28 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetleBut we have to take if for granted! Thoughts and experience are all meaningless, unless we take it as self-evident that the I which is thinking and experiencing exists.
I enjoy this thread big time🙂
It seems to me that almost all of you, amici miei, you attempt to take “Self” for granted through Experience -Your experience, that is; I make this assumption because you are all talking about the necessity of establishing specific standards that you attribute to “Self”, which they all are grounded in the World 2 and th ...[text shortened]... this approach they force me to separate not myself from the truth of my insubstantiality😵
The task is then to find a consistent definition of the self. There is no other choice.
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by PalynkaHey Palynka, have a good time!
But we have to take if for granted! Thoughts and experience are all meaningless, unless we take it as self-evident that the I which is thinking and experiencing exists.
The task is then to find a consistent definition of the self. There is no other choice.
Of course there is another choise: I am aware of the fact that my thoughts and my experience are phenomenal and I feel OK -no contradictions at all. Why you say that there is not another choise? Oh where is my brother Bosse de Nage when I need him?!
On the other hand, what is your definition of the "Self"?
😵
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetleI think we more or less agree on how we drive, however I maintain that our brains are capable of carrying out significantly complex functions that we are not normally aware of.
Also, the way you perceive how we drive is false. The fact that we drive without being forced to think "...now I will do this and now I will do that" it means not that our brain does not evaluate the whole procedure, but that rather through constant training our ability to decipher the differ indications and the signs of the environmental conditions, al ...[text shortened]... brain "a minimum of data".
And of course consiousness must not be confused with awareness.
The key issue I was getting at is that people often think that if you do not consciously make the decision then it is reflexive and therefore requires no calculation. This is simply not true. Our brains are capable of highly complex activity that goes on without conscious thought processes that we are aware of or remember afterwards.
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by PalynkaNo it does not give you a clear exclusion of the case of a copy. You are inserting an artificial wall between the copy and copied. To all intents and purposes the copy is a continuation of the copied with the only real discontinuity being a change of atoms. They copying process is in reality a teleportation of the origional. Even if 'errors' are introduced during this copying (teleportation) that is no different from similar 'errors' being introduced by your continued existence.
On what do you define "significantly larger"? I defined mine based on a dynamically continuous definition of self. This gives me a clear exclusion of the case of a copy, but which is still ambiguous regarding hemispherectomy.
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you know what 'continuous' means?
No it does not give you a clear exclusion of the case of a copy. You are inserting an artificial wall between the copy and copied. To all intents and purposes the copy is a continuation of the copied with the only real discontinuity being a change of atoms. They copying process is in reality a teleportation of the origional. Even if 'errors' are introduce ...[text shortened]... on) that is no different from similar 'errors' being introduced by your continued existence.
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetleTry saying it without personal pronouns. 😵
Hey Palynka, have a good time!
Of course there is another choise: I am aware of the fact that my thoughts and my experience are phenomenal and I feel OK -no contradictions at all. Why you say that there is not another choise? Oh where is my brother Bosse de Nage when I need him?!
On the other hand, what is your definition of the "Self"?
😵
I just see your view as a bit circular. The self must already exist for the thinking and experience to take place...
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadrgr that;
I think we more or less agree on how we drive, however I maintain that our brains are capable of carrying out significantly complex functions that we are not normally aware of.
The key issue I was getting at is that people often think that if you do not consciously make the decision then it is reflexive and therefore requires no calculation. This is simp ...[text shortened]... ty that goes on without conscious thought processes that we are aware of or remember afterwards.
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by PalynkaCmon Pal, my friend, it ain't circular; the term “Myself” can be clarified without contradictions at any level of understanding by means of the Mind-Only philosophy amongst else. Every meditator knows this thing, it's simple and common like a B+N vs K endgame😵
Try saying it without personal pronouns. 😵
I just see your view as a bit circular. The self must already exist for the thinking and experience to take place...
So hurry up, emancipate yourself from the delusion of your substantiality! I wish we could enjoy a straight bica in Sintra or ouzo and some meze in Chalkidiki whilst talking 'bout that😵
29 Apr 09
Originally posted by PalynkaYes I do - I have a degree in Maths. And I assert that there is no significant difference between the continuity of the original to the copy or the original to later states of the original.
Do you know what 'continuous' means?
Once you remove the specific atoms from the equation, we consist of information. We are made up of specific configurations of atoms and those configurations is information.
If I send you an email, you will be quite comfortable thinking of it traveling through cyberspace from my computer to yours, but on its way it is actually copied at every stage of the transmission. If at some point it was copied and sent to another recipient too, you would not be able to give a good argument as to why one version was the original email and the other was the copy.
29 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat you have a degree in Maths, doesn't mean anything. You either don't understand the concept or (more likely) are deliberately misrepresenting it. Think about the Cauchy definition, for example.
Yes I do - I have a degree in Maths. And I assert that there is no significant difference between the continuity of the original to the copy or the original to later states of the original.
Once you remove the specific atoms from the equation, we consist of information. We are made up of specific configurations of atoms and those configurations is inform ...[text shortened]... to give a good argument as to why one version was the original email and the other was the copy.
29 Apr 09
Originally posted by PalynkaCan you give me a reference to the Cauchy definition?
That you have a degree in Maths, doesn't mean anything. You either don't understand the concept or (more likely) are deliberately misrepresenting it. Think about the Cauchy definition, for example.
Do you agree that a simplified view of the brain would be cells each storing information and sending signals to each other?
Now suppose cell A sends a signal to cell B at time T. If the copying process takes place at time T (while the signal is traveling) then both the original B and copy of B will receive the signal from A. Why do you claim that the action of the original receiving the signal is a continuity but the copy receiving the signal is not?
29 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI answered this already.
Can you give me a reference to the Cauchy definition?
Do you agree that a simplified view of the brain would be cells each storing information and sending signals to each other?
Now suppose cell A sends a signal to cell B at time T. If the copying process takes place at time T (while the signal is traveling) then both the original B and copy of B will ...[text shortened]... n of the original receiving the signal is a continuity but the copy receiving the signal is not?
The Cauchy is the standard one. Also sometimes called epsilon-delta definition.
01 May 09
Originally posted by Scriabinthis machine you speak of...what might it run on??
Let me pose a hypothetical problem:
Suppose a device existed that could allegedly transport you from one place to another instantaneously without your having actually to travel between the point from which you depart and the point to which you arrive.
The device would disassemble you, atom by atom, and commit to a computer's memory the pattern of your ...[text shortened]... rded a the departure point -- so it would make no difference.
Would there be a difference?
bio fules???
or..if i were to be so bold!!
OTHER HUMANS!!
instead of the chair..."the teleportation chamber" it has a nice ring to it..