Blog post4/24/16

(82) superatheist says April 24, 2016 at 3:12 am

Chikoppi (79)

Thank you for you discussions about some of the ideas in awaretheory. I really do appreciate your time and efforts. You asking me to write one scientific paper proving awaretheory is like me asking you to write one scientific paper proving evolution, chemistry or physics. Darwin and Newton needed books to just begin their theories and they look nothing like peer reviewed journal articles of today. I know because I have copies of their books and I get scientific journals. I predict that it will take a very large amount of scientific papers just to begin to deal with what I am proposing in awaretheory. Some of these articles will appear to prove awaretheory predictions and other will appear to disprove them. If mankind survives into the future in an advanced enough scientifically developed state these experiments will be carried out. The potential consequences of the results are to important to ignore!

(83) superatheist says April 24, 2016 at 5:17 am

In response to Sky Captain (57)

Thank you for your remarks! I am sorry that I have not gotten back to you sooner.

You wrote: “One can talk about common aspects of everyones’ consciousness instances, in a general way. You can even talk about your own consciousness instances at various moments in time, in a general way. That you can talk about yourself in a general way does not enable you to preserve your self when your brain dies, however.” I am talking about specific structures and functioning of the body, specifically the brain, over distinct periods of a person life time. This is extremely exacting changing physical thing not a platonic theory of ideas —- abstractions divorced from the so-called external world. We can exactingly talk about the way your specific brain was structured and then functioned between two specific points in your life. We can see what behavior was produced between those points in you life. We can try to understand what consciousness was produced between those points in your life. And then we can wonder what specific behavior and consciousness will be produced when we repeat that specific structure and functioning of your body or brain during that period of your life time. Because it is a logical necessity that another body that produces the same structure and functioning will also produce the same behavior, it is a reasonable question to ask: will it also produce the same consciousness? The terms “self” and “same person over time” are singularly biased terms. What I mean is that there is only one “self” by definition. And the “same person over time” is again by definition one person. So by definition when the “self” dies that is by definition the end of the self and when a person dies that is by definition the end of that person. But it is only true by definition, not true by natural necessity. What you were in the past, what you are presently, and what you will be in the future can be exactly defined by the variations in the structure and functioning of matter. This is what you are. The structure and functioning of matter can be duplicated any number of different times so there can be any number of different bodies existing at one time or at any other time that is you. Body continuousness or continuity is not necessary. This is nothing but a materialistic theory no need for souls or any other supernatural things or concept. We do not even need to refer to consciousness at all to define the multiple aspects of a person.

(89) superatheist says April 24, 2016 at 3:08 pm

In reply to Sky Captain (84)

How matter is structured and then functions is not an abstraction any move that a bird traveling across the sky or an orange being eaten is an abstraction. I believe that a structure and functioning of matter can be mapped to consciousness. I believe that the concepts of “me” or “person” are biased toward making one believe that we as conscious beings (humans) are singular in nature, which is a valid belief considering our conscious perspective is in the moment and not reflecting the idea that we will consciously exist into the future and have consciously existed in the past where the consciousness that existed at these times were and will be different. It is a hard idea to accept that we are more than what we are at this moment in time. Because of the singular bias of the terms in use, I have had to create a word without this bias. I have mentioned it before I call it “ixperiencitness” pronounced “I experience it ness”. Where two people by definition are not the same person, two different people can have without a logical or definitional contradiction the same ixperiencitness. It is not a bizarre idea to ask the question about any structure and functioning of matter: “Do I experience the consciousness that is produced by that particular structure and functioning of matter?” If I do then it has may ixperiencitness, If I do not, then if does not have may ixperiencitness. Very simple. If I imagine going back in time, lets say a year, and see myself, I can say that particular structure and functioning of matter was producing a consciousness that I did experience. In other words it had may ixperiencitness that I have now. But it was producing a consciousness different from the one I am experiencing now. At his point in the theory it is totally materialistic. I do not consider myself an idealist, but I don’t consider myself necessarily limited to a singular body. But I do believe I am limited to the structure’s and functioning’s of matter that will produce a consciousness that I will experience. Thanks for your reply!

(91)superatheist says April 24, 2016 at 4:47 pm

Monocle Smile (82)

You said:

“You are boring and pretentious. Stop grandstanding and do something worth a shit. I won’t hold my breath.”

I have five children they are engineers, scientists, and city managers. I have six grandchildren, that I frequently babysit. I have an orchard with 300 kinds of apples trees and 50 kinds of pears trees. I take care of it by myself. I do not want notoriety for myself at all I think fame is not a life enhancer but a life destroyer. I believe that these ideas will enhance people lives in numerous different ways. I am a secular humanist and believe that one should make the most out of this life and when ever possible help others make the most of their lives. But I disagree with atheists in insisting there is no life after death. Superimmortality does not guarantee that any particular person will ever consciously exist again. But it shows scientifically how it is possible to consciously exist again scientifically and how to increase that possibility, without any supernatural woo woo like souls or gods. If superimmortality is true in its basic assumptions, I believe that it gives atheists a big advantage over theists. It is true that I am trying to bring attention to these ideas but more importantly knowing that atheists are intelligent skeptics I am hoping that you guys will come up criticisms that I have not though of. I have also been for part of my life a teacher. A major question that I am dealing with is how does one convey ideas that are radically different than what people believe. This is exactly the problem atheists face when they deal with theists. Atheists have so many great supporting ideas but they just bounce right off theists like falling leaves. I think that part of this is the fear of death. Superimmortality gives atheists an answer to this. But the question is not if people are smart enough to understand superimmortality it is, do they want to? I am sorry that I am boring to you, I do not want to grandstand and bring any attention to myself, and I suppose I am being presumptuous in many ways. But let me refer to your statement you made at Monocle Smile (29) referring to what I wrote at Superatheist(28): I wrote: “Here are ten predictions that awaretheory makes that can be verified or falsified through experimentation: “1. The functioning of the brain produces consciousness.” “2. Duplicating the same structure and functioning in the same brain produces the same consciousness.”

You wrote: 1) Trivial and unrelated to awaretheory 2) Law of identity. Trivial and unrelated to awaretheory Is it not the definition of presumption when you are telling me what my theory says when you know so little about it?

1 This statement Is not trivial at all. Many people still do not agree with this statement (But I am glad you do!) It is a founding principle of awaretheory.
2 This statement Is not trivial at all either. A latter or earlier version of your body is not identical because they are in different times, places, and made of different matter than the present state of your body. Thus there is no guarantee that they will produce the same consciousness, thus no law of identity here. This principle, if true, in a way is showing that it is not the specific matter that caries the self through time but the structure and functioning of matter that does. I am again glad that you think it is true! Because it is one less thing I need to supply evidence for, at least for you.

I am sorry this all sounds like googlely guck to you, but I am trying to make it understandable and you are helping with your comments. Thanks!

not submitted yet Chikoppi(90)

You said. "Is there a consciousness somewhere else in spacetime? Sure. Do you actively experience it right now? No. It is therefore not your consciousness."

According to Einstein, if I understand him right, time is considered a dimension. It can be imagined being traversed like traversing space. What I have heard physicists say about this concept it is like everything is happening now. If this is true you are actively experiencing everything that you have experienced, are experiencing, and will experience in the spacetime now. If Einstein and other physicists are correct your statement should read "Is there a consciousness somewhere else in spacetime? Sure. Do you actively experience it right now? Yes. It is therefore your consciousness." I think I have used this example before. You travel into the future and see yourself, are you experiencing , currently, what this future version of yourself is experiencing? No. Are they experiencing what you are? No.

There is another experiment I wish to bring up that we discussed before. We take a person and then change the structure and functioning of his body to the structure and function of another person that clearly is very different, with different skills, calls themselves different by very different names, maybe even speak different languages, etc. You said previously, that the first person's "conscious uniqueness" or self is destroyed in the process of structure and functioning change. What happens when we now change the structure and functioning back to the way it was before the first change in structure and functioning occurred this restored person will have the same behavior as he did before the switch so he will be calling himself what he did before he will have all the knowledge, skills, abilities, that he had before. Is it the same me as before, a different me, or is this body now a consciousless (me-less) automaton?