Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 12

[Michael Allen]

*sigh* why am I writing scripts at home on my day off...I knew this whole "working from home" thing would be a disaster to my routine....

 

[Randall]

Shifting the goal posts a bit.

I don't think so. Maybe you could elaborate.

The question is whether something gets teleported. Something does. The “person pattern.”

How are you defining "pattern" here? Is it synonymous with "plan" or "blueprint"? If so then we're not looking as teleportation as either relocation or a replication, but as a copy of a description.

Sure, some bits of the pattern may get lost in the teleportation. But as long as those changes are trivial, it won’t matter. A copy of Les Miserables is still Les Mis even if a “the” gets changed to a “they.”

In the above case, the teleportation isn't a relocation of the original script. We might as well say the same thing about artwork. Why are originals typically worth more than perfect forgeries?

If parents are able to get a “copy” of their child with a fully identical biological body with all the same memories, temperament, personality, laugh, feel, snuggles, potential, intelligence, etc. It won’t matter.

Perhaps it wouldn't matter to you if the child who came home from school was just a copy of the one that went there in the morning, but I think that you are generally underestimating the value of the original, the one that their mother gave birth to, a changeling would not suffice for most parents who knew.

But but but... If (if!) this technology ever exists, we will completely change the way we think about personhood. (Again, recall that this is exactly what happens on a much slower scale as we age.)

We already covered cellular replacement and aging. There is a difference between the original repairing itself with its own materials, and a copy that's made out of materials that don't belong to the original.

The biological substrate is not what’s important,

As I indicated in the Newsletter, our biology is an essential part of our personhood on several levels for a number of well identified reasons that cannot be so easily dismissed.

it’s the pattern that the substrate embodies.

Again, if "pattern" is it synonymous with "plan" or "blueprint", then that is entirely different than the actual thing it represents. They are nowhere near being one in the same. Otherwise instead of buying a new car, you could just pin the car's blueprints to the wall in the garage, climb in, and drive off. Try as we might, there is no substitute for the genuine you.

Having said that, we still haven't gotten to the loophole or rather ( quasi-loophole ) I alluded to earlier. I'm a bit surprised. Perhaps it will resurface soon. If not, I'll just post it as a question.

 

[Randall]

"A 'thing' is a think" -- Alan Watts ...

Are we really going to accept subjective idealism or solipsism as being the case? Is that what you're doing? Creating a case for that particular perspective? It sort of seems to fit in that if we assume we are the beings creating reality, then we are "trapped between mirrors" of our own making, and cannot ever be sure that we are seeing anything that is truly objective. The needle analogy would fit too. Or am I going down the wrong rabbit hole there?

 

[Soupie]

I don't think so. Maybe you could elaborate.

How are you defining "pattern" here? Is it synonymous with "plan" or "blueprint"? If so then we're not looking as teleportation as either relocation or a replication, but as a copy of a description.

In the above case, the teleportation isn't a relocation of the original script. We might as well say the same thing about artwork. Why are originals typically worth more than perfect forgeries?

Perhaps it wouldn't matter to you if the child who came home from school was just a copy of the one that went there in the morning, but I think that you are generally underestimating the value of the original, the one that their mother gave birth to, a changeling would not suffice for most parents who knew.

We already covered cellular replacement and aging. There is a difference between the original repairing itself with its own materials, and a copy that's made out of materials that don't belong to the original.

As I indicated in the Newsletter, our biology is an essential part of our personhood on several levels for a number of well identified reasons that cannot be so easily dismissed.

Again, if "pattern" is it synonymous with "plan" or "blueprint", then that is entirely different than the actual thing it represents. They are nowhere near being one in the same. Otherwise instead of buying a new car, you could just pin the car's blueprints to the wall in the garage, climb in, and drive off. Try as we might, there is no substitute for the genuine you.

Having said that, we still haven't gotten to the loophole or rather ( quasi-loophole ) I alluded to earlier. I'm a bit surprised. Perhaps it will resurface soon. If not, I'll just post it as a question.

Imagine that humans inhabit the solar system. A problem occurs on Planet X. The need an expert to deal with it. Expert on planet Y teleports to Planet X. He deals with the problem.

I’m not arguing that the original body of the expert wasn’t left behind on Planet Y.

I am arguing that the expert (not his body) was teleported to Planet X.

Original art pieces, childhood dolls, ancient books... any specialness they have is in the eye of the beholder. There is no objective specialness. A near perfect copy would capture all the import stuff. There’s no reason (thus far presented) the same wouldn’t hold for organism.

 

[Randall]

Imagine that humans inhabit the solar system. A problem occurs on Planet X. The need an expert to deal with it. Expert on planet Y teleports to Planet X. He deals with the problem.

I’m not arguing that the original body of the expert wasn’t left behind on Planet Y.

I am arguing that the expert (not his body) was teleported to Planet X.

Original art pieces, childhood dolls, ancient books... any specialness they have is in the eye of the beholder. There is no objective specialness. A near perfect copy would capture all the import stuff. There’s no reason (thus far presented) the same wouldn’t hold for organism.

At this stage, I'm satisfied that we both see each other's points. If I could sum it up, it might be something like, although copies aren't the originals, for all practical intent, they are as good as the originals, even if they don't hold any of the specialness of the originals. So there would be no sense of loss if the avatar of the expert from another planet never arrives at the receiver. There would be no need for a funeral, or any grieving. Presumably the original expert may not even be aware that anything has happened to the avatar. I find this viewpoint very disturbing when considering issues of AI's with consciousness.

 

[Michael Allen]

Are we really going to accept subjective idealism or solipsism as being the case? Is that what you're doing? Creating a case for that particular perspective? It sort of seems to fit in that if we assume we are the beings creating reality, then we are "trapped between mirrors" of our own making, and cannot ever be sure that we are seeing anything that is truly objective. The needle analogy would fit too. Or am I going down the wrong rabbit hole there?

I don't think solipsism is required...remember we aren't talking about epistemology here...epistemology breaks down precisely where it originates with the questioner....how do "WE" know what we [think] "WE" know....all sorts of assumptions explode into the questioner's center of questioning and is a smokescreen surrounding the same...

We can rest assured that everything else is real until we focus our "everything-else-generator" onto "ourselves"

 

[Michael Allen]

A thing is a think...that doesn't mean that every thinks are things

 

[Randall]

I don't think solipsism is required...

The question isn't whether or not subjective idealism or solipsism is required. It's whether or not whatever it is you're getting at amounts to the same thing, and if not, where you think the differences are.

... remember we aren't talking about epistemology here...

It seems to me that epistemology is exactly what you're talking. If not then what is the difference?

... epistemology breaks down precisely where it originates with the questioner....how do "WE" know what we [think] "WE" know....all sorts of assumptions explode into the questioner's center of questioning and is a smokescreen surrounding the same...

That appears to be all epistemological.

We can rest assured that everything else is real until we focus our "everything-else-generator" onto "ourselves"

That is metaphysical.

 

[Soupie]

Presumably the original expert may not even be aware that anything has happened to the avatar. I find this viewpoint very disturbing when considering issues of AI's with consciousness.

I agree that we agree. However, I don't follow that first line above. I'll have to check out that Star Trek episode.

If such "teleportation" were every possible, you could theoretically pull it off without participants fully knowing what was happening. For example, say the planet X scenario did happen, and they did really need an expert. Let's say this expert didn't know "teleportation" existed.

They could lie to him and say his body would be teleported. But then they could just "teleport" his body pattern, and he would be none the wiser. When he opened his eyes in the new copy, it may be like waking up, or even smoother. They could then destroy his original body back on planet Y if they wanted/needed to. Of course that would be tantamount to murder and not strictly necessary, but they could.

 

[Michael Allen]

The question isn't whether or not subjective idealism or solipsism is required. It's whether or not whatever it is you're getting at amounts to the same thing, and if not, where you think the differences are.

It seems to me that epistemology is exactly what you're talking. If not then what is the difference?

That appears to be all epistemological.

That is metaphysical.

I was trying to say my thesis doesn't imply solipsism (probably one of the most epic and retarded "solution" to recursive skepticism)

A "thing" is a "think" with may have triggered this (unexpectedly because I didn't even fathom your point till now...lol)....

But we aren't talking about one thinker in isolation....

The best way to counter such notions is to consider (deeply) the notion of "the They"

Das Man | philosophy

Other articles where das Man is discussed: Martin Heidegger: Being and Time: …the notion of the anonymous das Man—“the They.” Conversely, the possibility of authentic Being-in-the-world seemed to portend the emergence of a new spiritual aristocracy. Such individuals would be capable of heeding...

www.britannica.com

That link is horrible btw...just stop at "The They" and watch solispsism dissolve in it's own acid.

 

[Michael Allen]

I was trying to say my thesis doesn't imply solipsism (probably one of the most epic and retarded "solution" to recursive skepticism)

A "thing" is a "think" with may have triggered this (unexpectedly because I didn't even fathom your point till now...lol)....

But we aren't talking about one thinker in isolation....

The best way to counter such notions is to consider (deeply) the notion of "the They"

Das Man | philosophy

Other articles where das Man is discussed: Martin Heidegger: Being and Time: …the notion of the anonymous das Man—“the They.” Conversely, the possibility of authentic Being-in-the-world seemed to portend the emergence of a new spiritual aristocracy. Such individuals would be capable of heeding...

www.britannica.com

That link is horrible btw...just stop at "The They" and watch solispsism dissolve in it's own acid.

Commenting on my own points because [Gene, Randal, please fix the edit flag...we are adults here] editing is bad

"The They"....an unfortunate overloaded political term that actually within it's depths addresses very fundamental issues

To be clear and brief it is the most incisive way to destroy solipsism....There is no Dasein without The They

 

[Michael Allen]

I am going to drop out from this thread for awhile because I think my situation and circumstances are causing my thoughts to roam chaotically to the detriment of this thread.

I am not thinking clearly and don't want to throw off or deter the fruits of better (and more studied) contributors by my own stupidity.

I'll be back though...once I've figured out how to be comfortable with my current situation.

My brain is drifting like a ship with broken masts and no rudder....reading through my last posts has convinced me that I am chasing my own tail...moving in circles. This subject should not be approached lightly...and I've unfortunately depleted my "sense of humor" reserves.

When life hits you in the face, you stop questioning your basis of being able to BE....

Perhaps this is where the lesson ends...
Perhaps this is where a new lesson begins...

o7

 

[Constance]

@Michael Allen, I hope whatever is going on for you is remediable. Take care.

 

[smcder]

I am going to drop out from this thread for awhile because I think my situation and circumstances are causing my thoughts to roam chaotically to the detriment of this thread.

I am not thinking clearly and don't want to throw off or deter the fruits of better (and more studied) contributors by my own stupidity.

I'll be back though...once I've figured out how to be comfortable with my current situation.

My brain is drifting like a ship with broken masts and no rudder....reading through my last posts has convinced me that I am chasing my own tail...moving in circles. This subject should not be approached lightly...and I've unfortunately depleted my "sense of humor" reserves.

When life hits you in the face, you stop questioning your basis of being able to BE....

Perhaps this is where the lesson ends...
Perhaps this is where a new lesson begins...

o7

Good for you.

 

[smcder]

Shifting the goal posts a bit.

The question is whether something gets teleported. Something does. The “person pattern.”

Sure, some bits of the pattern may get lost in the teleportation. But as long as those changes are trivial, it won’t matter. A copy of Les Miserables is still Les Mis even if a “the” gets changed to a “they.”

Re your doll analogy and the old man’s book analogy. Trivial.

If parents are able to get a “copy” of their child with a fully identical biological body with all the same memories, temperament, personality, laugh, feel, snuggles, potential, intelligence, etc. It won’t matter.

But but but... If (if!) this technology ever exists, we will completely change the way we think about personhood.

(Again, recall that this is exactly what happens on a much slower scale as we age.)

The biological substrate is not what’s important, it’s the pattern that the substrate embodies.

So "beaming" down like in Star Trek would be to pulp the book, then ship it to another library where they would take the pulp and "press" (?) it out into paper and then re-print the book. {correct?) I think that would definitely devalue your first edition ... ;-) I also wouldn't want it done to my kid.

What you are talking about is just sending the PDF to planet X or Y and printing it off there. Correct? Just making a copy doesn't change my idea of selfhood. Now there are two kids and I would want both. If you destroy the original (kid), I would have you copied and executed, over and over and ... ;-) well, maybe not but it's a short story idea: "The Engine of Destruction"

Now in order for "one" (me) to accept destruction and replacement, then yes the way we think about personhood would have to change.

 

[smcder]

Now, if you beamed all of me to planet x or y and I was aware the whole time (not sure how that would work if it was instantaneous, but let's say it's at the speed of light, then that could take a while, but if I experienced it, I would probably do that, at least for "short" trips. Similarly, if you broke me down to some kind of "atomic" form (like a compressed file or like dehydration) and I also had the experience of being transported, I would accept that. And that would have a bonus of telling us something about consciousness...that ties this discussion back to the one about painkillers.

All of me
Why not take all of me
Can't you see
I'm no good without me

Take my lips
I want to lose them
Take my arms
I'll never use them
...

You took the part
That once was my heart
So why not, why not
Take all of me?

All of me
Come on get all of me
Can't you see
I'm just a mess without me!

 

[Randall]

I agree that we agree. However, I don't follow that first line above. I'll have to check out that Star Trek episode.

If such "teleportation" were every possible, you could theoretically pull it off without participants fully knowing what was happening. For example, say the planet X scenario did happen, and they did really need an expert. Let's say this expert didn't know "teleportation" existed.

They could lie to him and say his body would be teleported. But then they could just "teleport" his body pattern, and he would be none the wiser. When he opened his eyes in the new copy, it may be like waking up, or even smoother. They could then destroy his original body back on planet Y if they wanted/needed to. Of course that would be tantamount to murder and not strictly necessary, but they could.

On some further contemplation, we might recall that the problem of copies is also portrayed in The Matrix Reloaded. At first this may seem like a cheap theatrical ploy. Just multiply something popular a hundred times and everyone will love it. Right? That didn't work out quite as expected, but there still remains the underlying philosophical question of individuality or "me-ness". Is the Agent Smith all Agent Smiths? Once again, The Matrix rules ...

 

[smcder]

Imagine that humans inhabit the solar system. A problem occurs on Planet X. The need an expert to deal with it. Expert on planet Y teleports to Planet X. He deals with the problem.

I’m not arguing that the original body of the expert wasn’t left behind on Planet Y.

I am arguing that the expert (not his body) was teleported to Planet X.

Original art pieces, childhood dolls, ancient books... any specialness they have is in the eye of the beholder. There is no objective specialness. A near perfect copy would capture all the import stuff. There’s no reason (thus far presented) the same wouldn’t hold for organism.

In this and the child case, it's a matter of degree, suppose something goes wrong and the copy/teleport machines go down indefinitely, so to make it up to the couple waiting on their child and the person in need of expertise, I am physically going to send someone very very very similar, (we could send the original child (if we haven't destroyed it or maybe we will use that child to make a clone) but it will take 7 years and your child would then be a teenager (yikes!) so we will send an infant and along the way we will simulate their growing up with two people very like you and your wife and re-create the memories to a very high degree. According to the same view of personhood above this should be acceptable exactly to the degree that we get this process right and we will refund your money accordingly, instead of being completely unacceptable under the current view.

 

[smcder]

Imagine that humans inhabit the solar system. A problem occurs on Planet X. The need an expert to deal with it. Expert on planet Y teleports to Planet X. He deals with the problem.

I’m not arguing that the original body of the expert wasn’t left behind on Planet Y.

I am arguing that the expert (not his body) was teleported to Planet X.

Original art pieces, childhood dolls, ancient books... any specialness they have is in the eye of the beholder. There is no objective specialness. A near perfect copy would capture all the import stuff. There’s no reason (thus far presented) the same wouldn’t hold for organism.

I'd also charge you with "pre-murder" since the copy of my child is seven at birth, you will have robbed him (or more correctly the universe, I will argue, of the first seven years of his (the new individual's life) which surely would have been very different from his copy and which he had a right to, also, will he live an extra seven years? If not, I'll charge you with "post-murder".

This is fun!

If there is something deeper afoot with consciousness, then a newborn seven year old might not work. In other words, how do we know we have made that exact copy if we don't know everything about consciousness?

 

[smcder]

But what makes "people" have a uniqueness even under the conditions of perfect replication?

Are you doing to rely on you're own "experience" of being a copy? We understand what it means to "copy" something static in a way that all of what we deem to be "important" is the same...but a copy is NEVER exactly the same as the "original" (as if)...

We cannot think in terms of the objects we think we comprehend....and thus we cannot retro-fit objectivity into a system that supercedes and creates the BASIS for both "objective" and "subjective"...we cannot fit a full meaning of being in the very entity or object...or subject...or any verbal or mental division of being into a box that supercedes the very entity that creates the "box"...

We get back to the very simple point....that the very point of the needle of being cannot "prick" itself

This is so obvious...I feel as though I am a broken record.

It does seem obvious, if true, so why do you think people aren't responding to it or accepting the point? (If they aren't.)