From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 01:45:01 MDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jef Allbright [mailto:jef@jefallbright.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2003 2:17 PM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: 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
I could do that, because I am something, and I exist, therefore something
exists. However, I would still conclude that I am not, and "I am" would
still be my most basic axiom (I am not free to vary this!), so I would still
be in the same position.
>
> 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.)
I can't speak for the hive, only for myself. It is my sense of self, of
continuity; something that no mere algorithm should be able to lay claim to.
It is being. Fuck, that makes no sense at all. Sorry.
>
> > 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.
How about this: "I" is that piece of me, as an entity, that experiences. I
exclude all information processing components from this, although they are
undoubtedly required to be present. I feel like there is something left over
that can be termed "I" (and which is somehow pivotal), but I also know that
that can't be the case.
>
> 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.
Yes, this material explanation of self makes a lot of sense, yet I can
imagine a system which fully meets the description, and yet doesn't have
this visceral, fundamental experience of being.
I can't explain it any better than this; I'm really hoping that people out
there know what I'm refering to (or else Solipcism is right after all).
>
> 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 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 01:54:36 MDT