Re: ::scr long waffley post about consciousness

[Piers Cawley <pdcawley-scr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alaric Snell <alaric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tuesday 09 April 2002 10:23, you wrote:
>
>> > Ah, those are temporary influences upon you rather than
>> > incorporating something into you (unless you count the memories, in
>> > which case this drifts away from a discussion about an ethereal soul
>> > into 'you are the sum of your experiences', which is IMHO a
>> > different debate)
>>
>> Ah, but I have already stated elsewhere that I don't believe in the
>> existence of an ethereal soul. Or even of a 'self' in the conventional
>> sense.
>
> No, but the guy I was arguing with had a different opinion :-)

Um... I was arguing with him too. But he's not here any more.

>> It is my view that the me that exists now is not the same me that
>> existed at the time I typed 'now' for the first time. But each
>> successive me remembers when it used to be the earlier me, so it
>> concludes that it is, in effect, the same 'me' as it always was, but
>> with different experiences.
>
> Yes. Does dying bother you, though? The thought that, at some point, there 
> will be a you which no other you will ever remember?

Of course it does. But *being* dead doesn't bother me.


>> This is a really compelling way of looking at ourselves (some
>> inviolate 'me' that is the same now as it always was, and which will
>> continue until one dies, and maybe beyond), but I would hesitate to
>> say that it is 'really' true. It merely feels true.
>
> Read Schild's Ladder by Greg Egan :-)

Or Mister Volition by the same author. Or Dennett's _Consciousness
Explained_ (or _Consciousness Explained Away_ as I've heard it refered
to)

-- 
Piers

   "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
    possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
         -- Jane Austen?