From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 18:19:17 MDT
Personally, I've been finding continuing thinking on the nature of
consciousness quite unsettling. The problem is as follows:
Axiom: I am.
Tenuous hypothesis 1: I have sensory input implying other stuff, and so it
is too.
Tenuous hypothesis 2: I am part of the set of other stuff.
(much deduction, investigation, leading to negation of concept of conscious
self; self is an illusion, "I" am just a pattern of information)
I find that if I take Tenuous Hypotheses 1 & 2 as axioms, I produce the
result:
Result: I am not.
By my original axiom, I now have A and ~A. I've just flushed reality down
the toilet. What is existence?
I can't fault the materialist viewpoint, because I can't support the
alternative; the closer I look, the more it appears that there is no
possible role at all for any proposed non-physical piece of consciousness.
So intelligent thought is a purely physical phenomenon, about information
processing. Which means that "I" am not; "I" am an illusion (fooling who?
what?).
I can only find paradox at the base of any search for an explanation of the
only phenomenon in the universe that I can definitely call axiomatic (that I
am). To me, it is more clearly evident than the existence of anything else.
But apparently it cannot be true.
Help.
Emlyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett Paatsch [mailto:paatschb@optusnet.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2003 5:58 AM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: Re: Cryonics and uploading as leaps of faith?
>
>
> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 writes:
>
> > Of course it is correct that we do not yet know as much as
> > we should on brain and consciousness. At the same time
> > the point that I am trying to make is independent of a
> > particular mechanism of consciousness:
> >
> > Question A: does the uploaded copy of person X wake up
> > thinking and feeling that (s)he is X? Does (s)he feel continuity
> > with X (going to sleep - waking up)?
>
> Yes and yes. Assuming, as we have been, that the upload works.
>
> Indeed the test of whether the upload has worked is likely to be
> does Xprime think (s)he is X and does everyone else relate to
> Xprime as X.
>
> > This is a scientific question that can be answered with a simple
> > experiment: just ask the uploaded copy of X. I assume the
> > answer depends on the details of a uploading technology, like
> > how much and what kind of information it is able to copy and
> > restore. I think this technology is a few decades away at least,
> > but it seems reasonable to think that it will be developed sooner
> > or later.
>
> Well, the uploading technology is unlikely to be *built* until it can
> be designed. Seems we are unlikely to be satisfied with the design
> until we have a better understanding of what we take for
> "consciousness" and the "self".
>
> > Question B: assuming that the answer to Question A is yes (the
> > uploaded copy feels that (s)he is X), is (s)he REALLY X?
> >
> > This does not look like a scientific question, since its formulation
> > is such that it cannot be verified or falsified.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem: There are certain propositions
> that are true that cannot be proven.
>
> Do you think the consciousness of any other person you know
> is a scientifically veriable hypothesis? I think it can only
> be inferred.
>
> Do you think your own is even to you? I think it can only be
> assumed.
>
> Without assuming it you have *no base* from which to formulate
> scientific questions or any other types of questions.
>
> > Of course we still tend to feel uneasy: when it comes to survival,
> > everyone is the Most Selfish Individual. We cannot help thinking
> > that Question B matters very much. The answer that I choose is:
> > it does not matter.
>
> A leap of faith?
>
> > I can accept as a continuation of my current
> > identity any conscious being who thinks that he is a continuation
> > of my current identity. I could not go to sleep if I could not
> > accept this.
>
> A leap of faith for peace of mind?
>
>
> > Brett:
> > > Because I don't *know* enough about how my consciousness
> > > and the experience of self-hood manifests to assume that it can
> > > persist completely decoupled from a matter substrate for any
> > > length of time. My current thinking is no substrate means no
> > > conscious processing (or unconscious processing either). No
> > > consciousness process means no self concept process. In short
> > > I assume that no brain means a discontinuation of me because it
> > > seems prudent to do so.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 18:28:52 MDT