Itoarguments part 4

Cosmic justice argument

Cosmic justice argument Is the argument that the ideas in the awaretheory restores cosmic justice for all conscious life forms. This by itself does not make the ideas in the awaretheory true but gives us more good reasons to hope that it is, and certainly a way that the universe can accomplish it without a god or gods.

The philosopher Kant argued that the world was unfair, and that some people and other conscious beings or animals had better and longer lives than others. He argued that there would only be justice if a god exists to eventually reward and punish people in some form of afterlife. And of course, that god did in fact care, and did something about, cosmic justice himself.

In our every day lives there are good times and bad times, very good times and very bad times. If you broke these into sections, grouped them together into good and bad, and then compared the very good times with the very bad times as separated lives you would say that life is not fair either. This is what we do when we separate a singular life from the whole grouping of conscious lives that a person has a potential to experience through out all space and time. The term "person" is really not the right term because the term person refers to a body. Ixperiencitness is a better term to use. What you actually are is everything you have or will ever experience. Awaretheory gives many arguments for the idea that your current body is not the only thing that will produce a consciousness that you will experience. It also gives scientific reasons that this is the case as well. Awaretheory says that there are a very large amount of sequences of consciousness (awarepaths) that you will experience when they are produced by an itobody or (physapath). Any of these can be duplicated over and over again so that there can be more better awarepaths or more worse awarepaths that are eventually produced for any particular ixperiencitness (person). So individuals that have suffered a short or long miserable life, could have or will experience many good future or past lives making the universe a much more just place.

We can influence the consciousnesses that we will experience in the future by either making this world a better or worse place to live. Someday we may even have the ability to specifically produce certain good awarepaths over ones that are full of pain, misery and suffering.

File name: The no person argument Date: 01:47:01 AM 03/03/09

Tying issues of survival and immortality to personal existence and personel identity is inadequate in getting a correct and complete understanding of what conscious beings are.

The ideas that our ixperiencit is tied to a specific body and not to consciousness can be totally incorrect. Thus it is more appropriate to tie one's ixperiencit to consciousness than to a body. Consciousness does not have the problem of tying itself to the wrong awarepaducer or type of awarepaducer. You are making an assumption that easily can be wrong.

No person argument

We do not really know what is producing the consciousness that we are experiencing. We think it is the body so we think that the study of survival and immortality is tied to the study of the human bodies. conscious survival body survival ixperiencitness survival

Ixperiencit survival is not tied to a specific conscious survival. Conscious survival is not tied to a specific body survival. Ixperiencit survival is not tied to body survival.

We can imagine a consciousness being produced that is totally artificially stimulated (artificially produced sensepath) to believe it has a body by creating a sensepath that is identical to one that a person with a body has. This consciousness can be produced by a brain in a vat stimulated by a computer created sensepath. So this is really not a person at all just a brain. We can also consider an electronic device that creates the consciousness of a body with out having anything like a human body. In this case there is no biological brain and body but thee is the human awarepath created where this consciousness thinks that he is a person. Another way is by a fitoprocess where there is nothing like a body, a brain or even a singular object that is producing the consciousness, nonetheless, the consciousness produced is that of a person or other conscious being. In these cases we may think that we have a body and we are a person but in reality we are nothing of the sort; the importance of personness is eliminated. It is a consciousness that thinks it is a person but is a consciousness. This shows the importance of existence and identity of consciousness over personal identity and existence. When we see ourselves as a body rather than as consciousness we see only a very limited aspect of our full actual and potential existence

Some one might say that this is not a possibility you have to have the consciousness of a person produced by a person but what is the proof of this. This might mean that there can not be any deception of a consciousness every consciousness has to represent reality but we know that this is not the case our brain have the ability to produce many aspects of consciousness that can not be in reality. We have not reason to believe that a brain that is properly stimulated by a computer would not think that it was connected to reality and not to a machine. The machine reality may seem more real than having a real body. Some one might argue that this can never happen that we have to have a human body to produce the consciousness of a human. But his is just speculation with out empirical proof. Just because a black swan does not exist and never has existed doesn't mean that they can not exist and will not exist in the future. With the understanding of genetic engineering it seem very likely that they can exist.

Identity of properties argument

File name: proof/ argument Date: 09:51 AM Sunday, February 22, 2009 09:58:55 AM

If you are not your identical consciousness produced at the same time because you from this perspective do not see this identical consciousness but you actually do see the identical consciousness you are experiencing it.

What would be an analogy? If you are a number five and there is another five written down at a different place are you both fives? Identity of some property (of matter) like greenness or “five ness” without being in the same place, time or made of the same matter. Consciousness can be looked as such a property. We have shown that it can be constructed without concern to the properties of space time and matter. Such as fiveness or greenness etc can be. Fiveness and greenness are properties of consciousness that we attribute to matter.

Justice argument

File name: justice Date: 02/18/09 12:42:55 AM

What is justice when we take into account the itotheory? We have to take into account the concepts of potential and actual awaremoments. What appears to be justice from one perspective can be just the opposite from another because of limited perspective or bias.

The concept that you are the current consciousness -- you are the awaremoment The ixperiencit concept is defined in terms of this awaremoment. Locally justice is determined by the awaremoment perspective not the larger potential awarecontinuum's perspective. We do not even consider the awarepath perspective in many situations when we consider justice.

When is something unjust? We can have injustice applied to either a person or a group of people or any conscious being. With out consciousness involved there is no justice or lack of it.

If life is terrible in the sense that most of the awarecontinuum is not good for a particular ixperiencit's grouping does this mean that the universe is not just. Or what if over all the awarepaths in the awarecontinuum is negative for most awarepaths does this mean that there is little justice in the universe? Immortality like the itotheory purposes makes justice very different then if there is no life after death or no possibility of life after death for an individual that is treated unjustly in this life his only life. A bad person having a good life at the expense of good people may seem unjust but when we consider that this bad person may have many versions that in fact good can change what we think. And visa versa if a good person having a difficult or unjust life here should have many more actual version that are bad does this even out. Since there is always the possibility of evening the score so to speak in the future either with bad or good versions of a particular awarevenue this seem to even the score. There is also the factor of the creation of good or bad awarepaths being produced that never effect reality. For instance, Hitler's awarepath produced in an awarepaducer. Does the good produced in an awarepaducer or visa versa the bad produced in an awarepaducers count for or against a person?

The fact that this theory does not guarantee life after death or immortality but allows it add a different perspective to morals and justice.

You can actually be both the bad person and the good person at the same time in two or more people actual people and you can be both the oppressor of the sufferer at the same time. Believing that you are versions of each can be in reality true or false.

Under certain circumstances you can be the bad person and do no bad to others as when your awarepath is produced in an awarepaducer that does not effect other people. In the same way ones good deeds can be towards no one as well in an awarepaducer.

Since what you do can be in an awarepaducer and not be affecting others doing good deed that make you suffer may no t be the best thing to do. We have no way of determining how likely the awarepath you are experiencing is artificially produced or not

Ixperiencit proof

The ixperiencit proof ; What a person is subjectively, is a grouping of consciousnesses –group of awarepaths --- awarevenue -- part of an awarecontinuum.

When ever any part of that grouping of consciousnesses is produced there that person is subjectively even though that person might not be there objectively

What you are to your self and what you are to others are two different things. This dichotomy causes many problems for philosophical theories. To your self, subjectively, you are consciousness to others you are a physical body person. To yourself you want to be conscious. You want to experience being conscious whether that includes a body, or is produced by a body, or not, is not a necessity

Subjectively I am consciousness when even that conscious is produced I exist. We can consider the I as the current awaremoment that is being produced. But any awaremoment in the potential awarevenue that is produced will be producing you as well.

Determining the size of the awarevenue is a task for science. since your consciousness is a multidimensional continuum there is no clear cut difference between you and many others. Is the production of part of your consciousness still you? If part of the production of part of your consciousness is still you then you may well be just part of a superpath that is you as well.

Some parts of that awarevenue that we call you has the property of having the perspective of being independent of all the rest but not all parts have this property

Some theories say that the ixperiencit is connected to the body. I say that it is connected to the consciousness. They say you can make changes to the body and have the same ixperiencit. I say that you can make changes to the consciousness and still have the same ixperiencit.

Itotheory applied to gods

File name: itotheory applied to gods Time created:01:45:40 PM & Date: 03/17/09

Considering the limited nature of the gods of religions the superpaths of this theory or much more godly even if they are limited in scope. For instance, we are made in god imagine that makes god limited. Doing gods work means that he can not do what ever in an instance. Having free will and not being perfect means that god does not have the knowledge and power to give people free will and perfection. Having a devil and angels means that god is limited in his powers to do things. God not living in the future or past is another limit to him. If he was in the past and the future at the same time he could start the path of humanity on the one or several paths that leads to the perfect path and he could make if necessary all the very small changes that need to be made at the perfect time with out having things go wrong all the time. Another thing is god needing mans love and praise this seem strange makes him a needed person not a god because this mean that he has need that he can not fulfill with the snap of the finger he went to all the trouble to make people that he want to love and praise him where he could have just snapped his finger and had the exact same feelings. If he can not do this or ever needs anything this means that he is very limited

With logical thinking and rationality we can over come the toxic religions and replace them with positive ideas showing how limited their god is is one way. People want a stronger god they feel safer with a stronger god. They also want a nicer god. This theory allows for stronger nicer rational non vindictive gods. It also allows you to share in this godness through the enhancement process and the superawarecontinuum. the superawarecontinuum is the potential awarecontinuum that is all about superawarepaths.

The concepts of actual and potential awaremoments, awarepaths, awarevenues, and awarecontinuums, apply to gods too. We can ask the same question about gods as we do about people. Are they a thing or body or they a conscious? Do they have a soul that is independent of a consciousness? Imagine a god that is not conscious?

Imagine a god that is not consciousness, what then makes him make decisions Just the function of his body? He would then be a zombie god. I do not think that we would like our gods to be zombie. How would we know why or how they are making their decisions? We do want a conscious god? We want him to be aware and make decisions based on that awareness.

Awareness is always limited. Is not the simple act of a nerve caring a signal awareness. Imagine a very simple organism that has one nerve and when touched that nerve fires. Is this not awareness? There is the event and there is the meaning of the event. There is the nerve firing and there is the meaning of the nerve firing. How are the meaning of that nerve firing changed? Is it change by internal means or external means? The meaning of a nerve firing can not be changed by internal means it has to be changed by external means. As the external changes the internal meaning changes. But how far does that external effect apply? Is there a limit to the space is there a limit to the time. These are key question to the fitoprocess. Does this change or add. This can be an additive or multiplicative process. A single nerve firing does not loose it initial meaning as the environment changes it gains meaning. So as you build a larger and larger structure of nerves around this particular nerve and it behavior over time its original meaning stays the same but there is extra meaning added in the process. If meaning can be added can meaning be subtracted as well? Definitely this seems to be the case as well. How does this apply to the fitoprocess? The meaning of the process of a nerve firing can change with the changes in the system.

Experience to memory proof

File name experience to memory proof File created date 12:11 pm Saturday, September 1 2007

You do not have to experience something to have a memory of it. There are many different ways that a body can come have the structure and functioning that it does. Thus, there are many different ways that a body can come to produce the consciousness that it does.

What are the proofs that a memory or an exact memory of an experience does not have to be actually produced by that experience?

Memories are not exact or complete there is much more information in an experience than the brain can process and store. We can apply the evolution reason for memories that is it is important for survival either in remembering what to do or what not to do so much of the information of an experience will not be important for survival. We synthesize the information in our memories of our experiences to make sense of what we have experienced. Because our memories can be changed over time the brain tries to be rational in creating the correct memory, For instance, it is not going to remember that the experience happened in europe when you know that you were never in europe even though you can not remember exactly where the experience happened.

A materialist theory of memory will not allow supernatural reasons for memory of experiences. So memories of experiences are created by the functioning of the brain. To produce that functioning and not some other the brain has to have a certain structure and then have the correct external stimulation. It is possible that since external stimulation can vary that to produce a memory of an experience different structures in the brain can produce the functioning that corresponds to the memory of the experience. What appears to be one memory of one experience can be in fact many perspectives on that experience there are many different structures and functioning that could be very close that will produce memories of the same experience.

Experimental proofs of that memories do not have to be based on actual experiences Any time we change the structure and or functioning of the brain and get memories of events that did not happen in reality are experimental examples that People have memories of events that did not in fact happen to them. Where do these memories come from if not experiences in reality they are generated by the functioning of the brain that create changes in the structure of the brain that in turn cause the brain to function differently and consequently producing a different memories

Restoration argument simplifyed

File name restoration arg simpl File created date 02:13 pm Wednesday, October 31 2007

This is restoration argument file organized and simplified

Restoration of self after death a materialist theory It will explain in terms of materialistic scientific explanations

Outline of ideas Introduction

Restoration Experiments

What is restoration?

What are continuum experiments?

What are potential continuum experiments?

Speed of assimilation

Replacement of matter

Amount of matter replacement at a time

in space

in time

Time between consciousness being produced by the body

Continuousness of consciousness

Multiple periods of unconsciousness death

Percent of present conscious continuity Type of conscious continuity Continuity to an earlier or later period of life Cases of divergence into multiplicity of persons singular self matter space time consciousness Cases of convergence into singularity of self from several selves matter space time consciousness

Approximate restoration

Conclusion

Life after death is all about the restoration of the self after the body stops producing consciousness.

The restoration argument is made up of a continuum of potential experiments where you can ask the question: “Is the person that is restored to life after death the same person as the person before he died?” Why and why not? And then the more important question: Is this restored person a case of survival for the original person or not? In subjective terms: if you are being restored to life is it actually you that is being brought back to life or someone else? The point of this argument is to show that other theories are inferior to the identireplica theory.

The concept of the continuum of potential experiments

If someone dies and is brought back to life in five minutes we can also consider the situation of five and a half minutes or four and a half minutes. We can imagine any amount of time chopping the time periods into smaller and smaller increments. For instance 5.11134... Seconds. If we use the example of matter we can replace 0% of the matter or 100% or any amount in between like 43.2341...%. There are a number of these types of concepts that can be considered when dealing with the restoration. amount of time of death before the person is restored to life, how close the restoration is to the original structure and functioning. We can consider the speed of assimilation of matter into the restored person, degree of identical structure of different parts of the body, degree of identical functioning of different parts of the body, how close the restoration is to the death of the original in space etc.

How long can a person be dead before they are restored to life? The identireplica theory states that it can be any length of time.

What percentage of matter needs to continue in a person over time to be the same person? It can be any amount of matter.

What period of assimilation do you need for the incorporation of the new matter? It can be an period of time.

When and where can the restoration be produced? Any where and any time.

What percentage of the correct functioning and structure must be reproduced to produce the same consciousness and, or ixperiencitness? This depends on many factors. Some changes to the physapath will produce very little change to the awarepath where as other types of changes will make very large differences.

If you restore someone, is that person ever not the original, meaning that you have restored someone else or made a person come to life that has never existed before?

Restoration with today's science is a matter of starting the heart again after it has stopped. There is little philosophical scientific debate about who the person is that has been restored to life. It is the same person whose heart stopped. Children that have falling in a cold lake or stream have been restored to life after relatively long periods of death-- 20 minutes or more. They have come back to life in relatively good shape. Usually people can not be brought back to life if there has been to long a time where they were not breathing or had a heart beat. The longer a person is dead the more damage is done to the cells body of the body. Scientific procedures can not restore the cells of the body at our current level of technology.