Itoarguments part 8

File name -- group 6 arguments File created date --? Revised 10:52 am Saturday, May 19 2007

Anticorporalists arguments

Survival of death is not defined as the same person existing after that person’s death, it is in the identireplica defined as the correct awarepath being produced after the death of the person or cessation of the awarepath after the cessation of all applicable awarepaths.

Death of a person is defined as the physipath not producing the correct awarepath any more.

Love of a different person argument

A cidentireplica is a different person than the original so if you love or care about the original you will not care about the cidentireplica as much if any because he is a different person. So it is just like suddenly caring for a new and different person. Who will you be willing to die or suffer for the original or the cidentireplica of a loved one? If you diverge into 100 different videntireplicas of your self who will you be willing to suffer for or die for? The identireplica theory says that the cidentireplica of the loved one is just as much your loved one as the original is and either one is a case of survival for the original so it does not matter which one you choose. The same with the 100 videntireplicas all are cases of survival for you some may have awarepaths that you do not wish to experience but the ones that have awarepaths that you do want to experience will all be cases of survival that

If we care for some one like a child, spouse, parent, friend, etc, what characteristics do we want in a case of survival for them? Is it exactly what you would want for your self? A loved one could always change their personality into one that is very undesirable-- that makes your life very unpleasant. Would we consider a cidentireplica of a pleasant version of a loved one over an unpleasant original? Since we can not know who the loved one actually is in terms of who experiences it we go by the behavior, looks, and apparent continuity of the individual. A cidentireplica by definition will behave and look exactly like the original did and if you did not know that the original was replaced by this cidentireplica you would think that this original was actually the original.

A summary of the bias argument is that we would not accept a cidentireplica as a replacement of the original loved one because we do not love the cidentireplica we love the original so it is not really a case of survival of or for the original.

We actually love the looks and or behavior of the original not the inside or experienced of the original. We can imagine this scenario that you have a loved one and that at some time in the past alike several years the original was replaced by a cidentireplica. If you loved the original before the switch you will likely love the cidentireplica after the switch if you did not know better. If you should now find that there was this switch you will have actually felt love for both. If you now have to choose which one you get to keep or have a relationship with it is not obvious which one you will choose. You obviously cared for the original but you have also cared for the cidentireplica. The longer that you will have cared for the cidentireplica the closer the bond will have been. If the original would have lived a different life than the one with you the cidentireplica lived the cidentireplica would now actually be a videntireplica, so you can actually care more deeply for the videntireplica of the original than the original loved one.

But what about situations where you care because they are a family member not because of looks or behavior? If you have the choice between your actual relative or a videntireplica of that relative which would you choose? What if the switch happened early in the life of the original so most of the experiences that you have will be with the videntireplica and not the original? As far as a relative goes the videntireplica will have the same genes as does the original. Where the concept “blood is thicker than water” is the family motto, the cidentireplica and videntireplica having the same blood (genes) as the original thus should be accepted as part of the family as is the original.

Anti physicalists

The awaretheory says that the awarepath that a person is currently experiencing can be produced in many different ways in many different types of awarepaducers other than human bodies, isoawarepaducers, and fitoawarepaducers producing fitophysipaths, isophysipaths etc, If the awarepath that is being produced that you experience is not produced in the way you believe but in an awarepaducer different than the human body, for instance, the physicalists will say that the naturally and the artificially produced person are not the same. They do not have to be the same. They do not have to produce the same awarepath nor the same ixperiencit or self awarepath.

If you are the device that produces your consciousness and your consciousness is produced by an awarepaducer for the physicalists, who then is the person that is connected to reality it is not you according to them. It is a different person. Should we be concerned with the individual that is connected to reality?

They may say that they (the naturally produced awarepath and the artificially produced awarepath) cannot be identical. So we never can have this problem.

The physicalist might even say that he is not a person. An awarepath produced by some possible awarepath producers may not be anything like a person but produces an awarepath that thinks it is being produced by a person.

If you are an awarepath produced in an awarepaducer rather than a real life produced awarepath, what should your values be? The physicalist says that you should be concerned with the device that produces you and I suppose the reality that, that device is in. But what about the objects that you bond with (like wives children parents friends) in the created reality? The physicalist do not deal with these issues very well.

The physicalists does not deal with these cases so it is an incomplete theory. It can deny the existence of awarepaducers and say we do not need to deal with them. It can say they can not exist because it will destroy their theory.

If your current awarepath is produced in an artificial awarepaducer the physicalist will have to say that the real physipath will not be a continuation for survival of your self even if consciousness is identical. Because they clearly say the opposite is not survival.

Are the physicalists saying that only the identical matter can produce identical consciousness? The matter is changing in the body all the time. They have a theory of accumulating. If the new matter acts in a certain way for a while it pick up some mysterious property that allows it to continue to produce the same consciousness. It is almost as if the physicalists is saying that survival is not based on the consciousness that is produced. There is some extra property that is at best poorly defined. It is defined by the procedure of the body continuing.

If a physicalists awarepath is generated in a awarepaducer other than the human body the objects of concern (wife kids friends etc.) may not exist in reality. How does he deal with issues of replicas of these concerned in his life. He does not believe that the replica of his loved ones will be his loved ones. But the replica in the awarepaducer will only be a sequence of stimulations. It certainly could correspond to some thing real or a real awarepath physipath. What you are experiencing is but the sensation of this person you do not know what their awarepath is or even if they have one.

The physicalists could say that the real thing and the awarepaducer can never produce the same awarepath. They would have to prove this. They would say that different matter produce different awarepaths. Or different functioning produce different awarepaths. But for them it is not the functioning. They say that two identically functioning physipaths do not produce the same awarepath or if they do there is some feature that one has that the other does not have that is more important than consciousness. They seem to do a bait and switch tactic -- the replica and the original are not the same person consequently they can not have the same consciousness.

Anti physicalists proofs

Suffering of pain antiproof

As our understanding of a situation changes what we are will to do will change as well. So the identireplica theory gives a different perspective of what we would be willing to suffer for. Will we want to suffer for imaginary loved ones generated only within our sensepath but not in reality where they are in fact conscious.

What will we be willing to do today to make our tomorrow's better? It has been proposed that we are willing to endure unpleasantness today to make our future better.

The identireplica theory changes how we can look at this situation. The identireplica theory says that there can be many divergent paths at any time in the future or past of a person. Will we be willing to suffer unpleasantness for any possible future, to make that future better? An example is there are five divergent actual paths of a person that will happen. If you suffer some today you will avoid much more pain in one of the version latter. Will you do it? Four versions will not benefit at all but if you suffer they will always have this memory of suffering. They will never benefit but all will suffer. Which one is really you? Which one should you care about. The identireplica theory says that all of the five versions are you because they all have the necessary core psychology or ixperiencit of the original. Lets ask another question should your consciousness suffer knowing that there are versions of you out there that will not suffer. There are people that decide that pain is not worth surviving for and kill themselves. The question do you survive great pain today so latter you will survive when you know there will actually be versions of you that do not have to go through this suffering? Of course you can say is anything certain and decide to continue the suffering.

The I in the ixperiencit is the way the brian is and functions. The “it” is the effect of the brain by the sensepath, and enviropath, and qmpath. The experience corresponds to the actual experiencing of the events as opposed to just the potential of the experience. Since the brain can generate experiences when there is no sensepath effecting it, the experience can be continued into the future of this individual in terms of memories etc. This means that the experience part is not just an on or off situation it too is a variable like the “I” and the “it”

Is care really diluted in the case that there are many different potential versions of you?

An awarevenue can be looked on as a very long awarepath. All of this awarepath is your life or potential life.

If continuity is a factor then we can construct infinite long physipaths that we apply all sorts of variation to. Now to the physicalist theory this will be you. With the conditions of physical continuity and core psychological continuity. This person never dies because of science this persons never dies This person experiences all sorts of things like all possible sensepaths and many modification to his brain functioning the same matter can be recycled over and over again. This person could have stayed in the same place. There are may sensepaths that can only be generated in a virtual reality so he can imagine traveling the universe at faster than the speed of light and meeting all sorts of alien lives and environments and can stay at these place for very long period of time the virtual reality can use the mirror to generate the passage to these different realities. All sorts of enhancements can be added to make this person into superpaths. We can have cyclic paths etc. etc. This extended possible infinite physipath corresponds to many different persons physipaths. But according to the physicalists these same physipath will not be the same person that is true but will the section of the infinite long physipath produce the same consciousness or awarepath as the infinitely long physipath can repeat itself in functioning and structure over and over again what does the physicalist say the consciousness produced will be for each repetition? Either they can say that the repetitions does produce the same consciousness. They can say that the functioning and structure can never repeat. But what happens when they assume that it can repeat?

There is no reason we can not imagine an infinite amount of these infinite long awarepaths - physipaths each will be a different person according to the physicalist this will be true but, will they have consciousness that over lap when their functionings and structures over lap? The identireplica theory says yes they will have overlapping consciousness. They will generate the same behavior when they over lap. I consider this over lap of structure and functioning better than death. I will still be consciousness in another person. The physicalist argument is vacuous if he says that they do have the same consciousness but his is not what is important what then is? If they say that they do not have the same consciousness. Then they have to generate a different consciousness not just a version of the originals a version of the originals consciousness is still the original consciousness because the infinite long consciousness is all possible versions of his consciousness. If we apply the cid paradox we are stuck with a different consciousness but the same behavior. How can you have a different consciousness and the same behavior with out a cid paradox? You will have to have a p - consciousness which we do not have and do not want plus they are apt to be very rare or crazy consciousnesses because of the unresolved cid paradox. Or the individual behave differently because he is in a different mental reality or his mental reality does not effect his body none of these things seem to be what the physicalists have in mind.

If we consider two identical infinitely long identical physipaths the physicalists position will be that they are not producing the same consciousness. If they are then they are not producing the same ixperiencit. At the very least they are not the same person. The identireplica theory that they are not the same person but they have the same consciousness and the same ixperiencit. Their behavior will be identical

Some one might say that there would not be a cid paradox if there is just a different I in the ixperiencit of a consciousness and a different I will not produce a cid paradox but since how a persons behaves in a situation is still there if we take away every personality trait so that the person fits his behavior with out wanting to behave differently.

Do I suffer now in order to suffer less latter? Some will, some will not. Since there is no garenteed future any time you do things now based what you think will happen in the future you are gambleing that you can predict what will happen in the future

Anti-continuity argument

There is another concept of survival and this is material continuity. Physical survivalist believe that it is the brain that produces consciousness. The brain is made of matter. A person seems to be a continuous entity of matter over time. It thus seems that it is the particular matter that is important to being a certain person, but we know that the matter in the body is being replaced continuously. Thus some physicalists have come up with the idea that there must be this continuity of matter but then they assume that it is matter in combination with the matter that conveys some physical property over time to the new matter that is coming into the system. The problem with this is that what is this property of matter, that the old matter in the body has that the new matter must pick up from the old matter in order to carry on for personal survival purposes. Science has found no such thing. It seems like some strange magical transmittance of some life force. This is not necessary at all if we look at functioning and structure. Matter is replaced with out making major changes to the functioning and structure. When the replacement of matter does produce a large enough change in the functioning and structure of the body there is change in the consciousness produced. What appears to the physicalist as assimilation is actually the getting the brain to have the correct structure and functioning. This is not some strange property of matter that requires assimilation through association.

1. Material continuity is not required for survival of the ixperiencit

2. Psychological continuity is not required for survival of the ixperiencit

3. A number of variations of functioning and structure from approximate to exact is required for survival for an ixperiencit.

4. There can be a number of different people and other awarepaducers that can produce versions your consciousness that can be enhanced, diminished, compounded etc. through out time and space. Subjectively it is you actually experiencing these awarepaths. For the ixperiencit argument

The ixperiencit argument for survival. The ixperiencit argument is that if at a latter time after my current body’s death, another different body has a consciousness and I experience this consciousness or person’s life I have survived that death. It can be stated also as if at a time after my death another person has a consciousness and I experience this consciousness or person’s life I have survived my death. To say it this way imply's that I first have to die to experience some one else's life because I can not be at two places at once.

Old Epistemology bias argument

The Epistemology argument is that the identireplica theory can not be right because it makes a new and different epistemology (that can not be true because it is so strange, unbelievable etc.).

One of the things that you realize if you accept the identireplica theory as true is that we appear to ourselves to be singular, linear, individuals. So if the original dies how does this singular individual consciousness get from the dead person to the cidentireplica? The answer is that it was always there. It did not transfer to this cidentireplica. We might compare this to two computers that have the exact same structure and are functioning identically if one of them stops it has no effect on the other one. The transference of something does not happen. Then if there is no transference then the original consciousness is lost. All that is lost is the functioning and structure.

It make for a different epistemology because there is not supposed to be more than one of you and that one has to be

What is the experience of falling into unconsciousness? Like the end of your life the consciousness fades away. It seems that if you pop over to your cidentireplica you would experience something else. It seem to be the unconsciousness that solves this apparent problem. You can come out of the condition of unconsciousness.

We feel ourselves dying or falling asleep we do not see the other side where we come out in the cidentireplica as long as you are experiencing anything you are still following a awarepath.

You can not trust your expereinces memories knowledge because they may all be created in a cidentireplica or an awarepaducer rather than through actual life expereinces as is done in the orignal. A scientific epistemology has to be based on these ideas.

Evolution argument

The evolution argument for the identireplica theory.

The theory of evolution is based on the environment making certain behaviors and physical adaptability of the organism in a species more successful at survival that others. This is carried forward by the life form in it’s dna. The genetics of the animal creates the specific behavior of the life form. It does this on a regular reliable basis. If the genes were not reliable in the behaviors that it produces there would not be the reward of survival and reproduction from a certain set of genes. If all certain set genes produced an ad hoc behavior the advantage to survival of a certain set of genes would be very unreliable. Of course genes can be good for other characteristics than just behavior based on consciousness.

Regularity of conditions produce regularity of behavior.

Regularity of physical conditions produce regularity of behavior for evolution to have occurred for billions of years

Consciousness may or may not effect the behavior of an individual consciousness may effect behavior it may not effect behavior or it might mirror behavior with out effecting it. If consciousness mirrors behavior (with out effecting it) or effect behavior of an individual then when we apply the theory of evolution to it we get that regularity of behavior applies to regularity of consciousness. Thus regularity of behavior corresponds to regularity of consciousness, thus regularity of physical processes correspond to consciousness. Identical functioning and structure will produce identical consciousness.

If the third possibility is true we will have the situation that normal behavior is had (because we have identical functioning and structure of the bodies) but the consciousness produced will be different. This will be reflected in what people experience their consciousness will not correspond to the behavior that their bodies is producing. Two cidentireplicas will say and act exactly the same but they will then have a different consciousness of course the cidentireplica that consciousness will not be able to report that his consciousness does not fit his behavior. If he did the original will have to also. The only thing that can be done is that we can look inside our selves and see if our behavior fits our consciousness does it seem that you control your body. If you want to move your arm can you do it or some other part of your body. If you are hungry do you eventually get food. Of course there are many behaviors that we do not control or have a memory of doing. Does it act like some one else is controlling it and you have no ability to control what it does. This is the cid paradox if there is a consciousness that does not belong to the behavior that it is connected to. Because what I experience is that may behavior and consciousness parallel each other if I want to do something I can do it if I put enough effort into it sometimes I am simply too lazy. This fits the physical functioning theory of the brain the brain can think about an action with out doing it. Do I really want to eat that insect? The brain is thinking up possibilities. It is bad to eat bugs. They eat bugs in other countries. I could will money if I eat it. It won’t cause permanent damage to me but it is gross. So you eat it and you throw up. The next guy has eaten then all his life an thinks it was rather tasty .

If the third possibility is true it make consciousness irreverent and not connected to evolution at all. Evolution will not have effected the development of consciousness because there is not regular connection between consciousness and genes and thus survival. When consciousness is looked at as way of processing information or concentration of the brain processing powers into action it would have to correspond to behavior. Consciousness (concentration) produces one of many possible behaviors and then analyzes the results to apply to future behaviors.

Regularity of physical properties and their behavior argument

We can also apply this to physical processes in general under exact and specific conditions compounds always behave in the same way. Vinegar and baking soda mixed together fizz. But if the conditions change enough they do not fizz such as in the case that both are frozen at absolute zero.

Identicalness of awarepaths argument

Values can be taught, learned and believed and if we are taught that certain things are better than others we can come to believe this. Is an awarepath artificially made less valuable than one that is tied to reality directly?

The more complex the brain the more behaviors can be generated by this brain. This means that different sensepaths will generate the same behavior. There is more fine turning with a more complex brain and more complex senses. If the senses are not complex enough many different sensepaths will generate the same functioning in the brain. The brain is also effected by the randomness of QM. So even if the sensepath is identical the behavior can be divergent. The less output pathways the less behaviors can be produced. Even though limited behavior can result with limited output pathways. The consciousness produced can increase with the increase in brain structure and functioning.

The previous state of the brain can effect the behavior. The previous state is produced by its previous state and the sensepath environmental path and the effect due to QM. The exact same conditions will not necessary produce the same behavior if the effects of QM randomness is not taken into account.

Free will is the imaging of possibilities and then the decision to do one of them. You appear to be making a choice in your mind.

What does free will really means. If all the conditions including QM were the same you still could make a decision that is different and know that you had.

Argument from similarity of consciousnesses

The more that we know about consciousness the more we know that similar structure of and functioning produce similar types of consciousness. When a person looks at the sky on a clear sunny day he says that he sees blue. In most cases we believe that this blue is a lot like the blue we see. If a person becomes blind he no longer can look in the sky and see blue

If we share most experiences to some degree that others do we are really seeing versions of different experiences.

If we permutate… all the different experiences that a person can have over time there are

We have similar experiences that can be chained in a different fashion for different persons.

Different experiences can be with different intensity and complexity.

The same complexity and intensity can be achieved with a different sensepath and modifying structure and functioning of the brain and body of a different person.

Imagine if we do not share any experiences that are alike no one would experience any thing alike for each individual blue would have to be a different color. The complexity of consciousness increases drastically. We can not allow the replacement of orange with blue because the first experiences orange. Every experience has to be new every mix of colors has to be new this make for an epistemological nightmare. There can not be one pain there has to be a new set for each person. We are not talking intensity of pain but a different type all together.

We do believe that we experience many things the same. They may not be of the same intensity and if a sense original is destroyed there will not be this experience that the sense organ produces. We know that some experience’s can be radically different in some people compared to others. The ability to have similar consciousness is allowed The difference of consciousness lies in the difference of degree between different individuals where there can be complete elimination of an experience.

Restatement of argument

We can look at this as an analogy.

The atomic analogy for consciousness

There are parts of consciousness that different people share like experiencing blue or pain these can be fundamental or broken down into fundamental elements. Not all people share all the different aspects of consciousness for instance a blind from birth person may never experience blue. These elemental aspects of consciousness are combined in numerous ways making every one seem like they have a different consciousness but if the consciousness aspects are combined in the correct way another person could have the same consciousness as another person. This is more the same as having the same sensepath.

Results: consciousness varies in structure and sequence between individuals but not in quality. If the parts of consciousness are not the same then the compound consciousness of a person will not be the same either, but the elemental parts of consciousness are the same so the right elemental parts put together in the correct way will produce the same consciousness.

Some consciousness can be radically different is not a problem because we only need some different bodies to have the same consciousness as other bodes not that all bodies are identical in term of consciousness.

What is the argument that the same consciousness is the same person? The argument is that the same consciousness produced in another person is what is important for the continuation of what that person is personally interested in. This is what is necessary for there to exist survival of death and immortality.

Identical functioning and structure can produce identical consciousness. Approximate functioning and structure can produce approximate consciousness. The creation or recreation of a consciousness is the key to survival of death and immortality. We can consider the concept of the “I experience it”. The ixperiencit concept is the key to understanding survival of death and immortality because if you personally do not experience a consciousness the consciousness is not yours. You can experience more than one person at a time. And not be aware of it.

Argument for awarepaducers

The argument for awarepaths produced by awarepaducers not connected to reality by a sense path produced by reality and not effecting reality directly.

It has been argued that we would not want to be in an experience machine or awarepaducer because we would not be connected to reality. The objects of our reality would not be real.

This argument makes the assumption that we have only one choice. If you are in an experience machine you are not in reality but since you are much more than just the awarepath produced by the awarepaducer it does not take away from you to be in the awarepaducer unconnected to reality. Even if your awarepath is currently produced in an awarepaducer it could still be produced in reality before or after the present. If an awarepath can not be produced connected with a sense path produced by reality does this make it an awarepath not worth existing in actuality?

Another assumption is that reality is like we think it is what if it is not. What if the awarepaducer exists in a reality that we can not exist in -- there exists no planet in the universe where we can actually exist. We may be so far into the future that all there is are isoawarepaducers at absolute zero that work because of superconductivity and a very small source of energy around an almost burnt out white dwarf star. There is no choice. You think that you are living a life on earth that is acceptable.

Awarepaducers allow us to experience awarepaths that cannot exist in reality and reality also. If you are a real physicalist then the awarepaducer is actually your body and you need to respect it as your real or actual body. You would not be able to exist outside it. According to the physicalist view because of continuity etc. The body then is the awarepaducer and to be the same person we need continuity of that awarepaducer body.

An awarepaducer could be created where there are actual other person that are created by the awarepaducer. For instance there could be a bunch of brain in a vat where a super computer generates the reality and the connections between the brains. In this scenario there actually are other consciousness that are actually interacting. We can imagine any scenario.

There are all sorts of possible awarepaducers with different levels and kinds of connections to reality. If we have the choice between this reality that we are experiencing or one that is truly connected to reality which one would we choose? The awarepath that we are experiencing is not really connected to all of what is happening around us. Imagine the very small or the universe or the reality of qm. What about the reality of the bugs that live with us one our skin or that lives in the environment out side. We are oblivious to most of reality we see a small part of it from a very limited perspective. Awarepaducers of different types may be able to produce awarepaths that reality can not in fact produce.

What are the different levels and types of awarepaducers?

1. In the form of a person with direct connection to reality, and other people that are producing awarepath like yours.

2. Where you are a real person but the individuals that you interact with do not produce and awarepath like yours they my be like unconscious computers that act like humans.

3. Where part of the reality is modified by some intelligent or programmed force besides nature.

4. Any possible modification device to the sensepath of a real individual to think that he is still connected to reality.

5. A real brain can be stimulated in many different ways internally where the awarepath does not relate clearly to the external reality but he still effects reality. Like alcohol or drugs or implanted neuron system simulators.

6. Awarepath produced by designed awarepaducers that are not connected to reality except in how it interacts with reality. The awarepaducer keeps the brain alive and then stimulated it in any sequence of ways.

7. Awarepaths produced by an awarepaducer that has many brain like structures that interact so many different awarepaths are being produced at the same time and they interact and think that these other individuals are real like they think that they themselves are real as well.

8. Awarepath produced by an awarepaducer that actually effects reality but in a modified way through the awarepaducer. There can be direct like you in your awarepath kick a ball and in reality there is a ball being kicked. But it could be that you think that you are kicking a ball but what you do is blow up a bomb.

9. There can be any number of transformations of what you do and how it effect reality.

10. There could be other types of structures that produce the awarepath like electronic devices they may produce an awarepath faster than a brain.

11. Nature through the fidentireplica process can produce awarepaths that are not connected to reality in the sense of effecting it.

12. Awarepaths produced by consciousness means through the fidentireplica process.

13. Awarepaducer that is actually conscious within itself and controls the awarepath that is produced consciously it can be aware of the consciousness that is being produced.

14. The consciousness that is being produced by the awarepaducer is actually modifying and is part of the consciousness of the awarepaducer.

15. Awarepaducer that produce awarepaths that know that they are in an awarepaducer.

Argument from belief

We can do a number experiments on peoples beliefs.

Can people believe that the cidentireplica is actually them?

If we take an original and tell then that we are going to kill them and create a cidentireplica of them and after this event we are going to ask him about his experience being a cidentireplica see if it is really him or not. We do not kill of the original but we still create a cidentireplica of the original. The original has a continuation of the same consciousness and clearly would be considered the same person. The cidentireplica is clearly a different person than the original. We put the original asleep and later wake him. The cidentireplica we wake him also. They will be in the identical rooms all external conditions are the same as well as all internal modifying factors-- conditions. Imagine your self being the original you would say I did not think I would still be alive, prove to me that in fact the original is dead. We show him a dead cidentireplica and tell him that it is the original. You start asking questions

Now imagine telling the original that you want to pass messages through the cidentireplica so you give this original a set of information and he tells you specific information to see if it passes through so to speak. The cidentireplica will by definition, respond exactly like the original.

Is there any test that we can actually see that this person has feelings or emotion if the cidentireplica actually knows that it is a cidentireplica is there ways of

People can be taught to believe almost anything that there bran can produce he behavior as if they believe something. To actually believe something you may need to understand what you are believing. Other wise you are using word to say some thing that you believe. People can be taught to believe in the identireplica theory.

There are different levels and types of believing in a belief system or religion etc.

1. There are levels of understanding

2. There are rhetorical belief where we say we believe in some thing what we understand is a small part of what there is to understand but we can say certain sentences that are the corner stone or basis or sum up these beliefs

3. There is fanaticism where the belief is right even though you have no clue what it is that you say you believe in you think you do an this can be as little as a word such as I believe in god or I believe I n christianity . Any statement that counters this is evil and must be eliminated

4. There is going alone with society and the culture you believe because it is your culture. You do not really care what the belief system is but you try to fit in to the situation that you are in. It is easier and less fighting.

5. There is the rebellion against the status quo you may not know what you believe in but you are against the status quo. You want change so you are against what ever belief system is available.

With the identireplica theory there will be people that understand it at different levels. Then there will be people that can give sound bites about like “the identireplica shows how different types of immortality are possible”. But really do not understand what this means. Then there will be ones that say that they believe because they want to fit in. Then there will be those that say they believe because

If a person believes that he is a cidentireplica of an original and the original is dead

For m an external source we can now if someone is a cidentireplica or not is there is a society

Imagine where we create consciousness on the electronic or photonic level where we can more easily reproduce or make a cidentireplica. We could then actually do experiments where we see if the cidentireplica actually feels like the original when told they are not. We are going to destroy the original physical device and make a copy of it

What a cidentireplica can do is say that they actually remember some this or that like it was just a second ago and describe memories and experience like it happened a second ago. They can do this while diverging form the behavior of the original so videntireplicas can be used to prove the identireplica theory . This type of reasoning can be uses to show that videntireplica are actual version of the original.

Engineering argument

How would an engineer go about producing survival of death of a person? First he will define what the actual goal that is being asked of him is. What does it mean to survive death also means what is it to be alive in the first place. What is the minimum requirements for the actual accomplishment of the desired goal. As there are different kinds of bridges, roads, buildings, dams, computers etc. there are different kinds of survival of death.

A copy of a person may be sufficient for others if the behavior is correct but this may not be sufficient for the original person. What is sufficient conditions for survival of death for the original person? Some might say that it is impossible to define the problem so it is impossible to solve it as well. But I think that we do have a pretty good idea what we want in survival and that is we want to experience something at least on the level that we do now with out any more pain that we suffer now. Of course, this is a wish list like wishing for a bridge that does not fall down or a dam that does not break or a computer program that does not have bugs in it. There are many types of survival of death like there are many kinds of computer programs. But when an engineer starts a project he has a list or requirements and a list of leeways latitudes it may be in materials used, shape, time given etc. The first thing that the engineer will look at is the object that actually produced the desired goal in the first place and try to repeat or duplicate this object or process. It may be at a smaller scale, less complex, cheaper etc. The last thing that actually produce the desired goal was the original. One on the key concepts of engineering is the duplicateablity of physical properties for instance iron that worked before is it has the same material will behave the same. So the engineer will study the properties of the original to see what actually produces the desired properties. He will find that the brain seems to be the necessary part of the body for producing consciousness and consciousness is the desired requirement for survival of death. He will see that people become unconsciousness under certain circumstances but regain consciousness when the correct functioning of the brain resumes. So the logical conclusion is that reversing the process of the decay of the body should create consciousness again.

The point of this argument is that an engineer that is trying to create “survival of death” of an original person will work toward it in a materialistic way. It is all about getting matter to do what you want it to within the limits set for the assignment. The engineer will see that to make the desired results for the original you have to produce the original experiencing life again. To do this the engineer has to look at the original and duplicate the material characteristics in the original that will produce the desired consciousness. The first thing that the engineer will realize is that there are many different consciousness that correspond to the original’s life. In other words what does the original want to be experiencing in this new or extended life. As some people want there to be a certain look or feel to a project the original may want a certain set of consciousness over other set of consciousness that are available to the engineer. The engineer needs to know what are the limits to the consciousness he can produce then what is the cheapest way of creating this goal. Does he really need to use the original material. If a person have lived would longer than he did he would have been made of different matter than when he died

Potential matter argument

It is argued that the specific matter is important for the creation of the correct consciousness in other words matter and energy are not interchangeable in producing consciousness. There are two problems with this belief --concept.

Through time your body is made of different matter and energy in different arrangements and places in the body. This is always changing over time. If a person was killed in an accident and his body was frozen put into an unchanging state with advances in science he might be made alive again in the future his body will then be using different matter than it would have other wise used if this would have not happened

matter may have the effect

If a person had not died he would have used a specific set of matter to create consciousness through time. If we used this set of potential matter that was not used but could have been to make the copy in the future with the corresponding

There is nothing that is scientifically impossible about a person being keep alive for ever. He theoretical could cycle through all the matter in the universe in that life time in any order. So matter could be the basis of any consciousness for that individual or any other using that argument

It has been argued that for the original to be recreated if the same matter was not used it would not be the same person. So there would be no survival of death it would be another person

Anti assimilation argument

Assimilation is the concept that the old matter in the body has to give to new matter coming into a body some property that is different than just getting it to have a certain structure and functioning. First there is no such property of matter or energy that has ever been found. Assimilation is not necessary for the production of a particular consciousness.

The concept of assimilation comes from the fact that the body has to get the matter it ingests to function in the correct way, there is no other purpose to assimilation. The new matter coming into the body can change the way the old matter functions to the point of death.

Why make difficult argument

How does nature benefit for making it so difficult in making the same consciousness. If you have to use the same matter to make a consciousness or other perceived need.

Why does nature benefit for making it so difficult to make a particular consciousness?

What does nature have to benefit from this rule why does it need it?

Thankful for a false belief argument

Some people are not worried about death even if it means never existing again or being consciousness again. Brave, unconcerned, like to sleep, life is too stressful or painful, what ever the reason. But most people are afraid to die this is why theories of immortality have given people some happiness. These theories have been wrong but they at least gave some happiness until the invention of hell which is worse that simplifying dying and never being conscious again. In one sense it was nice that people did not have to suffer needlessly about immortality even though the theory is wrong but on the other had the addition of hell etc made peoples lives worse.

A proof that physipaths can function and have a structure very close to that of the original.

This proof is based on the fact that physipath can diverge and converge. If they can converge on to any point and diverge to any point we can have then converge and diverge to point on the physipath but we can also imagine points very close to that of the originals physipath and have them converge and diverge to those points as well with out ever intersecting the originals awarepath. If we take those points on a line very close to the originals physipath but not on it we can have it converge and then diverge to each of these points as the points get closer and closer together the resulting approximate awarepath can get closer and closer with out intersecting the originals physipaths

What is the proof that physipaths can converge and diverge? If they can not converge or diverge they can not change because change is the diverging from one structure and then the converging onto another. But what is the proof that a physipath could converge to a different point than the one that it did? This is because of external sources that effect the functioning and structure of the physipath. Can a physipath converge or diverge to a different point than it in fact does if it has not external factors effecting the ways it functions?