Itoarguments part 9

File name --9 group #7 arguments File created date --06:51 pm Sunday, October 12 2003

argumen

continuity mental, physical

connectedness

assimilation of matter

We can imagine all sorts of things that can happen to us or things we can do in the future and beside these things there are many more that we do not even think of we can apply any sensepath to the present structure and functioning of a person to produce numerous physipath and awarepaths. If these numerous physipaths an apply to you before it happens why can they not apply to you after the event or point of divergence? for them not to apply there has to be a reason. We can construct the example where before a point of divergence there is a path that can also be linked up to after the point of divergence so the path is still a possibility before and after the point of divergence. the point is there are numerous physipath and awarepath that can always to diverged to at many or all point along a specific awarepath given the correct sensepath or enviropath. There are thus a number of potential awarepath and physipath for a person at all time that have diverged from earlier in the life of the individual. So just because that point of divergence is gone

What potential physipaths do we actually pass by and can never diverge to again the less radical changes are allowed the harder it is to get to any particular awarepath or physipath but if any incremental change is allowed and the right sensepath is applied that does not change that incremental change away from the desired direction any awarepath or physipath could be achieved

What may be gone is the actual ability to do something at a specific place and time. But this is not a limiter to the production of awarepaths because awarepaths are not time or place specific or dependent. Which you can have awarepaths exactly alike produced at different places and times.

Principle: If the application of a different sensepath to a physipath produces the same physipath it will also produce the same awarepath.

Principle: If the application of a different sensepath to a different physipath produces the same physipath it will also produce the same awarepath.

The point is that it is always a potential awareness for an individual just because you did not experience it now does not means that if you lived for ever you could not experience all these possibilities of awarepaths and physipaths by way of all the different sensepaths and enviropaths that can be applied to the all the different points on the physipaths.

The other view is that if there is an interruption in the sequence of consciousness or physical aspects of the body all the future physipaths will be that of a different person.

They objection might be that since you could change one person into another with the right enviropath and sensepath this is then incorrect because two different people are not the same and can’t be changed into each other

Explanation proof

A theory of immortality based on science not on an evil, stupid, vindictive, god is a good thing.

We have this myopic view of ourselves our consciousness sees a small part of reality and a small part of ourselves. We see that there was a past to our lives and that we could have experienced things very differently in many different ways. We see a future that will produce experiences that are different as well but we see many different paths that we can go on. To understand ourselves we have to understand what this all means for us.We then ask the question are there variations really you? Is these past you’s that we remember actually you? Are we actually remembering what did happening in our past life? Can they possible not be you? Most people believe that they actually experienced a past.

If you actually had a past life and your memories represent this past fairly accurately for a person, is this past life actually you because it is not actually the same as you are now.

If it is the case that no previous you is you then you are not going to be a future you as well that means what you are now goes out of existence before your life ends in fact every short period of time. How short duration is this you seconds milliseconds and who replaces you ? It appears that there is a gradual continuum of change.

The future you's and past you and versions of you have to be you. If they are not too different from you. Who is to say that any of these versions of you can not exist again at the same time as others. In this case we will have two

The language does not exist to explain these ideas. That why so many new words have to be created to understand these ideas.

The problem is, are awarepath versions of us count as us. If there is no future there is no immortality we have to have replication or novelty (of awarepaths and physipaths) for immortality. Other wise if there is no repetition of old awarepaths or new awarepaths there is not future consciousness for a person.

If there are not versions of ourselves there is no potential future beyond repetition.

Is a future consciousness you, for immortality, or simply being alive, purposes? Is a past conscious you, you for immortality purposes? If not how would immortality or even life be possible for a person because if there is no future consciousness and no past consciousness for you there is no you but we know that there is a you if you are conscious like me.

If you are not conscious

It appears that we have to have at least a potential past and a potential future at any time to be alive if not we go out of existence when we go into this future state which is immediately

It might happen for some ixperiencits or awarepaths where they will only be able to exist for a short section of existence because the physipath that would create them is very limited in this universe.

Generated memories argument

What would you experience if you were immortal over not being immortal?

There are different types of immortality Some awarepaths that a person has he will have good proof that he is immortal or that he will survive death. Others think that they have good proof that they are immortal but in fact do not have any good proof. Then there are others that do not believe that they have any chance of survival of death or immortality for some good reasons and for bad reasons.

Since there are different types of immortality there will be different ways to actually experience it. You can be immortal in certain ways and never know it. Understanding the identireplica theory is one way of understanding survival of death and immortality.

The problem of immortality and knowing it first hand with infinitely long string of memories that are different is the brain that it would take to create all these memories.

How would a person call up, so to speak a memory, from a device that shares these memories to many different individuals? It would certainly be much more efficient that way. The sensepath can inspire memories but can it generate memories that have never existed. That appears to be the case people can be convinced that they have experienced something. With a more direct manipulation of the brain more vivid memories could be generated.

The principle is that a small brain will create a small awarepath this means that the memories may not be a vivid, complex, long, etc as it would be in a larger brain or awarepaducer

The consciousness is not place oriented but functioning and structurally oriented. When the correct functioning is created the consciousness is produced

If you were immortal you would be aware now as you are. Also if you are not aware now does not mean that you are not immortal. With all the time that may exist in the universe it is unlikely that you would exist at any particular time if you exist once. For a human life time of a hundred years the change that you would exist in a billion years in one in ten million. If the universe has existed for ever the chance that you would exist now would be one hundred years divided by infinity which is zero. It would fit facts better if you were immortal than if you only have a one hundred year lifetime. What then do you experience if you were immortal? The definition that I am using for immortality is you experiencing things intermittently through time.

There can be simi immortality where there are definite feelings etc. that someone has that are identical to some parts of your consciousness.

Repetitive consciousness you could repeat over and over again one short awarepath and never know that there is anything else each time it will appear to be no having immortality. We can also have many different superpaths that are aware of the potential of immortality

Identity of parts of consciousness argument

The experience is identical but the person experiencing it is different.

Can there be identity of parts of a consciousness? Or can two different consciousnesses have an identical part for a period of time? If we show every possible physipath a blue screen will any of then have the same consciousness of the blue screen. The actual perception of the blue screen will it be identical in any of the physipath? There can always be

If we can have identity of a part of a consciousness what about any other aspect of consciousness what about more than one aspect of consciousness? It seems that if we ca n have identity of one aspect of consciousness we can have identity of more than one aspect if the conditions are right

What are the right conditions ? It might be that different functioning and structure will produce identical simiawarepaths -- one sees blue exactly like the other this would be the concept that there are more than one way to produce a consciousness with a different functioning and structure this might be a proof that different structures and functioning can produce identical consciousnesses a-- a beginning proof for

If parts of two consciousness are identical why then can not larger parts of consciousness be identical as well to the point of two different bodies could then have identical consciousnesses. If on the other hand we never have any aspect of consciousness in common how can we possible communicate

What is the come back if there is a continuum aspect to an aspect of consciousness such as blue there will be people or consciousness that will experience blue picture more alike and one that will view it more differently. If this happens why can it not become identical? If it is very close together then is it not just a version of the originals so if we can do this with one aspect whey no all aspects of consciousness

More supporting evidence

The identireplica shows how one body can produce a different consciousness from one minute to the next. It shows how one body at one point can produce so many different consciousness or has the potential to produce so may different consciousnesses.

The soul theory, buddhist, the corporalist theory does not do this unless it uses these same scientific concepts of functioning and structure of the brain

This would be an impossibility if the corporalist theory was true because they can not produce the same consciousness twice so once a consciousness is used up it is gone for ever because there can not be an exact duplicate of the original producing the same consciousness.

Or they say that the consciousness is the same but there is another aspect that is beyond consciousness that the person has that is tied to the individual matter but the matter is being replaced all the time so then they have to postulate that the matter has to be slowly assimilated. This is a concept that science does not have evidence of other than through getting the new matter to have the same or close structure and functioning as the original matter.

When the corporalists say that a cidentireplica is not the same person they are correct. But then they say that because it is not the same person it can not be a continuation of the real you for survival of death and immortality purposes. You do not need to have the same person carry on your consciousness or your ixperiencit.

We have the concept of other persons when we sense our environment we do not control them or experience what they experience so they are not us they are other persons. Thus other persons are not us. But this is perspective on consciousness since we do not actually see what is the real consciousness of the cidentireplica I say that if we would put you into the cidentireplica where you experience the difference between the consciousness and ixperiencit of you and the cidentireplica, you would not know the difference, you would not know that there was any change. The same for the cidentireplica if he was put into your body. You would not experience anything different if the cidentireplicas consciousness and ixperiencit was put into your body and your consciousness and ixperiencit was destroyed. How can we say that when your consciousness and ixperiencit is destroyed. Because we are not really putting something or replacing something into another body. The way we get the ixperiencit and consciousness into the body is by the structure and functioning of the body. There is in fact no transfer of consciousness or ixperiencit.

We can look at the ixperiencit as perspective on reality even through the experience may not be directly connected to reality-- it could have been produced in an experience machine where reality can never produce this awarepath.

File name -- Perception

There is the perception of I experience this consciousness.

The feeling of I experience this behavior is part of the awarepath

There may be nothing of the sort it may be just an aspect of consciousness.

A response is simple awareness as a bug reacting to a touch.

An atom interacts with another atom does this reaction effect other atoms when there is a change some where what the body does is transmit this change to a place where change can be observed and then responded to . If the system is such there can be a very small change that can produce a very large change to the system or a small one. If a system is highly tuned to respond to jealousy, and that system gets an external signal that triggers a set of cascading behaviors that may lead to drastic behavior like killing people and destruction

Generally a system does not want to respond to a simple external source with a drastic response

Perspective arguments

Awaremoment perspective on what constitutes your consciousness: The awaremoment perspective is the perspective of your consciousness at that particular moment on your awarepath.

Awarepath perspective on what constitutes your consciousness: The awarepath perspective is your perspective over your awarepath it can be very much different from one awaremoment to the next or from one region to another because what people feel and think over time can change a great deal.

Sensepath perspective on what constitutes you. There can be numerous sensepaths that effect an physipath and awarepath over time. The different sensepaths will create different beliefs on what constitutes your awarepath -- consciousness and your physipath -- body over time.

Physimoment perspective on what constitutes your physical self -- your body: The physimoment perspective is the perspective of yourself at that particular moment on your physipath.

Physipath perspective on what constitutes your physical self: The Physipath perspective is your perspective over your Physipath. It can be very much different from one Physimoment to the next or from one region of the physipath to another because what people feel and think over time can change a great deal.

The argument is that your perspective on what constitutes your consciousness or your body at one point over time does not necessarily reflect what actually is your body or your consciousness.

A perspective gives limited information so when you look at a person you do not know what consciousness this person is producing or even who he is. A person may look like your best friend and act like your best friend and you think it is your best friend but letter find out that this is not your best friend but a person that looks like and acts like your friend. But this is not the end of the story. For latter you may find out that this in fact was your friend that was playing a joke on you. It could keep going to find that the joke was played on your friend and this person was an unknown identical twin. It may turn out that you never know for certain. Some one that you believe may give you proof and you believe but this person is mistaken and you never learn the truth. Maybe the truth has fuzzy logic attached to it. It was both your friend and someone else-- sharing the same body or switched very rapidly back and forth while you were not looking.

Your perspective on looking at another person its physipath, awarepath, can change over time as to if that other person is you is it your body is it is your consciousness or to who that other person is. Since I can look at others and say they are me, but others would not, we have a difference in perspective. Some beliefs systems say that since we change form one moment to the next we are not really one thing so we actually never really exist as an entity so we can not really ever die. But I say since the basis of consciousness is change there is a whole bunch of sequences of change that apply to a person that you in fact will experience.

At some points on your awarepath you may consider that no others are you but on others when you understand the identireplica theory you may consider many parts of many awarepath as part of you and valid for survival of death purposes.

Actual versus potential argument for cidentireplicas

All awaremoments of all awarepaths of a person’s awarevenue are potentially actual for an individual so is the exact spot that is actual is also potential as well so any potential awaremoment can be actual thus it is possible for any number of potential cidentireplicas to be actual at the same time and place on the awarepath of the original. What if not all awaremoments are potential at all times? This implies levels of potential limited as to place and time or to specific physical laws, universes. We can also have them limited by the ability of the universe to produce a certain set of functioning or structure so a functioning is possible but the universe can not make it.

If you can accept that there are many different functionings and structures that will produce you experiencing something then it follows that these are still potential.

Actual versus potential argument

The awaremoment that your body is producing currently is the actual you, but the potential you’s

It is this difference between actual and potential that we can see this different between potential and actual maybe why or why we cannot see our ability to survive death.

As long as there is the potential for an actualized awaremoment of a person’s awarevenue to exist, there exists the potential survival of death. As long as there is the potential for survival of death there is the potential of a person not being mortal and thus the potential for immortality. Since the potential of survival of death can go on forever, the potential for immortality for a person exists forever also if the universe is infinitely long with the ability to produce consciousnesses.

Perspective illusions argument

We have many perspectives on reality many are not true for instance looking at a stick in water it looks bent when it is taken out of the water it is not bent. It is logical that the earth is flat it appears flat there can be no underside or we would fall off. The sun and the moon travel and we are in the middle of the universe. We see the sun and moon move we do not feel anything so if the earth was spinning we would fly off. Time is uniform and does not have a variable speed. All these seem obvious until we have a wider perspective of reality or what is actually happening.

From our perspective it appears that another person is not you and can not be you. If in fact some one else did have your consciousness or a version of it, would it seem any different from what it is? No. The perspective that others can not be you or you do not experience what they do is an aspect of consciousness but it is a perspective of reality that does not have to be true. The way we look at things can and often is false. But consciousness can include perspectives that are not fully correct or even so what correct. The stick looks bent from almost every perspective in the water. Until we understand that light travels slower in water and that this causes the perception of being bent we do not understand what is happening. There would be no conflict if we did not take the stick out of the water. We would always think the stick was bent. But we could always feel the stick and get other information from this. If we could not remove the stick from the water.

It is a perspective illusion when we do not see another person have the same ixperiencit or consciousness as the original. From your perspective it appears that any other person can not be you ever in any form. But if we can visualize you traveling in time we can see you at two point in your life existing at the same time there would be no conflict in seeing yourself because your consciousness is different at the two point in your life.

There is not reason that a more complex consciousness could not see the truth of two different persons being awarepath identical or versions of each other. In fact we many see this in our selves we could see the union of two or more lesser awarepaths in our selves. First you would need to identify the two as being in the same awarepath or version of the same awarepath and see if you can see the similarity. Maybe you would not know what you are feeling or sensing. Maybe well identified as separate. Maybe the version of your self you see every day are examples you feel up and positive one minute and the next time you feel negative and down. Sometimes you feel the union of both of these aspects. What would a superpath experience to see the truth of the identireplica theory that two different consciousness can be similar or exact? One possibility is that two typical human awarepaths are created in the awarepath of the super awarepath that can realize the actual difference between the two awarepaths.

File name -- proof ettc.

With the identireplica theory there is no necessary physical connection from one time to the next nor psychology connection either. Why?

There are many problems that are created when physical or psychological continuity is necessary to survival of death and immortality. For example percentage of perpetuation of the mental or physical aspects of a

The person can come from scratch the mentality with out a past

The problem with the corporalist view if a cidentireplica is a different person from the original the cidentireplica is still a person and behaves exactly like a person so if he is not the original he is a brand new person with all the attributes of the original. If a person can exist from scratch with a complete personality of a past like and experiences where do these experiences come from they are not continuous

Resurrection replica argument

In the arguments against immortality it is proposed correctly that astral bodies, soul, dualism communication with the dead etc are not valid proofs for immortality purposes. These arguments go on to say that resurrection is not possible because the matter that an individual is made can not be gotten together because it is shared with others with in their bodies over time. Another good argument. Then it proposes that replicas are not good because either they do not have the right matter or is the original still exists because of the closest continuer standard the one that the law would be most likely to adhere to the replica can not be the original either. If the original did not exist the replica might be the closest continuer so in this case we might call the replica the continuation of self. It continues on with the problem in resurrection of what stage in the life of a person is generated. If it is at the age of death you will have replicas that have all sorts of mental and physical problems. The identireplica theory solves all these problems. First the closest continuer means nothing to the individual if it does not contain the consciousness of the individual. It is fine for those around him if the behavior is close enough to that of the original individual. But for immortality purposes the original consciousness has to be created. Consciousness is the important aspect for the individual when it comes to immortality. The closest continuer concept does not deal with this issue. Once that consciousness is established as the important aspect of immortality there has to be dealt with the problem of what consciousness is the continuation of someone's consciousness. This leads to the second assumption that there is but one continuation of a person but what is the correct person when they have the identical consciousness. They both carry one the individual immortality

The third aspect that is used to show the impossibility of immortality is the impossibility of creating an identical replica even if it is not made of the same matter. There is no doubt that the body is so complex that the creation of an exact replica is probably impossible. This is where the identireplica theory takes off. It says that there are numerous variations of functionings and structures that will produce versions of the individual with versions of his consciousness. The bigger the target (possible functionings and structures) the more likely you or nature are to hitting it randomly. The question becomes what consciousnesses and what functionings and structures will produce a persons ixperiencit. There are three aspects of the ixperiencit, the “I”, the reality “it”, and the experiencing of the “reality” by the “I”. The “reality” does not have to be tied to reality or the reality that generates the physical aspect. So we can experience things that are not in the reality that produced it. The reality is what is experienced.

So the argument is defective in only a small area that leads to: 1. Consciousness is the key to immortality. 2. There can be more than one you at a time. 3. That there are many different versions of you that correspond to many different physical functionings and structures. 4. These versions may be produced by isomorphic changes in structure and functioning. 5. These versions can be enhanced, deal with realities that do not exist, produced by awarepaducers, possibly produced by fidentireplicas, isoidentireplicas, and isofidentireplicas.

Sense ourselves argument

Question: Would we sense ourselves if there were others people with our consciousness?

If we think that we are only what we are now then we only live for a very short period of time. We are only aware of our past because of memories of how we are different now than we were. We do this by having memories of past situations that are different than they are now. We in our mind have this order of memories that we attach to other concepts like being a child going to school. We believe that there is a sequence of order in our lives such as we ere born raised grew up went to school one grade at a time etc.

Would we be aware of another person that is producing the consciousness that our body produced at a different time previous or future time? No! To be aware of something you have to have the structure and functioning of a system ( your brain)to produce this awareness. Because it is a complex awareness not a simple one like a pain for instance, a pain stood for the existence of another individual that has your consciousness at a different point what would be the discerning between the different points of the aware path and what would tell us this was a pain of the existence of another individual that has a consciousness of you at a different point in your life?

There certainly could be a version of your consciousness that produces a consciousness that believes that two or more of your consciousness exist at a time and that there is a communication between them telling of their existence. How would this be possible? Imagine a brain complex enough to create this consciousness then imagine that it feels a sensation of the existence of this individual like a pain and it then correctly interpreted this to mean that there is this other person with your consciousness. Although there probably a system of brain functioning that will create this awarepath there may not be the other requirements naturally. Artificially we could connect radio receivers to the enhanced brain so they are properly stimulated to make it sense the existence of other you’s at different stages of your awarepath. Of course it would be easier to create a brain that simply thinks that it is connected to this system. It could even think that there are supernatural means of communication when in fact there is none or other individuals

The argument is even though we do not experience other people that are producing your consciousness at a different part of your awarepath that does not mean that a version of you can not experience this. Or that they do not exist.

If you are not the future you or past you then you only exist for the moment. Some philosophies believe this. The identireplica looks at it in a whole new way that of you are a whole range of awarepaths that are very long. They can be actualized and you experience them but just because they are not being actualized does not mean that they can not exist.

Potential /actualization argument

Another argument because a potential awarepath has be actualized does not mean that it can not be actualized again. It does not disappear after it once existed. If it can not exist again then ever awarepath that goes through that awarepath ends at that awarepath. That would mean that this person would have to die at that point or be unconsciousness. It certainly would seem contrived for nature to do this. There would have to be a physical way that nature does it and a reason it does it. Even then it leaves open all the other awarepaths that are version of an individual to exist at some point.

File name -- proofs/ experiments

There is an erector set of possibilities for survival after death. Unlike other theories of survival of death and immortality this theory show how there is a number of possibilities when it comes to immortality this is one of its advantages over these other possibilities.

One of the problem with this theory is that if there is you and a version of you existing at the same time and not in the future you are not experiencing that person at that time and since he does not exist in the future of you, you can not experience in the future either so how can that person be you so the identireplica is false functioning and structure alone does not create consciousness because there has to be something that make the tow different. They are different they are in a different place at a different time so it is a different person. Can we not experience two things at once and not be aware of it. They are independent. In the split brain experiments there appears cases where there is one person and there are two lines of thought that are not aware of each other. Is this one person with two consciousness or is this

You do not have to tie the two or more different version of a person linearly together for the consciousness to be your consciousness but a version of it. The thing is you can tie them together physically and mentally

How do you tie them together mentally? This means a continuousness of mentality that connects one with the other and visa versa. You need both ways because one can come before the other. May be you do not need to connect both together. May be one way is enough. What if there is never a divergence from one to the other. There are many ways to modify brains until there is a connection. What is the shortest mental path between the two versions and what is the reverse path. It seems that they would not be the same because some physical processes are not easily reversible remember that a life is the tieing together of versions of your self

Maybe consciousness life are the paths that are more easily tied together

Important

A life is the tieing together of versions of one’s self.

A life is the tieing together of versions of one’s conscious self.

A life is the tieing together of versions of one’s physical self.

But does it mean that if we can not continuously physically and continuously mentally connect the two they are not version of each other? I do not think that this is a necessity.

Experiment with fidentireplicas imagine taking a person that is producing a consciousness and making a fidentireplica from this person. First the brain has to be the part that produces the consciousness for simplicity sake. But we could imagine dividing the whole body

To get identical effect we can imagine layers around the specific parts that are identical to the original so that the atoms are reacting in the same ways as in the original.

Taking the brain and dividing it but keeping the functioning identical and interrelating through radio waves connections the consciousness should be the same. Now find other people or create them that fit the scenario of having a part or more that is identical in structure and functioning as the original replacing that part with the original’s. Reconnect up the out put from this section so that the original person functioning identically but the stimulus from the individual is no longer connected to this part of the brain. it is connected to nothing so it has not effect . The fidentireplica’s part is stimulated from the rest of the fidentireplica parts through radio waves to nerve stimulaters so they are functioning exactly like the original the host is in turn stimulated the same from the fidentireplica section so it functioning is the same as is its behavior what is the consciousness produced by the hosts and the fidentireplica? We can now attach some of the hosts connections and disconnect the fidentireplica connections until the whole section is

In the end by gradual steps the fidentireplica is no longer interconnected to each other the question is does just the interconnection effect the fidentireplica consciousness or does the parts add as much with out the interconnection when identical functioning is produced in the sections.

Even if a fidentireplica does not produce an identical consciousness to that of the original if it produces and consciousness different from the hosts consciousness it is a revolutionary concept. The question becomes through the fidentireplica process does nature produce more consciousness that just the singular nature of each host?