From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 22:21:02 MDT
Emlyn O'regan writes:
> > Emlyn O'regan writes:
> >
> > > I'm still stuck on "I exist" => "Something exists" =>
> > > I don't exist" => "Nothing exists". Ack.
> >
> Brett Paasch wrote:
> > 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.
>
> (I've snipped the rest of what you said; I need to think about
> it more, and get back to it)
I just reread some. Sorry a couple of comma's missing that
would have helped. This is not the sort of area where my
sloppy typing, grammar or punctuation is likely to be helpful.
> I postulate that I is something; that's my axiom. I exist.
> I am, and I am something, therefore something exists.
Seems you are using "I" in the sense of the Cartesian "I".
Eg. "I think, therefore I am".
At the level of abstraction at which you are operating, "I"
may not, in fact be a particular thing. In the same way as,
at the cellular level your "body" is not one thing and your
"brain" is not one thing.
At this level, to say "I" exist, as an axiom is to include an
unclear term (a term unclear to you and carrying a different
meaning to others in your axiom) If what you mean by "I"
is not clear to you then it is not a fact its just a word and
you do not have a valid (a meaningful) axiom.
> As I've said, I could start from "Something exists", but it
> won't change the fact the "I exist" would also be axiomatic;
Although it sounds counter-intuitive, at the level you are talking
"I" exist is, imo, *not* a fact, it is a statement without meaning
because you have no clear and distinct notion of what the "I" is.
>I know it to be true (that's the point of this whole discussion).
Where "it" means ' "I" am ' I think you are mistaken here.
(NB: I in this sentence is used at different levels of abstraction
we would probably be better off coining a new term like
Iprime to preserve associations but not different contexts.)
<snip>
> Why I bring this up is the following: If there is no "I", if "I" am
> merely a self-reinforcing, self replicating pattern of information,
> what is my driver to prolong the existence of said pattern?
> Why would I want to continue it, or copy it?
Because at a more fundamental level, a level that is older
than the evolutionarily acquired trait of consciousnes that
gives you the concept of a self and an I, you and your
ancestors before you contained a "drive" to survive. The
whole conscious thing is an accessory to that. Had your
ancestors not had that trait you would not be a creature
capable of consciousness and self awareness. The drive
to survive can exist without consciousness but not vice
versa.
I think. I am not absolutely certain here.
> In other words, if there is no self, then why do I care
> about life extension, uploading, issues of teleportation
> or even staying alive one more minute?
Nature has "programmed" (evolution has selected) you
to act to survive and consciousness when it emerges either
works with the program or is selected against.
> What is (can be) the point of it, if all I am is bits in the
> information maelstrom?
There is no externally defined point. The brute fact of your
existence and consciousness require no point. You have
the opportunity, or the obligation however, you choose to
view it to come up with your own point.
Your existence preceded any point. You (we) are, as
Sartre said, "condemned to be free" you (we) must decide
your own meaning or have none.
- Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 22:27:55 MDT