Sections out of chapter 6 1

File: sections out of chapter 6

One argument used for the suffering that people endure is because to produce positive attributes to a person characteristics. Superimmortality predicts that there are stages of physapaths that exist after the difficult experiences. Gods do not need to make people suffer through these terrible life events he can just create them with these already existing physasections, thus eliminating the suffering that produced these characteristics. If in the future conscious beings find a need for these characteristics they can just create the structure and functioning that produces them in a different way. If we can do something that a god can not do then he is not omnipotent and omniscient. If we can do things better for ourselves than any religion can why do we need gods?

Mysterianism's argument against superimmortality: Mysterianism is the belief that consciousness cannot be presently or even ultimately understood completely. This means that there is no way a human brain can understand how the brain produces the mind or no way any conscious being can understand how matter produces consciousness or the feel of consciousness. It may be possible that words about the structure and functioning of neurons will never create in the human brain a picture of how the neuron's structure and functioning produce feelings. But there are many possible sensepaths and, or brain manipulations that can be imagined that might just produce this understanding. If for instance, when the brain is functioning in a certain way you see both the way the your brain is functioning and the feeling that it produces. This will produce a certain functioning in the brain that can be created without the original experiences. This might be easier to see in an electronic version of you where you not only see the consciousness produced but also the functioning that is occurring in the electronic device that produces your consciousness.

Some people want life to be mysterious they do not want to know what is going on or have to make decisions. They do not want consciousness to be understood. They want the self to be beyond the physical and understandable, they think that life should be unpredictable, novel, etc. They do not want their life to be just a reestablished physapath. Superimmortality does not say that they have to, but to give these same people control over other lives who do want to know more is not right. If they say no one should have this knowledge they still want there to be a god with this knowledge that can make decisions about their lives. The use of the superimmortality principles for the control of awarepaths is no different from god like controllers of which awarepath get produced.

There is a belief that understanding how each consciousness life is produced and how to recreate each life takes away from the beauty and mystery of life. It does not take away from all the lives that do not understand superimmortality. Nor to all the ones that do not want to know. This is sort of like taking away all of the reproducers of a religion and thus it dies out. Knowing what consciousness you want to produce and then producing them so that consciousness can perpetuate itself is important. The caveman mentality or caveman awarepaths are important produced in bodies where there is evolution of conscious bodies connected to reality eventually leading to more advanced civilizations. But in a reality where there is an understanding of consciousness and how they are produced and survival means the use of this understanding, caveman awarepath will not support this existence as well as other more advanced problem solving awarepaths. How ever if resources are avialable caveman awarepaths can be created to be studied and increasing understood. These types of awarepaths can be created for the purposes of sympathy, where better and extended awarepaths can be produced. But if better lives can be created with the same ixperiencitness that add to the over all survival of consciousness beings in general, caveman awarepaths will not be as important to create or recreate.

The brain takes in information and processes this information and makes a decision on to what to do. If condition are exactly the same the same decision is going to be made. However if there exists differences in the way the brain is structured and then functions and or the environmental conditions are slightly different the action can be different. For example if there is a no law saying if you kill some there is no punishment you might kill someone. But If there is a guarantee of punishment for doing the same thing this may deter you from making the decision of killing someone. If in another scenario you are going to shot someone, if there is a gun pointing at you and will shoot you if you yourself shot this makes your mind think about other alternatives.

The replica argument against life after death is that a replica of the original no matter how exactly identical it is to the original will never be the same person as the original. Superimmortality predicts that being the same person is not what is necessary for another body to be an extension of the same consciousness as the original before or after death What would prove that the same person means that he has to have the same ixperiencitness and only the same person has the same ixperiencitness?

Property argument for ixperiencitness: Ixperiencitness is a property that a consciousness producing body produces. Being a property that a body can produce means that other bodies can produce this property also. A property is an attribute, quality, or characteristic of something. A property of a thing is not the thing itself.

The identity theory is that consciousness is identical to the object that produces it. A light bulb is not the light that it produces, a factory is not the automobile that it produces.

Not the same person argument you are a person so that another person even if a perfect replica of you can not be you. There is no physical law that demands that a different person could not have the same consciousness and ixperiencitness as the original.

I intuit (feel) that I am singular unique entity argument: I do not experience anyone else being me. What I experience right now is what is me, nothihg else. I only experience the past through memories, I never experience a total repeat of a past conscious section. If you did would you know it? For every identical repetition of a previous physasection there would be no awareness of the repeat because a different awaresection with this awareness would have to be produced thas a different physapath. That physasection that contains the belief that this physasection was repeated can exist without the actual repeat.

Body produces consciousness versus the body is consciousness argument: Mind body identity theory The difference between this brain is tied to just one mind This mind is tied to just one brain versus a particular mind can be produced by different brains This mind is produced by just one brain

Is a song, movie, computer program, the smartphone or does the smartphone produce the song etc? If a smart phone was complex or the right enough to be conscious Is a physapath produced by a body or is it the body itself? The body produces a physapath the physapath produces the awarepath. Is the physapath identical to the awarepath? Do two identical physapaths produce identical awarepaths yes.

The behavior, consciousness, and ixperiencitness that a body produces is not identical to the body because the same body with a different brain structure and, or functioning can produce a different behavior, consciousness, and ixperiencitness. The same body can exist and the body is not produceing any consciousness and ixperiencitness

Arguments against the multiplicity of self I intuit. I feel. I know that there can not be another me. If there was another me, I would know it. There would be a special connection between us. I would feel this other “my” consciousness. but I do not so there is not another me. You do not experience what you did in the past and what you will do in the future. They are in different times and still produced by the same body. If you traveled into the past to visit yourself you would not experience their consciousness? If a future you traveled through time to the present you would not experience his consciousnes. It would seem like you have two bodies at this point in time. Time travel is impossible so this is not an argument against this belief.

1.Reductio ad Absurdum argument for do not use this argument just show that there are problems when identity is never allowed

It is (never) the case that identical structure and functioning in a repetition in the same body produces identical ( x) behavior, consciousness, and or ixperiencitness.

It is (always) the case that identical structure and functioning in a repetition in the same body does not produces identical ( x) behavior, consciousness, and or ixperiencitness.

Analogy repeat the structure and functioning that produces a song in a smartphone if the same structure and functioning will not ever produce the same song (repeat only after a specific condition is achieved)