MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Dave,
-Does this mean that if we could produce a duplicate self, OOFLam would be wrong?
Exactly why do you think that?
Hans
Dave,
-Does this mean that if we could produce a duplicate self, OOFLam would be wrong?
Dave,
-Does this mean that if we could produce a duplicate self, OOFLam would be wrong?
Dave,
-Does this mean that if we could produce a duplicate self, OOFLam would be wrong?
Once more with feeling: The self is not a thing.
Exactly why do you think that?
Hans
Does this mean that if we could produce a duplicate self, OOFLam would be wrong?
...or oxygen deprivation during NDEs ... but the true believers will find there new evidence for their arbitrary "souls" to be eternal. What an immorality!
Jabba.
Take a match and light it. You now have a fire. Take the first match and light a second match. You now have two fires. Blow out one of the matches. You now have one fire.
Did any part of that not make sense? Did you just have a crisis of faith over which one is the original fire and if the second fire became the first fire or if the matches had some special magical fire that was in them just waiting to be let out or where the first fire went when you blew it out?
No? Okay then.
I am fond of that analogy though.
The flame is a process.
Once the fuel runs out, the flame dies.
The flame is in all likelihood unique in its particular configuration.
You can also get to the 'the cave' or the 'tunnel of light' by pressing on your eyeballs with the lids closed.
I can open gates to other dimensions!
I used to do that when I was a child, and I only managed to get the pointillistic geometrical patterns, mostly in green and red that were depicted 20 to 50 thousand years ago in ancient caves (a fact I learnt like 35 years later).
I'm getting odd patterns of light. I remember dancing geometric patterns in color when I was a child. Now I'm worried about that.
It has been silent for a while from the OP, which means
-a fringe reset to a different sub sub sub topic
-a 75 line post is coming again where he re-states with slightly different punctuation what he has restated many times already.
It has been silent for a while from the OP, which means
-a fringe reset to a different sub sub sub topic
-a 75 line post is coming again where he re-states with slightly different punctuation what he has restated many times already.
Naw, it comes with being immortal. You have plenty of time for everything so there's no rush. Back when I was immortal I was the same way.
What was it like? Were you bored? I'd figure after the 10 billionth pizza, I would have had enough of life.
I don't know how it might have been, my immortality only lasted through my 20's. But it was great while it did.![]()
Dave and Sparrow,
- I see this as equivalent to the Mt Rainier and the Texas Sharpshooter arguments. Do you agree?
- If so, I agree that this issue deserves more consideration. And, for now at least, I also think that it is the weakest part of my argument.
Yes.
Dave,
- Good.
- Sorry this is taking so long, but for me, the issue/reasoning is very complicated and difficult to put together (though, I feel 99% sure I'm right).
- How is my sense of a particular and continuous self different from Mt Rainier, a bucket of sand thrown on a floor and random bullet holes on the side of a barn -- when it comes to the likelihood of my current existence -- given modern science vs the likelihood of Mt Rainier, etc, given modern science? (Sorry about that.)
- Apparently, a personal sense of continuous self is an intrinsic/inherent aspect of (the emergent property of) consciousness, and it cannot be reproduced -- when there is no aspect of the other situations that cannot be reproduced.
- That is a way that it's different -- but, does that difference make my sense of self a legitimate "E" in the Bayes formula for P(H|E), when the existence of Mt Rainier is not? I'll be back.
Dave,
- My best guess, so far, as to why the current existence of MPSoCS (my particular sense of continuous self) makes for a legitimate Bayesian target, when other extremely unlikely 'events' (such as Mt Rainier) do not, is that in order to make for such a target, it needs to be set apart from other selves in a critical way (like the 2nd cousin of the controller of the lottery in regard to winning the lottery).
- And, at least in a sense, it is -- in that the other selves are only apparent -- mine is for sure. (Keep in mind that I accept that MPSoCS may be only a process or illusion -- just that, in such a sense, it is real.)
- Anyway, so far, I think that is the critical factor -- even though, I fully expect that your MPSoCS is also set apart...
- Confusing, but...
- Clearly, we have spent a goodly amount of time dealing with this issue -- so, much of what I have to say I have said already. Hopefully, I can add something more convincing, or just say what I've already said more convincingly.
- My sense of self, even if just a process or illusion, is still the only 'thing' that I know exists.
- And, if it didn't exist, there might as well be nothing -- it would be as if there were nothing – because, this self is the only observer I have.
- And, if my self never exists, there might as well never be anything...
- See what I mean?
- Probably not. But, I’ll keep tryin.
- And then, as there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit as to the number of selves possible. I was, in that sense, brand new -- created out of nothing (an inherent part of an emergent property)-- and the likelihood of my self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is only 7 billion over infinity.
- My existence under OOFLam would be an ENORMOUS coincident. I would be DAMNED lucky! And, I’m the only one I have!
As far as everyone else, including the copy of Dave, was concerned, yes, because the duplicate self would be identical in every respect to the original...
Dave,
-Does this mean that if we could produce a duplicate self, OOFLam would be wrong?
- I've been sick...No. Because two is more than one.