Re: Cryonics and uploading as leaps of faith?

From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 22:47:18 MDT

  • Next message: Jef Allbright: "Re: Cryonics and uploading as leaps of faith?"

    Emlyn -

    I think you can avoid the contradiction by modifying your Axiom 1 from "I
    exist (am)" or "I think" to "Something exists", or "Something thinks". I
    think this would serve the intended purpose in the logical argument you
    described.

    - Jef

    Emlyn O'regan wrote:
    > Personally, I've been finding continuing thinking on the nature of
    > consciousness quite unsettling. The problem is as follows:
    >
    > Axiom: I am.

    (What is this "I" the human speaks of? We in the hive find this concept to
    be very strange.)

    > 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).

    It is axiomatic that *something* exists, but not that *I* exist since this
    would require defining what what *I* is, and this leads to that circular
    reasoning that's troubling you.

    There is no self separate from the rest of the universe. The concept of
    self is a process that evolved within certain replicating patterns of the
    universe due to its utility to the survival and further propagation of those
    patterns. The concept of "self" (everything inside) and "not self"
    (everything outside) is fundamental to virtually all complex processes that
    promote survival and thus propagation of the organism. No wonder its so
    difficult to see.

    To me, it is more clearly evident than the
    > existence of anything else. But apparently it cannot be true.
    >
    > Help.
    > Emlyn

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 22:57:46 MDT