when i saw this video title, i thought "is he going to talk about the fact that transporters possibly don't move your 'you-ness', but actually kill you and rebuild you elsewhere"
and yes, that was the case
while he makes it seem a bit more exciting, it's a thousand year old argument that has been talked about in more detail than this ([url]https://www.quora.com/Am-I-the-same-person-who-went-to-sleep-yesterday-On-consciousness-continuity[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity[/url] [url]https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=continuity%20of%20self[/url])
which tends to be what i notice with CGP Grey - he talks about subjects that are extremely deep, but perhaps cuts them down to a bit more simple than they should be (trying to do a 5 minute video on continuity of self is a bit suicidal).
but eh the diagrams were interesting and maybe i'm getting too wrapped up in this because i did philosophy of mind a bit extensively
[editline]7th March 2016[/editline]
rating the video tool because it's a bit blunt and simple for my liking - but someone might find it useful/interesting
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49884405]when i saw this video title, i thought "is he going to talk about the fact that transporters possibly don't move your 'you-ness', but actually kill you and rebuild you elsewhere"
and yes, that was the case
while he makes it seem a bit more exciting, it's a thousand year old argument that has been talked about in more detail than this ([url]https://www.quora.com/Am-I-the-same-person-who-went-to-sleep-yesterday-On-consciousness-continuity[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity[/url] [url]https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=continuity%20of%20self[/url])
which tends to be what i notice with CGP Grey - he talks about subjects that are extremely deep, but perhaps cuts them down to a bit more simple than they should be (trying to do a 5 minute video on continuity of self is a bit suicidal).
but eh the diagrams were interesting and maybe i'm getting too wrapped up in this because i did philosophy of mind a bit extensively
[editline]7th March 2016[/editline]
rating the video tool because it's a bit blunt and simple for my liking - but someone might find it useful/interesting[/QUOTE]
Right, I was thinking the same thing. However, wasn't there an episode of TNG where Barkley( Barclay?) went through the transporter and [I]saw[/I] things as he was going through the matter stream? He even referenced it in the video.
Wouldn't that in and of itself challenge the perception of how Star Trek transporters work? That a user is concious as they are in transport?
The ship of Theseus is one of my favourite philosophical dilemmas, even as a materialist.
There may not be an essence of you, but is the identity formed by the atoms that make your conscious and form your identity transported? Is that neural activity (electro-chemical) transportable?
[QUOTE=Bradyns;49884879]The ship of Theseus is one of my favourite philosophical dilemmas, even as a materialist.
There may not be an essence of you, but is the identify formed by the atoms that make your conscious and form your identity transported? Is that neural activity (electro-chemical) transportable?[/QUOTE]
[img]https://facepunch.com/image.php?u=244899&dateline=1451179958[/img]
I've had this thought for ages, ever since I'd heard about how teleporters would work in real life.
Our only hope is wormholes
To everyone interested in this - go play SOMA.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;49884879]The ship of Theseus is one of my favourite philosophical dilemmas, even as a materialist.
There may not be an essence of you, but is the identify formed by the atoms that make your conscious and form your identity transported? Is that neural activity (electro-chemical) transportable?[/QUOTE]
Well, what is a ship? If you laid down a hull and named it something, is that the ship? That name and historical context still applies to it even as parts of it are replaced to the point where nothing is original on it. If the floating hunk of whatever you call the ship still has the same name and is still considered that ship, is it still that ship?
A real example would be the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elissa_(ship)]Elissa.[/url]
[quote]Launched: 27 October 1877[/quote]
It was launched in 1877 as a sailboat. Sailed around a bit, had it's name changed a few times by different owners, was converted to a steamship, then sat in a bone yard for awhile, was converted [I]back[/I] into a sailboat, and survived a catastrophic hurricane. The only "original" part on it is the wooden fireplace mantel and bench armrest in the Captains quarters, and some iron structures in the hull. It still sails to this day. Because the ship was replaced over time, all the parts still share a history despite their age. The "essence" of [I]Elissa[/I] still exists, because the parts that still float are a continuation of it, rather than a complete rebuild like the other ship used in the video, or modern replica tall ships. The Elissa is [I]not[/I] a replica because it still carries that essence of what it once was. The same can be said for the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution]USS Constitution[/url], or the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victory]HMS Victory.[/url]
If we found a way to extend the human life expectancy many hundreds of years, you would be like these ships. Replaced many times over but still the same. However if we had a machine that made a body of "you" in a day, it would not be you. I feel like if we did that, it would be a conscious clone of you, but it would not be [I]you.[/I] So if we killed you to make the copy, [I]your[/I] consciousness/life would end, and "someone else's" would begin, but they would think they were you and not have a clue about your death. Kind of like the guy in the video whose life only exists for the duration of the mission.
It's difficult to think about.
[QUOTE=OvB;49887738]Well, what is a ship? If you laid down a hull and named it something, is that the ship? That name and historical context still applies to it even as parts of it are replaced to the point where nothing is original on it. If the floating hunk of whatever you call the ship still has the same name and is still considered that ship, is it still that ship?
A real example would be the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elissa_(ship)]Elissa.[/url]
It was launched in 1877 as a sailboat. Sailed around a bit, had it's name changed a few times by different owners, was converted to a steamship, then sat in a bone yard for awhile, was converted [I]back[/I] into a sailboat, and survived a catastrophic hurricane. The only "original" part on it is the wooden fireplace mantel and bench armrest in the Captains quarters, and some iron structures in the hull. It still sails to this day. Because the ship was replaced over time, all the parts still share a history despite their age. The "essence" of [I]Elissa[/I] still exists, because the parts that still float are a continuation of it, rather than a complete rebuild like the other ship used in the video, or modern replica tall ships. The Elissa is [I]not[/I] a replica because it still carries that essence of what it once was. The same can be said for the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution]USS Constitution[/url], or the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victory]HMS Victory.[/url]
If we found a way to extend the human life expectancy many hundreds of years, you would be like these ships. Replaced many times over but still the same. However if we had a machine that made a body of "you" in a day, it would not be you. I feel like if we did that, it would be a conscious clone of you, but it would not be [I]you.[/I] So if we killed you to make the copy, [I]your[/I] consciousness/life would end, and "someone else's" would begin, but they would think they were you and not have a clue about your death. Kind of like the guy in the video whose life only exists for the duration of the mission.
It's difficult to think about.[/QUOTE]
the fact that it's difficult to think about is actually one of the arguments in the subject
human beings have never had to think about it - continuity of self is just something taken for granted, that's why it doesn't make sense to us to think of a you that isn't you because you pass all the intuitive senses in which you consider an entity to remain that entity
basically the entire thing is semantics over how you define identity - while the reasoning behind the argument might be compelling logically, it could never truly be compelling
case in point, how many people who watched this video are going to be terrified that they'll die when they go to sleep?
the answer is none, because it's just not a problem that human beings have ever needed to worry about - and when you define identity to be something that ends when consciousness ends, it starts to fail to be a reasonable definition of identity
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
