X-Message-Number: 25093
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:08:08 -0800
Subject: The Questions of Thomas
From: <>
Dear Thomas:
You wrote:
"Basically, Richard, you haven't answered my questions. If our
qualia-
experiencer is not part of our brain, then what is it?"
I have answered this many times: the qualia-experiencer IS a part
of our brain. It is a physical thing existing within our heads.
You wrote:
"And why is it that this Q-Exer cannot be destroyed without the
person losing all their senses?"
Because the definition of a qualia experiencer is a thing that
experiences qualia. Therefore, it remains as long as qualia are
experienced. If you like, think of it as the hardware of
consciousness---i.e. the part of your brain responsible for
conscious experience. Obviously, it still exists as long as there
is any conscious experience, even if the nature of those
experiences are reduced in scope (e.g. you go blind).
[snip]
You wrote:
"And again, just why is a perfect copy followed by destruction of
the original different FOR OUR QUALIA-EXPERIENCER than the kind of
slow change we all undergo?"
The existence of the copy is irrelevant. Concentrate on what
happens to the qualia experiencer: it is utterly destroyed. The
existence of other qualia experiencers in the universe is
irrelevant, even if one of those qualia experiencers had the same
atomic arrangement as the one that was destroyed.
Think of it in this way: you have an apple. You copy the apple,
atom for atom. Now you destroy the original. Does the original
still exist? No. The existence of a copy does not imply the
original exists, because it does not---the original was destroyed.
If the apple had some inner subjective life, then that life would
be destroyed when the apple was destroyed. It has no mystical
essence that is transferred by the universe to its copy.
I am sure that you can appreciate the difference between change and
destruction. If you change a thing of class A, it remains a class A
thing, as long as it retains all properties of items belonging to
class A. You can change a light bulb, subtely, but as long as it
retains all the properties of things that are light bulbs, then it
remains the same light bulb. When you destroy an object, on the
other hand, it has no properties, and therefore it ceases to be
anything.
The lesson is that change is not equal to destruction; at least, it
needn't be. Obviously, if you change something of class A so much
that it ceases to be a class A thing, but then change it again to
make it a class A thing, you have destroyed the original class A
thing, and created a new one. For example, disassembling a tree
atom by atom until it ceases to be a tree, and then building it
again, atom by atom, until it becomes a tree. Clearly, the original
tree was destroyed. This doesn't matter in the case of trees, but
in the case of humans with subjective inner lives, it does matter.
At least, if you care about that subjective inner life.
Change of the type we undergo on a daily basis preserves the qualia
experiencer, which results in personal survival.
[snip]
Best Regards,
Richard B. R.
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25093
Warning: This message was filtered from the daily CryoNet digest
because the poster sent too many messages per digest.
It thus may need to be rated.