|
Shbobdb posted:The self is an illusion, yo. The article basically backs up my point from a while back that if you destroyed and recreated the human body one small fraction at a time you'd still be preserving the self, but if you destroyed it all at once completely and then rebuilt it you wouldn't.
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
Other than the word "gradually" devoid of context, I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
quote:Most of us share a strong intuition that our own self is an irreducible whole, that there must be some place in our brains where our perceptions and thoughts all come together and where our future actions are decided. Yet this view is now known to be incorrect—different mental processes are mediated by different brain regions, and there is nothing to suggest the existence of any central controller. It's why the whole "you're a different person now from who you were ten minutes ago" argument isn't compelling. The constant changing is a part of who I am. The only way to not be who I am is to cease existing at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:It's why the whole "you're a different person now from who you were ten minutes ago" argument isn't compelling. The constant changing is a part of who I am. The only way to not be who I am is to cease existing at all. If you are a constantly changing amalgam, why wouldn't that same amalgam recreate itself after teleportation the same way you recreate yourself every second? To me, suggesting there is something beyond that would require something like a soul. Self is a process not an entity. We seem to agree there. There is no soul or other eternal unchanging aspect that makes the self. We seem to agree there. So I'm trying to understand what is holding you back?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:If you are a constantly changing amalgam, why wouldn't that same amalgam recreate itself after teleportation the same way you recreate yourself every second? To me, suggesting there is something beyond that would require something like a soul. It would create a separate amalgam. I would not feel what it felt, yes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:It would create a separate amalgam. I would not feel what it felt, yes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You do not feel what you've felt, either. Sure I do. Are you going to tell me you don't have memories?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Memories aren't real. Your brain recreates, reimagins them when you remember something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Memories aren't real. Your brain recreates, reimagins them when you remember something. So? Y'all are really bad nihilists. You should really ponder why posters keep asking the pro-teleporter side why they haven't killed themselves yet. You know what, don't even bother responding any further in this thread until you've told a significant other or a relative that you'd totally be alright if they were killed and replaced by a perfect duplicate. I would like to hear their thoughts on your stance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Calling your opponents nihilists because you have some strange mental block against understanding their argument is a pretty weak argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The self is an illusion, yo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Calling your opponents nihilists because you have some strange mental block against understanding their argument is a pretty weak argument. Beep boop we are all meat automatons. Just loving kill me and send my copy into the world. What does it matter. It's all the same to me anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:Beep boop we are all meat automatons. Just loving kill me and send my copy into the world. What does it matter. It's all the same to me anyway. There isn't anything nihilist about it. It's not like we are saying person-hood doesn't exist, we're just saying that its hypothetically possible to have the very same personhood to be recreated elsewhere given a fantastic (and possibly magical) technology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:There isn't anything nihilist about it. It's not like we are saying person-hood doesn't exist, we're just saying that its hypothetically possible to have the very same personhood to be recreated elsewhere given a fantastic (and possibly magical) technology. A mere copy. Yes, the copy will act exactly like you would if you suddenly appeared in that location, but it will not be you that appears there. It will be a clone and you will be dead. You will no longer think or feel or be aware of anything that it thinks or feels. Jesus how many times do I have to repeat myself. quote:Don't even bother responding any further in this thread until you've told a significant other or a relative that you'd totally be alright if they were killed and replaced by a perfect duplicate. I would like to hear their thoughts on your stance. I don't think any of you have the guts to do it because you understand how existentially bankrupt your views are. Kit Walker fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:A mere copy. Yes, the copy will act exactly like you would if you suddenly appeared in that location, but it will not be you that appears there. It will be a clone and you will be dead. You will no longer think or feel or be aware of anything that it thinks or feels. Jesus how many times do I have to repeat myself. Maybe if you have to keep repeating(insisting) the same thing over and over that it might not be as true as you want or need us to assume it is. Basically you are demanding we accept there is something both fundamental and critical that is 'you' is lost that isn't reconstructed on the other end and you just aren't or can't explain what that is, so you keep returning to the same point of insistence an never get anywhere. quote:I don't think any of you have the guts to do it because you understand how existentially bankrupt your views are. I don't think slamming down a philosophical chest-banging challenge really helps any of your points. The whole point of asking these questions is to examine and challenge those very basic assumptions we have or feel is the case. And I would happily be the first human to walk into a teleporter. And no, I don't believe its the same as suicide. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Again, I'll absolutely convert to your side if you can show me how my current perception/awareness will continue on into this new body. What psychic phenomenon will achieve this transfer. So far all you have explained is that I should be happy that a perfect duplicate of myself will go on to do things in my place after I enter the vaporization booth. I think you understand full well that no normal person will see things your way because it's a hosed up worldview that puts no value on any person, just on the data they represent, and that's why you refuse to discuss it with anyone close to you. My wife, for one, is pretty happy that I wouldn't accept a clone substitute for her and largely mirrors my views on the teleporter thought experiment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Define illusion. If I hallucinate a rock that's not there, that's an illusion because my senses are lying. But self is simply the status of experiencing, it's therefore not possible for it to be illusory, because anything that gave the illusion of self would itself satisfy the criteria of being self. It would be better to say that the self is "contingent" or a "conditional process". But if there is already a rich and established language around a dependently originating self, why not use it? "Anatta" has its own baggage I'd like to avoid, but since the Buddhist conception of anatta hits pretty close to the mark, why not use that language? Neuroscience and the Modern Western Skeptical tradition (we can quibble over who started what and the hey now, but for simplicity's sake, let's call Hume the starting point and go on from people influenced by Hume) ends up adopting some convoluted language. Why not use language that has been means tested and comes to us prepackaged from a proselytizing religion? It's quicker, easier and more intuitive that way. That doesn't mean Buddhism is right or anything. Discussions about evolution and diplomacy often use teleological language. Just like how discussions about the Big Bang can get Cosmological. Only an idiot would mistake those shorthands as an endorsement. If you've got a shorthand, use it. People aren't dumb, they'll usually grok you quickly enough provided they don't want to be pedantic. And when they do, break it down. In your case, you've made self a quale. I'm not a big fan of qualia for precisely this reason. I say the self is a function of social and physical/biological factors, so I'd expect the self to recreate itself on the other end of the teleporter, same as it does from one second to the next. You actually seem to agree with this, since anything that gives the illusion of self would be the same as self itself. But then a quale goes "quack quack" and somehow I'm supposed to believe that one particular construction of self that we both agree is self is different from another identical construction of self because reasons. To me, that seems either deeply crazy or deeply magical. And since I don't believe in magic, I'll go with the former. Edit: Kit, you are assuming some sort of immortal soul and asking people to disprove it. It's fine if you believe in an immortal soul, my wife does (though she disagrees with you on teleportation since she has to understand neuroscience at her job) but why should we assume the self predates our psycho physical composition? Why should we assume the self is somehow independent of that? You are begging the question. If you are going to restate your premise as the conclusion, you should at least try to use some rhetoric to cover it up. Shbobdb fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
The false assumption inherent to the argument that your life could be created perfectly by advanced or magical technology is that any of you nerds have lives to begin with. Nerds. More seriously though though we've yet to define the parameters of any of the involved components of this exercise, and most of the hypotheticals are physically impossible, so it's about as useful as asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. A bunch of people that feel the same way about the issue will echo chamber, and a bunch of people that don't will reject their viewpoint utterly without the slightest chance of meeting in the middle. "I think life is this" vs "Well I think life is *this". Some hypothetical thought exercises are just too detached from reality to get any traction. e: Also, as many angels can dance on the head of a single pin as want to. Mulva fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:Again, I'll absolutely convert to your side if you can show me how my current perception/awareness will continue on into this new body. What psychic phenomenon will achieve this transfer. So far all you have explained is that I should be happy that a perfect duplicate of myself will go on to do things in my place after I enter the vaporization booth. Its important to note the idea of the teleportation isn't just vaporization or atomic disassembly, or fundamental-partical-conversion, but also instant reconstruction as well. Stopping halfway misses the point. I talked about the way your current awareness could be completely unaware of the process as it can be so fast that no biological process could even begin to sense it. It would happen in a fraction of a moment faster than any thought or sensation. There is no interruption of your perception. quote:I think you understand full well that no normal person will see things your way because it's a hosed up worldview that puts no value on any person, just on the data they represent, and that's why you refuse to discuss it with anyone close to you. My wife, for one, is pretty happy that I wouldn't accept a clone substitute for her and largely mirrors my views on the teleporter thought experiment. I'm happy for you and hope your fidelity based romance is fruitful and persistent through spacetime. In a weird twist, there is psychological phenomenon that can cause you to completely distrust and deny that a person is really who they are, despite them looking(and being) that extremely familiar person. Make sure to ask your loved one to admit if they've walked through any strange sparkly rooms or corridors today!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Edit: Kit, you are assuming some sort of immortal soul and asking people to disprove it. It's fine if you believe in an immortal soul, my wife does (though she disagrees with you on teleportation since she has to understand neuroscience at her job) but why should we assume the self predates our psycho physical composition? Why should we assume the self is somehow independent of that? You are begging the question. If you are going to restate your premise as the conclusion, you should at least try to use some rhetoric to cover it up. I fundamentally disbelieve in the soul. It doesn't factor into this discussion in the slightest. A copy of you is not you. It will be exactly like you, but it will not be you. You will not feel what it feels. You agree to this, yes? Berk Berkly posted:Its important to note the idea of the teleportation isn't just vaporization or atomic disassembly, or fundamental-partical-conversion, but also instant reconstruction as well. Stopping halfway misses the point. I talked about the way your current awareness could be completely unaware of the process as it can be so fast that no biological process could even begin to sense it. It would happen in a fraction of a moment faster than any thought or sensation. There is no interruption of your perception. You can also have your head crushed faster than you can perceive it. If you are reconstituted you won't regain your consciousness, but another instance of you will be granted consciousness. You say there is no interruption of my perception, and you are almost correct, but it isn't an interruption, it is complete cessation. Jesus I just realized your position is basically a pyramid scheme of memories, except in reverse. The only winner is the guy who dies a natural death in the end and has all the memories of a life fully lived. You, the first to die, are the biggest sucker in the whole scheme. Kit Walker fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:You can also have your head crushed faster than you can perceive it. If you are reconstituted you won't regain your consciousness, but another instance of you will be granted consciousness. You say there is no interruption of my perception, and you are almost correct, but it isn't an interruption, it is complete cessation. I don't think you can actually say this. What can possibly perceive this cessation? You would need something magical or posit some intangible component that yet somehow exists then doesn't in this instance to make this 'cessation' actually occur and not just you hitting the pause button on the universe in infinitesimally granular instant in time that just doesn't matter that only that magical component of 'self' could somehow sense. quote:Jesus I just realized your position is basically a pyramid scheme of memories, except in reverse. The only winner is the guy who dies a natural death in the end and has all the memories of a life fully lived. You, the first to die, are the biggest sucker in the whole scheme. Yes, in a sense, the purest materialistic sense, this is what we are. Our current self moment to moment is the emergent result of all the former selves that believe they are the 'whole' being. Our limited perception and memory keeps the story (somewhat)straight in our brain, and the chain continues. Though I don't think the self 'dies' like you imply, its not a infinitely persistent thing that occupies every arbitrary moment in spacetime, but something that percolates moments of awareness. Existential crisis, oh my. I understand we all want to really, REALLY want to believe that we are something special, if not transcendent of our physical existence. Its a real smashing of ego to even tentatively accept. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
No, the human experience is not a a pyramid scheme. It's more like putting pennies in a bag. What the teleporter scenario does is have you fill a bag and then arbitrarily hand it over to someone else who keeps filling it up, and so forth, with the first guy and the rest up to the last somehow convinced that they'll get to enjoy that wealth even after they have already left it behind. "Of course I'll get to enjoy it," they say. "I handed it over to that guy who is exactly like me. That's the same as enjoying it myself. Plus I'll have all that wealth he'll add to it," they say, not realizing they have already become ghosts. It's also weird that you view things from the perspective of "the universe." Like, yeah, the universe doesn't give a poo poo about what mass of atoms accompanies what space or any other metaphysical consequence of that. But the consciousness cares about itself. It may in fact be the only thing that does! That's why it's so bizarre that you're so willing to give it up for someone else's convenience. I don't know why I'm still arguing with a guy so eager to sign up for an MLM scam. Y'all are some irrational suckers. Kit Walker fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:
I imagine that whens Heraclitus, Socrates, and Plato were bickering about Theseus Ship parodox you were the rear end in a top hat that sauntered up to them, put his arms around their shoulders and said: "Nerds, Theseus ship be a pile of ashes a LONG time ago. End of discussion." And then stuck around to come up with some more sick burns or maybe left to oggle a drunk shepherdess LOL@me because SA debate chamber is equivalent to the academy and a thousand years from now scholars will be hotly unpacking our posts Kit Walker posted:I fundamentally disbelieve in the soul. It doesn't factor into this discussion in the slightest. A copy of you is not you. It will be exactly like you, but it will not be you. You will not feel what it feels. You agree to this, yes? No, I don't agree. Since the copy of me contains exactly everything I had before I entered the chamber I see no reason why it wouldn't be me. You would have to tell me precisely what is missing between the original and the copy that marks them as separate individuals in a meaningful sense. I don't believe subatomic particles have anything to do with how my brain perceives itself, so you would have to explain to me how they grant me a sense of self. To me thats an abstract and absurd undertaking, I think subatomic particles structure my brain but are not part of it, just like gravity, air pressure ect are essential to structuring my brain but have nothing to do with my innermost self and identity. The reason I struggle to explain to you the physical process in which "you-ness" is transferred from the original to the copy is because I think the "you-ness" is embedded in the particular structure of the brain and would arise and continue living as your authentic self wherever that same structure was replicated. crowoutofcontext fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:I imagine that whens Heraclitus, Socrates, and Plato were bickering about Theseus Ship parodox you were the rear end in a top hat that sauntered up to them, put his arms around their shoulders and said: "Nerds, Theseus ship be a pile of ashes a LONG time ago. End of discussion." And then stuck around to come up with some more sick burns or maybe left to oggle a drunk shepherdess I think it of like this. Our man, Plutarch: quote:The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, in so much that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same. People take a lot of things from that. What I take? In nearly two thousand years fuckers be having the same exact discussion with the same exact outcome. Some people say it's the same ship, other people say the ship has changed. When nobody has said something new in millenniums of debate, I call an issue put to bed. Calling the ship a teleported version of your self isn't really changing the central debate, and it's not changing the outcome either. Some people say it's the same ship, others that the ship has changed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:The reason I struggle to explain to you the physical process in which "you-ness" is transferred from the original to the copy is because I think the "you-ness" is embedded in the particular structure of the brain and would arise and continue living as your authentic self wherever that same structure was replicated. This is basically magical thinking. Let me take it one step back. If I simply clone you and don't kill you, at no point will you be able to feel what it feels, correct? There's no, like, psychic connection between you and this duplicate, correct?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:This is basically magical thinking. Let me take it one step back. If I simply clone you and don't kill you, at no point will you be able to feel what it feels, correct? There's no, like, psychic connection between you and this duplicate, correct? Yes I agree with you there. We would then on be separate individuals, albeit with a shared past.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:Yes I agree with you there. We would then on be separate individuals, albeit with a shared past. But you are never not separate individuals. Without some sort of psychic connection, there is no chance of your current instance of consciousness passing on to the other body. From your perspective you would be stepping into the teleporter and then never thinking again. From his perspective he had stepped into the teleporter and now he's at the destination. But he's not you! He's a separate individual and you are now a pile of goop or ash in a booth somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
What's the psychic connection that allows your consciousness to continue from past to future in normal circumstances? Is it the "same-atoms" thing? Is there a way to detect it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:But you are never not separate individuals. That's where we disagree. We were the exact same person until the moment we were cloned, than we became separate individuals. I wouldn't step into the chamber and never think again because I know my brain will be reconstructed to finish my thoughts. I admit it would be very strange if you told me that you were going to reconstruct two of me in two more booths. If you made two or three brains they would all finish whatever thought was going through my head before the teleportation and all go on to be their separate individuals. I am an individual brain and any continuation of that brain is my future self. If I was cloned I'd have two future selves, each who would develop very differently from me, just as I know my 67 year old self will be very different from me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 11:01
|
|
|
rudatron posted:So here's the real problem: the televangelists are confusing state information (using the CS term here) with causal information. Every measurable property of a system can be reduced to its state at this time, that is true. Given two states related in time by an infinitesimal amount, it is still possible to say that one leads into another, that is related to but not solely dependent on the information stored in any one of those states. Any motion of an object, internally or externally, must necessarily involve a change in state, yet they can still be called the same object through that change in state. There's nothing recorded in either state to signify that, but the demand that there has to be, as the televangelists continue to claim, is to demand that any causal information must be recorded in state information, which is impossible. This is an interesting way to look at it. As far as I can see, there are two obvious arguments against it. 1) "Causal information" isn't real. We can infer causation from observing the present state of things (that might include things like detector records, human memories etc.), but it's all stored as "state information". 2) Even if it were, why should I consider it important?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 11:06
|
|
|
I think people who say they would use the teleporter - but really people on both sides of this debate - should take a good look at Eric T. Olson's case for animalism ("An Argument for Animalism", "Précis of The Human Animal"). It maybe crystallizes the concerns of a lot of people who wouldn't want to use the teleporter but who deny a mind-body distinction and doubt the explanatory value of psychological continuity. The basic premise is that humans are animals, i.e., one human is numerically identical with one animal. The entailment is that identity over time has nothing to do with psychological continuity, qualia, consciousness, the self as some sort of a bare particular, the self as a bundle of traits, etc. Instead, the persistence of my identity hinges on my persistence as an animal. I am a human. Therefore, I am an animal. Psychological continuity is neither necessary nor sufficient for animals to persist (survive): When a human is conceived, even when it's born, it lacks the properties of a person, and there's a decent chance that in the twilight of its life it won't have those properties either. A human can enter a vegetative state and emerge intact. Olson:
* I said this badly. More precisely: Some animals are persons, or able to be persons, but being a person doesn't seem to depend on being an animal (think gods, angels, highly advanced AI). Peta fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Saying that a self will exist at the end of the teleporter is not the same thing as saying yourself will end up there. If you can admit that selves exist, there are multiples of them, and they are distinct, then you are facing the task of what makes yourself different from others you see. This still works even if they are genetic (and mental) clones of you, they are separate from you in the way that future versions and past versions of yourself are not. That difference is causal continuity (more precisely, a certain kind of causal continuity). There's nothing magical about it, this conceptualization is totally in line with materialism and, personally, my experience. None of the proceeding logic is at odds with self as contingent or conditional process, in fact I'm failing to see how believing self is either of those things necessarily leads to your line of thinking. If anyone is making assumption of magic, it is you: how exactly is something that is based entirely on the existence of experience an 'illusion', when illusion is still experienced? What does saying 'self is an illusion' meaningfully communicate, other than a kind of enlightened contrarianism on your part? You still haven't answered that question. Like the issue here isn't even Hume, it's Descartes. But okay, if you believe spouting some buddhist mumbo jumbo is going to make things more meaningful, then by all means, spout away. I guess that's your right. But the onus is on you to demonstrate its relevance and any insight. If your just going to pull this dumb poo poo stint of scare quoting "exotic phrases", you'll just be wasting everyone's time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Causal information has to be real, because otherwise you couldn't be having system states connected at all. One state leads into another, that's a relationship that exists, if you denying that, then you're denying the existence of time itself. For you, it's important because you experience time, and you could cease experiencing if that relationship isn't 'right'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
You agreed that the self has all the qualities of an illusion. That an illusory self would be the same as a self. It's hard to not go from there and realize the self is a constructed fiction as opposed to something real. That's why you are reifying the self. You can't point to it, can't pick it up. When we do visualize it using neuroscience, what we see is a series of processes creating a gestalt image. Plus, claiming to be against magical thinking then going to Descartes whose who point was to prove God and work backwards from there is pretty rich. But that's also the crux of our disagreement. I say empiricism trumps rationalism. You seem to be arguing rationalism trumps empiricism. That's foolish, because given our imperfect understanding of the world any givens you try to bake into your rationalism pie are likely to be wrong. Enjoy your praxology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
David Deutsch smashes empiricism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Peta posted:I think people who say they would use the teleporter - but really people on both sides of this debate - should take a good look at Eric T. Olson's case for animalism ("An Argument for Animalism", "Précis of The Human Animal"). It maybe crystallizes the concerns of a lot of people who wouldn't want to use the teleporter but who deny a mind-body distinction and doubt the explanatory value of psychological continuity. Pretty interesting read, imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Wrong, read my post again, I'm saying that a claim of self being 'illusory' is nonsensical and self-contradictory, not that self has the properties of an illusion. You may as well talk about a wet color, synesthesia aside. This is not an empiricism versus rationalism conflict, this is you trying desperately to repurpose materialism to argue against causation as a meaningful category, something which (now having been spelled out for you) should appear absurd. I don't know why you chose to do this, but I'm guessing you feel more comfortable pretending that you're arguing against spiritualists/anti-materialists then you would against the actual positions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Pretty interesting read, imo. It's a very young theory, and I believe it's still a minority view among philosophers involved the self/identity debate, but I think it accurately maps to the intuitions of a huge number of irreligious people who shy away from speaking up when pompous reality-indifferent nerds (who seemingly have never once read a single academic argument against their position) are droning on and on about loving qualia for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Peta posted:David Deutsch smashes empiricism. As long as the anti teleporter side agrees they are being anti empirical, I'm OK with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
How does empiricism commit you to being OK with teleportation? Sorry if I missed this. I mean, I don't espouse empiricism but it seems to me like empiricists can perfectly well shun teleportation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:10
|
|