31

32

33

0

1

2

5

Where are the aliens?

I have an interesting theory on why we haven't found any advanced civilizations yet. May be physics allows us to create our own universes. They have found that trick and are gone. 

6

7

8

9

16

20

21

22

Probems in defining Identity

If I replace my entire body each functional unit at a time, at no point I become someone else. In this type of argument it seems like memory and its continuation is what gives me my unique self identity,

But what happens if there are two persons with the exact same memory. (Remember these are thought experiments so it is valid to assume such identical memory is possible to be instantiated and maintainable for a given amount of time.). Does that mean now I will be conscious in two bodies? Certainly we can't feel using a remote body. And what I can't feel is not me. And following this sense, what defines me is not memory but my body - which is a contradiction.

26

27

28

5

4

29

30

3

0+

Most of them are draining me most of the time.

The negative effects of communicating with them is outweighing the benefits I am drawing from these communications.

I have hardly had any conceptual help from them anyway.

So I will just stop communicating for now.

Today will mark the beginning of that.

Already feeling relieved. Strange.

I am alone. But that's all I need. It's better to explore alone than drag with yourself a load that doesn't really help much.

Conscious Identity

Technically there is no single I throughout any span of time. Every moment my (in the traditional sense) memory is changing. And identity of self is nothing but the set of memories one (in the traditional sense) possesses.

That means, I am coming in and out of being continuously. It is the relay of memories from one moment to the next that gives my brain the sense of a coherent identity.

33

34

37

40

41

42

43

44

48

49

51

0

1

2

3

4

7

8

9

10

13

15

16

17

20

22

On The Knowledge Argument (for Qualia) (for reference: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/) My explanation for this depends on the distinction between the two often synonymously used terms : ‘Knowing’ vs ‘Knowledge’. To me ‘knowing’ refers to “the process of experiencing something’ which is very dependent on the subject concerned. For humans for example this could be achieved by either creating the corresponding pattern of neural firing or implanting a corresponding memory directly on to the subject’s head. The term ‘Knowledge’ on the other hand, should be used to mean the abstract model of the world that can be used for prediction. This model can have any possible representation. It’s really the ability to predict that gives any model or representation the quality of ‘knowledge’. Knowing ‘red color’ for example, is achieved by the particular way (a pattern) neurons are excited in our brain. This process is dependent on the system (human in this case) we are talking about and not just on the physical event (red color in this case). There could be any number of ways neurons could be fired in our brains. Hence the phrase - “knowing everything there is to know about a certain physical stuff’ translates to emulating the potentially infinite number of ways electric signals can be propagated with varying strength and pattern. Electric signal being analog and number of possible ordering of billions of neurons being huge, this process is practically infeasible. This infeasibility however does not take anything away from the predictive power of the knowledge itself. That is one could still possess all the knowledge that is relevant for a specific physical phenomenon. Complete knowledge still make sense (not referring to the neural firing) and can be defined as the ability to predict the outcome of every possible combination of this event with some accuracy. This goes to explain the paradox regarding ‘Mary the brilliant color scientist’ (Jackson 1982) in the following way. According to my argument above, Mary can have all possible knowledge to predict anything related to the color phenomenon including the colors she has not experienced (the exact neural firing pattern did not happen in her head). She for example can predict what would happen if the color emitted by green leaves would change to red, how that could affect the surrounding ecology, the heat distribution and so on. She could in essence re-create the universe (if she has knowledge of all concepts in addition to color) without having to experience it by herself. An interesting point to note to keep confusions at bay is, one could use the second type of knowledge to create the neural firing pattern in ones own head to get the experience as well. Even more curious thing to do would be to just implant the memory of such neural firing directly - which I argue would have the same effect. After all people who claimed to see the color red only do so by virtue of their memories only. They don’t constantly experience it as they did the first time. The takeaway from this is -- it is at least in theory possible that Mary CAN know everything there is to know about for a specific thing (or anything) by using the knowledge of how neurons works and using this knowledge in conjunction with color knowledge to excite her neurons in specific patterns.

23

24

27

30

0

3

4

11

12

13

17

18

19

20

21

24

25

26

27

28

31

32

35

38

39

45

46

How to develop a iPhone app

47

48

52

53

54

55

56

59

60

61

62

63