Re: Cryonics and uploading as leaps of faith?

From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 19:03:42 MDT

  • Next message: Mike Lorrey: "Re: Food labels and consumer information (was Re: Protesters swarm Calif. biotech meeting)"

    Emlyn O'regan writes:

    > I'm still stuck on "I exist" => "Something exists" =>
    > I don't exist" => "Nothing exists". Ack.

    I think (but am not sure) you are mixing up your levels of
     abstraction.

    I (undefined and possibly including *nothing*) exist
    does *not* imply that *something* exists.

    Something exists is the axiom it should be on the left in
    your statement above. "you" know "you" exist as
    "something" but not what you exist as.

    The whole point of substitution the I with something was to
    acknowledge that the self the I may not be a fundamental
    or elemental thing. But there is "some" elemental thing
    which "you", in your case, take as truth or you cannot,
    develop a concept of self, indeed you could not suspend
    disbelief in the existence of an external world long
    enough even to have learn its language. The words "self"
    and "solipsism" are older than you. But you have learnt
    to imbue them with meaning as all of us do. I think this
    is because they have utility for you and you were a
    social creature before you knew it.

    What that "something" is that exists can remain undefined
    because you know it exists experientially not just
    intellectually. From infanthood when you were not even
    aware where your self ended and the world started your
    would have created a division between yourself and the
    world as a sort of thesis, tried it, found it worked for you
    and then moved into it. Later your body got boundaries of
    movement control and pleasure pain sensing, and still latter
    you got language. And the whole social interaction thing
    became possible (actually that was happening pre-language).

    Some-thing can exist at the same time as no-thing exists
    because the references are to two different domains.
    Some-thing and no-thing in the same domain is a
    contradiction and breaks contingency but contingency
    is not violated if the domains are different.

    Shit now I am talking clear as mud. :-)

    Ignore me if I am not helping.

    Regards,
    Brett.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 19:10:38 MDT