John, actually I don't want to do that per se. I think that ultimately we live in a
universe described by the very complex ''laws of physics'' that describe the qualia we
experience. Perhaps it is better to say that we are such complex universes. We are
simulated in a universe described by simple laws of physics. Our brains are simulating
us. We shouldn't confuse the hardware with the software....
Saibal
Quoting "jamikes.domain.name.hidden" <jamikes.domain.name.hidden.net>:
>
> And why do you want to restrict a 'person' to a cut view of its neurons
> only?
> Isn't a person (as anything) part of his ambience - in a wider view: of
> the
> totality, with interction back and forth with all the changes that go on?
> Are you really interested only in the dance of those silly neurons?
>
> John M
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Saibal Mitra" <smitra.domain.name.hidden>
> To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 9:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Reasons and Persons
>
>
> >
> > There must exist a ''high level'' program that specifies a person in
> terms
> > of qualia. These qualia are ultimately defined by the way neurons are
> > connected, but you could also think of persons in terms of the
> high-level
> > algorithm, instead of the ''machine language'' level algorithm specified
> by
> > the neural network.
> >
> > The interpolation between two persons is more easily done in the high
> level
> > language. Then you do obtain a continuous path from one person to the
> other.
> > For each intermediary person, you can then try to ''compile'' the
> program
> to
> > the corresponding neural network.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jesse Mazer" <lasermazer.domain.name.hidden>
> > To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 02:29 AM
> > Subject: Re: Reasons and Persons
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Russell Standish wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:15:33PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see why you are so sure about the necessity of passing
> through
> > > > > non-functional brain structures going from you to Napoleon. After
> all,
> > > > > there is a continuous sequence of intermediates between you and a
> > > > > fertilized ovum, and on the face of it you have much more in
> common
> > > > > mentally and physically with Napoleon than with a fertilized ovum.
> > > > > However, technical feasibility is not the point. The point is that
> > *if*
> > > > > (let's say magically) your mind were gradually transformed, so
> that
> > your
> > > >
> > > >We need to be a bit more precise than "magically". In Parfit's book
> he
> > > >talks about swapping out my neurons for the equivalent neurons in
> > > >Napoleon's brain. Sure this is not exactly technically feasible at
> > > >present, but for thought experiment purposes it is adequate, and
> > > >suffices for doing the teleporting experiment.
> > > >
> > > >The trouble I have is that Napoleon's brain will be wired completely
> > > >differently to my own. Substituting enough of his neurons and
> > > >connections will eventually just disrupt the functioning of my brain.
> > >
> > > I agree that Parfit's simple method would probably create a
> nonfunctional
> > > state in between, or at least the intermediate phase would involve a
> sort
> > of
> > > split personality disorder with two entirely separate minds coexisting
> in
> > > the same brain, without access to each other's thoughts and feelings.
> But
> > > this is probably not a fatal flaw in whatever larger argument he was
> > making,
> > > because you could modify the thought experiment to say something like
> > "let's
> > > assume that in the phase space of all possibe arrangements of neurons
> and
> > > synapses, there is some continuous path between my brain and
> Napoleon's
> > > brain such that every intermediate state would have a single
> integrated
> > > consciousness". There's no way of knowing whether such a path exists
> (and
> > of
> > > course I don't have a precise definition of 'single integrated
> > > consciousness'), but it seems at least somewhat plausible.
> > >
> > > Jesse
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/353 - Release Date: 05/31/06
> >
> >
>
>
> >
>
--
_____________________________________________________________________
Tele2 - The company that brings you small bills!
http://www.tele2.nl
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Jun 01 2006 - 11:51:41 PDT