|
If the teleporter was just making long distance copies and not destroying originals, does anyone think using one would somehow allow them to experience being conscious in both bodies simultaneously, like split screen multiplayer? That's absurd. The copied body's consciousness must be separate from the original's. Does anyone think that after being copied, one could get hit by a bus and at the instant of death their consciousness would leap into the copied body? Even more absurd. The teleporter formulation attempts to skirt around these absurdities by cloaking both in science fiction and tiny time scales, but they remain intractable. It doesn't matter if you destroy the original at the same instant you create a copy, your consciousness isn't going to jump bodies. We don't need to identify a physical basis for a soul to know the argument doesn't make sense.
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
I honestly don't understand how Kit can keep denying they believe in dualism or a soul while continuing to insist something is lost despit a completely identical physical. The argument makes no sense unless you think there's more to a person than their physical form, some supernatural non material property that is lost. Kit, how do you reconcile this? How can you claim to not believe in dualism while also claiming some fundamental aspect can be changed between two phyically identical organisms?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If the teleporter was just making long distance copies and not destroying originals, does anyone think using one would somehow allow them to experience being conscious in both bodies simultaneously, like split screen multiplayer? That's absurd. The copied body's consciousness must be separate from the original's. Does anyone think that after being copied, one could get hit by a bus and at the instant of death their consciousness would leap into the copied body? Even more absurd. The teleporter formulation attempts to skirt around these absurdities by cloaking both in science fiction and tiny time scales, but they remain intractable. It doesn't matter if you destroy the original at the same instant you create a copy, your consciousness isn't going to jump bodies. We don't need to identify a physical basis for a soul to know the argument doesn't make sense. The idea is that the new body's consciousness/self is a seamless continuation of the old body's consciousness/self. In order to believe this, you have to deny that humans are animals. This should be laughable. But somehow it's still the dominant metaphysical view.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:How can you claim to not believe in dualism while also claiming some fundamental aspect can be changed between two phyically identical organisms? GlyphGryph posted:some fundamental aspect can be changed between two phyically identical organisms GlyphGryph posted:between two phyically identical organisms GlyphGryph posted:two phyically identical organisms 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Hmm hrrmm same but different but same IDK  into the furnace I go
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
When you toss a rock up into the air it goes up and comes back down. How much time does the rock spend at the point of reversal? You can't go from positive to negative without passing zero. But how long was it there? Physics deals with this issue by dividing time into infinitesimal pieces. But that's a mathematical approximation designed to produce the same thing that we see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Peta posted:Hmm hrrmm same but different but same IDK good to see your incoherent inability to explain your arguments continues unabated if it helps the apparent contradiction is because of your inability to communicate effectively, since your gotcha is over the same language i have used to describe tha original at two points in time which you refuse to accept as how I am using the term despite it being really clear that I am counting by reference and not instance GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:good to see your incoherent inability to explain your arguments continues unabated I don't think it's humanly possible to make a coherent argument on this subject.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:good to see your incoherent inability to explain your arguments continues unabated I literally just linked to and summarized two published essays on animalism, which is the view I've been espousing (perhaps with some hiccups, I admit). Rather than engage, you continue to sling insults and cry like a baby in response to me making fun of you when you undermine your arrogance by saying dumb things that betray your spectacular ignorance of the relevant academic literature.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
again, i repeat myself, but my problem isnt with the literature or even with the view you are pushing, it is specifically with you and your failures to communicate effectively. None of the stuff you linked tried to make a lovely gotcha by intentionally misrepresenting something another person said. I cant imagine the nonsense you would start spewing in response to me saying something like "the two dogs we see in this video are actually the same dog from different angles due to a mirror!" as you start frothing at the mouth at the inherent contradiction of me counting the same dog twice in communicating the concept
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:again, i repeat myself, but my problem isnt with the literature or even with the view you are pushing, it is specifically with you and your failures to communicate effectively. If you read and comprehended one or both of the linked articles then you wouldn't in good conscience be saying this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I honestly don't understand how Kit can keep denying they believe in dualism or a soul while continuing to insist something is lost despit a completely identical physical. The argument makes no sense unless you think there's more to a person than their physical form, some supernatural non material property that is lost. A perfect copy will be a perfect copy but I will not be that perfect copy and so will die when I am incinerated. Like how about if we make three thousand clones and murder 3000 of them (including the original individual) would that not be hosed up? It's okay there'll still be one copy of you at the end! And we can do it real fast, they won't even realize it's happening! When guys like Shbobdb post stuff like, "It's hard to not go from there and realize the self is a constructed fiction as opposed to something real" you have to wonder if they have any sense of self-preservation. I mean if the self is just an illusion, it's nothing real, then what's to stop you from just doing a sweet flip off the Empire State building? Why the gently caress do you give a poo poo about family or friends since they're just meat automatons and any semblance of love or compassion is just cold electrical signals zipping around a chemical soup? This is some philosophy 101 poo poo. Who gives a gently caress? You still have to live the life you perceive and deal with. That you have such a weak sense of self that you'd be totally fine getting murdered so long as someone just like you was walking around in your place afterward, and by extension you'd be fine with anyone else getting murdered under the same circumstances, is pretty dangerous to society. It just shows an utter disregard for all life at its most fundamental. Kit Walker fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Are people who teleport more likely to be serial killers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Kit, your worldview seems incredibly nihilistic and it is getting super weird that you keep insisting others share it. It is akin to when Christians assert that atheists can't have morals if they don't believe in a deity and about as laughably false for anyone who can step outside their own perspective. Anyway, you responded to my request for explanation with another assertion. And then an irrelevant tangent. Try to focus - you insist you would not be your copy. Why is this true? What property do you possess that is not imbued in your phyical makeup and how does advocating the existence of this proterty not make you a dualist?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Anyway, you responded to my request for explanation with another assertion. And then an irrelevant tangent. Try to focus - you insist you would not be your copy. Why is this true? Because he's an animal and his copy is a different animal. This is not hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Is an American presidential hopeful barred from office if they teleport, as their clone was technically not born in the US, or indeed at all?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:Is an American presidential hopeful barred from office if they teleport, as their clone was technically not born in the US, or indeed at all? Well, the US can't even decide whether to legally permit stem cell research.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Anyway, you responded to my request for explanation with another assertion. And then an irrelevant tangent. Try to focus - you insist you would not be your copy. Why is this true? What property do you possess that is not imbued in your phyical makeup and how does advocating the existence of this proterty not make you a dualist? The self that is currently thinking and feeling? You can make a replica but that would be a different self that is thinking and feeling and we wouldn't share one mind. Control Volume posted:Is an American presidential hopeful barred from office if they teleport, as their clone was technically not born in the US, or indeed at all? Teleport all illegals now! TrumpBot 2064! Kit Walker fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Anyway, you responded to my request for explanation with another assertion. And then an irrelevant tangent. Try to focus - you insist you would not be your copy. Why is this true? What property do you possess that is not imbued in your phyical makeup and how does advocating the existence of this proterty not make you a dualist? If I write a message on a piece of paper, then fax it to someone else, I have made an identical copy. If I then burn my piece of paper, that piece of paper that I wrote on no longer exists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Piell posted:If I write a message on a piece of paper, then fax it to someone else, I have made an identical copy. If I then burn my piece of paper, that piece of paper that I wrote on no longer exists. But the paper's essence lives on!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Peta posted: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. It very well represents my thoughts on the topic. Early in the thread I ironicly wrote that philosophy was a discipline built on being unable to track a reference but drat if the whole thread since hasn't been exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Anyway, you responded to my request for explanation with another assertion. And then an irrelevant tangent. Try to focus - you insist you would not be your copy. Why is this true? What property do you possess that is not imbued in your phyical makeup and how does advocating the existence of this proterty not make you a dualist? He's not A copy, he's THAT copy. It's really easy when you're not committed to being dense. Woody Allen gets it. quote:“I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment.” wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:Are people who teleport more likely to be serial killers? No, the teleporters will shrink and enlarge the skull as necessary to remove those characteristics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Piell posted:If I write a message on a piece of paper, then fax it to someone else, I have made an identical copy. If I then burn my piece of paper, that piece of paper that I wrote on no longer exists. The counterpoint is that your body replaces itself (ship of Theseus). So is there an actual difference between replacing pieces gradually or replacing the whole instantaneously? Reminds me of the idea about how if you put a frog into a pot of water, and then very very gradually increase the temperature of the water, the frog would not notice and eventually be boiled to death. Of course it's easy to see that that's a silly idea because it doesn't matter when the temp changed, at some point it would be too hot and it would hop out. Maybe we can see it in geologic change. The reason we humans aren't aware (immediately) of the huge changes and transformations that the earth has gone through, is because a human life is like 10^-7 times shorter than the earths life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:Are people who teleport more likely to be serial killers? No, but the people who operate the teleporters are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Piell posted:If I write a message on a piece of paper, then fax it to someone else, I have made an identical copy. If I then burn my piece of paper, that piece of paper that I wrote on no longer exists. Put this way doesnt help them though since kits nihilisn argument is that if you're okay with burning the original in that situation then you might as well burn the original now before you copy it since you clearly dont care about the message. That seems like a dumb assertion. Also good job changing the thing being discussed halfway through from the message (which survives) to the paper (which does not) GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Also Peta I read and understood your linked papers. Interesting stuff but my stance on your pulling stupid linguistic tricks being stupid and you yourself being incoherent and bad at communicating hasnt changed, I just really wish now I could talk to that guy instead of you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:The counterpoint is that your body replaces itself (ship of Theseus). So is there an actual difference between replacing pieces gradually or replacing the whole instantaneously? (1) The body does not fully replace itself. As far as we can tell, neurogenesis occurs only in some parts of the brain. Connecting the ship of Theseus to human cell regeneration requires a repudiation of specific scientific knowledge. The whole argument is broken from the get-go. But supposing it's not ... (2) The instantaneous replacement necessarily leaves a moment during which your entire body does not exist. The same is not true of gradual cell replacement. The two scenarios are not analogous. (3) This isn't a problem for those of us who define ourselves as human animals. Animals are able to survive cell replacement. They are not able to survive instantaneous incineration in a teleportation chamber.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Also Peta I read and understood your linked paters and my stance on you pulling stupid linguistic tricks being stupid and you yourself being incoherent hasnt changed, I just really wish now I could talk to that guy instead of you. Hahaha you are such a baby
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Also Peta I read and understood your linked papers. Interesting stuff but my stance on your pulling stupid linguistic tricks being stupid and you yourself being incoherent and bad at communicating hasnt changed, I just really wish now I could talk to that guy instead of you. You are throwing some hefty stones from that glass house of yours.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Also good job changing the thing being discussed halfway through from the message (which survives) to the paper (which does not) The entire point is that, because I am an animal, I do not survive if the body (the piece of paper) does not survive. Shouting your alternative perspective - that I am not an animal (lol) - louder and louder each time someone tries to convey this extremely simple concept to you will not convince anyone that you are right. You have all of your work still ahead of you. You are really doing a great job of showing everyone that you are a monumentally and obstinately stupid person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Also good job changing the thing being discussed halfway through from the message (which survives) to the paper (which does not) The entire point is that the pro-teleport side of the equation is doing that same thing. They are changing the focus from the paper [Life] to the message [Mind]. One side says your life ends, which is irrefutable, and the other side says but your mind lives on. So you have a bunch of people that look at the other group like they are retarded, and nobody is really communicating. And that will never change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Some day in a future land a good party trick might be to put GlyphGryph in a teleporter and unplug the thing that makes the replica. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Put this way doesnt help them though since kits nihilisn argument is that if you're okay with burning the original in that situation then you might as well burn the original now before you copy it since you clearly dont care about the message. We're not talking about some paper but about you as the paper. From the paper's perspective, if it's alright being incinerated after a copy is made why isn't it alright with being incinerated now? Whatever happens to the copy has no bearing on the paper itself. From the paper's perspective anything that happens after being incinerated is irrelevant whether a copy is made or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Has philosophy finally obsoleted life insurance policies?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:The entire point is that the pro-teleport side of the equation is doing that same thing. They are changing the focus from the paper [Life] to the message [Mind]. One side says your life ends, which is irrefutable, and the other side says but your mind lives on. So you have a bunch of people that look at the other group like they are retarded, and nobody is really communicating. And that will never change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Apparently a major gap in some people's minds is that it's really easy to convince them to kill themselves if you can make them believe a perfect copy will spawn elsewhere afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
The teleport-murderists must be convinced of both the foolishness of their thinking and the heinousness of their crimes
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Llamadeus posted:Well... it's a philosophical thought experiment, the purpose of which is to reveal and test assumptions and intuitions about theories of mind. Although some people are apparently desperately trying to talk people out of acts of hypothetical teleport-murder using impossible techonology by pointing out gaping holes in their assumptions and logic It's more that some people view the assumptions and intuitions of others as deeply disturbing, like a spider had sex with a heap of poo poo and bile and gave birth to a monstrous opinion they now have to deal with. And we can say that, objectively, almost none of the examples talked about here are even physically possible. On the other hand, the assumptions and intuitions people apply to those hypotheticals are very real, and could apply to other aspects of their life. In which case: You are surprised that people have strong reactions to other people that define "life" differently from them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:It's more that some people view the assumptions and intuitions of others as deeply disturbing, like a spider had sex with a heap of poo poo and bile and gave birth to a monstrous opinion they now have to deal with. And we can say that, objectively, almost none of the examples talked about here are even physically possible. On the other hand, the assumptions and intuitions people apply to those hypotheticals are very real, and could apply to other aspects of their life. In which case: You are surprised that people have strong reactions to other people that define "life" differently from them? Yeah but we can do away with the specific thought experiment and the philosophical debate survives in its entirety. Like, instead of debating whether "you" survive teleportation, we can debate whether Phineas Gage survived an iron rod to the frontal lobe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:46
|
|