On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/10/2015 4:08 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 30 Sep 2015, at 10:10 PM, Bruce Kellett < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > > > That is irrelevant to the point being made. I was talking about purported > copies far outside our present particle horizon -- beyond any possibility > of physical influence either way. I contend that applying the words > "psychologically continuous" in this context is simply meaningless. > Psychological continuity is dependent on physical continuity -- even if > only in the transfer of a memory stick from one computer to another. If > there is no physical interaction of any kind, particularly if such > interaction is physically impossible, then the two persons are different, > and have nothing other than a chance resemblance. Nothing that happens to > one can have any effect on the other. > > Consequently, I maintain that the idea of psychological continuity over > and above physical continuity is meaningless. > > > God could resurrect you using knowledge of your brain state prior to > death, or by exhaustively reconstructing every possible human state, of > which yours is one. In the latter case there would be no causal connection. > How would you know the difference in order to complain to God that he did > not maintain psychological continuity for you? > > How would you determine that the reconstruction was "you" and that you are > not dreaming? > > Many worlds is nothing more than a hypothetical construct. There is no > concrete evidence one way or the other. And science goes with the evidence > -- in the absence of any evidence we have to say that we simply do not > know. Many worlds ideas are not without their problems, so it is by no > means clear that such scenarios have any intrinsic advantage. If the worlds > are non-interacting, as almost certainly is the case, then they have > absolutely no consequences for psychology or the problem of consciousness. > > > You misunderstand what "psychological continuity" means. It can occur > despite a lack of physical interaction. > > > I understand what you mean by "psychological continuity". I simply > maintain that such a concept makes no sense between conscious beings > outside each others light cones. > 1. Do you think you could in theory be taken apart atom by atom, and put back together to "survive" this ordeal? 2. Do you think it is important that all atoms be put back into their exact places, or could two hydrogen atoms, from different parts of your body and brain be swapped without making a difference? 3. Do you think you could be reconstituted after being taken apart atom by atom, using mostly new atoms? 4. Do you think you could be reconstituted after being taken apart atom by atom, using an entirely new set of atoms? 5. Do you think the distance between your deconstruction and reconstruction is of any relevance to whether or not you survive? 6. Do you think time between your deconstruction and reconstruction is of any relevance to whether or not you survive? 7. Do you think there is some non physical element of you, beyond your organization of atoms, which must travel to (and be limited by the speed of light) the location of your reconstruction in order for you to survive the reconstruction? If you answer *yes* to questions 1-4, and *no* to questions 5-7, then bringing up light cones is irrelevent. The existence of identical instances of you 10^10^28 meters away enable the survival of your consciousness. If you answered yes to question 7, in what sense is the reconstituted, atom-for-atom identical version of you not alive, or not you, whereas one created by beaming a signal to guide the arrangement of the atoms in a certain way from the location of your destruction, *is* you or *does result* in you? > If there can be no physical interaction, then there is no continuity, > psychological or otherwise. > In the computationalist doctrine, you are your patterns and information. If those patterns and information continue and survive elsewhere, you survive. The history of how the atoms got to be in the pattern of information they are now in is of no relevance to how the atoms behave and interact. Jason > Duplication of a person, even an entirely emulated AIs, requires a > physical transfer of information. Information is physical, and its transfer > is subject to physical laws. You can't circumvent this by inventing some > magical concept of "psychological continuity". > > Bruce > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
