Itoarguments part 7

File 80 - 100 proofs 12:00 pm Wednesday, September 24 2003

Infinite awarepath problem/ argument

Infinite personvenue argument

This is the argument that even though there is an infinite amount of physipaths of an individual there is still so many more total physipaths that there will never be a physipath within a person’s physivenue produced by random natural means. In other words there may be a real infinite amount of physipaths that a person can experience but there may be a different cardinal level of infinite for the set of all awarepaths. It does not have to be a cardinal infinite larger, it can simply be the real infinite squared this would mean that for every personvenue there is a real infinite number of other personvenues each with a different ixperiencit.

There is also the fact that we strung together identical parts of awarepaths to produce infinitely long awarepaths and physipaths. Is there an infinite amount of slight variations for each awarepath? Probably not because the mentapath makes up the difference; many slightly different physipaths can produce the same mentapath and many slightly different mentapaths can produce the same awarepath. These differences may lead to changes in the physipaths in the future or divergence that produce a different awarepaths.

Some solutions to the problem:

There is the argument that the universe is ideally created to produce awarepaducers a lot of space, energy sources -- stars, matter around the stars that can be used to create the awarepaducers. And cold temperatures to produce super conductivity for low energy use awarepaducers at fast speeds. -- isoidentireplicas

There may be the come back of fidentireplicas if they exist. But there may not be enough originals to make fidentireplicas. What is the mathematics what about time fidentireplicas? If the fitoprocess can reach across time there would be more possible fitopaths.

Even if there are an infinite amount of personvenues and the universe can only produce a limited set of them, there may be other universes. Does a physipath from each personvenues that can be produced, need to be produced?

The best counter argument is that there in reality can not be this large of an amount of physipaths that over whelms the amount of physipaths in a person’s physivenue. There are only a limited amount of ways to produce a human size physipath after that it is a matter of repeating the distinct sequences. If a physivenue, takes up physispace there will always be a possibility that this space can be created in a infinite universe of possibilities.

What percentage of physipaths for each personvenue out of the total amount of human sized physipaths tanhp -- total amount of non repeating human physipaths total amount in a human person venue total amount in a physipaths is a personvenue hvp/tanhp = d physipaths in a human venue-- hvp

Infinite knowledge problem /argument

The second part of the argument is that the knowledge is also so complicated that to produce a person’s awarepath artificially in a awarepaducer will be impossible. Also using the same argument as above each awarepoint is very complicated each awarepath is much more complicated and an awarevenue is even more complicated. If there are an infinite amount of awarepaths for a personvenue, then there will be an infinite amount of knowledge for each one. Then if there is an infinite amount person venues ---

Possible solutions:

If there are an infinite amount of awarepaths for each person venue but because of repeating segments and close approximation of awarepaths there may be a limited amount of knowledge to represent this information. Because of patterns and other epistemological simplifying agents there can be infinite knowledge dealing with awarepaths and physipaths but they still can be dealt within a finite amount knowledge.

Some times we can have generalized knowledge of a infinite knowledge situation with out needing infinite knowledge . We may not have the knowledge to create every one because it is to complicated but we can have bounds on the functioning and structure that will produce a certain functioning and structure. We can also use extrapolation from known physipoints. There appears to be may different ways to create awarepaths, we may never know exactly what we create but we can keep learning and kept producing awarepaths if we take care of the world and the universe. We can always use approximation and extrapolation for generating knowledge about awarepath and physipath there may also be many simplifying algorithms that will simply the process as well.

Selfish argument for the production of different awarepaths

The third part of this argument is that if the only way to produce an awarepath of a certain type is through an awarepaducer. And these awarepaducers take resources like work time, space, energy, and motivation to produce. No one will want to make an awarepath in some else's personvenue of some one who is already dead. They will want to concentrate on themselves their own awarepaths in there own personvenues.

Possible solutions

There are a number of reason to produce awarepaths of people that do not exist or who do not have the power to control what awarepaths are produced. Not everyone is selfish. Other awarepath have use. With in awarepaths are other awarepaths that the first awarepath might want to produce. They might want more than a behavior path. There may be many different reason to produce different awarepath in different awarevenues scientific laws for the simple reason that we can. We may not know what awarepaths contain what ixperiencits so we might produce them for selfish reasons to see if they in fact do contain a persons ixperiencit or an ixperiencit in a person ixperiencit venue. There is so much convergence and divergence of possible physipaths and consequently awarepaths that there are going to be many different versions that are related to any living conscious being. As we have divergence of awarepath from Superpaths are more likely to create specific desired awarepaths than lower level paths. Superpaths will have many possible subpaths ( human consciousnesses) that they could have come from. There can be the desire to know ones past possible progressional/developmental awarepaths. There is also curiosity, within superpaths to create for many reasons and interact with previous awarepaths.

There may well be complete subpaths (a human consciousness) produced where the superpath is actually producing the sensepath for the subpath consciously and also experiencing the subpath in many different ways.

Lets assume that the arguments are true that once every person is dead that no version of the person will every exist again in that universe, even with awarepaducers fidentireplicas etc. How does this effect the results of the identireplica theory? It means that for this universe immortality does not exist. But who knows in other universes. We do not know about other universes if they exist or what they can produce. In different universes there may be different awarepaths that can be produced. The identireplica theory does not guarantee survival of death or immortality. It only says that it is possible. It can be possible but never fulfilled for one or for all people. But since a person is never aware of being dead It also seems that there may be many different ways that we can produce different physipaths and their awarepaths. There will be many epistemologically simple ways to keep track of personvenues.

How can we prove this if the total amount of physipaths /awarepaths is infinitely larger that the awarepaths for each person? --If there are an infinite amount of ixperiencits not in a continuum. If we can over lay a set of one person’s ixperiencits on all possible awarepath and then another person's ixperiencit onto another set of all possible awarepath. The thing is how then do you create an ixperiencit?

The continuum solution: because there is no clear distinction between personvenues the creation of awarepaths will be the creation of versions of different personvenues. A different awarepath are created of one person venue the perspective of what other awarepath should be created will be different.

Certainty solution: Since we can not predict what awarepath will be created in the end with certainty the resulting awarepath will be within other personvenues. By no other reason than by accident, with their own perspective of what awarepaths should and should not be created new and different awarepath will occur.

Superpath solution: superawarepaths will have a different perspective on what awarepaths should be created and maybe more better reasons to create some awarepath over others.

In your infinitely long awarepath or your awarevenue there will be many people that you have a close attachment to even though at any particular time you may not be attached to only a few. These you may want to recreate for many different reasons.

The eternity argument

The eternity argument is why would someone want to live forever when it could be so boring, painful, repetitious, etc. Consequently it is a good thing that people are not immortal -- it makes the universe a more humane place to live how ever short that life is. An awarepath does not have to be continuous to seem like it is so the concept of eternity can be consciousness intermittently they can also repeat the best portions of a consciousness.

Eternal damnation argument

Why would we want to live for eternity in eternal damnation-- suffering mentally physically emotionally etc.? The point is that we can do some thing about the problem of suffering by what we do now and in the future to make the versions of our own and others awarepath not so awful.

The identireplica theory is a theory that has a solution for this problem. First , according to the identireplica theory you are not always conscious but you are not aware of being unconsciousness either. So long periods of time can pass and you can be totally unaware of it. There is not a necessary smooth continuity in your consciousness but you will not necessarily be aware of this discontinuity because you are only aware of the awarepath that your physipaths produces.

To be immortal or to survive death you do not have to be conscious all the time, or conscious all the time of the same experiences or of repeating the same experiences. Second, awarepaths can repeat. Any awarepath could repeat at any time in the future. You would not be aware of a repetition unless it was part of the awarepath to sense repetition. Third, awarepaths can diverge and converge into any number of different awarepaths with any number of different sensepaths. All these awarepaths make up a persons awarevenue. Fourth, there is the potential for every one to have many possible super awarepaths. Awarepaths can be ever increasing or enhancing and infinitely long. The more complex an awaremoment is the more complex awarepaths can be formed form it.

You are not going to be aware of living eternally because you do not have the mental capacity to keep all the memories that a person has over eternity. Of course this does not means that a brain can not generate memories that have happen or haven’t happened simply by random functioning of the brain. There exist horrible awarepaths or sections of awarepaths for everyone. Awarepaths can have bad parts at any point and then latter have good parts, The point is to try and not make any more horrible awarepaths than necessary. There also exists many very good awarepaths for each person. What is the proof that there are many good awarepaths for every one? Because there are many different potential physipaths that can correspond to good awarepaths for each person. It is possible that an awarepaducer can generate these good awarepaths that many not be able to exist in reality.

What is a horrible awarepath? A horrible awarepath or part of an awarepath is one that you would not want to experience. It might contain great pain, suffering, sadness, insanity, or Your consciousness may have existed into the past to infinity but you would not know it. There also exists many different awarepath a person could exist in at the same time.

There could be created a life that would live with an ever increasing long memories until he died or the ability to generate many different memories

Principle of horrible experiences-- a horrible experience is not ultimately tied to all the possible awarepaths of a person. A horrible experience may effect negatively many awarepath that derive from it . But this experience or it negative effects can be totally eliminated from any future negative effect if the awarepath is changed enough in a positive awarepath affecting way.

Morals -- The revenge problem won’t there be a problem with revenge where one set of awarepaths take revenge on another set for real or imagined wrongs? This certainly seems to happen in real life. And there seems to be many different potential awarepaths that do suffer from revenge problems. We do not know how well we will control awarepaths, hopefully the keeper paths (the awarepath that decide what versions of awarepath to produce) will understand what they are doing. First, they have to understand that versions of themselves can do terrible things to other versions of themselves. To take revenge on versions of one self is crazy. There may be other good reasons to create certain awarepaths but revenge when you may be doing it to your self is not very smart. The key is do not let versions of your self produce unwanted suffering to other version of your self. These types of awarepath can be created in an awarepaducer where they will not effect others in negative ways. Second, the individuals that do so much harm may have versions that are very good to you so should you make them suffer? For example hitler created a lot of suffering but a different version of hitler may have created much happiness to others or saved many lives and ended up suffering greatly for these good deeds .

Infinite life problem

Infinite life is bad if you see it an bad in the sense of repetitious, painful boring etc. If you are not aware of infinite life you will not be aware of its negative aspects.

The infinite life problem is: If life was infinitely long for a person, as it has been stated in different religious dogmas, it would be infinitely boring tedious-- basically hell eventually. This does not follow from the identireplica theory.

The identireplica theory does not have the infinite life problem. People can always live for the joy of the day. If the next day is joyful, it is not necessary boring tedious etc. Eventually memories fade for people so they can repeat things experiences and they will seem like they are new. There are so many possible sensepaths that we could experience in reality there are an even larger amount of sensepaths

Because of the limited functioning of the brain it can only generate a certain conscious slice of reality. One possibility is a brain functioning producing a boring tedium life or consciousness but there are many other that can be created over and over that are joyful. One joyful day repeated over and over again with out any memory of it repeating does not seem awful at all.

First, life can be in a number of different lives that are unaware of infinite lives. Secondly, there will be only the consciousness produced by the brain of the person so it can not remember an infinite past. There will be no more tedium as there is in your present life. Because the identireplica theory says there could have been an infinitely long life before the present for you, you have no problem with this infinite life now. Any life that is created does not have to be created with a brain that is producing tedium and boredom. How is this possible repetitions with out awareness of this repetitions. Increasing Enhancement of functioning leading to greater understanding of the universe and consciousness. There are an infinite amount of consciousness for each person. They can be strong together to produce one infinite long awarepath.

The ixperiencit

The “I” in “I experience it” is part of consciousness consequently it is not the body. As being part of consciousness it is generated by the functioning of the brain. And as being part of consciousness it is variable in nature over time. It also like consciousness can spread over different bodies. We can look at what we know and say that if it is your or contains “I experience it” is a version of your consciousness. if it does not generate your ixperiencit it is not there is no guarantee that the your body always produce your ixperiencit. For instance periods when you are asleep and not dreaming. If a consciousness contains your ixperiencit it is a version of your consciousness. It does not have to any other necessary conscious quality.

There is the belief that the ixperiencit was in the past body of yourself be in the and will be in the future. There is the belief that we could have had a life different than the one we in fact did have and the belief that we can have different possibilities in the future that will be us as well. This corresponds to different functionings. So we believe that different functionings will have your ixperiencit

You are more than a singular person argument

You are or can be more than a singular person argument

Rather than saying that you are only a person and then changing the definition of person to fit the reality of the identireplica theory why not define you as being more than just a specific person. When we use the term person we are referring to the concept of an individual physical person. This does not really include the full range of consciousness possibilities. In fact the concept of a person can be or is very limiting when understanding what we really are and about survival or immortality. It is hard to get around the logic that you are a person and when that person dies it is the end of that person. But it is not the necessary end of your consciousness or version of it. This means that you can span several individuals

You are more than just a person you are potential consciousness you have the potential to be many different persons including super persons.

Because you are more than just this person when this person dies it is not the end of you. The theory is materialism but it does not limit you to being just one person. There is a great deal of potential consciousnesses that correspond to you and a great deal of potential persons that can produce these consciousnesses. You are more that any singular person.

Because we are more that a singular person we have to behave accordingly. We learn to be concerned about the person but we should be concerned about the grouping of consciousness that is you.

When we look at our individual groupings of consciousnesses we can see many different versions of them. At this very moment our lives can diverge

We can list the possible consciousness of you into these categories

1. First person awarepaths Divergences

2. Divergences now

3. Divergences in the past

4. Divergences in the future

Type of reality based awarepaths

First person reality based

Awarepaducer based on reality

Awarepaducer not based on reality

Awarepaths created by the fito process based on reality

Awarepaths created by the fito process not based on reality

Divergences in reality

Awarepaducer divergences Fitodivergences

Superpaths from first person based on reality

Superpaths that include lower level awarepaths

Superpaths that include lower level awarepaths of the first person original and of other different first person originals awarepaths

Concepts of selfish concern

If you understand the identireplica theory and you are given the option of having your self tortured or ten identireplicas tortured, you will pick you. But what about versions of your self. First if the cidentireplicas are not tortured and you are they will no longer be cidentireplicas of you they will be videntireplicas of you. The question do you want ten tortured versions of you or one tortured version of you? The real issue is to make sure none of the eleven of you are tortured. If you understand the fact that you can be spread over several people then you might be more likely to treat others better they may be you. You might be willing to leave the world a better place. There will always be people that do not care or can not care because of mental illness or simple personality traits. Brains have so many possible behavior patterns that it can produce the understanding of the identireplica is no guarantee that they will think differently or behave differently or even in a positive manner.

If we ask someone if they would tolerate excess pain to save a loved one what they decide will depend on what they really view their loved one as. Is it a real person a virtual entity that will not suffer but will act like they were tortured a virtual entity that will suffer Even a virtual non consciousness person may have great importance for a person because they behave in way that make a person very happy or content. So you may suffer great pain for objects of importance.

If we ask someone if they would tolerate excess pain to in order to exist in reality rather than an experience machine, will they change their mind if they know that this reality that they are presently exist in and all of their previous life was created in an experience machine? What if they knew that they would loose loved ones if they went into reality from the experience machine. Where their loved ones only exist in this experience machine.

ixperiencit or potential ixperiencit is you argument

The ixperiencit or potential ixperiencit is you. What you experience or have the potential to experience is you. The ixperiencit for a person covers many different people, potential people, superpath, fitopaths, isopaths, and simipaths

We have a perspective from our awarepath that may show that we are separate from all other individuals that our consciousness is in no way shared by any other This perspective probably helps survival. If you had the perspective that every one was a version of your consciousness you may try to save every one when you can only save your self. The ones that are more selfish with their perspective on consciousness may be the one that are passing on those genes. This might be why it is hard for people to understand the ideas about the identity theory. Survival is the individual survival of a body not conscious survival. There is not an evolutionary need to understand the identireplica theory but there is a need to be selfish when it comes to a body surviving.

The magical properties of matter argument

The argument is that matter and energy is not enough to produce consciousness mentality et. But nothing but matter and energy have been found to explain consciousness. If we think about it, mater and energy has some seemingly magical properties of their own that we take for granted. That it can exist, That it can change in so many different ways, that it can function in cyclic ways, that it has so many different forms and behaviors in plant and animal life and chemical compounds. We underestimate what matter can do in fact the more we know about matter and energy the more magical it becomes (magical in the sense of the amazing things that it does or can do). Radio waves, computers, communication, superconductivity, Dna, colors, music, smells, tastes, light, gravity, plasma, electricity, galaxies, neutron, stars, gold diamonds behavior of an individual or animals etc. There seems no reason that if matter can be and do so much it can not on it own through the correct structure and functioning produce consciousness. Matter and energy do or produce what appear to be magical things, consciousness is one of them.

magic of matter argument

It has been argued that matter is way to simple, plane, etc to ever be able to create consciousness. But in reality the more that we know about matter and energy the more magical it becomes. Matter and energy indeed has great complexity and is intricately intertwined with space and time. We still do not understand what matter and energy is, how it was originally created, why it was created, if it is still being created, it may turn out that matter and energy is a “mind” substance. It can has the complexity to be a mind substance. It is at many levels just as mysterious as a “mind” substance. It can certainly do spectacular, things look at animals bodies, computers, neutron stars, dark energy, dark matter, the big squeeze (big bang) the number of combination of chemical compounds.

Matter and energy are indeed complex, bizarre, -- magical enough to create consciousness. We do not need a mind substance, that we have no evidence of, to create consciousness we have magical, yet understandable matter and energy.

Existence proofs

Proof for the existence of physicontinuums --

Proofs for the existence of physipaths

Only the physimoment exists so how do you prove that physipaths, physivenues, physicontinuums exists? They have potential existence. they have actual existence as things that describe potential things. They physipath appears to exist for us as does the awarepath we can imagine many different awarepaths and physipaths.

In geometry we imagine objects that have specific qualities that we can not produce.

Physicontinuums are n dimensional spaces like planes, points, lines,

We can also take physipoints, physipaths, physivenues, physicontinuums, as given definitions like points, lines, planes, and spaces, are in geometry.

Making a mathematics dealing with them is different from proving their existence scientifically. How do you prove the existence of carbon dioxide? through experiment? Or through theory. The path of a particle does not exist all at once but we can talk about the path of a particle

Defining the relation between potential and actual and between actually does exist actually will exist, actually did exist, potential but never could exist in this universe, could exist in this universe but never did or will, could exist but we never know( or the issue is never determined until the end of the universe, etc.

For sensepaths connected to reality argument

The sensepath argument is that the senpath does not have to be connected to reality. The sensepath that either senses this other you does not have to exist as well. A positive or negative sensepath in regards sensing others with your consciousness or ixperiencit and the corresponding awarepaths produced neither proves or disproves the existence of others with your identical consciousness. It might make you believe or not believe. Sensing another person that you believe is you is no guarantee that this other person exists. If he does not exist he does not produce a consciousness.

We can imagine seeing ourselves in the future and the past. If we were in the future or the past we could actually see ourselves existing at the same time. But we would not be experiencing what they are experiencing. However, we know that they have our ixperiencit. We do not know what our future will be so there can be many possible versions of each person in the future which is the real one? In this previous scenario we took it for granted that there was one and that we could imagine this one maybe travel into the future and actually experience him like watching a movie. We know that, that body is different than yours and that it is functioning differently than yours but we also know that it has your ixperiencit. If a future you is in a coma we have good reason to believe that it no longer has your ixperiencit. We can look forward in time and imagine many different version of you. They will have your ixperiencit but different consciousnesses. If we look back in time we can imagine looking at all the possibilities that could have diverged form you them they will have your ixperiencit as well through this process we can see that many different awarepaths and physipaths will contain your ixperiencit.

An argument against this is that there can never be the situation of existing at the same time as one’s self. You know that your consciousness was different then and that your essential physipath was also different yet you still had your ixperiencit in this previous version of your self. One other objection is that we think that there are other future path but in reality there is only one. The a counter argument to this is that we believe that we do have a choice in the future. If the other functionings and structures; physipaths, that correspond to these other possibilities; awarepaths, do not or can not exist then there is no free will and no possibility of free will. Every thing is exactly determined. Man has no responsibility because he has no other choice than what in fact will happen and no way can he change it.

If time travel is possible and the same person could not exist at the same time and have the same ixperiencit we have a paradox if the ixperiencit is because

Ixperiencitvenue is the term for a variable aspect of consciousness that distinguishes between people. If the ixperiencit for a person can change over time we have then a ixperiencitvenue for that person.

The ixperiencit being a continuum means that your ixperiencit varies over time and between people.

If the ixperiencit is just the experience at the awaremoment, then the ixperiencit

What would be the proof that we are all just versions of each other that we all share the same ixperiencit. This means that there are just two states of the ixperiencit either a consciousness has it or it is not conscious. A rock would not have it but every thing that is consciousness would. First if the ixperiencit is just the awaremoment then If all the different awarepaths you can experience, then there is just one ixperiencit. ?

If we can map all of one ixperiencit onto all of the possible awarepaths What if there is no such thing as the ixperiencit it is just the awaremoment?

With out the concept of the ixperiencit how do we tell if some one is you, or a version of you or not? Can “you” experience every awarepath? It seems to experience every awarepath you would have to loose control of your needs like in the case of the cid paradox. To experience every awarepath means doing things that you would not normally do and you would try not to do it. A scary situation for a timid person. A specific situation would be putting a timid person into the situation where he climbs the matterhorn in switzerland. The timid person would not normally say yes to doing this. He would not work toward this event the event would have to carry the person along with it He would be too scared to apprehensive etc. Unless he has no control over the body like in the cid paradox cases. This would be a different perspective on the sensepath with you having a certain personality can a person have a different personality and still have the ixperiencit? If we take all the other conscious aspects away is there going to be the ixperiencit aspect to build up another awarepath from?

The concept of the universe producing fidentireplicas and consequently many more awarepaths than other wise considered possible and the concept of there being just one ixperiencit all variety being contained with in the sensepaths and the awarepaths One reason that the concept of the fidentireplica is important is that for superpaths or godpaths. If godpaths have to be created out of physipaths, how do we create all this complexity? Fidentireplicas would be one way. If the interactive theory of volney's is true then matter on different sides of the universe would have to interact to produce godpaths

A persons personality would have to change to allow all possible awarepaths to have one ixperiencit. Does the ixperiencit have to be connected to a personality. What does the personality having fear or not having fear about an event is part of a person personality and a part of an awarepath. But then what about the timid person that experiences the scary situation but does not experience what about the fearless person that feels fear when he would not normally feel it . If the two thought about it, it might effect their future personalities and the current awarepath. There are all sort of possibilities what a person thinks about himself what he in fact does how this make him think about himself now. If all these change occur are they still you are you still experiencing the awarepath or is some one else?

If ixperiencit is a continuum can we over lay any version of the ixperiencit with any awarepath?

I think that any ixperiencit can be applied to any sensepath or visa versa. A sense path can be broken down into an external effective components that will effect different brain in different ways and some in the same ways, given that an ixperiencit is a certain brain at a certain structure and functioning any sense path can be applied to that brain to make it functioning in a number of different ways. The end result might be a different ixperiencit

What about change to the structure of the brain the externapath. How much change to get a different ixperiencit?

Describe what a change in the ixperiencit would be like, intensity of awareness, breath of awareness, mood, emotion, (envy, hate, jealousy, joy, love, empathy, sadness, sorrow, zeal) color, you could with these changes have the same ixperiencit. Either they are part of the ixperiencit or not if they are then there is a variation to the ixperiencit and it is not the same

What ever is defined as you, do you experience it? If you experience it is you. If you experience it the awaremoment it is your awaremoment. Two different ixperiencits can experience it the same sensepath. Can two or more different ixperiencits experience the same awaremoment?

Nothing but materialism argument

One argument is that the mind is based on the brains functioning. Once the brain is destroyed there is no more mind. The mind is gone. This implies that there is actually some thing that was there that is in fact gone. What is producing the consciousness is the functioning of the brain all that has to be done is the restoration of that particular structure and functioning not the finding of some weird or mysterious mind thing. Imagine an original and a cidentireplica their functioning is not in synchronization this means that one is functioning exactly like the other but not at the same time. There is a period of time before one gets to where the other was. There will be a point that the one that is ahead will no longer be producing consciousness. If Paul Edwards theory is correct then the minute the head stops producing consciousness then the second one will also. He could postulate that the second will not produce the consciousness of the first. So there is no problem but then he has to make up a theory to explain what every cidentireplica of the original will be producing. If there is ever a duplicate of the consciousnesses there will have to be a reason, but the reason will be out side of a materialist reasoning.

X factor argument

If identical consciousness is not sufficient for survival then there has to be another x factor that when you dies is gone and replaced in a cidentireplica.

You can not find any permanently destroyed property when a person dies besides the change in structure and functioning.

Modus operandi problem

How do we get the consciousness or soul from one person to the next? This is the modus operandi problem for immortality. There is no getting the soul or consciousness from one person to the next with the identireplica theory because there is not just the possibility of one soul. With identical functioning comes identical consciousnesses. The existence of or non existence of other identical functioning bodies does not effect the functioning of the original other than by materialistic ways. The getting from one point on an awarepath to the next is a matter of how two physipaths have identical physipoints at some place on their physipaths. It is a problem for reincarnation or resurrection

Legal argument

Legal argument is that a replica is not the original for legal reasons (thus it is not the original for any other reasons or purposes either). In fact it would be morally wrong to punish a replica for what the original did. Because of this apparent truism the cidentireplica is not and can not be the same person as the original. But that does not prove that the cidentireplica does not have the same consciousness and the same ixperiencit as the original. The desired qualities for survival of death or immortality. Whether a different person, with the same consciousness, and ixperiencit as the original, should be punished for what the original did is irrelevant to this argument. If there is considered a singular soul of a guilty person, and this soul and all aspects of his consciousness jumps to another person, and that person soul is now gone or jumps to the original guilty person we would not want to prosecute the original but the new

It is probably wrong to severally punish any one in order to create a bad awarepath. It is right to punish if we are making a specific awarepath that we can not make other wise. Death is not a punishment for the individual it is a punishment to the living that suffer because of someone’s death, not for the dead.

Is not a proof that the cidentireplica

Corporal argument

Corporal argument is that when it comes to personal identity it is the continuation of the body that matters. For out side purposes this maybe the case but for the individual himself it is not always the case. First if the individual is in a coma where no consciousness is or ever will be produced again by the body, the individual does not consider that this is still being alive. If any one else should be the one that experiences the consciousness that the body produces and not yourself this is not being alive for this individual with this body. If you experience the consciousness up to a point in the life of this body and then you no longer do and some one else does this is not. If my body should survive death but not have my consciousness and my ixperiencit I have not survived death. If my body is immortal but it does not produce my consciousness and my ixperiencit it is not immortality for me. I would not even call it my body if it does not contain my ixperiencit. Even though others or the law might. Others really do not know what consciousness is produced in a body. They care about behavior of that body.

For personal identity purposes, for survival of death and immortality, it is the consciousness and who experiences that matters.

93. Replicas are never you argument.

Replicas may not be you but that does not mean that they do not or can not have your identical consciousness. If a replica does have your identical consciousness what does this mean. It means that the replica thinks that he is you. He remembers everything that you do. behaves like you, loves and dislikes what you do. Every aspect of you is in him but he can have a different future life than you do.

94. A replica can never have exactly your consciousness so it is not you argument.

They can not experience what you are because you are experiencing it and not them. A cidentireplica will be experiencing exactly the same thing.

===A replica necessarily has a different consciousness than the original argument===

There is a way to determine if a person is a continuation of a consciousness by the ixperiencit test. Even though the ixperiencit concept is a variable it still has a center of mass so to speak.

What is the ixperiencit test? If I experience a particular consciousness it is my consciousness for immortality survival of death or sorting purposes. If I do not experience the consciousness it is not my consciousness. We can overlay the ixperiencit test on the awarepath continuum and there will be regions that we can not make a decision especially if several different ixperiencits can claim a particular awarepath. This follows from the fact that different people can have the same ixperiencit concept. But if I am experiencing something and I see that someone else is experiencing something else, that person is clearly not me because I am not experiencing that so the ixperiencit test shows that this can not be me. But we are looking at this from the perspective of one person not the other. It shows it from your perspective but it does not show it from the total perspective. You have to come out side of yourself to see the objective reality other wise it is subjective

It goes against the laws or logic of personal identity that a replica can, in the defining way, be you argument

?It does not go against that a replica is a different person. ?It actually only goes against that a replica is the same person as the original

?The identireplica theory does not go against the idea that a cidentireplica is a different person. It actually only goes against that a replica is the same person as the original

The logic or law of personal identity is based on subjective reality. You can not see into the mind of the cidentireplica so you can not really be objective to what the consciousness of the cidentireplica really is! The law of personal identity is just a perspective subjective law, it is not an objective or scientific law

What is the law of personal identity ? -- That there can only be one of you at a time. -- That there can only be one consciousness that corresponds to you at a time. It appears to be incorrect. To make this true we have to pervert reality and philosophical systems. To make it work we have to create a much more complex system to explain things. You have to explain why there can not be two identical consciousness in two different persons with out saying just cause of the law of personal identity. Or that it is obvious and does not need to be proved.

About ixperiencits

Is an enhanced ixperiencit a continuation of a lower level ixperiencit? What is an enhanced ixperiencit? What is a higher level ixperiencit? You experience more with a higher level or enhanced ixperiencit than a lower level or diminished ixperiencit.

We know that a person can have a diminished ixperiencit with injury disease or old age. For external purposes it can seem like a different person because the behavior is changed so much including recollection of memories. Certainly at this stage from a diminished ixperiencit enhancement to the original state is not destroying the a person ixperiencit. Why would enhancement be destroying the ixperiencit and replacing it with another different one. Maybe this enhanced beyond the present ixperiencit is the real you and not the present “diminished” ixperiencit. Is there a limit to the amount of enhancement to the ixperiencit, awarepath or physipath? Size is a factor so is time. How do we integrate a massively large physipath into a super enhanced awarepath. Maybe this is where principles about fidentireplicas and isoidentireplicas can be very useful.

Obviously some types of changes to the physipath will change the ixperiencit. This is because certain changes will produce a different person and if this person has a different ixperiencit this enhancement is a different person.

How you experience it versus if you experience it. The “how you experience” it varies. If you experience it if you look at a past or future if we asked if you experience it you would have to say that you do not experience it

A higher level ixperiencit is not the same as a lower level ixperiencit argument. Or there are no superixperiencits argument.

This would exclude most if not all super awarepaths being the same as the original. The first counter argument is that we can imagine improvements to the awarepath with out a switch in the ixperiencit -- where I do not experience it any more Second, there can always be the core you at the center of the superawarepath. This may not work for all super awarepath but there is a set that it would work for.

==== move

Reasons why the free inquiry should publish this article or these articles about the identity theory of consciousness.

1. This theory deserves to be discussed by the secular humanists before it goes to the general public. 2. The general public will modify it for their use. It is better if the secular humanists modify it for there use first and champion it. 3. It could be very helpful for science and secular humanism