Itoarguments part 12

File name Chapter 2 identity proofs File created date 02:50 pm Friday, December 29 2006

Observational foundation for the identireplica theory.

Key arguments:

1. Extra controlling factors -- the cause of why this consciousness and not the original’s
2. More complex theory When we add factors we add complexity to the theory
3. Inability to predict aspects of consciousness if no understandable controlling factors
4. Unscientific if no scientific controlling factors
5. No external evidence of this consciousness
6. Disconnected between behavior and consciousness
7. No evidence of extra controlling factor
8. One experiment “you” of what consciousness will be produced with your physipath

Materialist versus non materialist controlling factors

The concept of a soul is an example of a non materialistic scientific controlling factor. Where as temperature is an example of a scientific controlling factor. What would it take for souls to be a scientific controlling factor? For concepts like immortality and life after death? They have to exist. They have to have properties that can be studied scientifically. They have to have some effect on material things that can be studied. The effects have to be regular not exceptional. The soul would have to have regular rather than exceptional properties. Named the same they would have to have similar properties. One soul would have properties like another soul.

This is a scientific theory so we do not have to deal with non existent non scientific controlling factors.

The soul is a contrived construct. What does it mean to study something scientifically? It has to exist. It has to be able to be observed. It has to have the ability to be modified in some ways. If you can not observe how do you know that it exists? A necessary construct from the theory. The soul is a necessary construct from a theory that can not be observed

Duplicatability argument

Where duplicatability is the key to all science, technology, and survival, it is also the key to a science of consciousness.

Another Proof It is not likely that the original will be producing a consciousness of someone else when the external experiences are of one set of events. So It is not likely the bob the original will experience his life and the cidentireplica will experience another person John’s life. The cidentireplica will not see the environment of john or the body of john. He will experience the sensepath of bob

Simplicity argument

The study of consciousness is the most complex of the sciences and the least understood. It is important that we have a theory that is the simplest that explains and predicts the many different aspects of it. Simplest scientific theory that explains and predicts the evidence is the best. Not having more than consciousness is simpler than adding extra controlling factors that there is no evidence of. The Itotheory is the simplest scientific explanation because it does not add any non scientific concepts like a souls.

Better explanation argument

Explains and predicts cases of existence and being for individuals Itotheory is the most predictive theory Predicts experimental results before they are done. Predicts technological results ability to do this and make things behave the desired ways. The ito theory tell you when, where, why, how, under what circumstances and about survival

All other theories can not say what conditions you have a condition of self or why How do souls work. How does reincarnation work Where does the soul go. How does it behave. How do you design a scientific test to study souls or reincarnation?You can create all sorts of hypothesis about souls and reincarnation afterlife worlds etc but how do you check to see if these hypothesis are connected to reality?

In reincarnation what are you reincarnated in. Why that body and not another body. What do you experience in this different body. Because it does not give the whys and hows of how it worked it does not allow you to make improvements in it. The itosciences are the most complex sciences but they do give the reasons and ways to accomplish survival after death etc.

Easiest to explain and predict argument

The itotheory creates the easiest scientific “rules of thumb” ways to predict and explain cases of survival. Explainability (explains in such a way to increase predictability) based on experiments Predictability

Materialistic scientific explanation

It is truly a scientific theory. It need no supernatural or paranormal objects, events, ideas (no fairies souls ghosts caused it). (Or were injured in the production / making of this theory)

Consciousness is a property of the structure and functioning of matter.

Coherence (interconnectivity) of theory with the rest of science

The itotheory creates scientific principles that the other alternatives explanations do not produce.

1. Experimentally Duplicateable Argument

Duplicateability of experimentation Experiments products etc. can be duplicated Does not postulate extra or new entities like a soul that can not be scientifically and experimentally studied.

2. Itotheory does not contradict science Argument Does not contradict physics, chemistry, mathematics, psychology etc. Extensive scientific experimental proof that the way the brain functions corresponds to the consciousness that is produced. In other words when the brain functions differently enough it produces a variation in consciousness.

3. Coherence proof Coherence with other areas of science This conclusion does not counter any scientific, mathematical, or logical laws. No scientific mathematical or logical laws have to be change or modified for this conclusion to be true. The hypothesis that identical functioning and structure of a consciousness produce identical consciousness does not contradict any aspect of science. It does not use or need any supernatural explanations, theories, objects, processes,or concepts.

4. Logical proof This conclusion is not illogical or based on illogical lines of reasoning or thinking.

3. Logical consequences

The consequences follow logically from our scientific knowledge

Technology technological argument:

There are many way of producing any product some are easier than others. The more we know the more we can predict and explain the more ways there are of doing something.

Technology production proof

For something to be technologically valuable it has to be understood to some degree. There has to be predictable and useful consequences from doing some technological process.

There are few to no understandable, predictable, duplicatable, technological processes involving souls, reincarnations, etc. The itotheory is just the opposite although very complicated it is very technologically useful.

Added cause of variation (when explain ability, predictability, or duplicate ability of experiment does not work for some cases)

We know nothing about a soul it can not be studied thus it can not be of any technological value.

Prediction of first experiment argument

If we do an experiment that has never been done before and then we have to predict what will be the out come of doing the identical experiment again, what is the most reasonable prediction for the result of this experiment? An example: If you mix two compounds together that you have never mixed before and it turns into a soft red plastic and now you have to predict what will happen the next time you mix the exact same two chemicals together in the exact same environmental conditions what is the most reasonable prediction? The most reasonable prediction is that you will get a soft red plastic. If you would have analyzed this red plastic to it exact chemical properties you would have predicted these properties. What changes from the first experiment to the second is that you are at a different place in a different time and using different though identical chemical compounds. If you do not get the same results you do not say that you have two results from the exact experiment you look for the causative factor or factors that are different in this experiment from the first. Once you find those extra non identical factors and make them identical you get the same soft red plastic. If we thus predict what consciousness we will get when we duplicate the exact same conditions as is the case in a cidentireplica we will get the same consciousness as in the original. Like in the example experiment above the cidentireplica does not have to be in the same place, time, or made of the same exact matter

Original experiments argument

The original is itself an experiment in what consciousness you will get under the physical conditions that are the original. In the same way the original can be looked at as the first experiment as to what you get in terms of behavior, consciousness, and ixperiencitness when you create a cidentireplica or idoriginal. You have the physical functioning and structure that we call the original. So if a person were to predict what the behavior, consciousness, and ixperiencitness of a cidentireplica or idoriginal would be the most reasonable prediction of behavior, consciousness, and ixperiencitness would be exactly the same as the original’s.

Expectation argument

Before you made the original, given a cidentireplica or idoriginal for comparison, what would you expect /predict the original’s consciousness and ixperiencitness to be? You know by definition what will be the behavior will be.

Original is the first experiment argument

The original is an experiment into what behavior, consciousness, and ixperiencitness a particular functioning body will produce.

Original cidentireplica switch argument

Cidentireplica made before the original he would be the original and would have the original’s behavior, consciousness, and ixperiencitness. Why would being the second, third etc. make a difference in the behavior, consciousness, and ixperiencitness being produced?

The original could be a cidentireplica argument.

The original may not be the first of a certain structure and functioning so what we consider the original may not be the original at all it may actually be a cidentireplica. You may be a cidentireplica rather than the original. Are you unconscious, crazy, suffering a cid paradox?

The cidentireplica can (could) be an original argument

Repeat of the original’s structure and functioning (oriphysipath) argument

With new matter in a new space time with the cidentireplica matter or part of the matter

What happens when you create someone else's functioning and structure with the original’s matter?

Rewind experiment argument

What happens when we take the original and modify and change the structure and functioning to be exactly like an earlier stage in the life of the original? You have mostly the same matter or continuously assimilated matter( if that is an important consideration) in a different space and time. With the same functioning and structure. He can now be considered a cidentireplica of an earlier time of the original he either has the behavior, consciousness, and ixperiencitness of the earlier showing that a behavior, consciousness, and ixperiencitness is duplicatable or

This experiment could be carried out with anyone and for any backward period of time. The awaretheory gives the simplest explanation and that is the consciousness produced will be identical to the consciousness produced at this previous time.

Would this be the original experiencing this previous point in his life or some one new?

One could argue that this can not be done so we need not deal with the consequences of the experiment. But there is no guarantee that in the future it could not be done. And there is no reason that logically we can not discuss it. See geometry argument and infinity argument

Another argument is that during the process of rewinding the original there will be a period on unconsciousness or even death thus making it a different person.

A third argument against is that we can never rewind the original exactly so it will not be a cidentireplica at an earlier time in the life of the original. The awaretheory says that if it is not exact then it will be a version of the original and the original will still

If an rewind of the original is not a case of survival for the original it creates problems for many different theories. First it is the same body so corporalists should say that it is a case of survival for the original. If you can change the functioning in such a way that no more conscious discontinuity is produced than while sleep the conscious continuers will be happy and so will the soul people.

This argument would both apply to the identity of consciousness and ixperiencit arguments.

Repeat of the original's physipath argument

With proper care the originals physipath can be redirected to be exactly like it was at a previous time the question is what will be the awarepath produced when this happens? We can do this experiment over and over again with many different originals and at many different points along the physipath with variations in place, time, matter orientations etc.. We can even repeat close approximations. If you do not have a repeat in the awarepath you will have cid paradoxes produced.

You can pin the change on different matter or space etc if you can show how the different matter space time etc. cause the functioning of the brain to be different.

Fast forward argument

If the original can be rewound and still be the original or a case of survival for the original you can fast forward his body as well to a future state of consciousness that has not existed before. Being a real cidentireplica of a potential original.

The original would have no rememberence of this moving along his awarepath. He would only have the perspective of that point on his awarepath and that points awareness of how it got to where it is.

Fast forwarding experiments will show that a consciousness does not have to experience the event to have it in his memory. He is gaining these experience by another mean-- the physical manipulation of his brain/ body.

If this experiment can be done once it can be done back and forth over and over again. It can be a version of the spot and then back to the original spot. Then go back to a future spot and then back to a version over and over again. If it is a different enough version in the future or the past the person will have different memories etc, we can ask will the all be survival for the original? What if we greatly modify the future or past state to be identical to some other potential or actual person and then modify him back to the original? will this mean that this original will no longer be the original because he has been someone else

These multitude of experiments are easily answered with the awaretheory but not so with the other theories. Theorist can say it is a different person but not that it is a different consciousness. But if it is a different person who is it now a case of survival for? Same soul same person, Soul theorists would say. Corporalist would say same body same person. Same continuous consciousness same person the continuous consciousness theorist would say

Cidentireplica Retrograde argument

The cidentireplica comes before the original in time the cidentireplica produces the behavior and knowledge of the original before the original does.

Videntireplica retrograde argument

This can be imagined with videntireplicas as the

Intercrossing itopath argument

Imagine if approximate paths were not like the original path

Interchange of matter argument

One of the principles of science and technology is that you can interchange identical or closely identical parts for functionality and purpose. This means that you can replace a motor is a washing machine with another identical one and the washing machine will be able to function the same way. It can be a computer chip an atom what ever, if it is identical enough to serve the same function for the needed period of time. Using this same scientific principle we can apply it to humans. We can imagine exchanging the matter between the original and the cidentireplica. with one or many cidentireplicas

Interchange of matter within the original (how or why does it change consciousness or change the ixperiencit) : If an atom can be interchanged with another atom within the original and we can have the same consciousness and ixperiencitness. Why would it? Why would it not be the simplest answer would be that it would. If one then why not any number if any number this means the interchangeability of matter in producing a specific consciousness

Interchange of parts Argument for behavior

Interchange of parts Argument for consciousness

Interchange of parts Argument for ixperiencitness

Slow interchange of parts between original and cidentireplica argument

Fast interchange of parts between original and cidentireplica argument

Who is the person in a 50 % split

Original cidentireplica switch argument

What makes the original the original and not a cidentireplica and why does that make him special?

Being a cidentireplica goes both ways you may be a cidentireplica of an original rather than visa versa,

There may be no way to determine if citoidentical persons are either cidentireplicas, original or idoriginals. The original is determined as the center of the perspective. What you are at this moment can be the original's current awaremoment.

Replacement of matter argument

With the original matter of the original

Making the cidentireplica out of matter of the original after he has already done something and then repeating this physisection with the cidentireplica -- in the exact same place of matter in varying degrees of

There are all sorts of replacements interchange of matter experiments/arguments with matter of the original and cidentireplicas dealing with the percent of matter exchanged or replaced. The simplification of identical structure and functioning to this grouping of experiments is a reason or argument in itself

Replacement of matter argument with external matter

Change of place arguments

Free will argument

Do we have free will? In the sense that a cidentireplica can do something different than its original does, no. In the same way will a super being or god have free will different than its cidentireplica? Again, no. Does the environment effect the behavior of a conscious being? Yes. Can small changes in the environment avalanche into or cause big changes in the behavior or consciousness of a individual? yes. Is our behavior different if we have a bigger/ more complicated or different structured brain? Yes the processing in the brain makes a difference. Consciousness allows us to see different types of behavior and to predict the results in two senses logical and sensual emotional consequences. Will two identireplica behave the same given the same enviropath? Because of the qm effects their physipath may diverge over time but they could also converge in. Given that a person or god can not do other than it does, does this mean that they are not responsible for their actions? What does responsible mean? It means reward or punishment for an action. The promise of reward or punishment effects the brain functioning and decision making. There will not be the same behavior with out the thought of rewards versus punishments

There is not concept of self for reward or punishment in a computer processing. You have to have that for survival in animals. You have to have this in the processing of a god to. What would cause a god to do one thing over another if not for some kind of reward or punishment if a god can take any path what makes him decide one over another if there are no rewards or punishment for any of the path for him. In this case he then just exists, or he takes all paths at once . If he just exists with out taking a path how did this path start out like the universe taking a path with out decision and ability to do otherwise.

Being aware allows a person or being to make a better decision for survival of self or others. The right type of structure and functioning of the brain allows the brain to make better decisions allowing for better survival. Considering we are actually a physivenue of paths of behavior we have feel will in this sense.

Are we limited in the paths that we can take at any moment? This is really the question? By changing the sense path we have many path that way we can also change the path by changing the internal processing of the brain we can also consider external selves changing the functioning of the physipath. The concepts of interactions of videntireplicas and superawarepaths. Directed awareness of awareness of awareness not from the processing within but from without. Is it possible that this external processing can be created from within there are two levels the level of the physipath effecting the physipath and the level of the awarepath effecting the awarepath. Will the joint physipath produce the two apparently separate awarepaths that are effecting each other. Or a different awarepath entirely

examples given a specific point on a physipath we can imagine applying all the possible sensepaths to it to see what the set of physipaths produced will be and consequently awarepaths will be . But this is a limited amount of paths. We can produce more by modifying the physipath internally by changing the structure and functioning of the brain rather than through the senses. There can be an external awarepath producing this change.

God argument for the multiplicity of self

There is more reason for an ultimate creator to make consciousness multiple that to make it singular. Where as evolution is more likely ot make us seem singular and to see others as singular. There is really no reason to limit conscious perspectives to either singular or multiple when there can be both. It seems that if god is to make the most out of his creation he will make the greatest possible potential amount of consciousnesses and ixperiencitnesses.

Bias arguments

Matter imprintation bias argument

To keep the concept of singularity of self some philosophers have created a concept of what I call matter assimilation and imprintation. This is not a scientific idea and there is no proof that any such thing happens and if such a thing did happen it would crate a whole new area of science. The idea is, to be the same person you have to be made of the same matter over time. But science has found that matter is being replaced in the body by matter from out side of the body all the time. To solve this problem these people have come up with the idea that new matter has to be assimilated and imprinted into the body, and this takes time. If the matter is replaced too fast then it is not the same person. The reason that they put this speed limit on replacement is to avoid the problem with multiplicity. If you instantly or very rapidly replaced all the matter in the original with new matter from out side of the original or from a cidentireplica or idoriginal, what person will this original now be? Will he be a continuation of the original or a new person or will be the cidentireplica? They believe that if the process is slow enough then the matter of the original’s body imprints onto the new matter rather than visa versa. For this to work there has to be an actual physical process that changes the new matter in some way to be like the original matter. It has to be more than an imaginary line drawn in the sand. There would have to be some actual physical difference that can be measured. And a measurable change the old matter does to the new matter beyond just getting new matter to have the correct structure and functioning in the right way.

The concept of imprintation and assimilation of mater is unscientific and unproven. The body does need time to arrange the matter in the correct structure. But if it can be done instantaneously you do not become a different person.

There is no imprintation on matter just on the structure of matter and that effects the functioning / behavior of the matter. There has not been shown any way to imprint memories etc. on an electron but there are ways to imprint on the structure of matter so that it functions in certain ways rather than others.

Environmental Experience bias argument

This argument says that the environment is necessary for producing a specific consciousness. The only way to produce a specific consciousness is with exactly the same experiences in the same sequence.

One counter of this is the concept of the idoriginal that is produced with the same experiences as the original.

Level of production of consciousness argument neuron level

The way the neurons are structured and function are the key to which consciousness is produced.

Impossible to make a cidentireplica bias argument

The bias is that we should not consider identity of conscious beings because it is impossible to make a cidentireplica. Counter with the importance of ideals in science and math such as parallel lines, infinity, perfect circle, the exact value of pi etc.. Chemistry perfect one to one combination of chemicals an ultimate god The concept of the ideal is a very important idea in math, science, and philosophy whether we can actually create it or not.

An idoriginal is a cidentireplica that is naturally made like the original is naturally made.

Impossible to do these experiments bias arguments

Just because an experiment seems impossible does not means that there are not answers to these questions and that they can’t be understood from deductive and inductive reasoning from other experiments.

An experiment has a range of effects on a belief system larger than the relative simple question that it tries to answer. It can give supporting evidence for many other theories / hypothesis. Through most of mankind's history it was impossible to know what the mon was made of because no one could think of a way to actually get to the moon. But actually if our knowledge would have been advanced enough we could have deduced what the moon was made of and even have chunks of it to study -- from meteorites

Continuous consciousness bias argument

Some philosophers has found that the continuation of body is not a good enough argument for personal identity so they have established a concept of an identity through a continuation of a continuous consciousness. This basically means where your consciousness goes you go but to maintain singularity they have to maintain continuousness of a consciousness. If there are not severe enough restrictions on what is a continuation of a person consciousness then there becomes a more than one possible continuation of a person or a multiple theory rather than a singular theory. What they are trying to achieve is the concept of identity of consciousness with a singular result. For instance, if there are five identical consciousness which one is the one that is actually your consciousness. Where the awaretheory says they all are your consciousness and equally cases of survival for you the continuous consciousness theorists say that there are necessary conditions for only one to be a continuation of your consciousness. It is possible that none will satisfy these conditions. The necessary condition is a continuous continuation of your consciousness from your previous self. If there has been a long enough time period where there was no consciousness produced none of the five identical consciousness will be a continuation of you. If all of them have been equally continuous from a previous state of consciousness it will be the one that is closest connected to the previous body that produced the consciousness. But what if they are all made equally from the matter from the previous singular body. If this process took to long there will not be a continuation of consciousness so none of them will be the continuation of the original. What if it is instantaneous that there is one person and then there is five identical replicas a identical continuation of consciousness and a continuation of the matter in all five.

Approximation arguments

Calculus like approximation argument does not have to be exact.

The approximation argument is that as you approximate the conditions that produce the original you will approximate the consciousness of the original. Approximation argument If the consciousness produced by a cidentireplica is very close to that of the original then the science argument is not so severe because approximation of a consciousness by way of functioning and structure is still available we can say that when ever we have this structure and functioning we will be producing approximately this consciousness.

This sixth possibility can include versions of your consciousness in the cidentireplicas consciousness. In this case it is still you but a different version of you. The fourth possibility will not of course be a version of you. It is not clear where versions of your consciousness ends and another begins.

Approximate functioning of the body produces approximate consciousness argument

We can approximate the structure and functioning of any type of itoidentireplica. For a cidentireplica it is a videntireplica. Limit argument we can approximate the original as close as we wish at what point does the approximate original become the cidentireplica with its weird properties?

It is a version of you argument

If a consciousness is close enough to you it is a version of you. Define the concept version of your consciousness. Give examples where we think versions of us are us. If versions of our consciousness are not our consciousness it means that it does not have the same ixperiencitness, then we are restricted to only one life experience (awarepath) and if we deviate from this because the physipath deviates from its necessary path to produce our ixperiencitness we then are someone else. This means that our body would be producing a different ixperiencitness because it no longer produces the one correct physipath that produces our ixperiencitness.

Natural replication argument

If it happened once it can happen again. If reality produced something once there is the possibility that it could do the same thing again. This argument applies to both the existence of identical consciousness being duplicated by nature as well as and the existence of a particular ixperiencitness existing again. Since there are many different potential awarepaths with the same ixperiencitness, produceable by many different potential physipaths there is a greater chance that an ixperiencitness will be replicated than if it takes identical physipaths to produce identical ixperiencitnesses

Idoriginal argument

An idoriginal is a naturally occurring cidentireplica produced by nature supposedly like the original was. If the universe produced one original naturally it might produce another one naturally as well. This eliminates the argument that a cidentireplica can never be produced artificially thus we do not need to consider Idoriginal allows for the process of production to be similar if not exactly the same to the process of production of the original. The idoriginal will be made of different matter, in a different place and possibly time, than the original.

An idoriginal is naturally produced cidentireplica. Any experiments dealing with cidentireplicas can be used with idoriginals. There are many different paths that can lead to the same awarepoint, so many awarepaths can converge to one awarepath. Many different physipaths can converge to one physipath producing the same awarepath.

An idoriginal will be conscious. This is because we believe that normal people are conscious and an idoriginal will seem like a normal person. The second possibility will not occur for the idoriginal /original relationship -- idoriginal not being conscious

We can consider an approximate idoriginal, a type of coriginal and see what consciousness that person will have as well.

we can consider the consciousness of an approximate

Impossible for a idoriginal to exist bias argument

This argument is that a human is so complex that a naturally occurring idoriginal can never exist. The universe is huge and time is long maybe infinite. There might be multiple or an infinite amount of universes. We can consider not only one original but every person that has ever existed or will exist. The idoriginal does not have to be identical for the entire life of the original. There can be many very close approximations of the original where there is just a difference in a few atoms. In fact we can consider all approximations that still produce the same consciousness.

We can still consider many close approximations with the idoriginal.

3. Through directed intentional intelligent intervention of natural processes idoriginals could be produced or approximated.

Complexity bias argument

The body that produced consciousness is so complex that it is impossible to create another one again naturally. It was not too complex to make in the first place so it is not too complex to make again. But the probability that it will be again might be so small that it would take too long to happen. There are three responses unconsciousness knows no time so length of time between existence does not matter. Second, There can be external intelligent control of the creation of consciousnesses making the creation of a specific consciousness more likely. Third, they do not have to be exact there can be many versions that make the odds much more likely.

The value of the pure or boundary concepts argument in math, science, and technology.

There is no such thing in nature as a perfectly straight line or a point with out dimension, the infinitely small, or infinitely large, imaginary numbers, etc. but these types of concepts are the basis for mathematics which are the basis for science and technology. When we can deal with the absolutes of nature we deal with pure concepts. From there we can make sense of the complexity of nature. The idea of the cidentireplica or identireplica are pure concepts like a point with out dimension, a perfectly straight line, an imaginary number, real infinite, the exact number pi, etc. These concepts we can not create exactly but we can have an understanding of what they are and how they can be used to understand science and the world around us. Even though we may not ever be able to make an identireplica or cidentireplica we can know what they are and what they mean for understanding the philosophy, mathematics, and science of consciousness and life after death. Mathematics and science are full of concepts like cidentireplicas that can be understood and studied.

===Pigeon hole argument=== or Counting argument

There are only so many different ways a specific structure of the body can function so there are only a limited amount of different awarepaths it can produce. But theoretically there are an infinite amount of duplicates of the same functioning structure eventually there will be either an identical consciousness to the original or to a cidentireplica.

Extra condition argument, Add a variable condition argument

If there are cases that are not duplicates then there may be another variable that effects the consciousness produced that we are not currently aware of when you understand this new variable then we add predictability to the theory.

Extra condition argument

The science of superimmortality says that what produces consciousness is the functioning of the nervous system. The specific matter is space or time are not important except in how they effect the structure or functioning of the nervous system. If you have different consciousness being produced you will have different behavior being produced and thus different functioning that can be scientifically observed. There are two types of extra conditions that can we can imagine effecting consciousness supernatural and scientific. There are no other scientific conditions that we know about at this time that effect consciousness at this time It does not destroy the identity theory if an extra condition or conditions is needed to make identical consciousness. If the condition happens once it can happen again If you add what ever necessary extra conditions you will get identical consciousness

Hidden variable argument

Experience bias argument for cidentireplicas

The "Experience bias argument" is that you have to have the experiences naturally to have the identical memories and thus identical consciousness and since original experience may be impossible to recreate for the cidentireplica you can never create the same consciousness in a cidentireplica. This is a possible case of an extra condition that can not be fulfilled. This is a major epistemological issue does what we know and experience have to be as real as we think. Can we know the difference between an experience produced by reality and that produced by any kind of experience machine -- sensepath producer? For this to be a real issue there has to be a way that matter the brain can bring this information with it through time and then utilize this physical difference to make a different consciousness. There is no scientific evidence of this. There will have to be a physical difference in the brain of the original and that of the cidentireplica and by definition there is none. So you have to fall back on some supernatural explanation that two identical functioning bodies produce a different consciousness.

Experience is registered as a change in the brain there is nothing to say that there is not more than one way to be the brain to have that change. If there is only one way and that one is directly connected to reality then our consciousness is directly connected to, or reflects, or is about, reality.

Intercrossing paths argument

Imagine if approximate physipaths were not producing the appropriate awarepaths if they interconnected there would not be a clean transition but a jumble of disconnected parts.

like the original path repeat of the original path argument

To get from one point on a physicontinuum to another point on a physicontinuum that are not next to each other you have to cover other points that have some structure and functioning and produce some consciousness. You have a mass of intersecting physipaths that have to form a continuum if each path was so different then all intermediate path that are crossing will not make sense.

This Intercrossing path argument is a form of the continuum argument.

Mapping argument Is that the physicontinuum and awarecontinuum can be mapped to each other. This is a way to simplify a predictive scientific system. There are many ways to construct a physicontinuum and awarecontinuum.

Cid paradox argument

Mind control argument is the belief that the mind controls the behavior of the body to a large extent. This means that when I want to move my arm it does usually move. If I wish to speak a certain word the sounds will form in the mouth. Also when I do not want my body to do it doesn’t happen.

Disconnection from materialism argument

Source of divergence has to come from some where if the environment is the same there is no connection to materialism.

Complexity argument More complex theory it has to explain why there is this divergence and no cidentireplica can have the consciousness of the original or each other nor of any other original.The problem with this theory is that it is more complex,

Difficult explanation argument It has to explain why there is not identity of consciousness or of the ixperiencit. With all the evidence pointing toward identity with such things as behavior introspection of ideas identical functioning and structure. How do you scientifically explain how there would not be identity of consciousness or the ixperiencit

Unscientific argument we can not study it, we have no evidence of matter having this property with this level of complexity and there is no theory to explain it.

Multiple cidentireplica proof: Then we have the situation of a second cidentireplica he will be a cidentireplica of the original and the first cidentireplica. If the original and the first cidentireplica see the color red differently what will the second cidentireplica see the color as?

Behavior and survival argument

The approximate behavior is important for survival being able to create the appropriate behavior is important for survival characteristics that can be passed down to create the appropriate behavior is important.

Does being consciousness give an evolutionary advantage? Can we perform the complex survival skills that we do without being conscious? Will changes to consciousness be detrimental to survival?

Behavior is directly connected to the structure of the body and how it functions. identical physapaths produce identical behaviorpaths

Is consciousness a consequence of the behavior of the brain or is it a controlling factor of the behavior?

Consciousness and survival argument

If being conscious is a needed help to survival or necessary for human survival then we can not get the behavior needed for survival with out consciousness. If consciousness is linked to survival and some consciousnesses are better for some circumstances than others then there is a reason for certain types of consciousness to exist over others. If there is no connection from the physical to the types of consciousness that helps survival then there will be no way to pass on physical improvements to produce improvements in consciousness for survival. Positive duplicateability

Should have a certain consciousness argument As we study consciousnesses it seems that we will find that certain structures and functionings of matter should produce certain specific consciousnesses. Use an example with slightly changing results for instance baking soda and water you increase or decrease one of the ingredients slightly you still get the approximate results.

Material assimilation bias argument -- the old matter in you has to some how teach or assimilate the new matter how to be you and when the old matter no longer has you in it or not enough of you in it (you, or major parts of you died or were replaced) it can no longer teach the new incoming matter how to be you so you can not be perpetuated. There is the assumption that there is something beyond the matter itself that allows the perpetuation of the youness. The question is what is this stuff and how did it get there to begin with? There is this process that matter goes through that imprints on the matter through the experience of that matter. No evidence of this. No theory about how it works

Convergence arguments

This is the argument that the brain and nervous system can be knowingly and purposefully manipulated to produce consciousnesses that converges to a specific consciousness. Can this argument be applied to

Are there other ways of creating the same end product because of convergence and divergence?

Sensepath argument

What we are trying to do is like applying a different sensepath to a consciousness and seeing what happens. For every point on an awarepath or physipath we can apply all possible sensepaths and see what will happen. The behavior, the knowledge from speech and actions that comes out of the cidentireplicas will be the same given the same physimoment and environmental path -- enviropath.

Process of creation bias argument

A person is created through a complex process. The process is basically the same for every person It is a chemical and environmental process of conception, growth in the womb, birth, independent childhood growth with many different external environmental factors effecting the person, then a long period of experiences and other environmental conditions, as an adult to bring to where you are today. The process of creation -- what has happened to your during your life time is what makes you what you are. But it is the end result of that process that matters not the exact process that developed you to this point. One of the major biases is that if you did not experience an event you can not remember it. So any process that creates a person that does not contain that experience will not have a person that remembers that experience. So If there is a process that can duplicate a person exactly so they function exactly like the original in every way but has not

The bias is that the process of creation has to be the same to create the same person. So even if you can create someone with different matter in a different time and space. If the process is not exact then you do not have identity of consciousness or ixperiencit. Process identity has many variables for instance the idoriginal will have process identity but in a different place or a different time with different matter producing the environment. Ideally there are many version of this where the same matter is used at a different time for the environment in the same arrangement etc.

The cidentireplica will believe that he actually experienced these events if the original does

Types of theories

There are many theories about personal identity. Leading to many different theories about survival of death, immortality or the lack of. Some dealing with the same matter others with the same consciousness and others with the same soul. So what is necessary for personal identity in one theory will not cause problems (be necessary) for another. For simplicity reasons I will divide the theories into three categories even though there are many version of the theories that combine the different aspects of these theories.

Move to next chapters

Is there any evidence of a ixperiencit factor? How would you find evidence of an ixperiencit factor? Can you study an ixperiencit factor scientifically?

Consciousness contains the ixperiencit argument There does not appear to be anything there in terms of ixperiencits that is not already contained in consciousness.

I Being conscious means I experience the consciousness argument