4 ms·

"Same blueprint" is different than "same material." I never said "all properties are emergent." Also, why would repeatability mean something cannot be emergent

by ericb 19y ago

"Same blueprint" is different than "same material." I never said "all properties are emergent." Also, why would repeatability mean something cannot be emergent? I can instantiate many "instances" of an object on a computer. I know they are not the same object, though. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Picture 2 chocolate cakes next to each other. The cake-ness arises from the arrangement of molecules, but they are 2 different instances of a cake. The fact that eggs + sugar + baking causes the emergent "cake" property does not mean they are the ~same~ cake. The fact that the 2 cakes have separate identities (cake 1, and cake 2) does not mean that cake is not an emergent property. Out of curiosity, are you not a programmer? Are my programming metaphors lost on you?

yters 19y ago
The "I" of consciousness has to be replicated right along with the consciousness, so replicant yters has to have the same "I" as myself; in the way that the two cakes have the same cakeness or two objects have the same class.
- ericb 19y ago
  I think you think of consciousness as a singleton, whereas I see it as an instance. I think more instances (copies) can be created, but they will not be the original. I don't think these copies in any way threaten the original--it itself is just one instance in a particular location in space and time (analagous to whatever occupies a memory address at a particular point in time). I don't think the "I" has to be replicated and am still unsure why you think so. Can you clarify this more for me?
  - yters 19y ago
    My consciousness is not dependent upon my material. My material completely changes during the course of my life, but the essential "I" stays the same. So, if consciousness emerges, then the "I" has to be particular to the pattern, not the material. Therefore, two instantiations of the same pattern should have the same "I". To clarify, this "I" is not consciousness in general, but the "I" particular to me. I don't think this is susceptible to the gradualism line of thought, but we can go there if you want. It'd be helpful for me to clarify my argument, but it is kind of low level.
    - ericb 19y ago
      >the essential "I" stays the same We differ here. I think the I is continually changing and may even be an illusion. If you brought forward the "me" from 1995 to present day, and said only one of us could live, I'd pick my instance. In the same way the Nile is continually changing and made up of different water molecules, the "river " of consciousness is not dependent on individual water molecules, but arises out of a pattern of groups of them. On the same token, it's precise identity is in continual flux (fluid :) and dependent on its location in time and space and the arrangement of it's molecules.
      - yters 19y ago
        By saying consciousness is a pattern in the flux of matter, you are echoing my point that consciousness can't be based on the particular matter. So, if you then think consciousness is the pattern, shouldn't two instantiations of the same pattern be the same consciousness? Sorry we're going in circles here, but I do not understand your jump in logic. We aren't talking about identity in terms of how to pick a particular consciousness out of a set. We're talking about the subjective experience of "I", and I have a hard time seeing how any of those identifiers give me my sense of continuity. It is also completely impossible for me to consider the "I" to be an illusion, because I am involved in the very act of trying to escape myself. It is just as incoherent as saying there is no truth, or the law of non contradiction doesn't hold. You can tell yourself such things if you want, but you can't do so in an intellectually honest way, since intellectual honesty presupposes these concepts.
        ericb 19y ago
        >>shouldn't two instantiations of the same pattern be the same consciousness? No--they will never occupy the same coordinates as each other in time and space, and therefore can't be the same consciousness, by definition. The "I" doesn't have to be entirely an illusion, but our understanding of can be wrong. I didn't used to like dark chocolate. Now I do. Which "version" is the real me, the one who doesn't like dark chocolate, or the one who does?

by ericb 19y ago

yters 19y ago

The "I" of consciousness has to be replicated right along with the consciousness, so replicant yters has to have the same "I" as myself; in the way that the two cakes have the same cakeness or two objects have the same class.

ericb 19y ago
I think you think of consciousness as a singleton, whereas I see it as an instance. I think more instances (copies) can be created, but they will not be the original. I don't think these copies in any way threaten the original--it itself is just one instance in a particular location in space and time (analagous to whatever occupies a memory address at a particular point in time). I don't think the "I" has to be replicated and am still unsure why you think so. Can you clarify this more for me?
- yters 19y ago
  My consciousness is not dependent upon my material. My material completely changes during the course of my life, but the essential "I" stays the same. So, if consciousness emerges, then the "I" has to be particular to the pattern, not the material. Therefore, two instantiations of the same pattern should have the same "I". To clarify, this "I" is not consciousness in general, but the "I" particular to me. I don't think this is susceptible to the gradualism line of thought, but we can go there if you want. It'd be helpful for me to clarify my argument, but it is kind of low level.
  - ericb 19y ago
    >the essential "I" stays the same We differ here. I think the I is continually changing and may even be an illusion. If you brought forward the "me" from 1995 to present day, and said only one of us could live, I'd pick my instance. In the same way the Nile is continually changing and made up of different water molecules, the "river " of consciousness is not dependent on individual water molecules, but arises out of a pattern of groups of them. On the same token, it's precise identity is in continual flux (fluid :) and dependent on its location in time and space and the arrangement of it's molecules.
    - yters 19y ago
      By saying consciousness is a pattern in the flux of matter, you are echoing my point that consciousness can't be based on the particular matter. So, if you then think consciousness is the pattern, shouldn't two instantiations of the same pattern be the same consciousness? Sorry we're going in circles here, but I do not understand your jump in logic. We aren't talking about identity in terms of how to pick a particular consciousness out of a set. We're talking about the subjective experience of "I", and I have a hard time seeing how any of those identifiers give me my sense of continuity. It is also completely impossible for me to consider the "I" to be an illusion, because I am involved in the very act of trying to escape myself. It is just as incoherent as saying there is no truth, or the law of non contradiction doesn't hold. You can tell yourself such things if you want, but you can't do so in an intellectually honest way, since intellectual honesty presupposes these concepts.
      - ericb 19y ago
        >>shouldn't two instantiations of the same pattern be the same consciousness? No--they will never occupy the same coordinates as each other in time and space, and therefore can't be the same consciousness, by definition. The "I" doesn't have to be entirely an illusion, but our understanding of can be wrong. I didn't used to like dark chocolate. Now I do. Which "version" is the real me, the one who doesn't like dark chocolate, or the one who does?