|
Even if a version of you continues through eternity, you are still a boring loser and you won't do anything meaningful with that time. Even if a million million versions of you are walking around, none of them will ever find a way to matter.
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:You agree with me that the clone receives all the old memories and the entire personality of the original, right? Well in this insurance example, no. No it wouldn't. I mean if your car goes over the cliff and you are brutally loving exploded, probably isn't going to be a brain to perfectly copy information from. So there's x amount of memories this new person doesn't have assuming it's working from a previous backup. How many of them can be missing and still count as being the same person? What is your "Good enough" bar? Mine is "It's intrinsically not the same person", so that's simple enough. What's yours at?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:Our original selves are all dead, since we do things like go to sleep every night and stop perception. No we don't.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:In deep sleep, you lack conscious perception of events. Depending on your evaluation of lucid dreaming, even that might be pushing things a bit far. About the most you can conclusively say is that your conscious self is busy doing other things and no longer giving much of a poo poo about what goes on outside your head. Which....doesn't really seem like much of a useful statement about anything as far as the grander definition of "self" goes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:If I pull that risky traffic poo poo I risk having my family and friends losing me in a violent and sudden manner, let alone being unable to do all the poo poo I'd love to do for them and owe them. Well, but here's the thing that hasn't got brought up: As a hypothetical it's talking about impossible situations, but if it were a practicality someone would actually have to work the machines. It wouldn't exist in some philosophical space, it would be a thing made by the lowest price contractor and manned by the lowest cost least trained possible employees. You aren't handing your life over to an abstraction, you are handing it over to me. Or maybe the Russian Mafia, I have to imagine there's some really amazing grounds for blackmail and sex trafficking once you have a perfect copy of someone's existence to work with. Or maybe the government. Bet you'll feel a bit more patriotic after coming out of one. Or maybe the corporations. Now you really want a Coke. One question is certainly "Is a perfect copy of you you, or even possible?" but there is another question implicit to the reality of the choice: Do you trust TSA with a blueprint to your existence?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:Theft is morally wrong because it deprives someone of something. No, it's also morally wrong because it innately deprives someone of their person-hood and rights in the name of your self-gratification. Who are you to say what you can and can not do with my car?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:yeah no. If I was dead there would most definitely be a bunch of suffering that would be totally avoided, like every other consequence of said death, if I lived on through my clone. Really? Are you sure people wouldn't subtly judge it for not really being you? Get stuck in a period of unending grief because you are both there and not there, and always and never will be? How can you say how they'd really value a clone version of you? Perhaps you dying and them just moving on would be the best thing to happen to them. Perhaps a 'new' you showing up would ruin their lives. Grief isn't logical. You can't assume it's a budget or something, and adding more "you" would balance things out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Oh dear clone posted:Oh, right, and perhaps losing my sight or my legs would be the best thing to happen to me, who knows? Banking on that would be idiotic, though. Most people find the death of loved ones pretty unmitigatedly bad. Yes, but most people in this thread don't necessarily consider a clone the same person. What makes you think everyone that cares about you would just accept it? Because if they don't you haven't made their lives better, you've just added a brutal mindfuck to the already hard process of grieving a loved ones death. Or the worst outcome, some of the people that care about you do and some don't see it as you. Now your death hasn't just given them something to grieve about, it's actively driven a wedge between everyone that views you differently. And you can say it's basically you, but it's never going to be treated as just you. It's going to be treated like a you they've already lost once. You'll never get that old relationship back. And all that for what, so they can deal with you dying again? For a few more years? It's all well and good to fight the grim inevitability of oblivion, but at a certain point you should probably ask what you are even fighting for.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Oh dear clone posted:Personal experience of grief, and my knowledge of those involved. I could of course ask them, as well. I have no argument against using the teleporter, if people want to kill themselves so that some theoretical version of them can realize Mars is a giant loving ball of orange-brown nothing? More power to them. Or so they can pretend that everything will be fine if some version of them continues on, or any other variation why someone would do it. Cool for them. I just doubt it'd turn out as well as they hope. Losing someone is terrible, but it's reality. Everyone will lose everyone some day. Ordering up copies of that person doesn't change that. Best case it's just playing for time, which is fine. Playing for time is a working definition of life in the first place. Worst case you've just created a new being whose entire existence is going to be judged against some idealized version of themselves they can never hope to live up to. The mechanics of grief do not require someone to die, they just require loss, and by definition a replacement clone is going to be ordered up in response to a loss. So making a new person doesn't provide you a perfect fix around grief, because the death isn't the point psychologically speaking. It's just the vector that delivers the loss. No matter what that clone will never be the person they could have been had whatever x event that took out the original not happened. That life that could have been is always lost, period. And through the eyes of grief, who is to say that even people that now think they'd be fine with it will really be able to accept some copy pasted version of their loved one? Creating people like therapy animals to help people get over a loss, with no real assurance that they'll have any quality of life to speak of seems....sketchy to me. It'd probably be many more times so in the cases of people that died of illnesses they are genetically predisposed to. Are you ordering up a new version of them to die the same horrible way again? Or will you just continuously euthanize the old versions when they start getting sick and order up new ones? I'm sure statistically speaking some people would end up fine with the whole thing, I just don't think it'd be a very common reaction.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:The new being isn't really a new being, they share the very same past what with all the important memories, life lessons learned, character developed, bonds formed. Of course it's a new being. It's the person that came out of the clone machine. It will also be judged against another new being, the version of you that never had to be cloned. That version only exists in someone's head, and it doesn't have to confirm to "reality" or "what you are actually like as a person". Good luck looking better than they do! quote:The idealized version of themselves would be no different to them than whatever idealized version the original would have had of themselves. You've misunderstood the conversation here. It's not having to live up to your own idealized vision of yourself, it's the vision everyone else has of you. quote:I think all of the problems you are talking about arising here are psychological and social problems that stem from the belief that a copy isn't effectively the same person. Nope, you've wildly missed the point of this tangent. It doesn't matter if you get into a car crash and live, say you break your leg and are in chronic pain that requires multiple surgeries and heavy medication for the rest of your days. Families in that situation still have to process the loss of a life: The person you would have been if you didn't get in an accident, and the life they would have lived. It's just as real emotionally as people's actual lives, and it needs to be grieved. It doesn't matter if your clone is you in every single way, they aren't changing that a loss has occurred to necessitate it's existence. And you can't predict how people will deal with it. quote:That's literally true with any x event that doesn't happen. Lives that could have been are constantly lost. You don't really process emotions the same way as most folks, do you?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:Your all justifying yourself from behind though. Your basically saying "The teleporter causes the death of the individual" Nope, again. I'm not justifying myself. I am, as you say quote:I still don't see how this is not a purely psychological argument making a purely psychological argument because quote:We can argue about how people would react in these situations, and maybe it'd be more interesting, but I still think it would be straying from the fundamental problem on whether one believes their perceived, subjectively continuous existence is purely an emergent quality that would seamlessly continue after teleportation. nobody will ever find out with any of the means discussed because they are physically impossible. I don't feel the need to focus on that particular aspect, because it's only one side of the equation, the physicality of self. Where it comes from. I don't know that it has the most value though. Say it is an emergent quality of mind that can be perfectly replicated. So what? People don't deal with....practically anything logically. What's it matter if we perfectly reproduce you and nobody cares? If we perfectly reproduce you, but the law doesn't recognize that you are still you? Good news: You don't have to pay "your" bills! Bad news: You don't have a social security number! Life is by definition in the living. If an arbitrary amount of your life doesn't get to be continued by your clone, is it less a version of you? I mean you admit you wouldn't do the teleporter thing because people in your life wouldn't accept the clone negating your death. I'm asking you how much of "you" is tied up in those relationships that define how you react to the world around you, and how much a perfect copy of your physicality that doesn't have those connections is still "you". e: The argument for what self is divorced from why self matters seems philosophically sterile, to me at least. Mulva fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Nobody would use a "transporter" in shipping, because at the point you can put atoms together how you want you have a replicator. So, you know, global capitalism doesn't exist anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:lol you were just freaking out about teleporters being used by corporations to sell Coke and/or being owned by contractors whose chief aim is maximizing profit. It's an exaggeration using common present terms to convey the idea in a usable sense: That is, people that don't have your best interests at heart having access to everything about you. I can't actually use whatever future groups would be relevant because I am not magic, and can not in fact see the future. quote:chances are the first actual teleporters There will never be actual teleporters. GlyphGryph posted:Someone here seems to process emotions in to pretty unique way but my bet is on the one using the logic of those who would mourn a child as if they died if they went out with someone they didn't like but was otherwise fine. This is you by the way, thats your argument. That sentence makes no actual sense.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:that my comment about shipping corporation's use the technology was probably not meant to be taken as a literal prediction, which is a fool's task. Nah, you talked about the 'global elite', but what they would even be in a post-scarcity environment is almost impossible to grasp. There's no rich or poor when everyone can have anything. There can still be the weak and the powerful, but it's hard to say what the metric there would be to judge between them. Influence over the government? Well what are they using for that influence? How do you bribe people when money isn't a thing? What are you trading, what do you offer? The questions of self that a teleporter would raise might not even be the most challenging issue they have on society if they were real. quote:Our political and economic identities are probably so cemented that something like a teleporter wouldn't immediately cause a complete identity overhaul. We'd still think and act like capitalists (for a while), part of our core identity. There is no capitalism. There is no capital. Anyone can make anything, for roughly the same relative cost and difficulty. You want a house made of diamonds? Go for it! Or conversely having mastered the awesome power requirements to make this technology practical, we've also handed humanity the ability to completely obliterate the planet in one go. Some nutter rejiggered a teleporter and now we are all dead. Either way life wouldn't get to go on as it does now. Too many of the fundamental assumptions are just gone. GlyphGryph posted:Mourning for the people we could have been is dumb, especially in a case like the teleport situation where we are still functionally quite capable of being that person. People are dumb, see: your posts, so what? Their stupidity does not negate their existence. You still have to deal with them. See again: your posts, that you keep making. Christ the guy I was talking to says he wouldn't do it because he has people that care about him that would grieve his loss, why are you calling them dumb? What did they ever do to you? You are not a nice person.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:Depending on the X it could be too expensive or take too much energy to replicate food all day long and end world hunger but enough to give the global elite a novelty to play around with. Can't work that way. Literally can not. The only limiting factor is the power needs. There is either a revolution in power generation, some highly efficient form of fusion say, or we are using massive amounts of nuclear. Nuclear is not the sort of thing the rich can plop down wherever they want, and if we crack useful fusion game over. I suppose you could try to run that poo poo off battery, but that's actually even more transformative. Anything that could reliably store and release that much power that fast is orders of magnitude beyond the batteries we have now, and there are so many fields held back by the ability to store and release large amounts of power. You can not do this on the sly. You can't do it at all, but if you *could* do it you couldn't keep it to a small elite short of force, and I don't even see how that works. If you don't crack the power needs it'd be so niche that I can't see why you'd bother, or you *do* crack them and again....world transformed. quote:Or you could assume whoever has their hands on it has no interest in ending capitol, or thinks that would be a bad, chaotic thing. They don't get to make that decision. There is no technology that managed to see wide use by the public *and* stay entirely black box. And once you know how to make anything, you can't put that genie back in the bottle. Moreover restraint isn't really something capitalism is built to support. quote:You could probably say the same thing about a lot of today's technology that people initially thought had the power to create utopias, end capitalism or herald new social orders. No you couldn't, a single device that is a superior means of production of all physical objects is basically the end of most industries. You can destroy entire ecosystems cutting down lumber and shipping it around the world, or you can just make wood in a replicator. You can drive species to extinction overfishing, or you can just whip up fish as needed. You can try dealing with third world assholes and their suicide factories to get the cheapest price on processed materials, or you hit a button and magic them up at will. You could run a giant fleet of massive and costly ships, or you can just boop out whatever they were shipping wherever they were going to go in the first place. Not everything would be instantly replaced by a replicator, but so much would that capitalism as it exists couldn't continue. You see towns die when the industry they were built around disappears and they can't adapt to the change. Well now imagine the industry is all industry and the town is the world. If we don't adapt away from the mindset that we have to work in the same way we always have, everything collapses. If this technology was real, the entire principle of wealth is dealt a serious blow. You can absolutely cynically talk down what the telephone or the internet mean to our interactions with each other, but there's no basic and forgettable way to say "Make anything". It's not a fact you can just put back in the box and continue as you have been. And again, that's just the end result. You'd need all *sorts* of technologies to even make a thing like that work [Theoretically, as again none of these are possible]. Cheap limitless power is transformative, hilariously efficient and powerful batteries are transformative, insanely detailed matter scanners are transformative, and on and on. This wouldn't be one major technology, this would be a series of them. The world as is doesn't get to go on like it did. The principles of capitalism alone would dictate someone use a machine like this to undercut their competitors, who in turn would have to adapt and use them too, and fast or slow eventually industries would start to die off. Probably faster than slower. The more steps of resource gathering, production, shipping, marketing, storing you cut out of the process the more money you save, and the more jobs you eliminate. Which also means less people you have to pay, which the capitalist loves but the capitalist system requires. Capitalism isn't concerned with the long term though. It's about profit. If you can eliminate 90% of your cost by focusing only on making replicator plants, why would you really care that 20 or 30 years down the line money will have no value? That's 3 decades of winning until then! And once 20, 30, 60, 80% of the world no longer has a job because their industries are no longer required? You start having to ask some real serious questions about the feasibility of ever balancing an economy ever again. And it only gets worse as time goes on. This wouldn't mean capitalism dying off overnight, but it would be the thing that forces transition away from it. Especially as smaller nations realize they can just opt out of the global economy without downside. Capitalism is a game rigged against a lot of the players, but if those losers don't play in the first place the game can't continue. tl/dr: Magic being real would be big. Mulva fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Apr 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
Shao821 posted:So what exactly is the difference between dreamless sleep and death anyway? You are off for around 8 hours a day. That's something stupid people think because they never actually researched the issue. You are totally processing information while asleep. You are aware of the world around you. Your conscious self, what everyone is masturbating about as their 'you'ness here, may have hosed off from input into the process but the rest of you is still at work. You are never off. And that's not even getting into the issue of the consciousness and dreams. You are just in an altered state of consciousness while asleep, you aren't gone. How do you think people wake up when shaken or when a loud noise goes off as was said, magic?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 13:02
|
|