The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Felix »

I said: "Starting with a preconceived model and attempting to make the evidence conform to it is not science."

BigBango: Tell that to Einstein who had a preconceived model, General Relativity, that predicted the bending of light around massive stars. That is what scientists do.

Einstein did not start with a model, he started with a theory, based on the known properties of light and gravity discovered by Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, et. al. Then he formulated mathematical models to extend and elaborate on that knowledge. He did not simply engage in armchair speculation.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7066
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Sculptor1 »

Felix wrote: June 11th, 2019, 6:54 pm I said: "Starting with a preconceived model and attempting to make the evidence conform to it is not science."

BigBango: Tell that to Einstein who had a preconceived model, General Relativity, that predicted the bending of light around massive stars. That is what scientists do.

Einstein did not start with a model, he started with a theory, based on the known properties of light and gravity discovered by Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, et. al. Then he formulated mathematical models to extend and elaborate on that knowledge. He did not simply engage in armchair speculation.
I have to agree here. The Eddington observation without Einstein would have been dismissed as an aberration. The fact is , it verified the careful work of a life time.
Science, at its best, is capable of applying a cosmology contingent upon it "saving the appearances", when those appearances do not fit, science has shown itself willing and able to change its view rather than use the barrier of faith to defend a bankrupt system.
User avatar
AmosTheSpinozaGuy
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: July 15th, 2019, 7:22 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by AmosTheSpinozaGuy »

This is an interesting topic. I think (hope) one day man will solve the mortality problem by uploading brains to computers (singularity) but until then the issue of mortality remains. Generic Subjective Continuity is a way to address this perhaps. But it needs a full blown theory of mind to be complete which (absent a theory of quantum gravity) eludes us right now. Some of the stuff here on this thread I need to address - first of all I never liked "b theory" (tenseless theory of time). It is a linguistic mistake - a category mistake. Temporality is the most basic thing there is, and it cannot be "waved away" as being (for example) a negatively curved dimension of anti-DeSitter spacetime. Those are just models, not reality as such. So, given "a theory" tensed time being the case, we need to ask "what is it" that is supposed to survive permanent brain death and "re-awake" in another nervous system in GSC? For me very roughly I think a conscious entity (as I have argued on my blog) is basically a mechanism that increases its internal entropy. So to be simple the "thing" that is conscious from moment to moment (or that awakens in the morning) is not "I" (the notion of "I" is a meme machine and that is another topic) , that pure "awareness" is not - in fact - a "thing" at all - it is a Process, a Process of entropy getting produced at an accelerating rate. (Tenseless time just muddles everything - with Wittgenstein I try to keep things simple where I can.) So the "thing" in GSC that "wakes up" after brain-death would be a Process that carries forth, in a new form. Consciousness is not "something that is" (a b theory red herring) but is a process that "is happening" - when I wake up, "consciousness is happening" or (in my view) "entropy is getting made". To channel quantum theory this thing we call consciousness is more a wave not a particle, it is an energy pattern (and / or informational pattern, if you will). Just as in quantum theory, electrons can be waves (which interact with one another and even recursively with themselves) - being simplistic here for clarity so I know i am oversimplyfing - so the process of entropy production we call consciousness is like a wave of information - it is not "I am concsious now" it is more like "a pattern of energy is conscious-ing" (verb). But to address another specious claim here - this notion of "we are all the same consciousness" (which would be horrifying if say I had to be re-incarnated as a victim of the Holocaust) is prima facia absurd - that would be like saying there is only one electron in the universe (again only possible due to b-theory b.s.). In good old fashion tensed , a-theory of time, the patterns of information that "conscious" (verb) can interact / overlap, sure, but are still also unique - we should think of "the soul" as a pattern of information / energy that generates entropy and it can have different contents (memories, etc) but is always unique , not reversable, not repeatable, etc. I think the quantum multiverse can explain GSC somewhat - if I die in one timeline, because "I" (the instance of awareness "I" associates with itself) is a wave (of sorts) it still "exists" in parallel timelines, ad eternam (or least ways until the heat death of the universe which perhaps is the Hindu Nirvana). Mind you, I still hope for / support the idea of technological immortality - I would personally rather live billions of years as a computer than die and get reborn and so forth but that is because the "I" is a meme-machine created by memes in order to produce memes and thus is naturally interested in its survival so it / "I" cannot here be objective. :) Cool topic. (My own model of conscious entities as entropy-producing processes is here: theauguriesofamos[dot]blogspot[dot]com/2019/06/the-net-system-proposed-model-of[dot]html ).
User avatar
AmosTheSpinozaGuy
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: July 15th, 2019, 7:22 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by AmosTheSpinozaGuy »

This is an interesting topic. I think (hope) one day man will solve the mortality problem by uploading brains to computers (singularity) but until then the issue of mortality remains. Generic Subjective Continuity is a way to address this perhaps. But it needs a full blown theory of mind to be complete which (absent a theory of quantum gravity) eludes us right now. Some of the stuff here on this thread I need to address - first of all I never liked "b theory" (tenseless theory of time). It is a linguistic mistake - a category mistake. Temporality is the most basic thing there is, and it cannot be "waved away" as being (for example) a negatively curved dimension of anti-DeSitter spacetime. Those are just models, not reality as such. So, given "a theory" tensed time being the case, we need to ask "what is it" that is supposed to survive permanent brain death and "re-awake" in another nervous system in GSC? For me very roughly I think a conscious entity (as I have argued on my blog) is basically a mechanism that increases its internal entropy. So to be simple the "thing" that is conscious from moment to moment (or that awakens in the morning) is not "I" (the notion of "I" is a meme machine and that is another topic) , that pure "awareness" is not - in fact - a "thing" at all - it is a Process, a Process of entropy getting produced at an accelerating rate. (Tenseless time just muddles everything - with Wittgenstein I try to keep things simple where I can.) So the "thing" in GSC that "wakes up" after brain-death would be a Process that carries forth, in a new form. Consciousness is not "something that is" (a b theory red herring) but is a process that "is happening" - when I wake up, "consciousness is happening" or (in my view) "entropy is getting made". To channel quantum theory this thing we call consciousness is more a wave not a particle, it is an energy pattern (and / or informational pattern, if you will). Just as in quantum theory, electrons can be waves (which interact with one another and even recursively with themselves) - being simplistic here for clarity so I know i am oversimplyfing - so the process of entropy production we call consciousness is like a wave of information - it is not "I am concsious now" it is more like "a pattern of energy is conscious-ing" (verb). But to address another specious claim here - this notion of "we are all the same consciousness" (which would be horrifying if say I had to be re-incarnated as a victim of the Holocaust) is prima facia absurd - that would be like saying there is only one electron in the universe (again only possible due to b-theory b.s.). In good old fashion tensed , a-theory of time, the patterns of information that "conscious" (verb) can interact / overlap, sure, but are still also unique - we should think of "the soul" as a pattern of information / energy that generates entropy and it can have different contents (memories, etc) but is always unique , not reversable, not repeatable, etc. I think the quantum multiverse can explain GSC somewhat - if I die in one timeline, because "I" (the instance of awareness "I" associates with itself) is a wave (of sorts) it still "exists" in parallel timelines, ad eternam (or least ways until the heat death of the universe which perhaps is the Hindu Nirvana). Mind you, I still hope for / support the idea of technological immortality - I would personally rather live billions of years as a computer than die and get reborn and so forth but that is because the "I" is a meme-machine created by memes in order to produce memes and thus is naturally interested in its survival so it / "I" cannot here be objective. :) Cool topic. .
User avatar
Cycswan2
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: February 20th, 2022, 5:56 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Cycswan2 »

1. I am unsure if gsc, open or empty individualism (not that they are all equivalent) can be empirically verified. Potentially there could be empirical evidence that suggest it, in part or whole, like how relativity suggested a block universe, but I am unsure whether that necessarily proved the sort of “Parmenides non-philosophical becoming” universe, which seems to make sense logically, even if counter intuitive. I think someone that accepts aforementioned, has to put logical principles in themselves above empiricism, and understand that without these logical principles, it would be impossible to validate any said empirical findings. So our types would see this logic as a manifestation of something profoundly foundational to reality itself. More real than what is testable. And it’s possible that the empiricism goes against logic, but our types would reject these findings, seeing these finds as contaminated, incomplete, unknowable, etc. Where the truth is not manifested in the empirical, as it could be the case we can never see the inner workings of any given phenomenon. This is the best way I could describe.

2. In regards to the recent comment, I don’t see how presentism and the actual flow of time - which would imply change in and of itself - to be true. I personally see philosophical becoming as a logical impossibility that violates foundational laws of logic, identity, etc. i see this experience of change and continuity to be an illusion due to self referential memory, and also other kinds of self same patterns that reinforce a subject’s and multiple subjects’ sense of continuity, giving the impression of continuity and a logical narrative that is shared via the way our universe is constituted (its physics). I see no logical violation for all subjective states to be frozen across their given spatiotemporal coordinates. And if there were a magical being outside spacetime, they could observe these slices. If they could embody this arbitrary slice, they would feel the constant sensory qualities of this slice - the: smell, sight, taste, touch, sound, etc. These qualities would be an aspect of the slice, with the subject embedded into this slice. I see no reason why this can not be the case, as I don’t believe that subjective states have to have actual continuity for their being. Like a program on a computer that needs to be executed, I don’t think consciousness is like that. There is nothing that has to “happen” for subjective states to exist within spacetime, static, with their qualitative content.

Sorry if the language is non academic and contradictory sounding, as I am not too knowledgeable in philosophy and the terminology, I am explaining it the best I can. I also will say that I would like gsc, oi/ei or anthing akin to this to be false on a personal level. I personally believe the implications are quite terrible. Our world gives the subject the illusion of choice, the illusion that we can control life and its experiences with enough time and energy, and that there will be finality to experience itself. A sort of false hope and sense of agency. I’ve even thought it would maybe be better just 24/7, indefinitely being on fire, with the anticipation that this is all you’ll every experience, with no false hope that the world is any otherthan this vs our world that has mostly mundane experiences, with some blissful and pretty painful experiences.. but even worse, scattered throughout these incarnations, truly unimaginable forms of suffering (the stuff you would see on gore sites or the dark web, eg). I would wager most people would rather experience nothing (if it were an option), than even one truly torturous experience. But we are talking about countless of these experiences sprinkled within the incarnations that “ahead” and “behind” us, with no: memory, essence, woo that makes us remember or avoid fate. It merely is what it is. It’s existential claustrophobia. We are sitting ducks.
User avatar
DerOesi
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: June 26th, 2023, 5:28 am

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by DerOesi »

Sorry for necroing this post. What do you think about what „being“ „you“ will be after death. Is it random?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Sy Borg »

DerOesi wrote: June 26th, 2023, 12:52 pm Sorry for necroing this post. What do you think about what „being“ „you“ will be after death. Is it random?
I'm glad you did revive it, I'd missed it, and the ideas of the OP are fascinating.

In the end, as the OP said, being depends on self referential memory. A rock melting in a volcano is not suffering, as far as we can tell. When worlds collide, I doubt they tremble in fear as the impact looms. It just happens, like the many dynamics within and around us that we don't consciously notice.

It seems to me that our personalities are like readily disposable cells as part of a much larger, emergent personality - the personality of the Earth as a whole. At present the planet's overall personality is primitive and fragmented, barely able to protect itself from asteroids. However, with the advent of AI, a grand integration seems possible in the far future. I doubt that these dynamics will suit those who prefer freedom to security, but natural systems are famously unconcerned about the happiness of individuals.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021