[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao The truth you see about yourself in the mirror is not the same truth that others see of what you are.

Yes, I know. But for me, and any entity, it is an entity, I am an entity for me. But for me, everything else is object. Objects, objective. It is true, and there is no probability that they don't exist. Ye I view them as objects, which actually don't exist. Therefore, not only they are part of my self, but I am part of them. All of what I am to you is what I am to you. And although this seems stupid it has a good point.

[AntonioLao]

My father died over 19 years ago, what is left of him physically is in my memory. When I die then the Markov chain of my father's is disconnected but if my half brother and half sister are still alive then some parts of my father's Markov chain are with them.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao My father died over 19 years ago, what is left of him physically is in my memory. When I die then the Markov chain of my father's is disconnected but if my half brother and half sister are still alive then some parts of my father's Markov chain are with them.

This is sopmething I always wondered. When we stop completelly to exist as part of any othe rperson, or thing: we are not in books, or photos, or whatever. Do we still exist? For me, there is a possibility in which I'm working: a model by which the thoughts of the minds can come out and interact and affect the physical world. And that is why when we come near a place we've been before we think the exact same thoughts that we then thought, and so do those that go by the place, or atleast similar things.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE Do we still exist?

The spacetime connections after a person die are all disconnected. But if the patterns at the time of death can be recreated then the same person can be revived into physical existence.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao The spacetime connections after a person die are all disconnected. But if the patterns at the time of death can be recreated then the same person can be revived into physical existence.

But no!!!! This is what I call "the Paradox Of the Clones" (POC). If a person can be completelly and exactly recreated both in it's mental and physical existence, that is, if we have just a hair, and a disket in which all his mind is compacted, then, we shoul dbe able to make the exact same person. But is that person? Well, qualitativelly, yes, but quantitativelly, no. It is another body and mind. The fact that it is equal to how that person was, doesn't impply it is that person. The problem with my thesis is that it can neither be proven, disproven, accepted as true or neglected. If I were a philosophy graduate there is a high probability that I would make my thesis about this.

[AntonioLao]

The difficulty in creating the same person in shape and size. The shape controls the physical features (no two persons looks exactly alike). The size controls the mental features (no two persons thinks exactly alike). The size or area of a hysteresis cycle is directly proportional to its energy dissipation in term of heat radiation.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao The difficulty in creating the same person in shape and size. The shape controls the physical features (no two persons looks exactly alike). The size controls the mental features (no two persons thinks exactly alike). The size or area of a hysteresis cycle is directly proportional to its energy dissipation in term of heat radiation.

But, I think the whole problem of defining what something is is the fact that we always refer to it's appearance as something universal. Let me explain. The appearance of object A to me is of type T1. But for you, the object A appears of the type T2. But we always say that the object itself appears. This is wrong. It appears to us. Not appears in it-self. It does exist, but not appear, or look like. And in your post, you say that no two person look exactly alike, but this is for who? For me, I may see two people and probably I don't see any difference, therefore, they are exactly alike to me, even inf one has 4 more hairs in the head, or two less neurons because he hit himself. Therefor,e we should speak about the sufficiently alike features (SAF) so that humans don't differentiate. But of course, here we come into why humans? It's maybe a dog that can feel somehow with another sense we odn't know something that differenatiates the two people.

[AntonioLao]

no two person is the same down to the last strand of DNA molecule. Yet how do we recognize a good person from a bad person except by their deeds.

[michellemfry]

Without ethics, a free spirit of the universe
Without time, only space to lead the way
Without gravity, floating, floating effortlessly
Without space, your world is at an end.

With everything by your side
No need for ideals to hide
Comfort in the ways of the world
Embedded in a universe so to hold.

Travel in time, travel in space
Travel into a position and place
Definitions changing with the times
Obsolete is out of fashion, end of a line.

I, me, or we
From zero to three
The first to generalize
The second to specialize.

The third to unify
Everything by your side.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by michellemfry Without ethics, a free spirit of the universe Without time, only space to lead the way Without gravity, floating, floating effortlessly Without space, your world is at an end.

Applied to humans, having no ethics impplies doing anything you want, having no time means doing everything you can, having no gravity is doing nothing you want, having no space is doing nothing you can.