Hi all,
every time I read about the anthropic reasoning in physics I can't
help asking the more general question:
"Why I am I, not somebody else?"
Why I see through _this_ eyes, am confined to _this_ brain, was born
in _this_ year, etc?
This question seems to me of the same importance as the questi
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> If you were Elvis and Elvis were you, what difference would that make
> to anything?
That would make a huge difference for me and Elvis - my (and his)
subjective experiences would be very different. And, as these
experiences are by defi
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
> Hi soulcatcher,
> Good question, it is something I thought about too, then I realized I am me
> because it was this brain in my skull asking that question. I created the
> attached image to help illustrate my point. If each person asks that
>
x> This raises the question of how many first person exists. I like the idea
> that the answer is one. We may be all "the universal person" appearing and
> reappearing like if we were already duplicated many times, which makes sense
> given that we come from the same amoeba. We are like a god who l
> Lets consider two "hard" questions - "why do we live in THIS
> universe?" (1) and "why am I me?" (2).
>
> (1) . Why do we live in THIS universe?
>
> Here we got:
> - string theory and anthropic reasoning present us with a landscape of
> 10^(10^N) universes that we can choose from.
> - we've got s
> Apparently it did not work. I am "bruno marchal" now!
>
> Please swish again!
>
> :)
No! I am Bruno Marchal! Pliz get me out of here :)
> Do you see the problem in the above exchange? It assumes there is some
> metaphysical "me" and "you" that can be conceptualised as flitting
> about from one
> Are you physicalist?
I just don't know.
All my everyday experience points towards physicalism: I'm a brain,
embodied in a physical body, embedded in a physical environment and
evolved via several billion year selection process. All the
constituents of my mind could be explained in the evolutiona
I see a red rose. You see a red rose. Is your experience of redness
the same as mine?
1. Yes, they are identical.
2. They are different as long as neural organization of our brains is
slightly different, but you are potentially capable of experiencing my
redness with some help from neurosurgeon who
>
> What would you say about this setup:
>
> Computer Simulation->Physical Universe->Your Brain
>
> That is to say, what if our physical universe were simulated in some
> alien's computer instead of being some primitive "physical" world?
>
This setup doesn't sound very convincing to me:
- I believ
>
> Do you see the meaning of physical laws being somehow different from the
> programmed laws that simulate an environment?
>
Yes, I feel that simulated mind is not identical to the real one. Simulation
is only the extension of the mind - just a tool, a "mental crutch", a
pluggable module that giv
>
> I think those simulated persons would be conscious.
>
The possibility of superintelligence that creates worlds in its dreams kinda
freaks me out :)
So you think the software mind in a software environment would never
> question the redness of red, when the robot brain would?
>
> No, I think th
11 matches
Mail list logo
