Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

mhs1992, you're confusing my argument about discrete vs. continuous. We don't know for sure if a perspective would be "regenerated" within the same brain (although we took that approach for the sake of giving your argument strength to see if the physical argument could STILL battle against it, which it does).

So, even though you said that bringing the exact same brain will bring the same perspective, you don't believe it? You are just changing your answer, like that?

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Like I've said and what Necros has said, the mind is the result of the collective STRUCTURES and not the specific atoms. The atoms make up the structures, and the atoms themselves can swap out, but this doesn't mean the structures are different. If structures A, B, and C together make Perspective X, then it is reasonable to assume that if A, B, and C are taken apart, killing X, and then reconfigured, we get X again. It's reasonable because, much like a computer or any other machine, we can get things running the way they were with the same parts. We don't know, though, if recombining A, B, and C may actually generate a different but identical Y, but for the sake of making your own argument stronger we will assume that it regenerates X.

But my argument didn't really depend on that.

The point of my argument was that our atoms and structure are changing all the time, but that perspective that I called observer still carries on with the changes. This is a fact, because of the definition of observer and what we feel all the time. Then, I used the physical argument to create conflicts, and it did.

It's very easy for you to say that there is a continuous swap that doesn't change the observer, and then say that the same observer will only come back with the same atoms and structure, and THEN say that you didn't necessarily believe in what you said. Seriously, it almost feels like cheating to me.

But that's not a problem, now. So, you're now saying that, if I bring the same brain, it will not necessarily bring the same perspective? That's your position, now?

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Otherwise I could just argue that ANY atom swap at ALL kills us and thus we're constantly generating new perspectives with the same structure as the previous, and we'd be done with the argument right there..

But, by definition, and by what we observe, this is clearly not true. You can't argue that because that's not a fact. If it were true, you would suddenly just black out and your mind would be taken by another "observer" all the time, which is absurd.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

So, I think we can assume atoms don't matter with respect to a specific pre-established structure/function working. However, as we both agree, the mind is the brain at work. If we kill the brain and rejump it, will we "come back"? We don't know. But we can "assume" yes based on the A+B+C->X idea and see where this takes us. We know death occurs because the structures are simply not capable of sustaining any more activity. But if it were possible to kill someone and get those functions up and running again, it seems reasonable to assume that the same perspective is kicked back into motion.

If it seems reasonable, read the other reply again.

If this is not true (which doesn't really affect my argument), then what is the perspective? We bring the same structure with the same atoms but the same person doesn't come back?

Everything with regards to matter was brought back exactly the way it was. If the observer doesn't come back, then how can it possibly be material?

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Regarding your earlier post, if we're changing one brain to another, why is it so hard for you to believe that this also means you're changing the perspective? You ARE changing the perspective. The active mind, of course, still experiences sentience, but we're changing one perspective into something completely different. The body is still alive, as is the mind, but we're simply changing it. That's all there is to it.

"That's all there is to it."

Read that last paragraph again.
The POINT of the argument is that it feels absurd, is that it can't be imagined if you put yourself in the place of the two observers in question. And don't say that it isn't important, because it is. You can't see observers. You can't just say things about observers without imagining how it feels, and that's what you always do. That's why you never see any problem. You must always imagine how it feels to be the observer in question.

What do you choose, on that one? "Suddenly" or "Gradually"?