On 27 Sep 2013, at 04:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/26/2013 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 September 2013 14:18, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 9/26/2013 6:47 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 September 2013 13:03, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 9/26/2013 6:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
This is a sort of cul de sac experience, which has to be
create if QTI is true. The existence of a universal dovetailer
the lack of all cul de sac experiences (Comp immortality).
So does it make loss of consciousness impossible? ....under
Surely not, because from a first person perspective one just goes
to sleep and wakes up again (or
experiences dreams). "No cul de sac"
implies there's no way to stop consciousness permanently.
I know it implies that, but I see no reason to believe it. The
question isn't whether consciousness continues, but whether *your*
consciousness, a particular consciousness continues. To say
otherwise is like saying you can't kill the guy in Moscow because
he has a duplicate in Washington.
This is the "Haraclitus" problem (or observation, if you don't
consider it a problem). The man can't step into the same river
because he isn't the same man. The consciousness that continues
after any given moment is, presumably, the next moment of
consciousness which is the "best continuation" of the last one.
This seems similar to the view in FOR that the multiverse is made
of "snapshots" which give the appearance of forming continuous
histories (ignoring whether you can slice up space-time into
But I think this is a confusion. Because computations have states
and nothing corresponding to transition times between states people
are tempted to identify those states with states of consciousness
and make an analogy with frames of film in a movie (hence 'the movie
graph argument'). But there's a huge mismatch here. A conscious
thought has a lot of duration, I'd estimate around 0.02sec. The
underlying computation that sustains the quasi-classical brain at
the quantum level has a time constant on the order of the Planck
time 10^-43sec. And even if it isn't the quantum level that's
relevant, it's obvious that most thinking is unconscious and a
computer emulating your brain would have to go through many billions
or trillions of states to instantiate one moment of consciousness.
That means that at the fundamental level (of say the UD) there can
be huge overlap between one conscious thought and the next and so
they can form a chain, a stream of consciousness.
So there's a certain amount of "mini-death-and-mini-rebirth" going
on every second in the normal process of consciousness (in this
view). Deciding what counts as a continuation and what doesn't
seems a bit ... problematic. (And of course there are many
continuations from any given moment.)
Not if there's nothing to overlap. Sure there is, by some measure,
a closest next continuation. But when you're eighty years old and
fading out on the operating table, it's going to be another eighty
year old fading out on some other operating table. I think someone
has suggested that if you fade out completely then the next closest
continuation could be a newborn infant who is just 'fading in'.
Which is a nice thought - but is it you?
That happens each time you smoke salvia, you fade into your baby state
(which makes you look like a retard, which you are, in some sense, or,
on higher dose, well beyond the baby states (which actually knows
already a lot, from the "beyond" perspective)). Then you fade back
into the actual "you", at least that is what you thought, but you can
doubt it also.
Deep enough (in the amnesia/disconnection) you can experience a
consciousness state which is experienced as time independent. Perhaps
the consciousness of "all" simple virgin universal machine/loop/
numbers. It would be the roots of the consciousness flux; the set of
all universal numbers (a non recursively enumerable set).
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.