/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6643224
I'm not a dualist, I agree that everything about your mind is a product of physical a physical process.

I'm just trying to point out that the defining attributes of YOU shouldn't be tied to the machinery. In the same way I can run identical programs on different computers.

One can construct two different Universal Turing Machines and then simulate the same conscious Turing Machine on them with same input - I think it would be ugly to say these Turing Machines do not represent the same being conceptually, even though they are not embodied in the same way physically.

>>6643229
ok...That just depends on whether you want to define yourself with some sense of evolution connected to it - this is similar to saying: YOU are a point in the space of possible brain states or YOU are a path in the space of possible brain states. It's up to you - all I'm advocating is we should look at be a space of brain states (where a each point, a brain state, is an equivalence class of isomorphic computational structures) rather than space of physical representations of brain states (where each point is a subset of the physical world containing a brain state).

>>6643256
>Well history. The location of the particle set containing the instance that actually had a unbroken interaction is the original.
I'm just trying to point out that the physical history of all the particles making up you is an ugly definition for a conscious creature and could even be ill defined if we ever created a conscious being using a quantum computer. I'm advocating something a little more platonic as a definition (see above).

Last bump

> theoretically