Richard Brown reacts to "Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity | Tom Clark"

[@TWClark3]

Hi Richard, thanks for your skeptical take on this. Re continuity, the thought experiment in the original paper over at the naturalism website is the best way to see what I'm driving at.

[@onemorebrown]

I've read that but can't see how it helps against the point I was making...I'll have to re-read it

[@TWClark3]

@@onemorebrown Not sure what your point was against continuity in this video. You expressed puzzlement about it ("what gets carried over?") without having commented on the thought experiment itself. It says there's no subjective experiential discontinuity between me (who dies by radical transformation) and my radically transformed successor. I'll stay tuned, thanks.

[@naturalisted1714]

Hi Richard, I see why you take issue with the word Continuity here. My understanding of why Clark used "Continuity" is because consciousness will continue to exist in the universe after you cease to exist, and therefore, death will be followed by _one of those consciousnesses_ which some other brain is responsible for. So theres no continuity of you or your consciousness. But there is a continuity of experience _itself_. Sort of like if a person gets amnesia, they no longer recall anything before they became an amnesiac, yet there was still a continuity of experience from the "before amnesia" version to the "after amnesia" version. So apply this thinking to your end, knowing that _other_ brains will be responsible for consciousness after you have ceased to exist (after the brain that's reading this ceases to do consciousness). Here's a comment I recently left for someone: ​ What's put forth in Tom Clark's essay, is the view that if death truly does result in the end of a particular life, and therefore the consciousness that that brain was responsible for; then that means death is = to "non-existence before birth". And Clark points out that, just as it was the coming to existence of a life, and living brain-responsible for consciousness-that is what's responsible for "you" (and all of us) then death would also be followed by a life, since lives will be present after this one ends. Here's the equation: "Non-existence before birth", then a life was born= a life. Then along comes death, which is equal to "non-existence before birth ", and we know lives will exist after you and I die, and so, once again= a life after "non-existence before birth". A completely different life, but a life nonetheless. _Not_ a continuation of you-in any way. It's just simply that there will literally be lives after you have ceased to exist. And your lack of existing did nothing to stop a life from coming, and your lack of existing will do nothing to stop a life from following death. This is what Clark calls "Generic Subjective Continuity". He conveys it differently than I do, but I think both ways are effective. I hope that helped!

[@margrietoregan828]

Although I’m unwilling to divulge ‘information’s’ ontological identity here in its correct formualistic terms, nevertheless no difficulty attends the exercise of introducing the phenomenon in everyday language. To whit : - Among ‘information’s’ most identifying characteristics are the following four : - (1) Shape; (2) Back-filling; (3) the perpetual state of being Medium-bourn; & (4) Meaning. Consider each of the units of information on the page before you. Note that possesses each of these particular features/properties. Although the determination of the meaning (number four) of any unit of information present here in our Universe - although completely doable once one knows how - is not a case of simple, physical measurement, the other three of the phenomenon’s defining characteristics are material-based & as such easily measured. This ease of measurement makes locating, tracing-&-tracking any kind & amount of information where- & whenever any of it exists throughout our Universe an entirely doable phenomenon - even if, as already noted, a determination of the ‘meaning’ of any unit is a little more complicated. Indeed, so doable is locating any kind & amount of the phenomenon, no especial difficulty attends the exercise of identifying, locating, tracing-&-tracking whatever particular kind & amount of information maybe present inside of & being operated on, by any entity, machine, system, gadget, contrivance or device (animate & inanimate alike) - including the flesh & blood ‘thinking machine’ we humans (& all animals, but not plants which use information in different ways to any moving/acting entity such as ourselves & our animate brethren) have inside of ourselves. It is this ease of both identifying & locating any of it which is that which allows any reasonably astute investigator figure all of the different but closely-related phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’, ‘cognition’ & ‘consciousness’, etc - all mental phenomena. Although on the one hand, it turns out that many extremely ‘lowly’ things like thermostats, Roombas & automatic doors - indeed all robots, all servomechanisms & cybernetic devices - ‘think’ (as each uses particular kinds & amounts of real-time information in their real-time operation), ‘computers’ on the other hand turn out to be nothing more than greatly up-scaled, fully automated abacuses, & as such can no more ‘think’, reason, learn or understand than can a kindergarten child’s coloured bead set, or a school child’s set of times table, a farmer’s almanac, a technician’s slide rule or a mathematician’s log table …. Comprenez vous ??

[@uninspired3583]

Your favorite unprofessional philosopher, lol great intro

[@margrietoregan828]

Are you willing to engage in correspondence with me ? ‘Thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’, ‘cognition’ & ‘consciousness’ are all information-related//information-using phenomena and it is not difficult to show that one of the principal (& completely inexcusable) reasons we have not so far come to any good & proper - nor fully verifiable - understanding of these otherwise greatly sought-after yet still highly mysterious phenomena is due in great part to the simple fact that we do not presently also have a good & proper - that is, we do not presently also have a clear & fully verifiable - understanding of ‘information’ itself. Nor exactly where & how it fits into the reality equation along with everything else. Quick !! Just what exactly IS ‘information’ - as a phenomenon in its own right & not merely what any of it says, or means or does ? Although I have personally had the (dubious) fortune of having been able to figure out ‘information’s’ correct (& fully verifiable) ontological identity, and although I’m not going to divulge its formalistic definition here in this KZbin comment (without which formalistic definition it is not possible to establish a full & accurate science of the phenomenon, but with it it is) nevertheless I can assure you that with it in hand - that is, with ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity within one’s investigative arsenal (along with a full science thereof also), the exercise of determining the ontological identities - along with an accompanying science of each also - of all of the other directly information-related phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘cognition’, ‘intelligence’, ‘learning’, ‘understanding’, ‘sentience’, ‘consciousness’ & ‘self-consciousness’ (to far less than exhaust the list) becomes one of no great difficulty. Indeed - & as if adding boundless treasure to this already cornucopian delight of phenomena more closely-related to ‘information’ itself (including as above ‘thought’, ‘mind’ & ‘consciousness’ etc) - by building on this cadre of more directly information-related phenomena, any reasonably astute investigator is further assisted in clarifying everything else also - time, space, matter, energy, life & death (the nature of being, becoming & ceasing to be), agency, the self, the measurement problem - again to far less than exhaust the list. More or less ‘life, the Universe & everything’. (And no, it isn’t “42”.) All of this additional clarification is due to the fact that not only is ‘information’ both a foundational & thoroughly ubiquitous phenomenon here in our Universe, but it also that plays a critical & quintessential role in each & every interaction, movement & activity that occurs here too. Indeed, our current failure to more properly identify, define & understand ‘information’ - as a phenomenon in its own right & not just what any of it says, or means, or does - will yet prove to be one of our more seminal failures. And among the many ‘hi-falutin’ clarifications afforded by factoring ‘information’ in its ontologically correct form into the reality equation, are also any number of more mundane ones, including the distinctions - the absolutely distinct & completely irreconcilable differences - which exist among & between on the one hand ‘information’, ‘thinking’, & any bona fide ‘thinking machine’ (any bona fide thinking system, gadget, entity & device, animate & inanimate alike) (like the flesh & blood thinking machine inside of ourselves), AND on the other hand, ‘bits’, ‘bytes’ & ‘computer digits’, & ‘computers’, ‘calculation’ & ‘computation’. Me - as a rank-&-raving amateur - there is no opportunity for me to ‘publish’ anything … sooooo that’s why I’m asking you if you would be willing to review my work !? You being the wild & crazy, unprofessional philosopher that you are … ?!..

[@onemorebrown]

I found this in the spam folder...if you want to talk to me about this, come by one of my "office hours" that I do (lately they have been on Mondays)