Hello, One might take the position that consciousness just is..., and is focused at a particular point we might call an identity. If we assume time is an illusion, the idea of being much older than the apparent vehicle consciousness, would hold.
As for the statement: "I exist because somewhere I am computed." under the assumption of infinite consciousness, it is its own computation. The machinery to compute and the thing to compute are the same thing. It exists everywhere existence is. In this model the physical body would be a focal point. In this model, an identical computation could not yield a separate consciousness. One might consider, if it is the method of observation which determines what is observed. If one assumes a limited perspective as the initial conditions of observation, then one observes only what he expects. Those things defying explanation, tend to be ignored less the whole framework collapse. If one considers the kind of thinking and theory generation possible with the thinking prevalent 100 years ago as compared with today, one can see that the initial assumptions seem to be the limiting factor in what can be explained. For example, 100 years ago, it was scarcely believable that powered flight was possible, much less a mission to the moon. This is not just a matter of data in a book to derive one's possible creative space. I maintain it has more to do with consciousness expansion. That is, one cannot help but have expanded consciousness as the result of experiencing, thinking, and creating. A very simplistic example involves learning to drive a car with a manual transmission. At first one labors to consider the coordination of clutch, brake, throttle, and gear shift. Ten years with such experience this same person can drop into any vehicle with a manual transmission and drive it, adapting quickly to the given parameters of the given vehicle. From one perspective this is just a hardwired skill set. But upon close inspection, one can describe just about all aspects of the state space of operating a manual transmission vehicle, even what would happen if things are done incorrectly. This demonstrates a tie between a skill and consciousness. One can further learn to operate any machinery that involves torque control and perhaps a clutch very quickly based on the experience of operating a manual transmission vehicle. This implies extrapolation of fundamental dynamic elements into a new model, all done very quickly. If a mechanic drives a car and in the process of operating it feels certain things, he can quickly determine what if anything is causing the disturbance. This implies not only the consciousness development of a casual operator, but also that of a mechanic, who can model the mechanical workings in his head on the fly. This is not a simple model either, feel, vibration, sound, all tie into a model which he can then verbally describe at length. The point of these examples is to demonstrate that consciousness grows with experience and learning. This example also demonstrates crudely that the expanded consciousness can grow faster with each new addition to it. Now again consider the observer observing his own consciousness. He makes some simple observations in terms of language and established bodies of knowledge. What he learns by observation is flavored by what he has to compare it to. As he learns what's possible to learn by observation of his consciousness, it grows with each observation. Forcing the observer to hit a target that moves faster the more it is observed. One might then consider another possibility. If my theory is correct about consciousness, then this moving target would continue to move toward infinite awareness. That is, aware of all things in the universe, multiverse, or what have you. (It also could move within the space such that it spirals in circles and leads no where.) This could be tested. Consider that thoughts can also serve to expand consciousness. One creates a thought, this thought facilitates consciousness expansion by creating a kind of tool for seeing consciousness. In general we do this anyway. Anytime one creates an explanation of a concept that more readily facilitates understanding by other observers, he's created a kind of dynamic tool for seeing. To continue, the experimenter might consider abstract thoughts that target the most direct route to a goal. This goal being rapid expansion of consciousness. The thoughts would be created and chained successively. (observation is done through awareness, not theory fitting or direct probing. Doing so causes consciousness to collapse on itself) To illustrate: One clears his mind, imagines a thought/awareness that facilitates expansion, then releases the thought and holds his mind blank to disallow preconceived thinking to interfere with what is created. One then continues to repeat the process as gently and as quietly as possible. With practice this process gets easier and easier. Eventually one notices how thoughts interact. One even experiences pure awareness irrespective of the five senses. One develops senses in terms of pure abstract creations. One in effect creates senses with thoughts. From observations made with the new senses, one creates new ones. This process can be optimized into a continuous flow. One might dare to consider that if consciousness is already infinite, but simply unrealized, that he can simple imagine an arrival point without considering the method for arriving there. Meditating upon this hypothetical point using the thought chaining method outlined, one does arrive somewhere. If my theory is correct, the intelligence already there, will answer the request of the observer focal point. The observer merges with the entire process required to deliver the conscious focal point to the desired arrival point. I offer this above description and exercise as a method to collect more data. I feel if one imposes to many expectations in terms of theories and logic that they effectively box themselves in by what they expect. Robert W. Saibal Mitra wrote: > Jacques Mallah wrote: > > > >From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Jacques Mallah wrote: > > > `` I have repeated pointed out the obvious consequence that if that > were > > >true, then a typical observer would find himself to be much older than > the > > >apparent lifetime of his species would allow; the fact that you do not > find > > >yourself so old gives their hypothesis a probability of about 0 that it > is > > >the truth. However, they hold fast to their incomprehensible beliefs.´´ > > > > > >According to FIN, however, the probability of being alive at all is > almost > > >zero, which contradicts our experience of being alive. > > > > Whatchya mean? I wouldn't mind acquiring a new argument against FIN > to > > add to the ones I give, but your statement doesn't appear to make any > sense. > > You wrote earlier that consciousness can't be transferred to a copy. But > consciousness isn't transferred, the copies had the same consciousness > already because they were identical. > > I would say: I exist because somewhere I am computed. You appear to say that > (forgive me if I am wrong) I must identify myself with one computation. Even > an identical computation performed somewhere else will have a different > identity. > > My objection is that the brain is constantly changing due to various > processes. The typical timescales of these processes is about a millisecond. > FIN thus predicts that I shouldn't find myself alive after a few > milliseconds. > > Saibal _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com