QTI euthanasia
Hi all First post! I'm happy to have found this list as much of it coincides with what I've been thinking about in the past few years, esp. after reading about quantum roulette and realising, as many others have done, that this leads to quantum immortality. 1) Lately, I've been thinking about euthanasia and the QTI. Previously, being somewhat of a liberal in these matters, I've always held that, assuming proper checks and balances (BIG assumption), euthanasia was ok, as it relieved the suffering of the patient as well as their loved ones. If QTI holds then killing the patient won't work (from the patient's frame of reference), so you're not actually alleviating their suffering. You may of course be relieving the suffering of the patient's loved ones (from THEIR pov) but I think we're on dangerous ground when you consider whether or not you should kill someone solely for their' families' sake. So, should QTI-ists be campaigning against euthanasia, not because of the traditional 'life is sacred' objection, but because it simply doesn't work? Can anyone see an alternative - based perhaps on anaethetising the patient indefinitely? 2) I'd like to propose a thought experiment. A subject has his brain cells removed one at a time by a patient assistant using a very fine pair of tweezers. The brain cell is then destroyed in an incinerator. Is there a base level of consciousness beyond which, from the pov of the subject, the assistant will be unable to remove any more cells, since conscious experience will be lost? ie is there a minimum level of 'experience' beyond which nature will appear to act to always maintain the physical brain? If there is, does the second law of thermodynamics not suggest that all brains inexorably head towards this quantum of consciousness, for as long as our brains are physical? Razi --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: QTI euthanasia
Hi, 1) My thoughts are that an act of euthanasia would be more likely to 'push' the consciousness of the patient to some hitherto unlikely scenario - any situation where death is probable requires an improbable get-out clause. The patient may well find themselves in a world where their suffering is curable/has been cured. Might even be brains-in-jars time. 2) I think that neural systems possess a quality called something like 'graceful decline;' the brain can undergo a lot of random damage before its function is significantly affected. But once it does start to go down the toilet, I'm not sure what the conscious experience of that would be. Presumably it would be something like Alzheimers or a pretty bad case of the mornings, and everything would appear to be rather scattershot and disconnected. From the perspective of the victim (I would say 'patient' again, but let's face it - this is one mean scenario!) I wonder if this weakens the connection to this particular context, and they'd find it more likely to move in the direction of universes in which the process is reversed or nullified. 2008/10/22 razihassan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi all First post! I'm happy to have found this list as much of it coincides with what I've been thinking about in the past few years, esp. after reading about quantum roulette and realising, as many others have done, that this leads to quantum immortality. 1) Lately, I've been thinking about euthanasia and the QTI. Previously, being somewhat of a liberal in these matters, I've always held that, assuming proper checks and balances (BIG assumption), euthanasia was ok, as it relieved the suffering of the patient as well as their loved ones. If QTI holds then killing the patient won't work (from the patient's frame of reference), so you're not actually alleviating their suffering. You may of course be relieving the suffering of the patient's loved ones (from THEIR pov) but I think we're on dangerous ground when you consider whether or not you should kill someone solely for their' families' sake. So, should QTI-ists be campaigning against euthanasia, not because of the traditional 'life is sacred' objection, but because it simply doesn't work? Can anyone see an alternative - based perhaps on anaethetising the patient indefinitely? 2) I'd like to propose a thought experiment. A subject has his brain cells removed one at a time by a patient assistant using a very fine pair of tweezers. The brain cell is then destroyed in an incinerator. Is there a base level of consciousness beyond which, from the pov of the subject, the assistant will be unable to remove any more cells, since conscious experience will be lost? ie is there a minimum level of 'experience' beyond which nature will appear to act to always maintain the physical brain? If there is, does the second law of thermodynamics not suggest that all brains inexorably head towards this quantum of consciousness, for as long as our brains are physical? Razi --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: QTI euthanasia
Michael Rosefield wrote: Hi, 1) My thoughts are that an act of euthanasia would be more likely to 'push' the consciousness of the patient to some hitherto unlikely scenario - any situation where death is probable requires an improbable get-out clause. The patient may well find themselves in a world where their suffering is curable/has been cured. Might even be brains-in-jars time. 2) I think that neural systems possess a quality called something like 'graceful decline;' the brain can undergo a lot of random damage before its function is significantly affected. But once it does start to go down the toilet, I'm not sure what the conscious experience of that would be. Presumably it would be something like Alzheimers or a pretty bad case of the mornings, and everything would appear to be rather scattershot and disconnected. From the perspective of the victim (I would say 'patient' again, but let's face it - this is one mean scenario!) I wonder if this weakens the connection to this particular context, and they'd find it more likely to move in the direction of universes in which the process is reversed or nullified. You seem to implicitly assume that the subject's consciousness is a single, unified thing that can move hither and yon in the Hilbert space of the universe. But the multiple-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, on which the above scenarios are based, says that the physical basis of consciousness splits almost continuously into non-interacting subspaces. Are we to suppose that your other brains in Hilbert space are empty of consciousness until you move to them? Brent Meeker 2008/10/22 razihassan [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi all First post! I'm happy to have found this list as much of it coincides with what I've been thinking about in the past few years, esp. after reading about quantum roulette and realising, as many others have done, that this leads to quantum immortality. 1) Lately, I've been thinking about euthanasia and the QTI. Previously, being somewhat of a liberal in these matters, I've always held that, assuming proper checks and balances (BIG assumption), euthanasia was ok, as it relieved the suffering of the patient as well as their loved ones. If QTI holds then killing the patient won't work (from the patient's frame of reference), so you're not actually alleviating their suffering. You may of course be relieving the suffering of the patient's loved ones (from THEIR pov) but I think we're on dangerous ground when you consider whether or not you should kill someone solely for their' families' sake. So, should QTI-ists be campaigning against euthanasia, not because of the traditional 'life is sacred' objection, but because it simply doesn't work? Can anyone see an alternative - based perhaps on anaethetising the patient indefinitely? 2) I'd like to propose a thought experiment. A subject has his brain cells removed one at a time by a patient assistant using a very fine pair of tweezers. The brain cell is then destroyed in an incinerator. Is there a base level of consciousness beyond which, from the pov of the subject, the assistant will be unable to remove any more cells, since conscious experience will be lost? ie is there a minimum level of 'experience' beyond which nature will appear to act to always maintain the physical brain? If there is, does the second law of thermodynamics not suggest that all brains inexorably head towards this quantum of consciousness, for as long as our brains are physical? Razi --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: QTI euthanasia
Michael Rosefield wrote: Oh, no, more that we can probably define 'mind-space' or 'consciousness-space', in which every point represents a possible (conscious!) mind-state and has an associated spectrum of possible physical substrata, and that there is a probability function defined across the space such that for any two points there is a probability of experiencing one after the other. So you're a dualist. The mind-states are one kind of thing (possibly physical or mathematical) and consciousness is something else that occupies them or realizes them. In other words, if I drop a ball I am likely to observe the ball dropping and hitting the ground - a set of highly probable trajectories along mind-space. It's not so much consciousness moving from one state to the other, as to which conscious state I shall find myself in next. How is that different from moving? You never find yourself in more than one state at a time - even though there are many possible states. Brent --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: QTI euthanasia
Dualism, Schmualism I think I'm an 'abstract perspectivist', or something. Everything is made of the same substance, but the nature of the thing and the nature of the substance depend on how you look at it, and as long as you can find an equivalence between two functional models, then they're both equally valid (if not equally useful). As to the difference between 'consciousness moving' and 'moving between consciousnesses,' I suppose that's a good example - they are both acceptable, as we can't differentiate the two from our perspective, and the definitions we're working with are somewhat on the hazy side 2008/10/22 Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Rosefield wrote: Oh, no, more that we can probably define 'mind-space' or 'consciousness-space', in which every point represents a possible (conscious!) mind-state and has an associated spectrum of possible physical substrata, and that there is a probability function defined across the space such that for any two points there is a probability of experiencing one after the other. So you're a dualist. The mind-states are one kind of thing (possibly physical or mathematical) and consciousness is something else that occupies them or realizes them. In other words, if I drop a ball I am likely to observe the ball dropping and hitting the ground - a set of highly probable trajectories along mind-space. It's not so much consciousness moving from one state to the other, as to which conscious state I shall find myself in next. How is that different from moving? You never find yourself in more than one state at a time - even though there are many possible states. Brent --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: QTI euthanasia
are some of us still sane?John Mikes On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 8:31 AM, razihassan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all First post! I'm happy to have found this list as much of it coincides with what I've been thinking about in the past few years, esp. after reading about quantum roulette and realising, as many others have done, that this leads to quantum immortality. 1) Lately, I've been thinking about euthanasia and the QTI. Previously, being somewhat of a liberal in these matters, I've always held that, assuming proper checks and balances (BIG assumption), euthanasia was ok, as it relieved the suffering of the patient as well as their loved ones. If QTI holds then killing the patient won't work (from the patient's frame of reference), so you're not actually alleviating their suffering. You may of course be relieving the suffering of the patient's loved ones (from THEIR pov) but I think we're on dangerous ground when you consider whether or not you should kill someone solely for their' families' sake. So, should QTI-ists be campaigning against euthanasia, not because of the traditional 'life is sacred' objection, but because it simply doesn't work? Can anyone see an alternative - based perhaps on anaethetising the patient indefinitely? 2) I'd like to propose a thought experiment. A subject has his brain cells removed one at a time by a patient assistant using a very fine pair of tweezers. The brain cell is then destroyed in an incinerator. Is there a base level of consciousness beyond which, from the pov of the subject, the assistant will be unable to remove any more cells, since conscious experience will be lost? ie is there a minimum level of 'experience' beyond which nature will appear to act to always maintain the physical brain? If there is, does the second law of thermodynamics not suggest that all brains inexorably head towards this quantum of consciousness, for as long as our brains are physical? Razi --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: QTI euthanasia
2008/10/22 razihassan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2) I'd like to propose a thought experiment. A subject has his brain cells removed one at a time by a patient assistant using a very fine pair of tweezers. The brain cell is then destroyed in an incinerator. Is there a base level of consciousness beyond which, from the pov of the subject, the assistant will be unable to remove any more cells, since conscious experience will be lost? ie is there a minimum level of 'experience' beyond which nature will appear to act to always maintain the physical brain? If there is, does the second law of thermodynamics not suggest that all brains inexorably head towards this quantum of consciousness, for as long as our brains are physical? The problem you raise is one of personal identity, and can be illustrated without invoking QTI. If I am copied 100 times so that copy #1 has 1% of my present memories, copy #2 has 2% of my present memories, and so on to copy #100 which has 100% of my present memories, which copy should I expect to end up as, and with what probability? What about if there are a million instantiations of copy #1 and one instantiation of the rest? What if there are 10^100^100 instantiations of copies with 1/10^100 of my present memories - as there well might be? -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: QTI euthanasia
Interesting idea. But obviously 'memories' is quite unquantative when you get down to it: all memories are not equal, some are stored in longer/shorter-term memories and have differing levels of cross-association with each other and emotional states, some are being accessed right now, and personal behavioural tendencies habits might not all be encapsulable simply as 'memories' but more as a function of ingrained neural circuit configurations. I think perhaps one of the problems here is that no-one yet knows how to 'construct' consciousness - what informational dynamics need to look like, what's necessary and sufficient, and how to categorise all the processes. We're in the same sort of position as early biologists - they knew there was a method of carrying heredity information, but no idea about what it was or how it worked. We need to discover our version of DNA... and, of course, as with biology that might only be the beginning. But to get back to the point: once we can do this, then hypothetically speaking we can parameterise any particular conscious state, and quantify divergences from this in any regard. Exactly what the probability distribution would look like if this experiment would be performed by taking distances from the original (according to whatever metric is used) as your set of alternatives is anybody's guess, but I imagine that 'core' personality aspects would be reflected by which dimensions (possibly using principle component analysis) show the steepest drop-off. I get the feeling I've just used a whole lot of words to restate the obvious 2008/10/22 Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008/10/22 razihassan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2) I'd like to propose a thought experiment. A subject has his brain cells removed one at a time by a patient assistant using a very fine pair of tweezers. The brain cell is then destroyed in an incinerator. Is there a base level of consciousness beyond which, from the pov of the subject, the assistant will be unable to remove any more cells, since conscious experience will be lost? ie is there a minimum level of 'experience' beyond which nature will appear to act to always maintain the physical brain? If there is, does the second law of thermodynamics not suggest that all brains inexorably head towards this quantum of consciousness, for as long as our brains are physical? The problem you raise is one of personal identity, and can be illustrated without invoking QTI. If I am copied 100 times so that copy #1 has 1% of my present memories, copy #2 has 2% of my present memories, and so on to copy #100 which has 100% of my present memories, which copy should I expect to end up as, and with what probability? What about if there are a million instantiations of copy #1 and one instantiation of the rest? What if there are 10^100^100 instantiations of copies with 1/10^100 of my present memories - as there well might be? -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
