The continuation of consciousness

[Silhouette]

Say, one day, perhaps even soon, we create the technology to continue our consciousness between one's body and another platform, perhaps after death or even while still alive.

Initially I thought about this and identified a problem with the acceptance of such a transition, by the consciousness being transitioned. If this wasn't done incrementally whilst fully conscious such that both the body's and the new platform's consciousness were in agreement at each step that it was genuinely the same consciousness, without break, being transferred, then the process could be "faked" or at least seen as faked and thus rejected. If anything, both the initial experience and the destination experience would have to be melded - it would be like adjusting to gaining a second pair of all of your senses from slightly different points in space and accepting that both were "yours". I would wonder whether that would be particularly disorientating, confusing, and even quite traumatically painful - or maybe it would be quite within the human brain's ability without any or at least significant ill-effect. If there was no meld then it would be like agreeing with another person about what was being experienced, it being only very slightly different due to being in a different point in space, but you both still accepting that you were the same people just from different points in space. I'm not sure how much I would accept that this was genuinely the same consciousness being transferred, and that it wasn't in fact the ultimate death of my own consciousness once the process completed.

But then I realised that when we wake from sleep, this "re-"entry into consciousness could also just as easily be faked - and yet we accept it daily. How is it possible that we accept this without question? Would this experience not be identical to you dying and being reincarnated but under the impression that you had simply woken up? All the same memories, and everyone else (who may also have just the same been "replaced" by another consciousness upon awakening) simply accepting that nothing was out of the ordinary...

Obviously this is all we've known throughout our lives, and probably even had issues with when young that we don't even remember - at least with the distinction between wake and dreaming. Perhaps this is all the training you need, and if children were brought up to a much cruder version of what I described above about the transition of consciousness between platforms, then perhaps they would see absolutely no issue even if it was experienced that there was even a significant break between the two bases of consciousness? This doesn't even seem that far-fetched given what adults accept not just with waking, but with any snapping back to awareness, perhaps from a distracted or any different mindset. Does consciousness even qualify as continuing while concentrating the whole time? Are we legitimately dying at every moment and just accepting that the newest experience is along the same continuum to our memories that we assume without question to be of what was before "in time"?

Perhaps all an adult would need, upon introduction to this new technology that isn't even that far-fetched of a concept anymore, would be an unquestioning acceptance of the falling of unconsciousness and that it would be followed by a reawakening "as though" it were a perfectly ordinary and acceptable continuation of the same consciousness - like we already have when we go to sleep and wake up? This has some obvious parallels with death - that one would need to see no issue with dying and that it wasn't even a problem with the actual (and not just assumed) continuation of consciousness. Perhaps the technology to transition consciousness would simply be staged to help people deal with death - the consciousness that emerges may even fool everyone, even itself that it was the same person (perhaps that doesn't even qualify as fooling, but is just normal)? Perhaps that's all falling asleep and waking is, so would it even matter if it were staged?

[surreptitious75]

New technology brings new moral dilemmas and this would be no different to any other. For example using an implanted consciousness to manipulate
other minds without their consent or knowledge. Also committing a crime then blaming it on an implanted consciousness so as to avoid responsibility

[Silhouette]

New technology brings new moral dilemmas and this would be no different to any other.

That's not really what the post was about. It started about that but if you actually got to the end (read the last line again + review how I got there) it goes deeper to the point where it's not even clear whether there would be any moral dilemma at all, given what we have to work with: namely consciousness and what we already accept about it as normal and not an issue of any kind.

[MagsJ]

Can the organic be downloaded to digital formats? technology withstanding?

[Serendipper]

consciousness being transferred

If you were cloned atom for atom like the transporter on star trek, could you have consciousness from both yous? If not, then why would one consciousness have been transferred just because the other was destroyed?

I believe no, it's not possible. The transported star trek characters have brand new points of observation by the universe, but the transported character would not be surprised to exist because it would have all the memories. Essentially, new-you would have consciousness from the new location AND consciousness of all your memories, so new-you will believe he went through the transporter, but you-you would be dead.

But then I realised that when we wake from sleep, this "re-"entry into consciousness could also just as easily be faked

How do you know you're unconscious when you sleep? Maybe the brain doesn't remember.

Would this experience not be identical to you dying and being reincarnated but under the impression that you had simply woken up?

If you're reincarnated, you'd grow into it, as opposed to being fully formed and wake up. Btw, when did you begin? If you're a determinist, you'd have to go back to the beginning of the universe, right?

Are we legitimately dying at every moment and just accepting that the newest experience is along the same continuum to our memories that we assume without question to be of what was before "in time"?

Maybe, but how long is a moment? There are no such things as moments and so no time to die.

Perhaps all an adult would need, upon introduction to this new technology that isn't even that far-fetched of a concept anymore, would be an unquestioning acceptance of the falling of unconsciousness and that it would be followed by a reawakening "as though" it were a perfectly ordinary and acceptable continuation of the same consciousness - like we already have when we go to sleep and wake up?

I'm not sure because people can suffer amnesia in this life.

This has some obvious parallels with death - that one would need to see no issue with dying and that it wasn't even a problem with the actual (and not just assumed) continuation of consciousness.

The only thing that can happen after you die is the same thing that happened before you were born.

Perhaps the technology to transition consciousness would simply be staged to help people deal with death - the consciousness that emerges may even fool everyone,

lol that's a good idea.

[Meno_]

Say, one day, perhaps even soon, we create the technology to continue our consciousness between one's body and another platform, perhaps after death or even while still alive.

Initially I thought about this and identified a problem with the acceptance of such a transition, by the consciousness being transitioned. If this wasn't done incrementally whilst fully conscious such that both the body's and the new platform's consciousness were in agreement at each step that it was genuinely the same consciousness, without break, being transferred, then the process could be "faked" or at least seen as faked and thus rejected. If anything, both the initial experience and the destination experience would have to be melded - it would be like adjusting to gaining a second pair of all of your senses from slightly different points in space and accepting that both were "yours". I would wonder whether that would be particularly disorientating, confusing, and even quite traumatically painful - or maybe it would be quite within the human brain's ability without any or at least significant ill-effect. If there was no meld then it would be like agreeing with another person about what was being experienced, it being only very slightly different due to being in a different point in space, but you both still accepting that you were the same people just from different points in space. I'm not sure how much I would accept that this was genuinely the same consciousness being transferred, and that it wasn't in fact the ultimate death of my own consciousness once the process completed.

But then I realised that when we wake from sleep, this "re-"entry into consciousness could also just as easily be faked - and yet we accept it daily. How is it possible that we accept this without question? Would this experience not be identical to you dying and being reincarnated but under the impression that you had simply woken up? All the same memories, and everyone else (who may also have just the same been "replaced" by another consciousness upon awakening) simply accepting that nothing was out of the ordinary...

Obviously this is all we've known throughout our lives, and probably even had issues with when young that we don't even remember - at least with the distinction between wake and dreaming. Perhaps this is all the training you need, and if children were brought up to a much cruder version of what I described above about the transition of consciousness between platforms, then perhaps they would see absolutely no issue even if it was experienced that there was even a significant break between the two bases of consciousness? This doesn't even seem that far-fetched given what adults accept not just with waking, but with any snapping back to awareness, perhaps from a distracted or any different mindset. Does consciousness even qualify as continuing while concentrating the whole time? Are we legitimately dying at every moment and just accepting that the newest experience is along the same continuum to our memories that we assume without question to be of what was before "in time"?

Perhaps all an adult would need, upon introduction to this new technology that isn't even that far-fetched of a concept anymore, would be an unquestioning acceptance of the falling of unconsciousness and that it would be followed by a reawakening "as though" it were a perfectly ordinary and acceptable continuation of the same consciousness - like we already have when we go to sleep and wake up? This has some obvious parallels with death - that one would need to see no issue with dying and that it wasn't even a problem with the actual (and not just assumed) continuation of consciousness. Perhaps the technology to transition consciousness would simply be staged to help people deal with death - the consciousness that emerges may even fool everyone, even itself that it was the same person (perhaps that doesn't even qualify as fooling, but is just normal)? Perhaps that's all falling asleep and waking is, so would it even matter if it were staged?

Perhaps an advanced cicilazation has already thought of it , but we are not aware of it, so that we could avoid facing the problem with difference.

They may be so advanced in fact, that they know the gravity of far advanced technology, just as we are beginning to weigh the merits of the value of science.

Perhaps , far far chance that very advanced civilization is us.

[Silhouette]

consciousness being transferred

If you were cloned atom for atom like the transporter on star trek, could you have consciousness from both yous? If not, then why would one consciousness have been transferred just because the other was destroyed?

I believe no, it's not possible. The transported star trek characters have brand new points of observation by the universe, but the transported character would not be surprised to exist because it would have all the memories. Essentially, new-you would have consciousness from the new location AND consciousness of all your memories, so new-you will believe he went through the transporter, but you-you would be dead.

I would agree.

What I'd add though, is that this whole topic seems to throw into question whether spatial location is actually a relevant factor to identity at all.

Obviously we are reassured that when we wake up, we are in roughly the same place we were when we remember going to sleep. When we don't recognise where we are when consciousness returns, it's often very confusing, although even this doesn't seem to shake our understanding of continued identity. Things like dementia also cause a great deal of confusion, and I would guess that it does probably shake one's understanding of continued identity. So, as you say, with the "new-you" "re"gaining consciousness after being transported star trek style, having your memories in tact seems to be highly necessary. More important than having them in tact, though, might be the perceived sense in their continuity - that the things you do remember play out in a way you can understand - like a story that makes sense. When we remember dreaming, we seem to be very good at forgetting them very quickly with their lack of fitting in with our "waking story" - probably in much the same way that we're so good at not remembering our earliest years before we starting being able to put together a sensible narrative of our life. It's troublesome to a child who has not yet learned to compartmentalise away things like dreams as a "non-real" tangent to the "real" life, despite the seeming realness of them at the time, and despite any emotions that have persisted through a dream to being awake. If you wake up in a different place to where you remember falling asleep, there are many accepted ways to incorporate this into the story of your identity. If it's possible that you simply moved without remembering and/or being conscious, then you can imagine such a process, even in the abstract, and fill in the gaps. Waking up on another planet or spaceship would be less acceptable, but I'm not convinced even that would give cause for you to doubt you were the same "you".

So given that we can fall unconscious (or forget our consciousness like when you get lost in thought while walking, doesn't matter), and accept that the "old-you" didn't die, maybe it doesn't matter if in some way it could be said to have died. The essentials are memories that can be seen as fitting into a story (e.g. your appearance when you look in the mirror, your worldview, your interactions with others). So if "old-you" dying is either standard or irrelevant, then what does it matter when you get transported in star trek?

I think the issue we have is that we know it would be no different from being killed and a different identity coming into existence to replace us. But given the above, is that an issue? Is dying any different from what our "same" consciousness does all the time? We seem to think of it as though it does, though it would be more consistent to fear with enough certainty only that a "new-you" won't replace "old-you". Since it does in the star trek example, this really ought not to bother us, and if it does I think our conception of what continued consciousness and identity are needs to be re-examined in light of the above.

Btw, when did you begin? If you're a determinist, you'd have to go back to the beginning of the universe, right?

Well identity is a terrible concept, philosophically. It's so very full of holes, and like I was saying above, it just seems to be a vague memory of continuity in only a very small number of key ways that aren't even that specific in themselves. To get precise about a hugely imprecise concept seems redundant.

Material existence seems to go back to the beginning of the universe, sure. The conscious universe only needs to go back (at the most) to when you were born, or first conscious, or even only to your first memory, or since memories are only ever recollections of the present - is there any beginning other than right now? Did it begin when you last remember regaining consciousness? What if you just weren't aware of breaks or lapses in that time? What about Saccades? At best, I see "me" as just "being", or perhaps "becoming" in the present, and even then I don't see any philosophical reason to see "me" as only going as far as my body. All my consciousness seems to be an interpretation done by my own brain, so why isn't the "not me" of which I am conscious not also "me"? Because I don't seem to understand myself as being able to manipulate it as well? Consciousness doesn't even seem to require "outside" input when dreams and hallucinations are a thing.

A completely valid deconstruction of identity seems enough to make you entertain Solipsism with complete sincerity (which I did for many years) if it weren't such an absurd concept on which to base your ontology. It has practical uses, so sure, I'll use it as people normally do all the same.

Perhaps the technology to transition consciousness would simply be staged to help people deal with death - the consciousness that emerges may even fool everyone,

lol that's a good idea.

My instinct is that it's a highly morally ambiguous idea. You alleviate a great deal of suffering, and you do so with a highly significant lie. However, in light of what I was saying above, it's probably not even necessary if you just understood consciousness and identity better. What is death other than standard life only no longer being replaced by a "new-you"? There won't be a "new-you" to worry for the people of whom you are no longer conscious. The only issue is for the living people who don't get to experience the "new-you" any more, which is a problem of living, not with dying.

The only thing that can happen after you die is the same thing that happened before you were born.

Sure, although I think "happen" is the wrong word, and I think all words are wrong for "before you were born/after you die". Maybe "unconsciousness" is okay, but even then it seems invalid to attribute anything to it because "anythings" are a living thing - so to me the question is null. Void. And death and pre-birth aren't even that.

[Arcturus Descending]

Serendipper,

If you were cloned atom for atom like the transporter on star trek, could you have consciousness from both yous? If not, then why would one consciousness have been transferred just because the other was destroyed?

Seriously, I cannot imagine another me somewhere in this Universe. I am still in the process of coming to Consciousness and trying to figure things out even as we speak.

As for the first question, though I know hardly anything at all about this stuff, doesn't being cloned mean that everything is exactly alike?

But I might suggest that afterwards Consciousness would necessarily have to change especially if both me's went our separate ways, having different experiences and being influenced by different things. Little by little, different Consciousness would develop, there would be a breakdown of similarities.
But perhaps I am wrong in this since though it would still be my Consciousness, though second-hand.
It is a very good thought to ponder though.

Your second question does not quite make sense to me the way in which you have worded it - but that might just be me and my Consciousness not getting it. lol
Now the above is just one example of why one of me in the Universe is more than enough. That being said, I kind of like and enjoy the one I have though I would continue its process of evolution. To do otherwise, would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and one must never ever do that.

[Serendipper]

What I'd add though, is that this whole topic seems to throw into question whether spatial location is actually a relevant factor to identity at all.

That's especially true considering there is no such thing as spatial location from the point of view of a photon. The continuum may not be that of space, but of awareness/experience and each one of us is a hotspot of it. Alan Watts quoted someone who said something to the effect of our being locations of awareness and I can never reference these things when I need to, but I googled "locations of awareness" to find this blog http://squareone-learning.com/blog/category/science/

If you page-search for "locations" you should land in the right spot.

For me and my research into serendipity the notion of hidden connectedness yields to the notions of uninstantiated contingency and radial contingency. In the free play of uninstantiated contingency, sensitive (to radial contingency,) intelligence responds to possible fortuities and unknown potentials with new conjunctions.

Radial contingency means the possibilities that are located at the end of the spokes of a observer/participant’s awareness, as this awareness radiates outwardly toward other locations of awareness.

“The quantum field contains information about the whole environment and about the whole past, which regulates the present activity of the electron in much the same way that information about the whole past and our whole environment regulates our own activity as human beings, through consciousness.” David Bohm

Also, my experiential aesthetics being rooted in a theorization of generative learning are deeply informed by Bohm’s conception of enfoldment.

“Everybody has seen an image of enfoldment: You fold up a sheet of paper, turn it into a small packet, make cuts in it, and then unfold it into a pattern. The parts that were close in the cuts unfold to be far away. This is like what happens in a hologram. Enfoldment is really very common in our experience. All the light in this room comes in so that the entire room is in effect folded into each part. If your eye looks, the light will be then unfolded by your eye and brain. As you look through a telescope or a camera, the whole universe of space and time is enfolded into each part, and that is unfolded to the eye. With an old-fashioned television set that’s not adjusted properly, the image enfolds into the screen and then can be unfolded by adjustment.” David Bohm

That makes some sense to me since the emission and reception of a photon is the same event as if all the points were actually connected in a spaceless and timeless unity, but we see it as "unfolded".

Feynman himself described photon interactions as always having an emission and a reception event, no matter how far apart those events occur in ordinary time. https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... a-receiver

Obviously we are reassured that when we wake up, we are in roughly the same place we were when we remember going to sleep. When we don't recognise where we are when consciousness returns, it's often very confusing, although even this doesn't seem to shake our understanding of continued identity. Things like dementia also cause a great deal of confusion, and I would guess that it does probably shake one's understanding of continued identity. So, as you say, with the "new-you" "re"gaining consciousness after being transported star trek style, having your memories in tact seems to be highly necessary. More important than having them in tact, though, might be the perceived sense in their continuity - that the things you do remember play out in a way you can understand - like a story that makes sense. When we remember dreaming, we seem to be very good at forgetting them very quickly with their lack of fitting in with our "waking story" - probably in much the same way that we're so good at not remembering our earliest years before we starting being able to put together a sensible narrative of our life. It's troublesome to a child who has not yet learned to compartmentalise away things like dreams as a "non-real" tangent to the "real" life, despite the seeming realness of them at the time, and despite any emotions that have persisted through a dream to being awake. If you wake up in a different place to where you remember falling asleep, there are many accepted ways to incorporate this into the story of your identity. If it's possible that you simply moved without remembering and/or being conscious, then you can imagine such a process, even in the abstract, and fill in the gaps. Waking up on another planet or spaceship would be less acceptable, but I'm not convinced even that would give cause for you to doubt you were the same "you".

Yup and I think "perceived sense of continuity" says a lot. This reminds me of my spontaneous Martian transference thread

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=193940

Nevermind the probability, but consider that it's technically possible to wake up somewhere else. What does that mean?

So given that we can fall unconscious (or forget our consciousness like when you get lost in thought while walking, doesn't matter), and accept that the "old-you" didn't die, maybe it doesn't matter if in some way it could be said to have died. The essentials are memories that can be seen as fitting into a story (e.g. your appearance when you look in the mirror, your worldview, your interactions with others). So if "old-you" dying is either standard or irrelevant, then what does it matter when you get transported in star trek?

I don't think it matters except they are two separate people like you and I are separate.

Suppose you go into the transporter and new-you is atomically cloned on the other side, but by some fluke old-you isn't destroyed. Since old-you is still there, then who is on the other end?

I think the issue we have is that we know it would be no different from being killed and a different identity coming into existence to replace us. But given the above, is that an issue? Is dying any different from what our "same" consciousness does all the time?

Are you saying we die each discrete moment? How long is a moment?

I think our fundamental particles osciallate in and out of existence, but at different times and too quickly to be noticed. We ride atop a wave, as it were.... a lot like a flame is a stream of particles.

We seem to think of it as though it does, though it would be more consistent to fear with enough certainty only that a "new-you" won't replace "old-you". Since it does in the star trek example, this really ought not to bother us, and if it does I think our conception of what continued consciousness and identity are needs to be re-examined in light of the above.

It's as if solipsism is true for each of us within awareness-time rather than space-time because it seems each of us is a manifestation of a self/other relationship of the universe.

If the universe is aware through me and you are my "other", then how can the universe also be aware through you at the same time?

Check this out:



If what he says is true, that you can only experience it one at a time, then each time you experience it, it's a case of solipsism. Alan has said elsewhere that each organism creates its own world in its image (to parody the bible).

Material existence seems to go back to the beginning of the universe, sure. The conscious universe only needs to go back (at the most) to when you were born, or first conscious, or even only to your first memory, or since memories are only ever recollections of the present - is there any beginning other than right now? Did it begin when you last remember regaining consciousness?

Can you be conscious of anything without first committing it to memory? You probably weren't conscious of the light hitting your eye before I mentioned it, but now you're writing it down in memory by thinking about it. That could be why we like to write.

David Hare — 'The act of writing is the act of discovering what you believe.'

Writing is like an extension of neural memory.

What if you just weren't aware of breaks or lapses in that time? What about Saccades? At best, I see "me" as just "being", or perhaps "becoming" in the present, and even then I don't see any philosophical reason to see "me" as only going as far as my body. All my consciousness seems to be an interpretation done by my own brain, so why isn't the "not me" of which I am conscious not also "me"? Because I don't seem to understand myself as being able to manipulate it as well? Consciousness doesn't even seem to require "outside" input when dreams and hallucinations are a thing.

It's odd that I have more control over the temp of a room than I do my blood pressure. I can make things grow in the ground but can't change how I grow. Where does the organism begin and the environment end?

A completely valid deconstruction of identity seems enough to make you entertain Solipsism with complete sincerity (which I did for many years) if it weren't such an absurd concept on which to base your ontology. It has practical uses, so sure, I'll use it as people normally do all the same.

Maybe solipsism is true within experience-time, but then who comes first?

Perhaps the technology to transition consciousness would simply be staged to help people deal with death - the consciousness that emerges may even fool everyone,

lol that's a good idea.

My instinct is that it's a highly morally ambiguous idea. You alleviate a great deal of suffering, and you do so with a highly significant lie. However, in light of what I was saying above, it's probably not even necessary if you just understood consciousness and identity better. What is death other than standard life only no longer being replaced by a "new-you"? There won't be a "new-you" to worry for the people of whom you are no longer conscious. The only issue is for the living people who don't get to experience the "new-you" any more, which is a problem of living, not with dying.

Yes, there will be no one to care that they were lied to and this is why I don't fight religion too hard; if it comforts people then to each his own.

The only thing that can happen after you die is the same thing that happened before you were born.

Sure, although I think "happen" is the wrong word, and I think all words are wrong for "before you were born/after you die". Maybe "unconsciousness" is okay, but even then it seems invalid to attribute anything to it because "anythings" are a living thing - so to me the question is null. Void. And death and pre-birth aren't even that.

Right, so experience will be a continuous process since the void in the middle is nothing to experience. Before being born, obviously there was something being experienced.

[Serendipper]

Serendipper,

If you were cloned atom for atom like the transporter on star trek, could you have consciousness from both yous? If not, then why would one consciousness have been transferred just because the other was destroyed?

Seriously, I cannot imagine another me somewhere in this Universe.

Yeah I can't imagine another me either.

I am still in the process of coming to Consciousness and trying to figure things out even as we speak.

Me too. We all are!

As for the first question, though I know hardly anything at all about this stuff, doesn't being cloned mean that everything is exactly alike?

Yeah down to the atom. The only thing different is the location.

But I might suggest that afterwards Consciousness would necessarily have to change especially if both me's went our separate ways, having different experiences and being influenced by different things. Little by little, different Consciousness would develop, there would be a breakdown of similarities.

Yes and that's probably why identical twins are different people.

Your second question does not quite make sense to me the way in which you have worded it - but that might just be me and my Consciousness not getting it. lol
Now the above is just one example of why one of me in the Universe is more than enough.

With such modesty I'd prefer there be more of you Don't be hard on yourself... I look forward to your comments!

That being said, I kind of like and enjoy the one I have though I would continue its process of evolution. To do otherwise, would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and one must never ever do that.

I imagine someone must have actually thrown a baby out with the water before because who would think of that otherwise lol

[Arcturus Descending]

Serendipper

Seriously, I cannot imagine another me somewhere in this Universe.

Yeah I can't imagine another me either.

I think I will have to give that some thought after having re-read what I wrote above.
Freud gestures. "Where do you think that this comes from? Some childhood trauma? Your father or your mother? heehee

I am still in the process of coming to Consciousness and trying to figure things out even as we speak.

Me too. We all are!

Yes, in an ideal world that could be the case but you do not actually believe that, do you? ALL? Is it possible for all of humanity to come to consciousness despite the fact that we might not ALL work towards it? Is that even a valid question, Arc?

But I might suggest that afterwards Consciousness would necessarily have to change especially if both me's went our separate ways, having different experiences and being influenced by different things. Little by little, different Consciousness would develop, there would be a breakdown of similarities.

Yes and that's probably why identical twins are different people.

But what is it that creates one twin as normal and the other as a sociopath or psychopath? Does this happen during gestation, I wonder?

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-fo ... -if-so-how

So, is this pre-determined within the womb, I wonder, (I might suggest that it somehow would possibly have to be) That instinct and behavior can be seen quite quite early in life for someone who might know about such things or is it related to the outside world? I would have to say the former.
I think that in order to go along with Theravada Buddhism one would necessarily have to believe in reincarnation in the first place which I am skeptical about but how could I thoroughly discount it? (though I more or less do).

Your second question does not quite make sense to me the way in which you have worded it - but that might just be me and my Consciousness not getting it. lol
Now the above is just one example of why one of me in the Universe is more than enough.

With such modesty I'd prefer there be more of you Don't be hard on yourself... I look forward to your comments!

Was I being hard on myself there or just seeing myself with *sometimes* clearer lenses? What do we in actuality have to lose when we see the reality of who we are? More to gain I would think. How do we chisel away at the flaws in the forms which we are if we cannot see them as they are?


Serendipper wrote: If you were cloned atom for atom like the transporter on star trek, could you have consciousness from both yous? If not, then why would one consciousness have been transferred just because the other was destroyed?


I left the first question in to preserve the context of the second. The second question which I colored refers to that which I cannot understand. I would like to give it some thought if you could re-word it a bit for me. Something just seems to be amiss but I do not want to throw that baby out.

I imagine someone must have actually thrown a baby out with the water before because who would think of that otherwise lol

That is possible but is it probable? Who can know for certain and how important is THAT anyway? I will admit that it is interesting to discover how particular idioms came about. The statement serves a far greater purpose though as a reminder today for a too quick-thinking and absolutist mind.



The phrase "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is used when warning someone not to be in such a rush to get rid of something useless (bathwater) they also throw away something of value (the baby).

But what does that mean? What is the meaning behind the idiom "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater"? It is commonly understood that the saying comes from a time when clean water for bathing was in such high demand that an entire family would use the same water – first the father, then the mother, then children from oldest to youngest and that by the time the baby was bathed the water would be dirty you couldn't see them and they'd get tossed out along with the water.

That's the popular understanding of the origin of the phrase, but is it correct? According to some sources the answer is "no".



lol Talk about family sharing! The question really is "Is that even possible? I suppose that one might have to imagine that dirty water but just how dirty and then again how forgetful can a parent be about a child?!!! Perhaps that was an excuse used at a trial for a parent having done away with one's child and the judge's final admonishment - "Do Not Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater."

[Meno_]

There is a new theory out there , quote plausible at that - consciousness creates it own duplicity. The generation of consciousness is different from what they used to think.
In fact, it is not continuous, but invariably cyclical. A team of neuro psychologists found recently that focus can be found for only 4 seconds after which there is a break , followed by a general sense of apprehending reality, in a large apperception of all sensory data.

The continuity is generated by filling in those seconds by approximating data between the two foci of apprehension .
That may explain the idea of two sources of identity. It isn't referential to a Dasein, because all brains operate with this process. The idea is not formed in a follow up to artificial sources but schematized from the brain itself initially of a natural origin.

If itn was proposed that such a natural scheme could have an artificial origin, then the collapse of the sense data would entail an undifferentiated state of an anomalous structure between what is natural and what is artificial. That would make little sense, and that is exactly the points raised against modern positivist philosophy of mind by the neurological study I am yet to cite.

But will so , after proper search.

[Silhouette]

There is a new theory out there , quote plausible at that - consciousness creates it own duplicity. The generation of consciousness is different from what they used to think.
In fact, it is not continuous, but invariably cyclical. A team of neuro psychologists found recently that focus can be found for only 4 seconds after which there is a break , followed by a general sense of apprehending reality, in a large apperception of all sensory data.

This wouldn't surprise me at all. It seems like a huge amount of consciousness is made up (if not all).

The issue with explaining consciousness is that it is consciousness that we use to explain things. All accepted explanation is that which puts a phenomena in terms of something else. How then do we explain consciousness when consciousness is necessary to both explain and to have things explained to us?

That's the real genius of science - that it pseudo-inverts this foundation with concepts like matter, energy and forces. We consciously experience the world, which we then explain in terms of these concepts, which we then in turn use to explain consciousness. It's not a legitimate trick, but acting like it is has definite utility.

[Fixed Cross]

Very interesting questions.
My theorizing about this is too far off the norm to bother you with but what I will say is that in my dreams I am never without my memories of what I am. I may not have seen what I see in my dream in my waking life, but Ive never discovered something new about myself. I just found myself in places I knew I already somehow had been in a less metaphorical, more physiological sense. What Im getting at is that there isa very good reason for us to assume a continuum of identity, namely the lack of mutations within our own souls I might call self-experience.

One of the most pleasant simple experiences in life is dozing off in a moving and waking up to an environment lost track of just a second ago. That one second of sleep is the purest invigoration, that one dreamless moment of non-knowing. And then the whole world in its full dynamic weight and light comes to our senses in the middle of everything, which pushes for a state of sublime awareness and compassion.

I think people should have one second naps three or four times a day.
Im sure it can be induced using both chemicals and a simple electric device.

Sleep I reckon is when the circuitry of the brain is in a full loop, no tangets into specific timelines of consciousness, actions, paths, separate experiential segments of being causing consequences for the whole, but only the whole slew of it in a kind of dough mixer or these sugary fluff clouds "sugar spiders" as we call them, where the objectifying mind is in service strictly as a content generator for this fluff, not as a logical measurer - in amateur medical terms, in the passive state with no consequences, the right hemisphere is in full control and thereby relaxes the left and just exercises itself - whereas waking the left brain is dominant by the virtue of incoming and outgoing events, which prevents the perfect solipsism of the dream. Unless you are very good at life.

[Meno_]

I withdrew my response because I was unsure on a further reading of the meaning of the narrative, on basis of that became reluctant that my answer was adequate. I also thought that it may have been perfunctory and possibly misleading.

Let's see how this develops before further commentary on my part.

Fixed: Last night I was very put out , had a bad day, and I did my best, but had/have -even now- to unravel your thoughts. But this is a very interesting topic and mucj worth an effort to connect the streams of consciousness which may give clues between the conscious and the sleep state.
Ill try work on it .

[Fixed Cross]

All consciousness ever is is valuation.
There is absolutely no logical possibility of consciousness that is not a form of valuation.
Valuation runs from the protonic response to electronic charge all the way up to conscious valuation.

Sane consciousness erupts when cnsci I us Ness is aware of relying entirely in all its structure and content on subconscious valuation.

Thought begins to occur when some subconscious valuation is made conscious.

[Fixed Cross]

I withdrew my response because I was unsure on a further reading of the meaning of the narrative, on basis of that became reluctant that my answer was adequate. I also thought that it may have been perfunctory and possibly misleading.

Let's see how this develops before further commentary on my part.

Fixed: Last night I was very put out , had a bad day, and I did my best, but had/have -even now- to unravel your thoughts. But this is a very interesting topic and mucj worth an effort to connect the streams of consciousness which may give clues between the conscious and the sleep state.
Ill try work on it .

It is always a bad day if you spend it in service of fascism my friend.

Always frustrating and sad to see you waste yourself attacking the most effective and redeeming president the US has ever had in terms given to you by Hillary Clinton, who has more foul deaths under her belt than anyone since World War 2.

It is a very grave error you're making.
I sincerely wish that you somehow see through the facade. Much is at stake, your soul first of all.
I do think the people now trying to bring down the president are soulless demons, all racists too.

Don't go along too far with them.

[Fixed Cross]

Our word could fall any second.
Due to Trump it won't be in an annihilation-war between Russia and the US but the spark of chaos from within.

Maybe our civilization will lose enough guilt to adapt overtly to the fact of self-interest again, and attain the happy hardness of the first American centuries. But maybe it will crumble and then the first gods will return.

EHEU

what a choice.

[Serendipper]

Serendipper

Seriously, I cannot imagine another me somewhere in this Universe.

Yeah I can't imagine another me either.

I think I will have to give that some thought after having re-read what I wrote above.
Freud gestures. "Where do you think that this comes from? Some childhood trauma? Your father or your mother? heehee

Well, if a tree doesn't grow in a pleasing form we can't blame the tree, but the arborist.

I am still in the process of coming to Consciousness and trying to figure things out even as we speak.

Me too. We all are!

Yes, in an ideal world that could be the case but you do not actually believe that, do you? ALL? Is it possible for all of humanity to come to consciousness despite the fact that we might not ALL work towards it? Is that even a valid question, Arc?

If going out of consciousness is dying, then coming into consciousness is living. I think all life engages that process, but consciousness is relational and there is no one consciousness to find. So everyone finds it, but all the "its" are different.

But I might suggest that afterwards Consciousness would necessarily have to change especially if both me's went our separate ways, having different experiences and being influenced by different things. Little by little, different Consciousness would develop, there would be a breakdown of similarities.

Yes and that's probably why identical twins are different people.

But what is it that creates one twin as normal and the other as a sociopath or psychopath? Does this happen during gestation, I wonder?

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-fo ... -if-so-how

So, is this pre-determined within the womb, I wonder, (I might suggest that it somehow would possibly have to be) That instinct and behavior can be seen quite quite early in life for someone who might know about such things or is it related to the outside world? I would have to say the former.
.

The way I understand it is psychopathy is congenital while sociopathy is environmental, so if the twins were truly clones and yet one is different, then we can only blame the environment and not the genetic encoding.

I think that in order to go along with Theravada Buddhism one would necessarily have to believe in reincarnation in the first place which I am skeptical about but how could I thoroughly discount it? (though I more or less do)

My question for the buddhists is: who is being reincarnated? The whole idea of buddhism is that there is no one who has been incarnated in the first place. We are a function of the carnal, but we have not been "popped into" a body from somewhere else (incarnated). We aren't incarnated, but just carnated lol

Alan describes buddhism as "hinduism stripped for export" and the sequence of transformation is: Hinduism -> Mahayana Buddhism -> Theravada Buddhism

There is no one to be incarnated except the Brahman (the ground of being) and Brahman plays the parts of you and me and everything in existence (including rocks, trees, whatever). The Buddhists remove the dramatic aspect of the actor and play.

Your second question does not quite make sense to me the way in which you have worded it - but that might just be me and my Consciousness not getting it. lol
Now the above is just one example of why one of me in the Universe is more than enough.

With such modesty I'd prefer there be more of you Don't be hard on yourself... I look forward to your comments!

Was I being hard on myself there or just seeing myself with *sometimes* clearer lenses?

Well, you had a choice to make: either you weren't smart enough to understand what I said or I wasn't smart enough to encode it properly in order to be understood. You chose the former. Rather than defaulting to me being the problem, you first looked at yourself. So I reciprocated and suggested you not be too hard on yourself because the problem may have been me

Funny how it works that way: if you cut yourself down, others will stand you up; if you stand yourself up, others will cut you down.

Reminds me of this bible passage:

7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9 If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. 11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

What do we in actuality have to lose when we see the reality of who we are?

You could lose the idea that you exist. That was hard on me when I first realized it. Do you really want to believe that when you die, that's it? No, nobody wants to believe that because we have too much invested in the idea that there is more to it. "If there is no me, then why was I doing x, y, and z? What is the point of all this?" There is no point and that's the point.

More to gain I would think. How do we chisel away at the flaws in the forms which we are if we cannot see them as they are?

There are no flaws and there is nothing "as it is" (objective).

Krishnamurti said:

If you ask for spiritual instruction, you are confusing yourself. Because you are looking outside for what you are asking for... as if someone else could give it to you.. as if you didn't have it.

If you ask me for enlightenment, how can you ask me for enlightenment? If you don't know what it is, how do you know you want it? Any concept you have of it will be simply a way of trying to perpetuate the situation you're already in. If you think you know what you're going out for, all you're doing is seeking the past... what you already know... what you already experienced. Therefore, that's not it, is it? Because you say you're looking for something quite new. But what's your conception of something new? You can only think about it in terms of something old.

As long as you're seeking, you haven't understood; you're getting in your own way. Even if you give up seeking, you'll still be seeking since you think giving up seeking will improve your situation. That's the same as desiring not to desire which is the same as riding a horse in search of the same horse. The only thing to do is let go, but that can only come when seeking has been revealed to be completely futile, so the gurus put students through the most rigorous training until they eventually discover that it was all a waste of time. The whole point of the training is to realize that the training was stupid.

Serendipper wrote: If you were cloned atom for atom like the transporter on star trek, could you have consciousness from both yous? If not, then why would one consciousness have been transferred just because the other was destroyed?


I left the first question in to preserve the context of the second. The second question which I colored refers to that which I cannot understand. I would like to give it some thought if you could re-word it a bit for me. Something just seems to be amiss but I do not want to throw that baby out.

If you were cloned in the transporter on star trek, you'd see the other person as a different person. And if you were destroyed, the clone would not be you. It would think it is you, but it would not be you; you'd be dead. I suppose it was less of a question and more of a statement of the ridiculousness of the idea that a consciousness could be transcarnated.

I imagine someone must have actually thrown a baby out with the water before because who would think of that otherwise lol

That is possible but is it probable? Who can know for certain and how important is THAT anyway? I will admit that it is interesting to discover how particular idioms came about. The statement serves a far greater purpose though as a reminder today for a too quick-thinking and absolutist mind.



The phrase "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is used when warning someone not to be in such a rush to get rid of something useless (bathwater) they also throw away something of value (the baby).

But what does that mean? What is the meaning behind the idiom "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater"? It is commonly understood that the saying comes from a time when clean water for bathing was in such high demand that an entire family would use the same water – first the father, then the mother, then children from oldest to youngest and that by the time the baby was bathed the water would be dirty you couldn't see them and they'd get tossed out along with the water.

That's the popular understanding of the origin of the phrase, but is it correct? According to some sources the answer is "no".

lol Talk about family sharing! The question really is "Is that even possible? I suppose that one might have to imagine that dirty water but just how dirty and then again how forgetful can a parent be about a child?!!! Perhaps that was an excuse used at a trial for a parent having done away with one's child and the judge's final admonishment - "Do Not Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater."

I strongly suspect some people actually threw the baby out with the water due to complete mindlessness. They were probably addled by commotion of kids and pets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_t ... _bathwater

I doubt it was dirty water and more about the fact that babies took baths so routinely that people became absent minded. And any body of water large enough to bath an adult would be too heavy to throw out.

[Meno_]

consciousness being transferred

If you were cloned atom for atom like the transporter on star trek, could you have consciousness from both yous? If not, then why would one consciousness have been transferred just because the other was destroyed?

I believe no, it's not possible. The transported star trek characters have brand new points of observation by the universe, but the transported character would not be surprised to exist because it would have all the memories. Essentially, new-you would have consciousness from the new location AND consciousness of all your memories, so new-you will believe he went through the transporter, but you-you would be dead.

I would agree.

I'd add though, is that this whole topic seems to throw into question whether spatial location is actually a relevant factor to identity at all.

Obviously we are reassured that when we wake up, we are in roughly the same place we were when we remember going to sleep. When we don't recognise where we are when consciousness returns, it's often very confusing, although even this doesn't seem to shake our understanding of continued identity. Things like dementia also cause a great deal of confusion, and I would guess that it does probably shake one's understanding of continued identity. So, as you say, with the "new-you" "re"gaining consciousness after being transported star trek style, having your memories in tact seems to be highly necessary. More important than having them in tact, though, might be the perceived sense in their continuity - that the things you do remember play out in a way you can understand - like a story that makes sense. When we remember dreaming, we seem to be very good at forgetting them very quickly with their lack of fitting in with our "waking story" - probably in much the same way that we're so good at not remembering our earliest years before we starting being able to put together a sensible narrative of our life. It's troublesome to a child who has not yet learned to compartmentalise away things like dreams as a "non-real" tangent to the "real" life, despite the seeming realness of them at the time, and despite any emotions that have persisted through a dream to being awake. If you wake up in a different place to where you remember falling asleep, there are many accepted ways to incorporate this into the story of your identity. If it's possible that you simply moved without remembering and/or being conscious, then you can imagine such a process, even in the abstract, and fill in the gaps. Waking up on another planet or spaceship would be less acceptable, but I'm not convinced even that would give cause for you to doubt you were the same "you".

So given that we can fall unconscious (or forget our consciousness like when you get lost in thought while walking, doesn't matter), and accept that the "old-you" didn't die, maybe it doesn't matter if in some way it could be said to have died. The essentials are memories that can be seen as fitting into a story (e.g. your appearance when you look in the mirror, your worldview, your interactions with others). So if "old-you" dying is either standard or irrelevant, then what does it matter when you get transported in star trek?

I think the issue we have is that we know it would be no different from being killed and a different identity coming into existence to replace us. But given the above, is that an issue? Is dying any different from what our "same" consciousness does all the time? We seem to think of it as though it does, though it would be more consistent to fear with enough certainty only that a "new-you" won't replace "old-you". Since it does in the star trek example, this really ought not to bother us, and if it does I think our conception of what continued consciousness and identity are needs to be re-examined in light of the above.

Btw, when did you begin? If you're a determinist, you'd have to go back to the beginning of the universe, right?

Well identity is a terrible concept, philosophically. It's so very full of holes, and like I was saying above, it just seems to be a vague memory of continuity in only a very small number of key ways that aren't even that specific in themselves. To get precise about a hugely imprecise concept seems redundant.

Material existence seems to go back to the beginning of the universe, sure. The conscious universe only needs to go back (at the most) to when you were born, or first conscious, or even only to your first memory, or since memories are only ever recollections of the present - is there any beginning other than right now? Did it begin when you last remember regaining consciousness? What if you just weren't aware of breaks or lapses in that time? What about Saccades? At best, I see "me" as just "being", or perhaps "becoming" in the present, and even then I don't see any philosophical reason to see "me" as only going as far as my body. All my consciousness seems to be an interpretation done by my own brain, so why isn't the "not me" of which I am conscious not also "me"? Because I don't seem to understand myself as being able to manipulate it as well? Consciousness doesn't even seem to require "outside" input when dreams and hallucinations are a thing.

A completely valid deconstruction of identity seems enough to make you entertain Solipsism with complete sincerity (which I did for many years) if it weren't such an absurd concept on which to base your ontology. It has practical uses, so sure, I'll use it as people normally do all the same.

Perhaps the technology to transition consciousness would simply be staged to help people deal with death - the consciousness that emerges may even fool everyone,

lol that's a good idea.

My instinct is that it's a highly morally ambiguous idea. You alleviate a great deal of suffering, and you do so with a highly significant lie. However, in light of what I was saying above, it's probably not even necessary if you just understood consciousness and identity better. What is death other than standard life only no longer being replaced by a "new-you"? There won't be a "new-you" to worry for the people of whom you are no longer conscious. The only issue is for the living people who don't get to experience the "new-you" any more, which is a problem of living, not with dying.

The only thing that can happen after you die is the same thing that happened before you were born.

Sure, although I think "happen" is the wrong word, and I think all words are wrong for "before you were born/after you die". Maybe "unconsciousness" is okay, but even then it seems invalid to attribute anything to it because "anythings" are a living thing - so to me the question is null. Void. And death and pre-birth aren't even that.

What I'd add though, is that this whole topic seems to throw into question wether spatial location is actually a necessary element qua as a factor to identity at all.(in terms of a total reduction, since extension is much more reducible , then time-it goes to basic properties)

[Meno_]

I'd add though, is that this whole topic seems to throw into question whether spatial location is actually a relevant factor to identity at all.


Have You thought about the relationship of spatial and temporal reality? Its too easy to make the distinction, but more difficuly to think in terms of spacetime.

Do things appear to fall away as spatial determinants increase and vica-versa?

[barbarianhorde]

Maybe consciousness is the result of the exterior.

like when it is only dark and silent you're gonna go mad.

When its a result of the place you're at between things, an atomic replica will still be a different dude with a differing consciousness. But very similar probably.

Two cars from the same production lines are ultra similar but due to a slight difference in place they end up wildly differently, one with ashes all over the fine leather and a dented grill and 486.133 on the teller, the other sparkling in an old timer show all fluffed up and having had the upholstery replaced with ugly velvet.

But on the other hand neither of them will grow a fifth or sixth wheel. Or maybe if one was bitten by a magic mosquito who could only be at one place in the same moment.



Jack: "Whats consciousness?"
Jill: "Where you'e at"

[Serendipper]

I don't think there is such thing as space without time or time without space because it takes time to traverse space, d=rt. Two objects can be in the same place, but not at the same time, and as logical as that sounds, I'm not sure what law insists it be so: are absurdities objectively illegal or an artifact of how this universe is put together? Anyway, from the point of view of light there is no time or space and the emission and reception of a photon is the same instantaneous event. Actually, I think it was Max Planck who said that before a photon could be released, a particle would have to travel back in time from the destination and the arrival of said particle actually seemed to have inertia to move the emitting particle backwards as it released the photon (apparently this has been confirmed through observation). I'm not sure which direction "backwards" is since a photon is released in all directions. Perhaps backwards in time? Anyway, the point I'm making is that time and space are integral to each other.

If consciousness is the aperture through which the universe observes itself, then it seems likely that it could only occupy one spatial, temporal coordinate; otherwise there could be no feeling of self and other; I and everyone else. Then again, consciousness is not solely a function of s,t location or else our body would be irrelevant. So it appears therefore that continuity is what matters.

Going back to this thread: Probability of Spontaneous Martian Transference viewtopic.php?f=4&t=193940 It's probably possible to suddenly appear on Mars and that raises a possible distinction between Michio Kaku's teleporter and that of Star Trek's because cloning someone is quite different than actually teleporting them. Through actual, natural teleportation, continuity is maintained (I'm guessing) but cloning is a discontinuity.

Don Lincoln at FermiLab says we are always traveling at the speed of light (whatever that means) through spacetime (not just space), but light travels exclusively through space (not through time) while matter has a spatial and temporal vector that sums to the same speed of light. Also, an object completely at rest (relative to spacial fabric) would be traveling at the speed of light exclusively through time and not through space (the opposite of light). The point is that when the spatial and temporal vectors are summed, the speed is always the same. Discontinuities would seem to violate that.

[Meno_]

I think that's is approaching another absolute limit just as in structuralism via. Set theory. There is correspondence there , where structural interpretation explains the explanations given, and they mutually verify each other. The third arm, logistics, appear to give a temporal foundation via, the prediction -hypothesis given by various paradoxical ideas, such as the Russell set, which implies backwards the correspondence to other archytipical paradoxes such as Meno's and others paradoxical ideas. That such ideas later relate to more sophisticated ones, can be shown to access the beginning of the way hypothesis relies on what now is named a-priori knowledge.

The issue with the turtle winning a race against a hare relates to higher consciousness of dividing into a differentially smaller segments toward absolute minima. The niminalosm of later philosophy of mind through language, leads to the set theory .And that lead to Russell's Paradox of , which actually showed the weakness of meaning against the logical structure of the mind.

Time and space evolved through the primary characteristic of extension, as separate from its temporal element, severely proceeding its modern sense of integrating with it.

That sense was pointed out by the paradox, and remained paradoxical until different twists of interpretation. of time itself looped in the answer through relative time.

Now, Your suggestion of going back in time makes sense, and this I am stumped with , although the idea of the direction relative photon emission is plausable, bringing in the idea of multu dimensional , rather then two dimensional linear time, forward and backward.

The calculus of figures of three or even more dimensional constructs, appear to support it, but I have a hard time wrapping my mind around it, unless the multi universe idea is theoretically more likely then not to underlie that idea.

The basic ancient view of the universe , as a series of turtles lying one upon the other is a prophetic archetype, further sign of an inherently pre-figured knowledge.



Note: Serendipity, Barbarian Horde -

Meno's Paradox as an epi-phenomenal type learning , as somehow related to the later phenomenology of thee mind, as in Cantor's and even later Russell's Paradoxes, layes foundation to something that I am trying to work out in my mind, is thusly exemplified, so guys don't be concerned about its primary relatedness to the topic at hand.

I hope to bring relevance into it later.

[barbarianhorde]

I don't think there is such thing as space without time or time without space because it takes time to traverse space, d=rt. Two objects can be in the same place, but not at the same time, and as logical as that sounds, I'm not sure what law insists it be so: are absurdities objectively illegal or an artifact of how this universe is put together?

I guess so but if so, it would have to be hidden from our consciousness because else we would not even believe or be able to make out any subjective reality, let alone an objective one.
But I was living above a couple where the woman always was seeing dead people sit in chairs if she entered the room, like, spirits with bodies but apparently not bound to stopping at doors or walls, so being able to be at the same place in the same time, as another thing. Apparently these ghosts or whatever they are, parallel beings, are all over the place, maybe there are a bunch of them sitting in your chair with you.

Now that you mention it.
(Its not like me to be so forward with paranormal stuff)

Anyway, from the point of view of light there is no time or space and the emission and reception of a photon is the same instantaneous event. Actually, I think it was Max Planck who said that before a photon could be released, a particle would have to travel back in time from the destination and the arrival of said particle actually seemed to have inertia to move the emitting particle backwards as it released the photon (apparently this has been confirmed through observation). I'm not sure which direction "backwards" is since a photon is released in all directions. Perhaps backwards in time? Anyway, the point I'm making is that time and space are integral to each other.

Are you saying a photon has no direction?
I don't understand. Also not about the instantaneousness. Doesn't a foton take 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to our eyes and trees?

If consciousness is the aperture through which the universe observes itself, then it seems likely that it could only occupy one spatial, temporal coordinate; otherwise there could be no feeling of self and other; I and everyone else. Then again, consciousness is not solely a function of s,t location or else our body would be irrelevant. So it appears therefore that continuity is what matters.

Yeah definitely. You have to be at least able to recognize a pattern from one moment to the next to recognize that you're recognizing anything so I guess to exist as a consciousness you have to be conscious of something which is steadily changing.

Maybe this is how Zen works. You stare into a wall where nothing is altered, and eventually you stop remembering yourself.

Going back to this thread: Probability of Spontaneous Martian Transference http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 4&t=193940 It's probably possible to suddenly appear on Mars and that raises a possible distinction between Michio Kaku's teleporter and that of Star Trek's because cloning someone is quite different than actually teleporting them. Through actual, natural teleportation, continuity is maintained (I'm guessing) but cloning is a discontinuity.

Or a new root (of spacetime continuum).

Don Lincoln at FermiLab says we are always traveling at the speed of light (whatever that means) through spacetime (not just space), but light travels exclusively through space (not through time) while matter has a spatial and temporal vector that sums to the same speed of light. Also, an object completely at rest (relative to spacial fabric) would be traveling at the speed of light exclusively through time and not through space (the opposite of light). The point is that when the spatial and temporal vectors are summed, the speed is always the same. Discontinuities would seem to violate that.

Im a bit skeptic about this Don Lincoln.

Basically if you travel at the speed of light, everything that doesn't is completely flat, undifferentiated. That doesn't seem to be my world.