Itoarguments part 5

Knowledge bias arguments

Awarepaths and their corresponding physipaths can never have the knowledge or ability to create cidentireplicas or even videntireplicas because of this inability to understand them.

The knowledge can not exist to create desired awarepaths.

The knowledge does not exist to create desired awarepaths.

Its not that the knowledge is not known it is it can not exist because these awarepath that it would be produced can not exist because their corresponding physipath can not exist

What is the proof that these above statements are not correct?

Knowledge arguments are the arguments for :

1. We can have knowledge of potential awarepaths, potential physipaths, and potential ixpaths.

2. We can have knowledge of actualized itopaths including actualized awarepaths, actualized physipath, and actualized ixpaths.

3. The knowledge about potential itopaths does not change because some itopaths become actualized and, or then end.

4. There exists and can exist knowledge of how to produce itopaths.

5. This knowledge can be created within actual awarepaths and actual physipaths.

6. We can have as much information about potential itopaths as we do with actual itopaths.

. We can have knowledge for and about physipaths and awarepaths that is contained in awarepaths and physipaths

What is the proof of these statements

We can consider these

The knowledge does not exist for ( )

The knowledge can not exist for ( )

The knowledge can not exist in a physipath or grouping of physipaths and their corresponding awarepaths about certain aspects of awarepaths and physipaths.

What does it mean for the knowledge not to exist? It does not exist but could.

What does it mean for knowledge not to be able to exist? It can never exist under any circumstance.

Can knowledge exist with out an awarepath or its corresponding physipath to have understood or created it? Knowledge can exist in the form of books an verbal language and other forms of communication even non consciousness processing machines possible like computers

Complexity issue: How do you get around the complexity of making cidentireplicas?

We do not need to be able to make cidentireplicas to have an understanding of them.

Knowledge of how to produce a cidentireplicas may exist.

Then there is the existence in potential physipaths of this information.

There are probably many different ways of getting matter to function in desired ways, along with the corresponding knowledge and the corresponding itopaths that can utilize this information.

Knowledge of the identity of the consciousnesses of the original and the cidentireplicas can exist in many different awarepaths. There are also many potential and actual awarepaths that will never know this. Because there are many that will never know or understand this does not mean that it is not the case.

To talk about something, we do not have to have it exist in this or any reality. To have knowledge of something it does not have to exist either. We have knowledge of none existence things. We can make up objects, events, people then make up information about them. Then we can make up tests about this information and grade a person on his knowledge of this information. We can have real knowledge about nonexistent things. For instance dreams, but dreams are real, but what happens in them is not.

We can have knowledge of all sorts of things (like physipaths awarepaths) that have all sorts of properties or lack of them. One of the properties can be real existence.

Even though a potential awarepath or physipath may never exist there is potential knowledge about these things and there can exist actual knowledge of these things. This knowledge can exist in a conscious form such as in a person or in an unconsciousness form such as in a book or computer data file. It can be in an active form or a non active form. An active form is where a person is actually thinking of it or a computer is processing data about it or inactive form in a brain that is not thinking about it or inactive data file or book. If we understand how a particular brain works we can then ask how can it vary. We can then determine all the variations that it can produce with out producing them. In the same way we can understand a consciousness then see how it can be different.

There exists knowledge of how to make cidentireplicas.

There exists the information about the cidentireplica.

Therefore a cidentireplica or videntireplica can be made.

There exists knowledge of how to make itopaths.

There exists the information about the itopaths.

Therefore a itopaths. or vitopaths. can be made.

What is the proof that this information exists?

Basically the argument is: Can the matter get together in this form? It did in the original so it is not impossible to come together in this way. It is not impossible for it to function in this way because the original does. There is the knowledge of how the original functions and is created so the knowledge exist also this knowledge could be recorded, if there are physipaths that have this ability. We have no reason to think that there can not be smart enough people or more intelligent life forms that could have recorded this information. But what about once the original is gone there is no source of this information.

Second knowledge argument information of the past argument

The knowledge argument has a second aspect the behavior of the cidentireplica contains knowledge that is identical to that of the cidentireplicas knowledge.

1. Behavior is the same.

2. Knowledge is the same.

3. Limited ability of the brain and brains to produce behavior and knowledge.

Therefore there will be a limited amount of possible consciousnesses that will fit into this situation. The cidentireplica will have a limited range of possible consciousnesses that it could have. Since the original already produced this consciousness it should be at the top of the list among the limited possible ones.

Can an awarepath exist in the non reality sense in other words you think that it exists within a virtual reality where as in reality it can not exist (like traveling around in a space ship very much faster than light visiting all sorts of aliens when this can and does not exist in reality-- this is a sensepath that can be generated in reality about a different reality that does not exist) Can the awarepath be deluded into thinking it is different than it is? How would this be possible? Many people are deluded about themselves being something that they are not, so their awarepath has a different perspective of themselves than they are in reality. But can an awarepath be different than it thinks that it is?

Cid paradox argument

Cid paradox is short for the cidentireplica paradox.

If behavior does not correspond to consciousness then the conscious being can be aware of it. If behavior of a body does not correspond to how the consciousness of the body thinks it should behave then the conscious being can be aware of it. Being aware of it produces a different consciousness or functioning in the brain. If this change in consciousness does not produce a change in behavior external and internal we have a paradox.

The cid paradox can apply to all that does not have approximate consciousness to the original unless there is no connection between the senses and the consciousness produced or the consciousness is an observer consciousness observing what the body does but having no effect on it.

A cidentireplica will have identical behavior to that of the original by definition. There will be a cid paradox if the consciousness produced does not correspond to the behavior being produced that the consciousness itself can observe.

A paradox is a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

for multicid argument

One cidentireplica becomes the original and one cidentireplica becomes the copy consciousness. If we make enough cidentireplicas of an original we will eventually copy a consciousness that has already existed.

If there are only a finite amount of consciousnesses (for a particular grouping) eventually we will have a copy of one of the pre existing consciousness.

We can also consider making cidentireplicas of different originals.

If we take all the possible originals that can exist and correspond to a unique consciousness and make a cidentireplica of each one, unless the cidentireplica have no consciousness there will be at least one match in consciousness. Each cidentireplica's consciousness will have to match one or more

We do have a consciousness if the cidentireplica is conscious.

What makes the difference if the consciousness is different but the functioning and structure is the same?

We can apply this to potential consciousnesses as well as actualized ones. We can construct a continuum of possible physipaths.

Behavior coherence argument

Certain behaviors can imply certain mental consciousness over others. Certain behaviors are more likely associated with certain consciousness than others or the reverse certain consciousness are more likely associated with certain behaviors than others. There is both the internal behavior of the system and the external behavior. Behavior implies limits to the conditions that produce that behavior. Only certain internal functionings can produce human behavior. More and more complex systems can produce a certain behavior in more ways but a limited system will be able to produce a behavior in only a limited amount of ways. An external behavior implies a certain limited set of internal functions and structures that produces the external behavior. The more different possible sensepaths that can effect the system

Science might say that it take all the brains ability to produce one external behavior including information to questions. A brain then is limited to what consciousness it can produce and the complexity of that consciousness.

There is not just the behavior of the person there is also the behavior of all the parts of the person. The cidentireplica will have both the external and internal behavior identical.

Behavior can imply or give supporting evidence of a certain consciousness. If two different people had different external behaviors they are not likely to have the same consciousness. Behavior can be used to estimate consciousness.

We can work backwards from behavior and estimate consciousness. It is a weak argument because behavior it seems can be created with out consciousness.

But by looking at the behavior of the whole system not just the external behavior of a person we have even better evidence of the consciousness produced.

The behavior argument applies to knowledge also this means that a person can have access to information of the past. Behavior can be very specific you can ask for name and experiences all sorts of complex memories. The original and all the cidentireplicas will give exactly the same answers even if the answers are not true. Even if the original is lying the cidentireplicas will generate this same answer.

The inverse argument from behavior goes as follows. What can we tell about consciousness from behavior? If we look at the behavior of a person scientifically we find that the behavior is caused by the contracting of muscles or the lack of the muscles contracting. This is caused in turn by the nerves that are stimulating these muscles which are stimulated by other neurons eventually being stimulated by the brain. The behavior of the body puts bounds on the functioning of the nervous system.

Where many different combinations of neural inputs into the muscles can produce a specific behavior most of these combinations can not occur with in the limits of the nervous system. So specific macro behavior of the body will be tied to a limited amount of nervous system patterns of firing. These patterns of firings will be limited by a number of other factors as well, such as the size of the brain the amount of neurons and synapses, the states of the neurons and synapses.

If we look at the behavior we have no reason to think there is a different consciousness. if we look at the functioning of the body there is no reason to think that there is a difference in consciousness.

Why do scientists believe that functioning of the nervous system produce consciousness?

Coherence of functioning argument

The body is made of parts that must cohere to the other parts the behavior that we see on the surface must cohere to the rest of the behavior of the system though there may be many paths of functioning of the body that will lead to the external behavior of the person At every point the parts have to come together in specific ways to create the whole many ways will be incompatible. So under these circumstances with this external behavior there will have to be certain set of coherent systems of functioning and not others

When the body produces a certain behavior there are only a limited amount of internals structures and functionings that can produce this behavior especially when the internal structure has limited size.

Many more structures and functioning can not produce a particular behavior than can produce a behavior. Any behavior is limited by how many structure and functioning can produce it.

Determinism running backwards from a behavior to a structure and functioning

Information of the past argument

A cidentireplica will answer all questions like the original there will be no question that the cidentireplica can not answer. Because of the limited nature of man knowledge he can not know everything. All the information that he has about the original means there is less possible information he can generate about another person’s consciousness.

A cidentireplica will have information of the past of the original identical to that of the original. Since there is a limited amount of information that a person can have this person will be limited by the extent of the consciousness of the original because he will not be able to have more than this.

Opposite proof argument

To accept a theory we have to have proof. What is the opposite proof against the identireplica theory. If the proof on the other side is weak that makes the arguments for the opposite side stronger or at least it does not weaken the other side as much. The proof against this theory is not strong. There is no direct evidence that this theory is wrong. What would constitute evidence that this theory is wrong? If there are no modifying circumstances and the cidentireplica does not have the consciousness of the original this would constitute a proof for one individual. There can also be modifying circumstances for one or more individuals

“I am unique!” bias argument

Many people think that they are unique. This is an unproven bias based on a limited perspective and limited knowledge about consciousness ixperiencitness and the universe and or multiverse. If your consciousness is actually unique then there is no multiplicity of consciousness or multiplicity of ixperiencitness for you.

Argument against the “I am unique argument”

“I am unique so it is impossible to have another person with my consciousness” One’s consciousness is not unique to a particular space or time amount place on an awarepath etc. Ones feeling of uniqueness is an illusion.

It may be true that the body is in one place and time, with one set of matter. But this does not imply that this is the law of consciousness as well. The complexity argument is valid, this means that to get, find, or create an identical replica is very difficult but not impossible. To make it continue to functioning the same is also a difficult problem. But an awarepath may be generated in other ways. For instance, in awarepaducers or by fidentireplicas. Since there are many possible videntireplicas of a person when trying to make or find a cidentireplica it becomes much easier because approximation is good because it produces videntireplicas.

I an unique there can not be any other person with may consciousness or soul in the universe or multiverse. It is a belief with out proof how do we attack a belief if it is not based on a scientific experiment or logic. What is the argument for I am unique?

1. I should see a second me. No you will not see a second me or a second consciousness of you unless the first version of you sees a second you. Through logic and science I do see a second you (me) there will be other ways of seeing a second you. It is just that this particular version of you is a singular version.

What is the proof that I am unique? -- I see no other me. Why is it necessary for you to see another you for one to exist. Or for the potential of another you to exist. Just because we do not see viruses, atoms, yellow elephants, etc does not mean that they do not exist.

The “I am unique” statement implies either that the identireplica theory is correct in that a cidentireplica will have the consciousness of the original but that no cidentireplica can ever exist. Or that if any cidentireplica and every cidentireplica will have a different consciousness than the original.

“Common sense” anti theory Rule 1A person can only be at one place at one time any one else you do not control their bodies or sense what they are sensing. Consequently, they (any one else) can not be you. Thus you are tied to a particular singular body or mind. This is the key objection to this theory. Because you can only be at one place at a time all the other assumptions of the theory are false as well. A person with exactly the same identical functioning even if he has the same consciousness would not be you

Or the same functioning can not produce the same consciousness because it breaks rule 1. Or there can never exist identical functioning there can not be time travel because if one were to travel back in time there would be two of the original and this is impossible because they do not experience what each other experience they do not control the other’s body

God aspect of the I am unique bias argument

The argument goes: god only makes unique souls thus each awarepath is unique. What is the proof of this? Some might say that it is based on the bible or other religious writings. There exists the potential of an infinite amount of awarepaths and physipaths, why would god only pick a few of the possible ones, especially ones that he does not like?

There is no reason that god could not make consciousness work in the way awaretheory proposes because it makes the world seem like a better place because death is not as bad, life is not as bad because there are many different versions of a person and all bad experiences or wrongful deaths have a completely different meaning. This is because every awarepath can have the bad parts cut out so to speak they do not have to exist, Second, for another person to have the experiences where others suffer does not mean that other people have to suffer it can just be a sensepath of suffering of other people with out the actual events happening.

Even god has to deal with the problem of awarepaths and physipaths. This means that there are many more physipaths than all the people that will ever live on earth corresponding to an extremely large amount of awarepaths

The despair that many people about death does not mean the same thing either. The awarepath that contains despair of death is not the only version of a particular ixperiencitness (person). A person is not tied to a particular moment. At any moment many types of change can occur to a person. Creating many changes to the awarepath so that it is still the person but with improvements with out despair or depression etc. We can work toward these awarepath that we want rather than ones that we do not want. We do this through the scientific study of physipaths. How do we decide what awarepath we want and what ones we do not want? The more we know the more easily we can make these decisions. But some types of changes that we are going to make to awarepaths are more aware, intelligent, well adjusted, integrated into other types of consciousnesses, creative, ones that can understand better,etc.

Some people might think that a soul can have many different awarepaths. Then what is the definition of a soul?

There is no necessary reason that god needs to make only unique, singular, and once only awarepaths. He can make any that he wishes. Why would he wish to make once only existing awarepaths?

Awaretheory means that god can make all possible consciousness and not create evil which means that Hitler gets a consciousness with out ultimately denying the lives of others or the existence of their awarepaths.

An ultimate God certainly could create a universe like the one that this theory proposes. And a ultimately powerful, knowledgeable, good god, can create all possible consciousnesses.

Only a limited god would produce a limited universe with limited consciousnesses, when he could have created all possible physipaths and awarepaths.

There is no need for free will because every possibility if fulfilled in every way. Freedom of will is an experience of the awarepath in seeing that there are many different paths and that some are better (more moral, better by any different definition) than others.

Continuum argument

There may be a continuum of change in matter and space and time this means that we can break down change into infinitely small pieces like breaking the number line into all the real numbers that it contains.

This continuum argument says that variations to a functioning in the way of space, time, and matter, will produce a consciousness that is closest to what a known consciousness of a certain and functioning will produce.

If we can break the space, time, and matter, down into the infinitely small. We can also break down functioning into infinitely small change. This is because any change covers a real distance that corresponds to a real infinite amount of numbers. Of course mater may change in discrete chunks. There will in this case be a finite amount or only a counting infinite amount of possibilities. For physipaths

Continuums argument for ixperiencit uxperiencit nulxperiencit

The concept of continuity can be applied to both the body as well as to consciousness. The concept of continuity is that there are changes in you that are still you. From one minute to the next you change. These changes are still part of you. The question what aspects of your consciousness can we change and still have you. The definition of you is a definition because we can imagine variations of your consciousness that are as close to any particular consciousness as desired where do we draw the line.

The ixperiencit is part of what we call consciousness as such it may be dependent on other aspects of consciousness to define itself exactly. Even if it is not dependent on any other aspect of consciousness. It may not be as simple a concept as: You have it or you don’t. It may change over time for a person. You have it or you don’t but it is different for every person. In this case there would have to be many different ones with different aspects thus ixperiencit would be a compound quality. Even with one quality we can have degrees of this quality that may change over a person life.

The ixperiencit is like the ego theorists ego. But many different persons can have the ixperiencit where as the ego theorist appears to apply to only one. The question is: Does the ixperiencit has qualities? If it does not have different aspects how do different people have different ones? If it exists and different people have different ones then there can be a continuum of variation among the different ixperiencits. If there is a difference between the different ixperiencits is there a difference for a person over time in his ixperiencit?

The ixperiencit my just be the moment of the experience or awaremoment. And is not a specific aspect of it. So every one will have the same one at the same time.

Continuum argument for itopaths

Continuum argument for the identity theory of consciousness

As we approximate the physical functioning and structure of the original in another person we will be approximating the consciousness of the original. There are many way of constructing these experiments. We can only cover a few ways.

Some peoples physical functioning is more similar than others. Some peoples consciousness is more similar than others. To make this assumption we need

We have to assume that there is or can be a difference in consciousness between two or more people or they already have conscious identity. We also have to assume that consciousness can change as physical functioning and structure change. We have very substantial experiential evidence for this.

There are a number of physical variables in a person that can be changed one way or another. Each of these changes will either make the consciousness produced more or less or have no change on the consciousness.

Although consciousness correspond to more than a point in time the argument applies equally as well to any type of corresponding grouping.

Or if there are n possible awarepaths and nm possible physipaths there will be an over lap in possible different physipaths that will produce identical awarepaths. This applies to awarepoints/physipoint, awaremoment/physimoment awarevenues/physivenues, awarefields/physifields etc.

If any change in the physipath creates a change in consciousness or the awarepath to make a different conscious person not a version of the original we either create another person that has never existed before or we have made a person that has existed before. All of these new people with unique consciousness will be centered around the change in this one body if we consider all the possible change that can occur to the

Why does the universe have to make a new consciousness for every change in the body? Why would it want to

There exist many potential path that make a continuum of change form one actual itopath to the next. Because there exists a continuum of possible physipaths there also exists a continuum of possible awarepaths.

If the mapping of one awarepath to many different physipaths does not exist Imagine if there is a one to one mapping from each different total physipath to a different awarepath. Imagine if there is a one to one mapping from each different total physipath to a different ixperiencit. We are not talking about version of each we are talking about a separate unique ixperiencit. The soul theory says that a soul can be connected to any body but to only one body at a time so it there is a cidentireplica of the original it will not contain the soul of the original if the original is alive. It could be transferred after the death of the original. But the cidentireplica could have the soul of some one else The materialist with a unique mind theory says that once that the bodies dies the mind permanently is gone. So there is no connection to any body for that mind after the death of body. All connection to potential physipath is gone.

Reincarnation theory Heaven theory

What kind of mapping between awarepath and physipath can we have for these theories? What kind of mapping between ixperiencit, awarepath, and physipath can we have for these theories?

What connection or what consciousness does the cidentireplica have in these theories

The mapping will always be changing for the materialist / duelist theory because once dead the potential physipaths will no longer produce the awarepath or ixperiencit of the original. Since a person can die at any time the connection to potential awarepaths is always changing. Reincarnation theory does not map a body to a consciousness or ixperiencit because the soul of the person can be in any other physipath or even animal physipaths.

Dying neuron argument

Many neurons die each day yet we have the same individual’s consciousness. Structure is changing yet the same relative consciousness is still present. This is evidence that change can occur in the brain and yet we can still have the same persons consciousness even though it is changing over time itself.

Change in structure and functioning produces change in consciousness

The ixperiencit is the same with the death of some neurons, which means the change in structure and functioning of the brain. The ixperiencit is defined as the fact that you are experiencing the consciousness. Even though there is change in functioning and structure it is still your consciousness. From second to second there is change in how the brain is functioning but the awarepath that is being produced is still yours The awarepath can change and it will still be yours

Inverse of the dying neuron argument

An argument for superpaths being able to be a continuation of the same ixperiencit

We can also imagine the inverse of the dying of neurons if these neurons had not died this would still have been a case of survival for the original. If we increase the amount of neurons slowly this again would be a case of survival of the original.

Approximation argument

A close enough approximate functioning and structure will produce an approximate consciousness. The physipath of a person over time changes but there is a great deal of similarity of functioning and structure and repeating of functioning over time. In the same way there is a great deal over lap in the awarepath that is produced. In fact, this is one reason that we may feel that we are a continuation of a self. A close enough approximate functioning and structure in the original will produce an approximate consciousness in the original.

A functioning that approximates the functioning of the original, in the original, will produce an approximate consciousness in the modified original. As we approximate the functioning closer and closer in the original to a certain functioning that produces a specific consciousness we will have a closer and closer approximation to that consciousness

If find or make a consciousness that is approximately like the original we can ask what the consciousness of this being. We can consider all the approximations to the original This is the continuum argument with out a continuum we do not need to assume a continuum

Continuum principle

There is a smooth change in possible physical functionings. One functioning body can be just as close to another functioning body as we like We may not be able to view physivenues or awarevenues as continuous smooth functions.

Grouping theory is that we can group consciousnesses and physical functionings; awarepaths and physipaths, into groups based on concepts like types of functionings and types of consciousness.

One of the problems with the pigeon hole proof is if consciousness can be broken down into very small increments of change there will be more and more possible holes to fit physical structures and functionings -- physipaths into Functioning can be broken down into very small pieces of change how small depends on Qm there may be a limit there may not be.

Small change argument

Principles of small changes

1. A small enough change in the structure and functioning will not produce a change in consciousness. 2. A small change in the neuropath is more likely to produce a small change in awarepath than a large change. There are at least two ways of looking at change first, as the process of change, the actual process of changing form one point to the next. Second, there is the actual difference between two points. There may be many different paths between two points that are different. There is one distance per definition or type of continuum. Because of convergence and divergence there can be a long path between two points next to each other on a continuum.

Continuity of functioning and structure argument

Some say that it is the continuity of the body, some say that it is the continuity of the soul -- mind that matters toward immortality or survival. This theory says that it is the continuity of the functioning and structure of basically the brain that is important. The functioning of the brain over time varies a great deal. How is one to decide what functioning is important for a person and what are not. The range of functionings of the nervous system correspond to the different types of consciousness that are produced by the brain. Which functionings and structures really correspond to a continuation of a person? All the possible consciousnesses produced by the functioning that a body can produce at any time are the continuation of a person. So if you happen to be thinking of an orange when you die an exact functioning body will be thinking of the same orange but if you if your videntireplica is thinking of a banana it will still be you. It will be a continuation of an approximation of you with the one change of the thought of the orange instead of the banana.

The continuity of the body may be ok for other people but if it does not contain an awarepath that is a version of you it will not be ok for you as far as your survival is concerned.

Continuity of structure and functioning is a concept that is much more complex than the concept of continuity of the body or soul

The potential awarepath argument

It would appear that there exists many potential awarepaths for each person that do not exist within one person’s life. To say that, that potential disappears when a person dies

The potential awarepaths for any particular person is an almost uncountable large number. If we consider infinitely long awarepaths there are an infinite amount of them. This is because the sequence that the unique segments are put together in to a An infinitely long awarepath of a person is like a real number that continues infinitely with only ten digits. There are many more unique sequences than ten for a person. But they can be put in any sequence. They may take time to convert but there still will be many segments.

The argument is that once dead the potential for all these awarepaths with any person in them --the “me aspect” is zero is unreasonable. Why would the potential awarepaths disappear unless there is a unique third aspect? If the third aspect or me aspect is part of consciousness and not separate from it, those potential awarepaths still contain you upon your death but not as a separate “me” substance. If consciousness is not a separate aspect of the physipath then when every the physipath is created then the same consciousness is produced with the feeling of the me aspect.

All the awarepaths that a person can have in the future are determined by which sensepath internapaths and externapaths. It would be strange to say that there is only one possible sensepath internapath and externapaths can influence a person in his future If Qm is correct future events are probabillistic consequently they are not determined. If it is not determined means there has to be other possibilities that could occur. We can trace out all sorts of awarepaths that could have occurred and all sorts that can occur in the future.

Knowledge part of the argument We can have knowledge of an infinite amount of different awarepaths. We can also have knowledge about an infinite amount of awarepaths for any one person. We can have an outline of how to produce them through the physipath as slightly divergently form an original. We can ask why is just one limited length awarepath tied to each person or ixperiencit? Because of our preconceived ideas about a unique singular soul that we have no knowledge of or proof of its existence. If there is a soul why must it be unique and singular in nature. Functioning and structure of the brain is proven tied to consciousness. But functioning and structure is not necessarily singular or unique It follows the concept of a continuum of possibilities.

Why is it a continuum of possibilities because we can construct a continuum of consciousness and a continuum of functioning and structure. Awarecontinuums and physicontinuum exists. They can be defined. We can have knowledge about them.

Why must a ixperiencit be tied to only one awarepath and one physipaths. The singularity and uniqueness view point is from our limited perspective.

Potential physipath argument

The potential physipaths of a person do not disappear upon death of that person. It is unreasonable to believe that all the potential connections (that a certain physipath produces a certain awarepath) between the physipaths and awarepaths that did exist before the death of the person is gone after the death of the person. Why? The theory that says that this connection does disappear must then develop a reason that it does. All the potential physipaths of a person will still produce consciousness exactly like it would have other wise. But the for “you” not to have the possible to be connected to this consciousness postulates a third aspect or the me aspect. Body, consciousness, and the “me aspect” the trinity of immortality.

What is the me aspect? It is the “Me” observing consciousness. It implies that someone else could be observing the same consciousness. If this is true, that many different people can observe the same consciousness, this means that no one is tied to a particular consciousness. Can someone be tied to all consciousnesses? Can all consciousness be seen through all eyes so to speak? We would have a permutation where every consciousness can be tied to one person then every consciousness to another person until every consciousness is tied to every person. But what is the quality properties of the me that would be tied to these consciousnesses? How do you tell the different “me aspects” apart. What properties do you give me, to tell the me apart from other people’s “me aspect”? Are all the “me properties” consciousness properties? If so then

consciousness apart

The second argument is that we need the identical matter for a person’s consciousness or me aspect to be recreated. The first type of immortality is possible so a person could conceivable live for ever. In some length of time all the matter in that person will be replaced but that person will still be or have the original me aspect of consciousness. Consequently, the particular matter is not necessary for the me aspect to exist in a person. You might say you need a particular grouping of matter to produce a certain awarepath and a different grouping to make another one this does not take into account that at any instance the different sensepaths can generate any number of different consciousnesses for any particular person. If one insists on the particular me aspect of consciousness you have created then not only dualism but a tri system of consciousness.

The potential physipaths still have a possibility of existing. For them not to exist there has to be a fundamental change in the laws of the universe. For certain path to have the potential to exist and not others not requires knowledge of the future or a deterministic universe. Because of the probabillistic nature of the laws of QM we can not be certain of any particular physipaths not existing in the future.

The potential argument

The potential argument is that consciousness is based on the structure and functioning of the body especially the nervous system. The self or feeling of self is part of consciousness thus produced by the functioning and structure of the body There exists many different ways that a body can be constructed and function. Each one has a potential of existing that has nothing to do with if someone has already existed before. The potential is still there for that structure and functioning to exist. Having the potential does not mean that there is a large probability of it existing. None the less individual physipaths are actualized realized.

If there are many potential physipaths when they become actualized (realized) they can be producing a consciousness that can have a self aspect (ixperiencit). The self aspect is the feeling of self or self awarepath. The ixperiencit is the I experience it rather than the you experience it aspect of consciousness.

Not all physipaths produce consciousnesses and not all consciousnesses contain the self aspect (ixperiencit). Self Consciousness seems to be the processing in the nervous system that applies to the processing itself. The concept of self is the processing about processing that refers to certain sensation as part of the concept of self. What a person looks like what he feels etc. united into a conscious whole then that whole is related as a concept to the other concepts.

The potential physipaths are still there even if not actualized. If actualized they will produce the corresponding consciousness and the corresponding self aspect of consciousness. If a physipath is being actualized that is within your physivenue it will produce an awarepath within your awarevenue.

Limited ability argument

Just because we do not have the intellectual capacity or scientific reduction theory to understand how the functioning of the brain produces consciousness, or a way to directly sense it does not mean that the brain through it’s structure and functioning does not in fact produce all the different mental aspects of consciousness.

This awaretheory is based on scientific materialism. The objection to materialism is that we can not see after images, dreams, feelings, emotions etc. when we look at the brain. We can not even understand how the brain can produce consciousness. We can not sense consciousness in a brain and we do not understand how it is done. The limited ability argument is simply that we as humans do not have the ability to see (sense) these things at this time. And the intelligence to translate them. We can not even keep track of the simplest firing of a few neurons. The meaning of the firing of the neurons is determined by the system as a whole. We are no where close to comprehending this on a real time scale. When we can understand the meaning of hundred of millions or neurons firing on a real time scale we will be a different species. It may be possible that a complex enough futuristic computer will be able to take the functioning of the brain on a real time scale and say that this person is dreaming of a walking on a beach. This does not means that they can not be observed in many ways with the right sense organs connected to our brains in the right ways. There are things that we as humans are good at understanding and sensing and others that we are not. We can directly observe radio waves or ultraviolet light. We do not sense sonar or many different chemicals. We definitely do not sense functioning of things at the very small level we can not even see very small things. A brain that is functioning and producing consciousness could be put in front of us along one that is not and we could not tell the difference. A computer chip can be put in front of us and we can not tell if it is on or off and what program that it is running. We try to give meaning to things that we sense happen.

I can imagine a device that relates the information in another brain into sensations for your brain so when you investigate another brain and actually look at the functioning that is going on you will in fact see red when they see red and you will know that it is their brain that is seeing red and not your senses

Most people can not understand how a computer does what it does. A computer can be connected to a sensing device and it can make decisions about what it senses.

Tunnel vision /limited perspective argument

The tunnel vision argument is that our consciousness is limited like tunnel vision. We do not have enough conscious ability to see the whole picture about consciousness being multiple. So our view is limited, and if we do not look in the right direction we can not see even parts of the picture. If the tunnel vision of our consciousness is not pointed in the right direction we can not understand the identireplica theory and its consequences and see that they are true. Some seem to sense the theory but can not put it in scientific terms or in terms that tie what we know about science. People do seem to see part of the picture and then try to make sense of this part. When their theory does not match science they have a tendency to throw out the science. Science does not like to jump to conclusions with out substantial evidence.

An analogy might be the stars have been seen by humans and their ancestors for millions of years. One theory was that they were as a roof to the universe with points of light attached. Another was that they were not very distant. Only in the past one hundred years have we realized how far away the star are and that there are galaxies

Other examples are the idea that the earth must be flat or we would fall off. Another is that the sun revolves around the earth.

You only experience your awarepath argument

You only experience your awaremoment. Awareness of having an awarepath or future and past consciousness is part of the awaremoment. Consciousness is tying many different aspects of one’s awarepath into the awaremoment the more that the awaremoment can contain in the way of consciousness the higher level of intelligence life form it corresponds to. The more the awaremoment can vary over time the more intelligent life form it corresponds to.

This concept that you only experience your awarepath is the foundation for the belief in the concept of the uniqueness of you. But where you are defined by your awarepath, your awarepath is not defined by a particular total physipath.

Two identical awarepaths will never appear to be in synchronization with each other from the view point of the sensepath.

Imagine sitting in a round symmetrical room that is painted with a uniform white you put two originals that have identical functioning and structure. They are cidentireplicas of each other. As long as they are cidentireplicas of each other they will behave the same and have the same consciousness. The two will look at each other they may talk at the same time then stop then ask questions. A the same time. Any thing you do your cidentireplica will do the same. They will eventually diverge because for no other reason than radiation. Cosmic rays change the functioning of the in relation to the cidentireplica But if no external

If the room does not give the same sensepath to each cidentireplica their awarepaths would be different this is why the room is symmetrical and uniform and one color. Qm effects will also make the two diverge

Immateriality of mental terms

How can mental terms be real when they deal with potential possibilities? For instance, many of the ideas we have are for potential changes to reality. We can imagine a house being built on a hill. We can visualize the addition of a room. We envision the process of getting ice cream and the enjoyment that we will receive. What color sheets to put on the bed? What color of sheet can be put on a bed? We think in possibilities? In possible realities -- in possible future awarepaths.

The computer is a path maker when it has a conditional statement if such and such then other wise to make a decision it has to have input with out the input it does not proceed the input can be time such as if no input in a certain time then . The neuron is a path maker also because it has input and output input or lack of input can both be uses in conditionals. Humans unlike computers think in more complex conditionals each neuron is a complex conditional device there are many different factors that explain its behavior for instance food levels oxygen levels in the cell the ability to respond to different stimulus its structure its changing structure

Another objection to the theory that the brain produces consciousness is the immateriality of mental terms. For instance, an after image or sensation does not have weight or volume or other physical characteristics. We do not have a complete theory of how the brain produces consciousness but this is because the process is so complex. When we look at computers and they produce complex games and interactions with people we do not see how this is done when we look at the computer. We do not see the little action characters running around in the computer We do not see the reality that the computer produces for these characters. What the computer is doing is representation of concepts in terms of the functioning of the computer. Then the manipulation of these concepts in the desired ways. Finally the transformation of these concepts into reality of pictures, sound, motion, etc. The brain does the same thing but in different ways. The brains have a structure they take in information through the senses that effect how the brain functions. The functioning deals with the representation of concepts of all different levels and kinds. Once there is a functioning representation of these concepts there is the manipulation of these concepts by these concepts that further produce other concepts and modification there of . Finally these concepts are transformed through the muscles and other bodily systems into actions in reality

Representation, manipulation, and transformation are three things that the brain does. A representation of a smell does not have to be a smell. The manipulation of a representation does not have be the same thing as the manipulation of real objects. The manipulation of the representation of a smells, colors, sensations, emotions, memories etc. does not have to be the actual manipulation of smells, colors, sensations, emotions, memories etc. The behavior of the neurons can be these representations and manipulations. Then the brain transforms these representations into behavior of the body.

The problem with understanding this is that there are many ways of representing any concept in terms of functioning of the brain, computer or any other functioning system. On top of this there are many different ways of manipulation these representations once they are created. The same concept in the same system may be represented in many different ways at the same time and at different times. All this can be seen in computers. It is no wonder that we do not see this when we look at a brain from the out side.

Total physipath argument

Total physipath argument is that there are an extremely large amount of changes that can be made to the total physipath with out effecting the functioning and structure of the brain. What effects will these changes have on the consciousness produced? Either we have the same consciousness produced, we have a different consciousness produced, or we have no consciousness produced. If there is no consciousness produced with the replacement of an atom with a different atom or other equivalent change this has to have a cause /reason that has to be reasonable rational .

The consequence of this argument is that we do not need the same matter, place, or time to produce the same consciousness just the same functioning and structure of the matter.

What is happening in the brain is representation of concepts in a manipulatable form. The manipulation of these representations. Then the transformation of these concepts back into the behavior of the body. No where in this process do we need a particular grouping of matter over an equivalent grouping of matter. a particular space or time over another space or time.

The similarity of consciousness argument

Consciousness among people are similar. Some people have consciousness closer than others. The similarity of consciousness adds to fact that consciousness could be identical. Since some are closer alike and some are more distance this add to the concept there can be a continuum of consciousness getting ever closer and closer to each other or more distance from each other. If there were not similarities among different people’s consciousnesses we could not communicate among ourselves because we would not have ideas in common. For example, if you did not know the concept of a chair and I could not describe in terms/ ideas that you understand

=====Include at later point

The identity of consciousness with the identity of structure and function is the easiest case.