RE: many worlds theory of immortality

From: Lee Corbin <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 22:44:48 -0700

Bruno writes

> [Lee writes]
> > But many here contend that abstract
> > patterns---mathematical stings, really---can do *so* much cross-
> > referencing and quoting of each other that a form of paste obtains
> > that wields them in to something capable of having experiences.
> > But a familiar abstract object, namely the real numbers between zero
> > and one, evidently already does all of that (considering the decimal
> > or binary expressions), and so I'm not sure what remains for the
> > more abstruse inhabitants of Platonia to do.
>
> Such critics can be addressed to any "block-universe" view of physics,
> not just mathematical platonia.

I believe that the discussions have established that many people
have something broader in mind when they use the term "block
universe". But you could be right: best usage may be as you say.

> > I can't blame the ancients and moderns up to the 19th century
> > for being dualists. It seemed utterly impossible that mere
> > atoms in motion could give rise to such as we. But the painful
> > ---and painstaking---defeat of vitalism achieved finally in
> > the 20th century leaves it the simplest hypothesis by far to
> > say that we are machines. Our "souls" and we arise by natural
> > means, just as do streams and mountains.
>
>
> Look at my recent posts to the FOR-LIST, which I have cc-send to the
> everything-list just two minutes ago.

Okay, and under the same Subject, I am writing this to both lists.

> I agree the abandoning of vitalism is progress. And it is true that
> natural science has explained features like self-reproduction,
> animal motion, energy transformation (sun -> living matter) and so
> on. But it is just erroneous to conclude that the mind-body problem
> has been solved.

No, it is not "just erroneous". I know of many thoughtful
people, and include myself as one of them, who believe that
the so-called mind body problem is some sort of verbal or
linguistic problem. We see it as arising most likely in the
minds of people who think there must be a deeper explanation
for why highly advanced products of natural selection can
report their internal states.

> And then if we are really "digital machine", I offer a case
> that materialism will be abandoned from purely rational
> consideration. Matter? A lasting aristotelian superstition ...

Well, you could be right! The jury's still out! :-)

> > Observer-moments seems to arise simply from observers,
>
> Except that nobody has ever succeed in explaining how the 1-person
> observer moment can arise from any 3-person description of an observer.

And the aforesaid "we" don't think that anything needs explaining.
Almost everyone reading this believes that an AI program could be
written such that even if you single-step through it, it will
report on its feelings, and that they'll be no less genuine than
ours. And from this, I conclude that in all likelihood, there really
isn't a problem.... :-)

Lee
Received on Sat May 14 2005 - 01:51:35 PDT