> > > Then which *ONE* out of that infinite number is > "*THE"* > stream of consciousness > ? >
You're asking that question from the objective, third-person point of view, which is not relevant to the thought experiment. If you want to engage with the thought experiment, then you must consider this from the first person. If you do that, then you'll have to approach the problem knowing the constraint that there is only ever one consciousness experienced by a person. > > >> You agreed earlier that you cannot experience more than one city at the >> same time. >> > > I don't know about Mr. You but > Terren Suydam > can > experience more than one city at the same time > if there are > Terren Suydam > duplicating machines. > Objectively, yes. Experientially, no. > >> This is the view from inside, the inner experience. There is only ever >> one of them. >> > > Terren Suydam > just said a infinite number of copies were made, and every single one > of them remembers wondering what one and only one city they would end up > seeing. So what turned out to be the one and only one correct answer to the > question asked yesterday "What city will I see tomorrow ?" If the answer > isn't just unknown but is nonexistent then it wasn't a question. > Objectively, it may be gibberish, but from the first-person point of view, it's not. Earlier we encountered a different question that was gibberish from the objective point of view, but intelligible from the first-person point of view. This is like that. > >> You know this to be true: >> > > I know it's true that everybody can only sees one stream of > consciousness when looking from the present into the past, but the future > behaves differently than the past, if they didn't they wouldn't need to > have different names. > > And the question concerns the future not the past. > > >> > >> you may behave *as if* others are conscious, but you only ever know for >> sure that one person is conscious. >> > > That is part of our existence even today even without people duplicating > machines. > > > > >> I believe that two people will say that they are John Clark, but I won't >> have a clue if they are actually conscious or not. >> > > Oh I think you'll have a clue, but at any rate > I hope you don't believe the copy of me > would be > less likely to be conscious > than > the "original", but if you do > believe that > please explain what's so original about the original. > > I don't know if the original is conscious either, if I'm adopting the third-person perspective. -- 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.
