack
> > Diamonds looks like an exact copy of the Queen of Hearts. If you factor
> > sensation from the start, everything that comes afterward is
> 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.
Behave like the original to whom? There is no way to copy water without it
being water. If I pour sulfuric acid from a pitcher into a water glass, I
might be able to fool someone into thinking that this clear liquid is a
perfect copy, but the smell and the severe chemical burns will reveal that
the copy is actually very different in many other ways. Plants know it,
even inorganic matter will not be fooled. It's only in the visual sense
that the two liquids seem equivalent.
> >> >> 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
> > everyone in New York City, and drop them into a model you have built of
> > 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
> > 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.
No, that's the same pre-affirmation you are smuggling in. If you can't let
go of the certainty that the public shapes of the brain define experience,
then you won't ever locate experience at all. Our brain is necessary but
not sufficient to explain human quality of consciousness, just as a TV set
is necessary but not sufficient to explain Spongebob Squarepants. We aren't
inside our brain, we are inside our lifetime.
> something goes wrong in the copying process, like a head injury, you
> might forget how to do these things.
There are no identical twins who are the same person, even when they share
the same body.
> >> 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
> > burns. "Copying" is an intersubjective relation. It just means that in
> > 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.
No, you can't reproduce anything. Not a cell, not an experience. It is a
figurative term; an expectation of local consciousness that has no absolute
truth to it.
> 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 post to this group, send email to email@example.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.