On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> I just have to make something that behaves as my original biological >> brain did because none of the atoms in my brain have the name "John K >> Clark" scratched on them. >> One Hydrogen atom is as good as another. >> > > > of course. But you need your actual brain to continue. > That depends on what "actual brain" means. You need the information that was in your biological brain to be implemented in something physical so that it behaves in the same way, but it makes no difference if the physics is done in biology or electronics or tinker toys. > >> >> I like the Many Worlds Interpretation and think it's superior to any >> competing interpretation that I know of, but I'm not so confident it's >> correct that I'd bet my life on it. Bruno, I know you're certain > > > > No. I have no certainty, and I have never expose any of my opinions on > this. It is private matter. > If you're willing to entertain the possibility that maybe just maybe your philosophy is wrong then don't you think it might be wise to have a plan B insurance policy? Cryonics could be that insurance policy. >> >> if you're right (and I don't think you are) and physical implementation >> is unnecessary and the mere existence of a Godel number can create >> intelligence and consciousness then all those bad things are going to >> happen to you regardless of if a human or anything else plugs your Godel >> number into a physical computer. > > > > > Nope. You need to take into account the *relative* probabilities. What you > decide to do augment or diminish the probability of the possible happenings. > Are you right and the existence of the Godel number of a mind is sufficient to guarantee its existence, or are you wrong and the number needs to be implemented in physics? If you're right and it's sufficient then cryonics is wasted effort doing no good but doing no harm either. However if you're wrong then cryonics could save your life. Do you really want to bet your life that you're right? > > >>> >> >>> there are much simplest and safe ways to be "immortal", in my *opinion* >>> (like perhaps smoking salvia divinorum, >> >> >> >> >> Well it's simple I'll give you that, the active ingredient in >> >> salvia divinorum has only 23 Carbon atoms 28 Hydrogen atoms and 8 Oxygen >> atoms, >> >> but I don't see how a arrangement of matter that simple could make you >> >> immortal. > > > > It can help some people to understand that the idea that we have > primitively material brain is hypothetical. > And yet a primitive material consisting of only 23 Carbon atoms 28 Hydrogen atoms and 8 Oxygen atoms will produce that understanding. If physical implementation is not needed for consciousness then why does this simple molecule have such a profound effect on consciousness? > > > I > > t can help to doubt Aristotle theology > To hell with Aristotle and to hell with theology and to hell with all ancient Greek philosophers! > > > which is needed to believe that when the brain stop functioning > physically, you die in some absolute way. > It's not theology if there is experimental evidence that it's true and in this case there is. When anesthesia enters your brain it stops working and your thoughts stop too until the anesthesia wears off and your brain starts up again; If a bullet enters your brain it will stop working too and it is reasonable to hypothesize your thought's will also , but in this case the bullet never wears off and instead your brain rots away and never starts up again. If death means having a last thought (and I don't know what else it could mean) then the bullet has caused your death. > > > > salvia can help to conceive and understand some points capable of making > you into shaking prejudices or unconscious dogma. I'm sure that drug will make people feel like they're smarter but are they really smarter or are they just fooling themselves? I propose a test. Have 10 programmers of equal ability independently code for the same problem, give 5 of them salvia and give no drug to the other 5. Then have a double blind impartial panel judge the quality of the 10 programs giving them a grade between 0 and 100. Do you think the control group or the salvia group would get the higher grade? I know where I'd put my money. John K Clark > > > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
