Re: Immortality

From: Saibal Mitra <smitra.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 19:19:24 +0200

I see that according to you Hal Ruhl qualifies as a copy of Hal Finney.

----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "jamikes" <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Aan: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
CC: "Saibal Mitra" <smitra.domain.name.hidden>; "Hal Ruhl" <hjr.domain.name.hidden.com>
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" <smitra.domain.name.hidden>
> To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> 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
>
>
>
Received on Sun Sep 09 2001 - 10:23:53 PDT