RE: Immortality
Charles Goodwin wrote: -Original Message- From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2001 2:23 a.m. But then why do you say that a duplicate of your brain processes in a computer would not be conscious. You seem to be discriminating between a biological duplicate and a silicon duplicate. The use of the word 'duplicate' seems contentious to me. The question is whether you *can* duplicate the processes in the brain at a suitable level of abstraction, and whether (if you can) such a duplicate would be conscious. I don't think anyone knows the answer to this (yet) ! To answer yes to that question is exactly what I mean by the comp *hypothesis*. The comp hypothesis is the hypothesis that there exist a level of digital functional description of myself such that I can survive through a substitution made at that level. The practitionners of comp are those who say yes to their digital-specialist doctor. It is an hypothesis that has the curious property of entailing its own necessarily hypothetical character. Comp entails no one will *never* know it to be necessarily true. It comp is true, no consistent machines will ever prove it. The honest doctor does never assure the succes, and confesses betting on a level (+ probable other more technical bets for sure). If you meet someone pretending knowing he/she or you are machine, you better run! The real question is: will the consistent machines remains consistent by betting on it? Suggestion: derive the physics from comp, compare with empirical physics. Judge. If comp is true there is a danger for the practicionners: having survive so many times, having said and resaid yes to their digital brain specialist surgeon, and having gone literaly through so much digital nets that they begin to believe they know comp true. (Then they became inconsistent). Comp entails some trip *near* inconsistencies. Actually I guess that's life. The miracle occurs at each instant. (Not only at the mechanist hospital). Well with comp the fall into inconsistency *can* occur at each instant too. Bruno PS The reasoning I propose does not depend on the level of substitution. Only that it exists. You can choose the universal wave function as a description of your brain (low level), or approximation of concentration of chemicals (high level), or disposition of neural dynamics (higher level) ... ... ... or the bible (very very high level). By the bible I mean Boolos 1993 of course :-). My thesis in a nutshell is that FOR is a missing chapter of that book. FOR and other everything efforts. The book bears about what self-referentially correct machines can say, and cannot say, about themselves and about their (necessarily hypothetical) consistent extensions.It's The manual of machine's psychology (my term, sure). If you don't know logic, here is a shortcut: Jeffrey: Logic, its scope and limit. Boolos and Jeffrey: Computability and Logic Boolos 1993. Or Boolos 1979, it is lighter and easier to digest. And recall Smullyan's Forever Undecided. You told me Smullyan is your favorite philosopher, or was I dreaming?
Re: Immortality
Brent Meeker wrote: But then why do you say that a duplicate of your brain processes in a computer would not be conscious. You seem to be discriminating between a biological duplicate and a silicon duplicate. I have never say that. A duplicate of me (at the right level which exists with the comp hyp) would be as conscious as me. What I do have said somewhere (and I guess the misunderstanding comes from that) is that a computer cannot be conscious, nor can a brain, nor can any piece of matter (if that exists at all). Only a person, which by comp is immaterial, can be conscious. I was (in some context) preventing the Searle error consisting in believing that I am a brain, instead of the more correct I have a brain which follows by comp. Only latter in the reasoning will substancial matter disappear too, so that the brain itself will appear somehow immaterial. I suggest you reread the UDA where I explicitely use the fact that not only a duplicate of me in a computer would be conscious, but even the many duplicate of me in arithmetic are conscious. That is why my next future depend on all computations existing in the arithmetical plato heaven. I'm glad you ask question. Don't hesitate, I am aware that some answer to some post can put doubt on some other answer to other post (either by lack of pedagogy from my part, or just because some question are very contextual). But of course with comp a duplicate of me with silicon, or even with pebbles and toilet paper or with the people of China or whatever could make me conscious, and this even if it take one billion year for each instruction; I cannot be aware of the delays ... Bruno
Re: Immortality
Hello Marchal On 10-Oct-01, Marchal wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: But then why do you say that a duplicate of your brain processes in a computer would not be conscious. You seem to be discriminating between a biological duplicate and a silicon duplicate. I have never say that. A duplicate of me (at the right level which exists with the comp hyp) would be as conscious as me. What I do have said somewhere (and I guess the misunderstanding comes from that) is that a computer cannot be conscious, nor can a brain, nor can any piece of matter (if that exists at all). Only a person, which by comp is immaterial, can be conscious. OK, I understand - I think. But as I understand your ontology, everything is immaterial - even matter. So the question is, are there consciousness' that are not associated with material things. Can there be disembodied consciousness as supposed by mystics and people who have OBE's (out of body experiences)? I was (in some context) preventing the Searle error consisting in believing that I am a brain, instead of the more correct I have a brain which follows by comp. Only latter in the reasoning will substancial matter disappear too, so that the brain itself will appear somehow immaterial. I suggest you reread the UDA where I explicitely use the fact that not only a duplicate of me in a computer would be conscious, but even the many duplicate of me in arithmetic are conscious. That is why my next future depend on all computations existing in the arithmetical plato heaven. I'm not sure I grasp the concept of duplicates in arithmetic. Arithmetic is abstract and immaterial. There can be duplicate representations of 2+2=4 but I don't see how there can be duplicate facts in Platonia corresponding to 2+2=4. As an immaterial fact of logic it can't be duplicated because there can be no distinction between two instances of it. Brent Meeker The human mind did not evolve in order to create a race of philosophers or scientists --- Bainbridge
Re: Immortality
Brent Meeker wrote: OK, I think I understand this. You are making the point that duplication of consciousness entails the inability to predict the sequence of conscious experience. Exactly. The indeterminism comes from the fact that 1) You can 3-duplicate a 3-person (with comp). 2) you cannot 3-duplicate a 1-person, that is, from the point of view of the person, that person feels like staying one and unique, in front of ZERO *or* in front of ONE. OK? No, (2) seems a cheat to me. ...from the point of view of the person, that person feels.. already assumes there is only one person; ... After the duplication there are two persons. I should have written 2) you cannot 3-duplicate a 1-person, that is, from the point of view of *each* person, they feels like staying one and unique, in front of ZERO *or* in front of ONE. ...so it cannot be used as an argument that the person is not duplicated ( that you cannot 3-duplicate a 1-person) on pain of circularity. What I say is just the trivial (with comp!) fact that if you 3-duplicate me, my feeling of integrity and uniqueness will remain intact. My 1-person has not been duplicated or divided, although I will, like my doppelganger, face a 3-version of myself. My term were perhaps not adequate. That the ...person feels like staying one and unique... is ambiguous and irrelevant. It's ambiguous because it is not clear whether you are asserting it of the person before duplication or of the persons after the duplication. It was after the duplication. I ask the question where you will to be (between the 0-room or the 1-room) *before* the duplication, but the question bear on the feeling *after* the duplication. It is the same with a quantum superposition state. If you look at a cat state like (Idead + Ialive), you *will* feel like seeing a cat dead or seing a cat alive, altough from a 3-schroedinger-equation point of view you will be both. With the MWI, the probabilities arises in a similar way. It's irrelevant because whatever the person(s) feel is consistent with the 1-persons being 3-duplicated (if I understand this 1- 3- terminology). You can say that. Sorry for the ambiguous expression duplication of the 1-person. It is perhaps preferable to say that a duplication is always a 3-duplication (a duplication of the body). The 1-person can be considered as duplicated, from a third person POV when interroging the duplicated people, but what is important here is to realise that *from the point of view of the two duplicated people* they does not feel has having been duplicated. OK, as I understand your ontology it is something like: mathematics-computation-consciousness-material Yes. Although I would say comp (or even QM) does not give choice here (cf UDA or movie graph). But this seems to still leave the problems of dualism because it allows that a consciousness (e.g. mine) can be generated without any associated material (e.g. a brain) and also that consciousnesses can generate another brain (e.g. duplicate of mine) with no associated consciousness. Not at all. The other brain will be able to manifest consciousness like the original one. I take it that this is the 'indeterminism' you illustrate by the Washington/Moscom duplication experiment. I had never been able to understand what indeterminism you referred to until now. This astonish me because in some older post you have come to the conclusion that, from the 1-person point of view, self-duplication was equivalent to throwing a (perfect) coin. Now I see that you suppose that the original consciousness will go into one of the duplicates and the other will be void of consciousness. Is this correct? No. Both will be conscious (with comp). But both will feel like the consciousness has gone into one of the duplicates (himself) and not the other. You (one of the YOUs) will feel the consciousness in some private way and only be able to attribute consciousness to the I will try to no more use the expression 1-person duplication which is indeed misleading. To sum up, if you ask me before my duplication if I will feel, after the duplication, being in room-zero or in room-one, I will answer (before the dup) that I don't know, that I am maximally ignorant about that. After the duplication, one of me will say I am in room-zero but aknowledges this as one bit of information, and the other will say I am in room-one and aknowledges also that event gives him one bit of information. OK? Bruno
RE: Immortality
-Original Message- From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2001 2:23 a.m. But then why do you say that a duplicate of your brain processes in a computer would not be conscious. You seem to be discriminating between a biological duplicate and a silicon duplicate. The use of the word 'duplicate' seems contentious to me. The question is whether you *can* duplicate the processes in the brain at a suitable level of abstraction, and whether (if you can) such a duplicate would be conscious. I don't think anyone knows the answer to this (yet) ! Charles
Re: Immortality
Hello Marchal On 09-Oct-01, Marchal wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: ... But this seems to still leave the problems of dualism because it allows that a consciousness (e.g. mine) can be generated without any associated material (e.g. a brain) and also that consciousnesses can generate another brain (e.g. duplicate of mine) with no associated consciousness. Not at all. The other brain will be able to manifest consciousness like the original one. But then why do you say that a duplicate of your brain processes in a computer would not be conscious. You seem to be discriminating between a biological duplicate and a silicon duplicate. Brent Meeker Poverty prevented me from believing that all is well in history and in the world. The sun taught me that history is not everything. --- Albert Camus
RE: Immortality
-Original Message- From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2001 4:06 a.m. It was a hypothetical that Bruno used. It's pretty certain nobody knows how to do it now and it might never be practical. But if the processes, including the sensory ones, were duplicated I have no reason to think that it would not be conscious. The contrary conclusion would seem to imply vitalism and magic. The question is more whether there *is* a level of abstraction that can be skimmed off the biological substrate. Although I suppose it would be possible (in theory) to simulate the behaviour of all the cells in the brain to arbitrary accuracy - if necessary at the level of molecules, or atoms (I can't see you having to go any lower than that). And leaving aside any problems with speed and memory, at *that* point it seems unlikely that you'd be able to argue the thing wasn't conscious. Charles
Re: Immortality
Does this list have a moderator? From: rwas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Immortality Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 22:08:37 -0700 (PDT) a few weeks ago. One of the interesting things I learned was that the reason many Christians can't accept the theory of evolution is that they have to believe all of mankind descended from Adam and Eve, Adam is the mind, Eve is the soul. This is a symbolic story of the descent of humanity. The garden of eden is a place on the invisible. The fall was about getting stuck in self and descending into such a vibrationally low place (physical existence) the eating of the apple was about assuming separation of god in consciousness. because that's why we share in the original sin, We share in it cause we all signed up for the same crap. which explains why Jesus had to sacrifice himself for us. No, it doesn't. Humanity was to in do course correct it's mistakes. Because of unfortunate acceptance of council we accepted from some unfortunate people, we continued to bury ourselves in misconceptions, lies, and self judgment. It is important to note that all the power that jesus-the-christ demonstrated, we possess. The difference we use our power to keep our consciousness buried and barely eek out an existence on the fraction or power remaining. Yet there are also Christians who do accept the theory of evolution (the program didn't explain how they got around this problem) Easy, god creates through evolution. so clearly Christianity is changing and adapting. Christianity existed long long long before the coming of christ in the form of Jesus the Christ. YOu'd be very very suprised at what christians knew then and accepted back in then. Robert W. __ Do You Yahoo!? NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: Immortality
a few weeks ago. One of the interesting things I learned was that the reason many Christians can't accept the theory of evolution is that they have to believe all of mankind descended from Adam and Eve, Adam is the mind, Eve is the soul. This is a symbolic story of the descent of humanity. The garden of eden is a place on the invisible. The fall was about getting stuck in self and descending into such a vibrationally low place (physical existence) the eating of the apple was about assuming separation of god in consciousness. because that's why we share in the original sin, We share in it cause we all signed up for the same crap. which explains why Jesus had to sacrifice himself for us. No, it doesn't. Humanity was to in do course correct it's mistakes. Because of unfortunate acceptance of council we accepted from some unfortunate people, we continued to bury ourselves in misconceptions, lies, and self judgment. It is important to note that all the power that jesus-the-christ demonstrated, we possess. The difference we use our power to keep our consciousness buried and barely eek out an existence on the fraction or power remaining. Yet there are also Christians who do accept the theory of evolution (the program didn't explain how they got around this problem) Easy, god creates through evolution. so clearly Christianity is changing and adapting. Christianity existed long long long before the coming of christ in the form of Jesus the Christ. YOu'd be very very suprised at what christians knew then and accepted back in then. Robert W. __ Do You Yahoo!? NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Re: Immortality
On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 05:57:18PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But there _is_ a modern religion based on universal principles. More precisely, on universal computers. According to the Great Programmer Religion, the Great Programmer wrote a very short program that computes all computable universes. One of them is ours. Juergen, are you really serious about this religion? I always thought the Great Programmer was just a pedagogical device to explain your theory.
Re: Immortality
On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 03:15:45PM +, K. S. Ryan wrote: Old school religions are losing market share to the modern world. But the modern world does not offer a unified system of beleif describing our place in the universe. Contemporary truths are not packaged as a whole, as a spiritual intellectual-emotional raison d'etre. Thus, while educated modern worlders may not be convinced by old school religious beliefs, there is not a modern unified system to replace them. Because we are human, we think a lot, and need to know what the individual means to the whole. What is our place in the cosmos? That is the question. And there is turbulance. Our raison d'etre is that we have low algorithmic complexity. Not very spiritual or emotional is it? That may not be the right answer, but whatever answer science eventually arrives at is unlikely to be emotionally satisfying. Trying to compete with established religions on an emotional basis is completely hopeless. Of course on an intellectual basis it'll be very sucessful, but only among a small group of people who are capable of understanding it. Old school religions are not losing market share to the modern world, they're losing market share to new school religions that are better adapted in the new environment. I was watching the PBS program Evolution a few weeks ago. One of the interesting things I learned was that the reason many Christians can't accept the theory of evolution is that they have to believe all of mankind descended from Adam and Eve, because that's why we share in the original sin, which explains why Jesus had to sacrifice himself for us. Yet there are also Christians who do accept the theory of evolution (the program didn't explain how they got around this problem) so clearly Christianity is changing and adapting.
Re: Immortality
I wrote (to Juergen Schmidhuber): Before going into such technics it would help us if you told us what is wrong with the comp 1-person indeterminism in the simple self-duplication experiment. We discuss that before, but I am still not sure to be able to make sense of your critics. Rereading some of your post I know you do the 1/3 distinction. But you don't believe in the comp-indeterminism. Actually, from your second papers it seems you don't believe in any form of indeterminism (neither physical nor psychological). I really don't understand. Let us try to be specific. With comp you agree you survive annihilation and reconstitution. (with probability one *relatively* to comp and a correct bet on the substitution level, and a unique reconstitution). So I cut you and paste you in *two* rooms, now, one with a ZERO painted on the wall, the other with a ONE painted on the wall. I ask you to predict what will you be feeling immediately after the pasting. You cannot communicate you will see ONE on the wall. Because you know the one of you who will see ZERO will accept the prediction has been wrong (and I ask that communication with determinism should convince ANY one). You cannot communicate you will see ZERO on the wall. Same reason. You cannot communicate you will see ZERO and you will see ONE. Because neither of the two YOUs will see both the zero and one, if the duplication has been done at the right level. You cannot communicate you will see neither ZERO nor ONE, because in that case you can no more accept comp, which says that you survive self-cut and self pasting (independently in case of self-multiplication). You cannot say the question is meaningless. With comp, you say yes to the doctor, and it is meaningful to worried about possible copy. So, how is it that you talk like if you do have an algorithm capable of telling you in advance what will be your personal experience in a self-duplication experience. I apologise insisting making precise the point where we disagree, but we are both making the comp hypothesis, and you are using it to defend determinism, and I try hard to explain comp leads to an amazingly strong form of indeterminism. My hypothesis is that although you do the 1/3 distinction, you don't take into account that distinction in your TOE, and then you are using implicitely a magical psycho-physico-parallelism for attaching first person experience to a single third person unique computation. Where am I wrong? Bruno
Re: Immortality
Juergen Schmidhuber wrote But there _is_ a modern religion based on universal principles. More precisely, on universal computers. I can give sense to that. I cannot give 3-sense to the word modern though, it is a typical (plural) first person expression, which add nothing to a scientific or axiomatic or 3-defensible debate. According to the Great Programmer Religion, the Great Programmer wrote a very short program that computes all computable universes. One of them is ours. So the Great Programmer is not even the UD. The UD, with Church Thesis, wrote all programs and execute all programs. The problem consists in explaining appearance of beliefs like our universe from possible (consistent) inside point of views scattered in UD* (UD's work). Some disciples of this religion find it plausible because the short program is the simplest explanation of all observations. The UD is the shortest explanation then. Although a shallow one which only permits a (re)formulation of the mind body problem. With comp the appearance of big bang and cosmos must be explained. If you make the distinction between 1-person and 3-person you get an absolute form of indeterminism (the self-duplication) making it possible to define a measure on the consistent extensions, which, I repeat are scattered in UD*. You have still not explain to me how you predict your reasonably next experience in the simple WM duplication. Nor, a fortiori, how the 1-person can take into account the delay of reconstitution accessed by the UD (which is necessary to do if you want single out one program in UD* and one computation. With comp we must take all computations into consideration. See http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m3044.html for links to more explanations. Others find it increasingly plausible because our own, currently quite primitive virtual realities are getting more sophisticated all the time. We observe a speed-up factor of 10^6 every 20 years, possibly 10^30 in the ongoing century. More and more people, especially kids, are in regular contact with virtual realities, and to them the new religion may seem just like a natural extrapolation. Good argument, corresponding to a new version of the old dream argument. Good argument for comp, but nocturnal dream recall us also that certainty of being awake relatively to a neighborhood does not entails that neighborhood is our true neighborhood. Remembering dreams (especially the common non lucid one) can help to anticipate the possibility of inconsistency ([]f, A theorem of G* which is not a theorem of G, although G proves t - []f). I mean []f is a typical true and anticipable but non provable proposition by self-observing sound machines. Both the thought experiences and their arithmetical translations illustrates our necessary ignorance about which sheaf of coherent computations we belong to. Comp, without QM, entails strong form of non trivial indeterminacy and non-locality. Look at http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m2855 for a purely arithmetical interpretation of Bell original inequality (cf [] = godel provability predicate, = -[]-, p represent \Sigma_1 sentence (= UD accessible). Is that inequality violated in the UTM mindscape? Open question (although there are argument showing that it would be quite astonishing that those inequalities are not violated. Before going into such technics it would help us if you told us what is wrong with the comp 1-person indeterminism in the simple self-duplication experiment. We discuss that before, but I am still not sure to be able to make sense of your critics. Bruno
Re: Immortality
Hello- K. S. Ryan wrote: Religion is a system of beliefs describing our place in the cosmos. RW: Better go back and look up the word religion again. KSR: I'm pretty comfortable with the English language, but I looked it up anyway. I stand by my definition. I've never found a spiritual system that did not proffess to tell the truth about existance from the macro to the micro. The role of religion is to explain universal truths, and ask that we act accordingly. Prophets describe our place in the cosmos by explaining universal principles. Fundamentalists of all sorts are in conflict with the modern world because universal principles are increasingly scientific, secular, and physically practical. Old school religions are losing market share to the modern world. But the modern world does not offer a unified system of belief describing our place in the universe. RW: I think this is an uneducated conclusion. That is if you continue to misusethe term religion in a consistent fashion. KSR: Uneducated? Au contraire! These are carefull observations, and commonly reflected by others. If you study this topic at all, you will have noticed consistant repetitions across many disciplines, i'e anthropology, political science, sociology, demographics... RW: The creation of old-world dogma was for the benefit of the young souls that by virtue of their own mis-expression, demanded a harsh dogma and religious expression to find their way back to god. KSR: No. Harsh dogma is originally a survival strategy. Ethics is the economics of self preservation. Jews and Moslems forbid eating pig because of parasites in the meat. The Golden Rule, do unto others as you would like to be done, is basic self preservation. Years later, original reasons for dogma become obsolete through sanitation or cultural evolution. Simultaneously, over time the prophets' messages ossify into rote ritual. Fundamentalists have lost the meaning behind the message. The wisdom of a prophet's words are in the background, not the surface. It is analogy. But the symbolism used to make the original point gets buried by lost context or archaic metaphores. And so fools cling to what is in their hand, which is the bald statement, bleached of symbolic truth. RW: The spiritual principles that these old school religions as you put it arebasedon are just as valid today as they were then. Similar in concept tosaying: electromagnetism wasjust as valid back then as it is today. KSR: Yes. Spiritual principles are eternal, if they are true in the first place. RW: -Those that cooperate and spontaneously express spiritual law out of love of others KSR: Agreed. Some people, probably most people, are unable to expand their self concept to include much of the world beyond themselves. The message of the prophets is that it is all you. RW: mostof these modern worlders are rebelling against the spiritual in favor of theself in theworld. KSR: Intelligent modern worlders don't rebell against the spiritual in favor of the self (though they will lapse, like anyone). But they may rebel against what doesnt make sense to them. It is hard to sell a 5,000 year old God to someone who knows rudimentary physics. Physicists who understand vast swathes of contemporary physics are sometimes so awed by the scale that they start to believe again in higher power. But it is rarely the same God that they left. -Kevin _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: Immortality
Hello- Religion is a system of beliefs describing our place in the cosmos. Tha basic premise of all religions is that we are best when we act in accordance with universal principles. Prophets describe our place in the cosmos by explaining universal principles. Fundamentalists of all sorts are in conflict with the modern world because universal principles are increasingly scientific, secular, and physically practical. Old school religions are losing market share to the modern world. But the modern world does not offer a unified system of beleif describing our place in the universe. Contemporary truths are not packaged as a whole, as a spiritual intellectual-emotional raison d'etre. Thus, while educated modern worlders may not be convinced by old school religious beliefs, there is not a modern unified system to replace them. Because we are human, we think a lot, and need to know what the individual means to the whole. What is our place in the cosmos? That is the question. And there is turbulance. -Kevin _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: Immortality
But there _is_ a modern religion based on universal principles. More precisely, on universal computers. According to the Great Programmer Religion, the Great Programmer wrote a very short program that computes all computable universes. One of them is ours. Some disciples of this religion find it plausible because the short program is the simplest explanation of all observations. Others find it increasingly plausible because our own, currently quite primitive virtual realities are getting more sophisticated all the time. We observe a speed-up factor of 10^6 every 20 years, possibly 10^30 in the ongoing century. More and more people, especially kids, are in regular contact with virtual realities, and to them the new religion may seem just like a natural extrapolation. Juergen Schmidhuber http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/ http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/toesv2/ http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/everything/html.html From: K. S. Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:15:45 Religion is a system of beliefs describing our place in the cosmos. Tha basic premise of all religions is that we are best when we act in accordance with universal principles. Prophets describe our place in the cosmos by explaining universal principles. Fundamentalists of all sorts are in conflict with the modern world because universal principles are increasingly scientific, secular, and physically practical. Old school religions are losing market share to the modern world. But the modern world does not offer a unified system of beleif describing our place in the universe. Contemporary truths are not packaged as a whole, as a spiritual intellectual-emotional raison d'etre. Thus, while educated modern worlders may not be convinced by old school religious beliefs, there is not a modern unified system to replace them. Because we are human, we think a lot, and need to know what the individual means to the whole. What is our place in the cosmos? That is the question. And there is turbulance.
Re: Immortality
Also the personal religion question: what is religion? What man does to hide himself from himself. definitely not the fable with the old bearded gentleman in the nightgown. Some alternate concepts on god in terms of observations (made by me) -when a man wants his way with a beautiful woman, he wants the god in her. -the opposite sex is a physical shape for something that has no shape. -when you are having sex with your partner, you are having sex with god -all things embody the trinity principle in some form: mother, father, son principle/s. For anything to live, there must be a balance of all three in some expression. For humanity, it is seen externally as man, woman, and child. -when you feel pleasure or ecstasy, your consciousness is operating in heaven (while on earth) -Jesus The Christ could raise the dead, because his consciousness became one with the principles behind physical life (among other things) -We are all the christ, we just don't know it. If we did, we could raise the dead and walk on water as well. We would no longer be separate from the things around us (in consciousness) -The spirit christ is consciousness. -God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent -The spirit Christ is god manifest in his creation It's not my intent to be preachy, I just can't stand seeing people embrace the old man in the white gown thing as the only explanation of god and christ. Robert W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone. http://phone.yahoo.com
RE: Immortality
--- Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: rwas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2001 3:08 p.m. Sequential, temporal, in-the-box thinking is not how to transcend the physical in my view. I think some of the people here would argue that you *can't* transcend the physical (or possibly the computational). I appreciate that that sounds very in-the-box, but if you look at the sort of thing physicists (who *tend* to be materialists - not always) have come up with in last 20-30 years, I'd say there has definitely been *some* jumping out of the box... including quite a lot by David Deutsch. In addition, if there is anything my own personal journey has taught me is that to breach boundaries in understanding, must discard preconceived notions. It would seem that if one were interested in truth, one adopt a realm of purely abstract thinking to find answers to such an esoteric question as consciousness. But what I feel is happening here is an attempt to force understanding to fit an almost certainly flawed initial assumption about existence. I agree. Every breakthrough in human thought has been at the expense of preconceived notions. Are you saying we *should* adopt a realm of purely abstract thinking to find answers to such an esoteric question as consciousness ? (If so I think a lot of the people here would agree - the approach using computationalism is VERY abstract). However - what I'm most interested to know is, what is the almost certainly flawed initial assumption about existence ? Charles That time is the fundamental basis for expression or state change: I've gone at length about my theories of timeless consciousness. if you are interested, I can repost. Dimention: that a body must be the locus of computation, or the place that consciousness resides, That the body is not simply a shape for an N-dimentional object that intersects with 4-space, That an observer is seperate from what he observes, cause-and-efect: that fliping a lightswitch causes the light to come on.., (sure, it looks that way, but are our observations flawed by by nature of being immersed in the system observed?) states of consciousness: for one, through my investigations I have found that a person dreams constantly, and typically can only recall such events after having been asleep. There was a comment about discounting observations that cannot be duplicated in a common forum: ie., what one dreams cannot be proved or theorized upon because it cannot be analyized in the physical... Since consciousness is an undefined quagmire in which everybody includes whatever one's digestive tract dictates, I deny the use of such in serious discussions. We can talk about the single concepts of ideation which may or may not be included into one's private consciousness concept. Neither am I impressed by the marvels of the psychology of the machine, especially if it may include mystical fantasies (OOOPS: experiences). Somewhere I seek a line between things to be taken seriously and the fantasy-fables. So, not wanting to open the door to the Brothers Grimm or to Andersen, I rest my case. Sorry, rwas, about your experiences. ...John Mikes At least that is my take on this opinion. I'd have to say that this apears to be a defense of a personal religion than the defense of an investigative method that discounts data for which has direct bearing on the subject investigated. I'm appauled that one could allow himself to attempt to develop a serious theory of consciouness while aparently having no respect for the only source of information and data on the phenomenon, which is the people that claim to posses it. There are documented cases of mystics altering their physiology through concentration and providing outstanding exceptions to conclusions of those bodily functions previously ruled to be impossible to manipulate consciously. If we claim to be lovers of truth by claiming to be scientists, we should readily embrace truth and all roads to it and cast away all that would seperate us from it. Robert W. __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
Re: immortality
But I'm still curious to know what you mean by I rest my case. Charles In my post I was denying the experiences after death, knowable while still living. Rwas was upset because of his alleged after death experiences. If it turns out that they are imaginary - i.e. mystical - fantasies, I rest my case because I am a sci-fi writer myself. One 'dreams' about past knowledge, received e.g. in religion classes. Bruno wrote: About mystic experiences I tend to believe awareness or consciousness is sort of degree 1 mystic experiences, and I would not be astonished that the psychology of machine entails a vast number of variate possible mystical experiences, but all belongs to G* minus G and would be uncommunicable/unprovable (like consciousness). Since consciousness is an undefined quagmire in which everybody includes whatever one's digestive tract dictates, I deny the use of such in serious discussions. We can talk about the single concepts of ideation which may or may not be included into one's private consciousness concept. Neither am I impressed by the marvels of the psychology of the machine, especially if it may include mystical fantasies (OOOPS: experiences). Somewhere I seek a line between things to be taken seriously and the fantasy-fables. So, not wanting to open the door to the Brothers Grimm or to Andersen, I rest my case. Sorry, rwas, about your experiences. John Mikes
re: immortality
John Mikes wrote: Somehow I missed rwas's reply detailing those 'experiences. Could anybody supply them to me? Or perhaps C. Goodwin himself who now wrote: Mystic experiences of course. Experiences which have rendered understanding which makes participating in the predominate discourse found on this list very painful to endure. Sequential, temporal, in-the-box thinking is not how to transcend the physical in my view. Maybe this paragraph is the answer. In which case I rest my case. It was not Goodwin's answer you quoted, but rwas's one. So indeed that paragraph is the answer or part of the answer you seek. About mystic experiences I tend to believe awareness or consciousness is sort of degree 1 mystic experiences, and I would not be astonished that the psychology of machine entails a vast number of variate possible mystical experiences, but all belongs to G* minus G and would be uncommunicable/unprovable (like consciousness). But I am skeptical about *direct* use of mystic experiences *against* attempts of third person communications among searchers. (Note that there could be positive inspirations from *any* personal experience, mystic or not). Bruno
RE: Immortality
-Original Message- From: rwas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2001 3:08 p.m. Sequential, temporal, in-the-box thinking is not how to transcend the physical in my view. I think some of the people here would argue that you *can't* transcend the physical (or possibly the computational). I appreciate that that sounds very in-the-box, but if you look at the sort of thing physicists (who *tend* to be materialists - not always) have come up with in last 20-30 years, I'd say there has definitely been *some* jumping out of the box... including quite a lot by David Deutsch. In addition, if there is anything my own personal journey has taught me is that to breach boundaries in understanding, must discard preconceived notions. It would seem that if one were interested in truth, one adopt a realm of purely abstract thinking to find answers to such an esoteric question as consciousness. But what I feel is happening here is an attempt to force understanding to fit an almost certainly flawed initial assumption about existence. I agree. Every breakthrough in human thought has been at the expense of preconceived notions. Are you saying we *should* adopt a realm of purely abstract thinking to find answers to such an esoteric question as consciousness ? (If so I think a lot of the people here would agree - the approach using computationalism is VERY abstract). However - what I'm most interested to know is, what is the almost certainly flawed initial assumption about existence ? Charles
RE: Immortality
Charles Goodwin wrote: -Original Message- From: Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Perhaps. But if you do that move, everyone is resurrected in everyone, and there is only one person in the multiverse. I don't know. James Higgo was more radical on this, he defended the idea of zero person. With just comp this issue is probably undecidable. I guess comp (perhaps QM too) can lead to a vast variety of incompatible but consistent point of view on those matter. Comp is compatible whith a lot of personal possible interpretations of what is identity. What is possible to prove with comp is the non normative principle according to which personal identity is *in part* necessarily a matter of personal opinion. What remains to do is to compute the real probabilities to backtrack with amnesia compare to the probability to quantum/comp-survive big injuries. I doubt we have currently the tools to do those computations. I will be interested to know the results when you do! The only result I get is that the measure 1 obeys sort of quantum logic (like measure 1 in QM obeys Birkhof-von Neumann QL). Of course the doctrine of reincarnation (it always seemed to me) only requires one soul - a bit like Feynman's one-electron universe, it just zip-zags back and forth... Yes. That is why comp could make altruism an egoist necessity. Bruno
RE: Immortality
--- Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of rwas Eh? If I understood this statement then I must object. I have quite clear memories of before-death, during-death, and after-death. I realize that within the context of the narrow communication style prevailent here that this claim means nothing. But your statement would seem to attempt rewrite my experiences as false by default. I resent that. Mystic experiences of course. Experiences which have rendered understanding which makes participating in the predominate discourse found on this list very painful to endure. Sequential, temporal, in-the-box thinking is not how to transcend the physical in my view. Further more, I notice that despite the ability for the participants in these dialogs to be aware of different clinically demonstrated states of conscious that no attempt to address any but the most simplistic, limited views on consciousness. In addition, if there is anything my own personal journey has taught me is that to breach boundaries in understanding, must discard preconceived notions. It would seem that if one were interested in truth, one adopt a realm of purely abstract thinking to find answers to such an esoteric question as consciousness. But what I feel is happening here is an attempt to force understanding to fit an almost certainly flawed initial assumption about existence. One could easily discard any preconsceived notion about spirituality as well and adopt a purely abstract playground for developing theories. It is a simple matter then to test for fitness of a theory to observable data. I say observable data, not conclusions derived from observable data. That's very interesting. What experiences are you refering to? Charles __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
Re: Immortality
Hello, jamikes wrote: As much as I enjoyed last years's discussions in worldview speculations, I get frustrated by the lately emerged word-playing about concepts used in just different contents from the conventional. May I submit a (trivial) proof for immortality in this sense: Death (of others, meaning not only persons) is a 3rd person (fantasy?), either true or imagined. NOBODY ever experienced his/her own death and the time after such, so immortality is the only thing in consciousness. Eh? If I understood this statement then I must object. I have quite clear memories of before-death, during-death, and after-death. I realize that within the context of the narrow communication style prevailant here that this claim means nothing. But your statement would seem to attempt rewrite my experiences as false by default. I resent that. The world (experienceable worldview) does not include otherwise. To the forgotten things existing in another (branch of?) world: If I 'forgot' something: that dose not necessarily build another world of those things I forgot. Alzheimer patients are not the most efficient Creators. And please do not 'rationalize' about 'near death' and similar fantasies in this respect. These statements *ignore* alternate forms of consciousness. It (in my opinion) arogantly assumes that the consciousness emphasized for sequential thinking and logic is the only perspective worth analyzying and building understanding upon. Excuse my out-of-topic remark to the topic. John Mikes - Original Message - From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 6:30 AM Subject: Re: Conventional QTI = False Hal Finney wrote: Saibal writes: According to the conventional QTI, not only do you live forever, you can also never forget anything. I don't believe this because I know for a fact that I have forgotten quite a lot of things that have happened a long time ago. The consciousness you are aware of cannot access the information. It does not mean it's gone. This is a wreckless assumption. Right, but to make the same argument against QTI you'd have to say, you don't believe this because you have died. But this is not possible. So the analogy is not as good as it looks. You do exist in branches where you have forgotten things, as well as in branches where you remember them. Sounds more like the spiritual model for consciousness. One simply assumes a vehicle for conscious expression and can express (remember etc) based on the capabilites of the vehicle while traveling along the landscape of conscious-all if you will. That is true, but I want to make the point that branches where I survive with memory loss have to be taken into account. In the case of a person suffering from a terminal disease, it is much more likely that he will survive in a branch where he was not diagnosed with the disease, than in a branch where the disease is magically cured. The latter possibility (conventional qti) can't be favoured above the first just because the surviving person is more similar to the original person. You could object that in the first case your consciousness is somehow transferred to a different person (you ``jump´´ to a different branch that separated from the dying branch before you were diagnosed), but I would say that the surviving person has the same consciousness the original person would have if you cured his disease and erased all memory of having the disease. Or you could stop assuming consciousness is sequential and limited to simplistic concepts of identity like: My name is joe and I'm the only expression of awareness of me there is since I'm not aware of anything else Another blatently wreckless assumption. Saibal Robert W. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Immortality
Saibal Mitra wrote: You could object that in the first case your consciousness is somehow transferred to a different person (you ``jump´´ to a different branch that separated from the dying branch before you were diagnosed), but I would say that the surviving person has the same consciousness the original person would have if you cured his disease and erased all memory of having the disease. Perhaps. But if you do that move, everyone is resurrected in everyone, and there is only one person in the multiverse. I don't know. James Higgo was more radical on this, he defended the idea of zero person. With just comp this issue is probably undecidable. I guess comp (perhaps QM too) can lead to a vast variety of incompatible but consistent point of view on those matter. Comp is compatible whith a lot of personal possible interpretations of what is identity. What is possible to prove with comp is the non normative principle according to which personal identity is *in part* necessarily a matter of personal opinion. What remains to do is to compute the real probabilities to backtrack with amnesia compare to the probability to quantum/comp-survive big injuries. I doubt we have currently the tools to do those computations. Bruno
RE: Immortality
-Original Message- From: Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Perhaps. But if you do that move, everyone is resurrected in everyone, and there is only one person in the multiverse. I don't know. James Higgo was more radical on this, he defended the idea of zero person. With just comp this issue is probably undecidable. I guess comp (perhaps QM too) can lead to a vast variety of incompatible but consistent point of view on those matter. Comp is compatible whith a lot of personal possible interpretations of what is identity. What is possible to prove with comp is the non normative principle according to which personal identity is *in part* necessarily a matter of personal opinion. What remains to do is to compute the real probabilities to backtrack with amnesia compare to the probability to quantum/comp-survive big injuries. I doubt we have currently the tools to do those computations. I will be interested to know the results when you do! Of course the doctrine of reincarnation (it always seemed to me) only requires one soul - a bit like Feynman's one-electron universe, it just zip-zags back and forth... Charles
Re: Immortality
I see that according to you Hal Ruhl qualifies as a copy of Hal Finney. - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: jamikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: zondag 9 september 2001 15:06 Onderwerp: Immortality As much as I enjoyed last years's discussions in worldview speculations, I get frustrated by the lately emerged word-playing about concepts used in just different contents from the conventional. May I submit a (trivial) proof for immortality in this sense: Death (of others, meaning not only persons) is a 3rd person (fantasy?), either true or imagined. NOBODY ever experienced his/her own death and the time after such, so immortality is the only thing in consciousness. The world (experienceable worldview) does not include otherwise. To the forgotten things existing in another (branch of?) world: If I 'forgot' something: that dose not necessarily build another world of those things I forgot. Alzheimer patients are not the most efficient Creators. And please do not 'rationalize' about 'near death' and similar fantasies in this respect. Excuse my out-of-topic remark to the topic. John Mikes - Original Message - From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 6:30 AM Subject: Re: Conventional QTI = False Hal Finney wrote: Saibal writes: According to the conventional QTI, not only do you live forever, you can also never forget anything. I don't believe this because I know for a fact that I have forgotten quite a lot of things that have happened a long time ago. Right, but to make the same argument against QTI you'd have to say, you don't believe this because you have died. But this is not possible. So the analogy is not as good as it looks. You do exist in branches where you have forgotten things, as well as in branches where you remember them. That is true, but I want to make the point that branches where I survive with memory loss have to be taken into account. In the case of a person suffering from a terminal disease, it is much more likely that he will survive in a branch where he was not diagnosed with the disease, than in a branch where the disease is magically cured. The latter possibility (conventional qti) can't be favoured above the first just because the surviving person is more similar to the original person. You could object that in the first case your consciousness is somehow transferred to a different person (you ``jump´´ to a different branch that separated from the dying branch before you were diagnosed), but I would say that the surviving person has the same consciousness the original person would have if you cured his disease and erased all memory of having the disease. Saibal
