X-Message-Number: 25226 Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 17:49:01 -0800 Subject: We Are The Brain, To Thomas From: <> Dear Thomas: You wrote: "Okay, you haven't used the word 'continuous'. You still haven't defined [sic] adequately just why some hiatus of existence prevents the continued existence of the same QE." Why can't you understand the absurdity of your question? If you destroy the World Trade Center, there is nothing you can do to get back the World Trade Center which was destroyed---nothing short of time travel, that is. If you build a new building, using the same blueprints, then you will have created a new World Trade Center. You won't have created the World Trade Center that was destroyed, by very definition of the very word 'create'! To illustrate the complete nonsense of your position, imagine that by following the blueprint for the World Trade Center, we can obtain the one that was destroyed pre-9/11. If this were possible, then nothing would prevent you from following the blueprint n times, simultaneously if you wished, resulting in the creation of n World Trade Centers. According to your claim, then, we would be forced to conclude that EACH World Trade Center was *the* World Trade Center that was destroyed pre-9/11. This would further force us to conclude they are all the same World Trade Center (in the precise same way that 2 is the same number as 1 + 1), which means (by definition), that they have the exact same set of properties, and that if you change 'one', you change 'all'. Yet this would clearly be refuted by observing that they have different locations, or, more forcefully, by destroying one (the others would not simultaneously be destroyed, but would remain standing). The existences of the buildings would therefore be proved to be independent, which implies they are not the same building (they are not the World Trade Center that was destroyed), which in turn implies it is not possible to obtain the same World Trade Center that was destroyed merely by following a blueprint. Since you had some experience with mathematics, you may recognize this as proof by contradiction. You wrote: "Sure, you present me with 'theorems'. What I'm asking for is the underlying physics and biology (and physiology, biochemistry, etc)." This is like asking me for the physics of why a thing cannot be what it is not. This is not a problem requiring physics to solve--- rather, the problem lies with your misuse of langauge, which is otherwise known as illogic. You wrote: "As you yourself know very well, we change all the time: from psychologically to biochemically. So, in the case of one possibility I discussed, how is it that becoming a record which is then used to recreate me destroys my QE?" This statement is so riddled with confusion I scarcely know where to begin. You are matter and energy, nothing more. Therefore, you cannot 'become a record.' Records do not exist, except as abstract concepts within human minds, and it is most certainly not possible to transform a hunk of matter and energy into a record, and then untransform it back into matter and energy. WHAT YOU CAN DO, is inspect the hunk of matter and energy that is a brain, and jot down notes to yourself on the configuration of this hunk; this can be termed 'brain scanning'. But the notes are mere configurations of matter and energy themselves; they are not a record, nor do they objectively represent a brain. Those notes might enable you (or someone who understood your jargon) to construct a brain, but they have no intrinsic meaning whatsoever. Under some interpretive schemes, they encode the genealogies of alien races, while under others, they describe a rock, and under still others, they form the basis for a grand opera. The point is clear: jotting down notes on some hunk does not transform it into a record, which may then be untransformed into the same hunk at a latter date. The hunk is the hunk. If you destroy it, it is gone forever. You wrote: "For that matter, as I described in my last message, just what difference does a span of time in which we don't exist make to the presence of the same QE in us?" For the umpteenth time: the QE is your brain. If you destroy your brain, it is destroyed. You can obtain an approximation of this brain at a latter date, but you cannot obtain the brain that was destroyed by following a blueprint, as the previous proof by contradiction irrefutably demonstrates. You wrote: "It's not enough here to define the continuation as new. If a QE is physical, then it should be quite possible (in theory) to make an exact copy of it and destroy the previous version. If not, why not? Remember that I'm discussing an exact copy. So how is that EXACT copy not essentially the same?" Precisely in this regard: it is NOT the original, but merely a copy. Why can't you understand that a copy is not the original? If you doubt this, then I challenge you to perform this experiment: 1. Take a thing, anything at all. 2. Copy that thing. 3. Destroy one, either the original or the copy. Was the other one destroyed? If not, then they were NOT the same thing, for to be the same thing, they would have had to share every property, but this is contradicted by the fact that the destruction of the one was not the destruction of the other. You wrote: "And here's another way to look at it: our QE must itself change, for otherwise how could we experience anything at all?" I have told you on many occasions: the brain changes all the time, including all the circuits comprising the qualia experiencer; but what ensures our survival is the fact that the brain is still capable of experiencing qualia---in other words, the qualia experiencer is not destroyed by these changes, but continues to exist. This is what is responsible for our survival. [snip] "Some of my comments in my last message come from thinking about medical conditions which raises issues about the notion of QEs in the first place." On the contrary, medical literature has given credence to the idea that the brain is the medium of experience, while the experience itself is simply change within the brain. While it may be comforting to pretend we are a 'pattern', which can be copied about at will; which can be generated from a hunk, and then later converted to a hunk; this is simply wishful thinking. We are not patterns. We are brains. Destroy the brain, you destroy who you are. And no amount of blueprint following will be able to bring you back. Best Regards, Richard B. R. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25226