On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Le 25 avr. 2015 01:25, "Quentin Anciaux" <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> a écrit : > > > > > > Le 25 avr. 2015 01:21, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>>: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List < > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> For some, its a conundrum, or in any case see it as a block to > cloning, or a slam dunk into the trash bin of physics and philosophy. For > me, no. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Philosophically there is no problem with the no clone theorem, since > even if a perfect copy is needed to preserve consciousness the no clone > theorem does not preclude perfect copying. > > >>> > > >>> Practically there is no problem with the no clone theorem since your > brain undergoes gross change from moment to moment and you feel that you > remain the same person. > > >>> > > >> > > >> That's true, unless even in principle what gives rise to > consciousness is not duplicable, accessible to us... (It's dubious, since > our reality/nature did succeed to make it; at the very least for me). But > if reality as it isn doesn't give us access to that (whatever we do, > forever, because it is impossible like going faster than the speed of light > under relativity, or going before the big bang as the time is beginning > with it... and that indeed assumes a theory like computationalism is > false), then it is a problem even phisophisically (that is if you still > want to follow logic and still want what you're saying to be meaningfull) > > > > > > > > > The no clone theorem refers to physical copying, > > > > I know. > > > > so it isn't relevant if consciousness is due to something else, like an > immaterial soul. > > > > It is if perfect physical copying is not enough because it misses > something. > > So to try to be clearer, if reality as it is does not give us access to > what makes us conscious because whatever it is that makes us conscious is > not in any of the physical properties, then even if you were able to make > such a perfect physical copy, it would still not be you or even conscious > because by definition that perfect copy does not have the conscious > property which is not physical and cannot therefore be copied. > Yes, so the no clone theorem is not relevant whether consciousness is or is not due to something physical. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
