Comments on: See “To Be”

By: Roland

Roland — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:43:18 +0000

The same happens every night when you go to sleep. The person who wakes up in the morning is different by some millions of neurons.

By: Kaj Sotala

Kaj Sotala — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:22:39 +0000

For all his intelligence is coming up with the device, the scientist didn’t seem like very clever for not figuring out what was going to happen when he agreed to delay the destruction.

By: Fran Barton

Fran Barton — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:02:09 +0000

When she convinces the scientist to create the copy and delay the destruction of the original, the film doesn’t make sense when the two scientists then argue over who is the original and who is the copy.

Although identical at the point of replication, from that point on their histories diverge.

The original will have a memory of walking out of booth 1, and the copy will have a memory of walking out of booth 2, so they will know which one they are.

Since both individuals will have a memory of agreeing to the experiment, the original should agree to return to booth 1 and be annihilated.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:16:54 +0000

I think some would find theological meaning in this movie.

Other than that it was fun and the music was catchy. I think I’ll show this to children to freak them out when they watch Star Trek.

The argument reminds me of (I think it was) Heraclitus and his story about never being able to step in the same river twice because the water flows away.

By: Aaron Denney

Aaron Denney — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:34:37 +0000

Quantum teleportation relies on communicating classical information to correct the results of measurement — it really is just as much a “destroy and then (re)create” process as “classical” teleportation would be. (Yes, you can fudge a bit with delayed measurement style effects, and so forth, but it really doesn’t change anything). Why does the possibility (or not) of copying change anything about the analysis?

By: Richard Silliker

Richard Silliker — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:32:12 +0000

State? Sorry no such thing.

By: Jeffrey Soreff

Jeffrey Soreff — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:13:54 +0000

the details of one’s quantum state – sorry

By: Jeffrey Soreff

Jeffrey Soreff — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:12:41 +0000

The average poster here is less coherent…or perhaps less entangled
More seriously, our normal intuition of identity treats it as unaffected by 8 hours of sleep (as in cyan’s example) – which is a much bigger perturbation than losing the details of one’s quantum cells.

By: Richard Silliker

Richard Silliker — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:26:31 +0000

“Hopefully, are you aware of the illusions of simultaneity and other timing effects in conscious experience?”

Nice to hear that there is someone out there, that agrees, that there is no such thing as intent.

By: Hopefully Anonymous

Hopefully Anonymous — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:25:45 +0000

Hopeless,
The specific thing is expression by an expert of what seems to me is the reasonable amount of uncertainty about the natural phenomenon that is “consciousness” and its qualia subcomponents. Not being mystical about it (like the strawmen Hanson and Dennet seem to me to most often engage), and not being cargo-cultish about current neuroanatomical/neuroalgorithmic knowledge.