My New Argument for a Nonphysical Consciousness

[Kharakov]

Ohh... carry on. I thought you had a specific point in addition to carrying on the conversation.

P(1) Universe U* is a copy of universe U.
P(2) Experience for John in U is different than experience for Jane in U*.

I'll assume the experience for John in U* is the same as the experience of John in U, and the experience of Jane in U is different from the experience of John in U.
P(2*) Experience for John in U is the same as experience of John in U*

P(3) For minimal physicalism to be true, U* has to be the same as U in every way.

Ok... it is so far.

C(1) Physicalism is false.

From which premise?

You need all three, but the most important is P(2).

Ehh... I mean, are you even going to try?

Mike (U) is different from Dave (U) and Dave (U*). Mike (U) is the same as Mike (U*). Dave (U) is the same as Dave (U*) and different from Mike (U) and Mike (U*).

 

[ryan]

If A is your mind, then A must be a mind.

But if A is a mind, then A may not be your mind.

Your mind has your subjectivity.

Mind A is not 'your' mind.

Mind A is you.

Mind A is not mind B.

Sorry, but your syllogism is based on flawed premises.

"Your mind" is the mind with the history. "His mind" is the clone without the same history. Yet the minds are also identical.

 

[Juma]

Mind A is not 'your' mind.

Mind A is you.

Mind A is not mind B.

Sorry, but your syllogism is based on flawed premises.

"Your mind" is the mind with the history. "His mind" is the clone without the same history. Yet the minds are also identical.

So fucking what?

 

[ryan]

"Your mind" is the mind with the history. "His mind" is the clone without the same history. Yet the minds are also identical.

So fucking what?

That is a non-physical difference, at least in terms of the present.

 

[Kharakov]

So fucking what?

That is a non-physical difference, at least in terms of the present.

It's a physical, not nonphysical, difference.

 

[ryan]

That is a non-physical difference, at least in terms of the present.

It's a physical, not nonphysical, difference.

What are the physical differences between a 10cm long led rod and a 7cm long led rod? Assume they are both pure and have the same width and depth dimensions.

Besides length, is there a physical difference?

 

[Duke Leto]

Cheat sheet for ryan's idiotically circular argument:

1) Separate consciousnesses separated by physical space have their separateness defined (by ryan) as a non-physical difference.
2) Consciousness is found to have a non-physical property!
3) Physicalism is false!
4) Profit!

For reference ryan, most of us are having issues with Step 1.

 

[Kharakov]

It's a physical, not nonphysical, difference.

What are the physical differences between a 10cm long led rod and a 7cm long led rod? Assume they are both pure and have the same width and depth dimensions.

Besides length, is there a physical difference?

Well, 2  light emitting diode rods could emit different colors of light, depending on what physical substrate they use. The 7cm one might use less electricity to power it, unless the 10 cm is more efficient.

They cannot occupy the same space at the same time, so that is a physical difference as well.

Anyway, 2 copies of one thing are physically different, because they are in 2 spaces. Even 2 copies of a file on a hard drive are in 2 different spaces.

Where something is located in spacetime is a physical property, which cannot be removed from an object. There is always a physical difference between 2 objects, because their location is always different.

 

[ryan]

What are the physical differences between a 10cm long led rod and a 7cm long led rod? Assume they are both pure and have the same width and depth dimensions.

Besides length, is there a physical difference?

Well, 2  light emitting diode rods could emit different colors of light, depending on what physical substrate they use. The 7cm one might use less electricity to power it, unless the 10 cm is more efficient.

I have no idea what this has to do with my question.

They cannot occupy the same space at the same time, so that is a physical difference as well.

That is a physical property that they both have. There is no physical difference there.

Anyway, 2 copies of one thing are physically different, because they are in 2 spaces. Even 2 copies of a file on a hard drive are in 2 different spaces.

That is an extrinsic physical property; it is not relevant to my question.

Where something is located in spacetime is a physical property, which cannot be removed from an object. There is always a physical difference between 2 objects, because their location is always different.

That is wrong. Objects travel through space-time and curve space-time, but it isn't an intrinsic property of matter.

 

[beero1000]

I wonder what physical difference there is between a 10cm sphere of U-235 and a 20cm sphere of U-235. Surely they act in exactly the same way, right?

 

[Kharakov]

I wonder what physical difference there is between a 10cm sphere of U-235 and a 20cm sphere of U-235. Surely they act in exactly the same way, right?

How about 2 almost critical hemispheres of plutonium? Does where they are located in spacetime matter?

They cannot occupy the same space at the same time, so that is a physical difference as well.

That is a physical property that they both have. There is no physical difference there.

You're right, the physical difference is the space they occupy.

Anyway, 2 copies of one thing are physically different, because they are in 2 spaces. Even 2 copies of a file on a hard drive are in 2 different spaces.

That is an extrinsic physical property; it is not relevant to my question.

Umm.. that's an intrinsic property of a lot of physical phenomena: they occupy specific areas of spacetime.

Where something is located in spacetime is a physical property, which cannot be removed from an object. There is always a physical difference between 2 objects, because their location is always different.

That is wrong. Objects travel through space-time and curve space-time, but it isn't an intrinsic property of matter.

The location of an object in spacetime is, however, a physical property of the object, like the location of a strike in this message. Otherwise, a section of your clone's brain could be located in a gay walrus with a flamboyant birthday hat, who wants to hug everyone, which I suspect is the case.

 

[ryan]

I wonder what physical difference there is between a 10cm sphere of U-235 and a 20cm sphere of U-235. Surely they act in exactly the same way, right?

If there are no other dimensions causing probabilistic behaviors, then things like particle decay might just have to be partly considered non-physical effects. So far, probabilities that dictate quantum behavior is a mix of non-physical explanations with classical explanations as shown in such models like probability densities.

And there is a small chance that they could act the same way, incredibly small, but still a chance.

 

[beero1000]

I wonder what physical difference there is between a 10cm sphere of U-235 and a 20cm sphere of U-235. Surely they act in exactly the same way, right?

If there are no other dimensions causing probabilistic behaviors, then things like particle decay might just have to be partly considered non-physical effects. So far, probabilities that dictate quantum behavior is a mix of non-physical explanations with classical explanations as shown in such models like probability densities.

And there is a small chance that they could act the same way, incredibly small, but still a chance.

I guess you would say that Hiroshima was destroyed by "non-physical effects". The rest of us keep a firmer grasp on reality.

 

[ryan]

That is an extrinsic physical property; it is not relevant to my question.

Umm.. that's an intrinsic property of a lot of physical phenomena: they occupy specific areas of spacetime.

First, bosons don't occupy space-time. Second, it is not known if fermions are more than just zero dimensional points. An argument against the idea that they need space-time to exist is by way of the black hole. If the more popular explanations of black holes are true, then its infinite density cannot have any space-time beyond the event horizon. The black hole rips a hole in the fabric of space-time; it does not take up any volume of space-time.

Where something is located in spacetime is a physical property, which cannot be removed from an object. There is always a physical difference between 2 objects, because their location is always different.

That is wrong. Objects travel through space-time and curve space-time, but it isn't an intrinsic property of matter.

The location of an object in spacetime is, however, a physical property of the object, like the location of a strike in this message. Otherwise, a section of your clone's brain could be located in a gay walrus with a flamboyant birthday hat, who wants to hug everyone, which I suspect is the case.

If you only want to acknowledge extrinsic properties, then everything is a property to everything else. This isn't a very good explanation.

 

[ryan]

If there are no other dimensions causing probabilistic behaviors, then things like particle decay might just have to be partly considered non-physical effects. So far, probabilities that dictate quantum behavior is a mix of non-physical explanations with classical explanations as shown in such models like probability densities.

And there is a small chance that they could act the same way, incredibly small, but still a chance.

I guess you would say that Hiroshima was destroyed by "non-physical effects". The rest of us keep a firmer grasp on reality.

or even crazier, a universe from nothing

 

[Keith&Co.]

As much as I want to say "I told ya so", I must remember that this is god damn T.V. show. Why on Earth do people bring up Star Trak to help them make sense of reality?!

An odd stance for someone who's offered the testimony of speculative beings to bolster his evidence:

Would an alien from a totally different universe recognize that minds exist on sensory alone? No they wouldn't.

 

[ryan]

An odd stance for someone who's offered the testimony of speculative beings to bolster his evidence:

Would an alien from a totally different universe recognize that minds exist on sensory alone? No they wouldn't.

It's not just you. There was someone on here who had a very strong background in the sciences who would quote books and T.V. shows as arguments against me. T.V. shows, movies and books seem to warp our minds into their reality. We all have to catch each other from getting sucked into their reality every once and a while.

 

[Kharakov]

Umm.. that's an intrinsic property of a lot of physical phenomena: they occupy specific areas of spacetime.

First, bosons don't occupy space-time.

A lot of != all. And they are spread out over spacetime, so they do occupy it, unless you're claiming the BE condensate of He₄ does not occupy space?

Second, it is not known if fermions are more than just zero dimensional points.

Yes it is. Some leptons appear to act as if they are 0d points, or waves, but are not specifically either. It's like me being able to say yes or no to a binary question- that's a zero dimensional on/off position that I can take, it doesn't mean that I am a zero dimensional point because I can effectively emulate one by making a binary decision.

The location of an object in spacetime is, however, a physical property of the object, like the location of a strike in this message.

If you only want to acknowledge extrinsic properties, then everything is a property to everything else.

Completely non-sequitur, although I'm sure you can find a way to walrus yourself some tie to what's been said.

The point is that the location in spacetime of an object is a physical property of the object: spacetime is part of everything, it's in everything, around everything, it's everywhere. Like I said before, a proton on Pluto is not the same as a proton on Mars, because the location of an object is part of the object's physical properties.

If it wasn't, the proton on Pluto could react to stuff on earth (assume it's a H+ and it forms a water molecule with an OH- on Earth).

Location, location, location. It's a very important part of physical reality.

 

[Keith&Co.]

An odd stance for someone who's offered the testimony of speculative beings to bolster his evidence:

It's not just you.

Dude, you're the one saying 'hypothetical beings would agree with me....if they existed.'

How's that different from saying Spock would take your side?
The Disciple Paul?

 

[ryan]

First, bosons don't occupy space-time.

A lot of != all. And they are spread out over spacetime, so they do occupy it, unless you're claiming the BE condensate of He₄ does not occupy space?

An electron can absorb a photon. A photon can increase the electron's energy but does not cause it to take up more space. Similarly, two photons can be in the same space at the same time. Bosons exist with space but don't occupy it.

If you only want to acknowledge extrinsic properties, then everything is a property to everything else.

The point is that the location in spacetime of an object is a physical property of the object: spacetime is part of everything, it's in everything, around everything, it's everywhere. Like I said before, a proton on Pluto is not the same as a proton on Mars, because the location of an object is part of the object's physical properties.

If it wasn't, the proton on Pluto could react to stuff on earth (assume it's a H+ and it forms a water molecule with an OH- on Earth).

The physical properties of a proton are things like mass, spin and electric charge. There is no property such as a chunk of space-time required.

Maybe they have to a have some location, but any specific location can change, thus it is not an intrinsic property.