X-Message-Number: 25608
From: 
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:43:28 EST
Subject: more attempted clarifications

It is mind-numbing to see opposed camps reiterating their positions  
endlessly, and (mostly) paying no attention to the other camp.
 
Jeff Dee writes in part:
 

>It  is therefor only a matter of time before we can duplicate [brains], and 
the  >"programs" they run, and perfect procedures for transferring those  
programs >between processors. And at that point, our survival will be as  
independent of >particular brains as Photoshop's survival is independent of  
particular computers.
 
The errors here have been pointed out countless times. 
 
First, and least important, if you duplicate a (particular) brain you don't  
have to transfer a program to it--the program is included in the duplicate. 
Form  includes function.
 
Second, there is the unwarranted assumption that brains run "programs" in  

the same sense that computers do. You might say the laws of physics constitute
or imply a "program," but that's not the same as a digital computer  program.
 
Third, and more importantly, there is the bald assertion that  "our survival" 
is achieved if copies of us are made, which is essentially the  claim that 
"you" are nothing but a packet of information and the "instantiation"  of the 
information is irrelevant. This is what RBR calls "concept smuggling"--a  nice 
term. (Mike Perry and a few others are up front about this.)
 
The fact that different computers can all run the same program has no  proven 
or obvious relevance to survival through duplicates. On a cruder level, I  
can imitate what you do, and empathize with you and thus partly share your  

feelings, but that doesn't make me you, or even partly you--unless you  believe
that similar behavior constitutes partial identity, a viewpoint that  would 
satisfy few.
 
Henri Kluytmans wrote in part:
 
>When the quantum states of both molecules would be exactly 
>the  same, according to physics the two watermolecules are  
>interchangable.  Yes, they are not the "same one" molecule, but  
>according to physics there is no difference between having 
>one  or the other molecule in a place.


There is "no difference" according to certain specific criteria. Likewise,  
there is no difference between me and you, as far as counting our votes is  

concerned and in many other ways. But there are also differences, and even one
difference means I am not you.
 
I have commented before on the so-called "identity of indiscernibles."  

Again: there are no indiscernibles. Are "two" objects the same?  
Never--otherwise 
the question would not arise. If two water molecules differ in  location, then 
they necessarily also differ in other ways (which may or may not  be 
important). At a minimum, for example, they will have different momentary  

trajectories, different momenta and potential energies. One may be  in a 
meniscus and the 
other not, one part of a vapor and one part of a  liquid. Etc. Not to mention 
the quantum aspects--they cannot have the same  wave equation, because the 
wave equation includes space  coordinates. 
 
The term "same quantum states" is often used cavalierly, disregarding  many 
variables. In fact, there can never be a perfectly correct wave equation of  a 
limited system such as a molecule, because there are no isolated  

systems--everything interacts with everything else, and the effects of previous

interactions persist, and it's a bit awkward to try to write down the wave  
equation of 
the universe or, if you did, to assign that a meaning.
 
Robert Ettinger







 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25608