On 10/21/2013 12:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:02 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 10/20/2013 10:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

    On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:11 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
    <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

        On 10/20/2013 8:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

            If the first person views/memories are not integrated, they are not
            experienced by the Jupiter brain, only instantiated, and it learns 
            of what it is like to *be* the beings it discovers.

        ?? How is an experience instantiated without being experienced? Sounds 
        double talk.

    All experiences are experienced, but the question in this case is by whom?  
Who can
    rightfully be said to be an owner of that experience?

    Makes not sense at all.  If people are just sequences of experiences 
    with the physical as secondary) then there is no sense in asking who owns 
an experience.

The same experience can be part of different sequences. E.g. (1, 6, 7, 19, 11) and (2, 3, 14, 19, 23) are two different sets, or sequences, (analogous to two different persons by your definition), but they both contain the same number 19 (the same experience). Thus the experience belongs can be said to be "owned" or "had" by more than one person. So asking who owns an experience is equivalent to identifying the possible chains of experience that contain a given experience. Let me know if this still makes no sense.

That's OK. But earlier you asked "who rightfully owned and experience", implying that there was a unique owner of any given experience - which might be true, but is incompatible with the idea of experiences as fundamental.

    There are two minds in this case: There is the Jupiter brain's mind, and 
there is
    Brent Meeker's mind.  The Jupiter brain might choose to simulate all of 
Earth, and
    thus it will instantiate yours, mind, and all earthlings' brains.

    But now you're invoking brains to distinguish which mind is which.  I'm 
afraid your
    theory is incoherent.

It is unfortunate that the term "Jupiter Brain" contains the word "brain" in it, but treat the above cases of "Jupiter brain" as simply a label for something with unfathomable computational resources and intelligence, the word "brain" is not relevant to this discussion.

To use the sets of numbers analogy, a Jupiter brain that experiences other perspectives is like a very large set of experiences.

If it's simply a set of experiences, then it can't "choose to simulate" 

    And so Brent Meeker will experience what it is like to be Brent Meeker.  
But the
    mind of the Jupiter brain will not be able to remember what it is like to 
be Brent
    Meeker without creating some kind of bridge to make Brent's memories and
    experiences accessible to that mind.

    Brent Meeker is always an owner of Brent Meeker's experiences, but there 
may be
    other entities who can rightfully be said to be owners of those 
experiences, by
    virtue of having memory of having been Brent Meeker, for example.

            But that is beside the point, even if this brain was not 
integrating the
            experiences into a single view, and instead was morphing its brain 
            that it experiences one lifetime after, this activity creates a 
chain of
            connections that goes through all the observer's lifetimes it ever 

Why do experiences need some outside agent, "this brain" to integrate them?

    They only need to be integrated if you want the experience to belong to 
other minds.

        I thought the idea was that experiences formed a chain by their 
inherent content.

    Think of a it like this:
    Imagine a youtube of the future that enabled full sensory immersion. Now 
there are
    millions of experiences uploaded to this site, and each of the experiences 
has been
    viewed thousands of times, by any of millions of different real-world 

    Who are sitting in a big Cartesian theater.

    Who then are the true owners of the experience?  When the experience ends 
    playback, you don't know which of the thousands of viewers you will then 
    yourself to be.

    No, sensory immersion is not the same as experience immersion.  Because of 
    memories and structure, experiences will be uniquely mine even though the 
    input is shared.

Imagine the downlaoded experiences encode your memories too, and when viewed restrict the memories of the viewer to those of the uploader.

But then, relative to me, they would be no different than Jason Resch having the experiences. Brent Meeker wouldn't be having them at all.


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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to