On 17/02/2008, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe his target is the existence of consciousness. There are many proofs > showing that the assumption of consciousness leads to absurdities, which I > have summarized at http://www.mattmahoney.net/singularity.html > In mathematics, it should not be necessary to prove a theorem more than once. > But proof and belief are different things, especially when the belief is hard > coded into the brain.
It seems that you are conflating what in philosophy are usually considered distinct subjects: consciousness and personal identity. Consciousness may seem mysterious and ineffable, but at bottom it's just the fact that I experience a red object when I look at a red object, as opposed to being blind and only pretending that I see a red object. Personal identity involves the belief that the observer of the red object now is the "same person" as the observer of the red object before. It is this idea which the various thought experiments you describe show to be ultimately vacuous, even though as you say we have evolved to believe it at our core even when it is contradicted by what we recognise as sound intellectual counterarguments. -- Stathis Papaioannou ------------------------------------------- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
