X-Message-Number: 25232 Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 05:13:37 -0800 Subject: Time and Identity, to Scott From: <> Dear Scott: You wrote: "(Case #1) Suppose I could see beyond 3 dimensions and into time." Time is not like the other dimensions; it can be treated as such for purposes of relativity, but it is fundamentally different than space. Indeed, recent research suggests that time may be an artifact of quantum mechanics, an intrinsic property of things. In your example, you can imagine looking at an electron around an atom. According to QM, the electron has no definite position; only probabilities of being measured in various positions. This means that from your 4D example, in which time does not exist (because it is spread out before your eyes), looking at an electron would still cause collapse of its wavefunction. Which means, even when you imagine time spread out, you cannot spread it out fully, because of the properties of quantum mechanics. This indicates that time is not simply another dimension, but something else entirely---which is also confirmed by our experience. In any case, it invaldiates your idea of reality as being the like frames on a cosmic film role. There are no infinity of 'me's'. There is a physical system which changes. That is me. [snip] You wrote: "Where is the line and how can you justify the existence of a line?" I have explained this many times before. A physical thing is a light bulb if it has two contacts such that, when a voltage difference across them is applied, the thing emits light. A light bulb continues to exist as long as changes to it do not conflict with what we mean by the phrase 'light bulb'. It is the same way for the qualia experiencer. I exist as long as my brain is capable of experiencing qualia, because in the most fundamental sense, that's what I am---a being having a subjective inner life, which is the most important (but certainly not the only important) property of myself (others being memories and personality traits). You wrote: "You insist that you and a duplicate in the same room at the same time would be two different people." Here's an experiment for you. Kill one duplicate. Is the other dead? Nope. Then they cannot have been the same person. Their atomic arrangement is irrelevant because they are distinct physical systems, and consequently, they are not one and the same thing. They are two things with similar atomic arrangements. [snip] You wrote: "(Case #2) A surgeon cuts the corpus callosum of a patient, separating the two hemispheres of the brain. What happens to your hypothetical QE? Is it still intact?" Obviously, since at each point in time, the QE existed; if it did not stop existing, then it was not destroyed, which implies personal survival. Sujectively, it would probably feel to the person like having her abilities or capacities reduced by half. You wrote: "Clearly it is from the reports of those who ve undergone such surgical procedures. What is happening here? Are there two QE s created?" I wouldn't necessarily say there are two, but it is possible. You wrote: "Let s take it further. What if (and I believe Mike Perry already addressed this but I missed your response if there was one) a cryonically frozen brain is devoid of damage except it has been split into 3 parts instead of 2 and then put back together? You insist that disassembly destroys the original QE, so is it destroyed at this level of disassembly? Remember, the QE apparently wasn t destroyed when the brain was cut in half. " But here is the key: the brain still had a brain stem, to which both halves were joined. If you literally did cut the brain in half, it is possible no experience would be possible (it is an experiment that simply cannot be done, so we don't know), in which case the QE would most definitely be destroyed. I told Mike I did think it was possible to cut the brain into some pieces of unknown number (but quite small---not millions of pieces, since a piece of such size would not be capable of experiencing qualia) and unknown shape (since the actual cuts may be important) and still preserve the QE. It's a question that cannot be answered with today's level of knowledge. But to be on the conservative side, I would say, don't cut it at all, and develop out annealing algorithms to prevent fracturing of vitrified solutions. You wrote: "What if we split the brain into 10 pieces and successfully reassemble it? What about 100 pieces or 1 billion? Where is the line and how can you justify the existence of a line?" This is so clear you should not have to ask me the question. When you cut it into pieces such that a qualia experiencer does not exist (i.e. a thing capable of experiencing qualia does not exist), then you have destroyed the person. This is almost certainly going to be at a macroscopic level. You wrote: "To me, despite your assertion that super intelligent computers in the future will most likely agree with you (such hubris), " It takes intelligence to use abstractions. It takes more intelligence to recognize that abstractions exist only in heads. Most people fall into strictly the former category, having enough intelligence to reason abstractly, but then leaping from there to the erroneous conclusion that those abstractions exist. Intelligent computers will have no such delusions. You wrote: "your arguments are still unconvincing. Nothing personal, of course, but your hypotheses, despite their traditional foundations, are no less speculative than Perry s, Donaldson s or mine." On the contrary, I have debunked the pattern theory of self numerous times (at least, under the assumption of materialism---if you postulate metaphysical entities and deities than you can hang onto patternism just fine). You never addressed any of my numerous arguments on (for example) the non-existence of processes and patterns or the arbitrariness of the latter. You did not address them because they cannot be addressed. You wrote: "You seem to think that we are seeking comfort in non-traditional definitions of identity, but is it possible that you are seeking comfort in traditional definitions of identity? " First off all, the notion that we are our brain is extremely NON- traditional. Most people have historically believed we are quite more than a brain, whether a supernatural soul in times past or a pattern in recent times. Moreover, the idea that I am my brain TERRIFIES me, because it means there is no hope for Mike Perry's resurrections or for chance creation at some point in the future. But it happens to be the truth, or at least, what science indicates is true at this point in time. [snip] Best Regards, Richard B. R. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25232