[QUOTE=Robbobin;29253468]shit. :frown:[/QUOTE]
"I have revealed the philosophical basis of knowledge!"
"How do you know?"
Turns out the basis of knowledge is: "Fuck you, that's how."
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;29253595]It won't be the same entity, but it will be equal to the other entity, so why care?
It's like two equal mathematical proof written on different pieces of paper.[/QUOTE]
Because you'll be "dead" so to speak.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;29253595]It won't be the same entity, but it will be equal to the other entity, so why care?
It's like two equal mathematical proof written on different pieces of paper.[/QUOTE]
I like this analogy. The functionalist in me agrees with it.
Sadly, it doesn't work on people who aren't functionalists. :frown:
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29253603]"How are you so good at math?"
"I bought a nice consciousness off of eBay."[/QUOTE]
makes me think of The Jetsons or some shit
or maybe The Surrogates
"heh i have a dual-consciousness slot on my brain so i can play mad riffs [B]AND[/B] be boss at chess"
it could mean humanity would become a near-perfect race in its own terms
we could inject all possible skills in someone and then make him think a way to make it low-cost and make every human mentally perfect
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;29253595]It won't be the same entity, but it will be equal to the other entity, so why care?
It's like two equal mathematical proof written on different pieces of paper.[/QUOTE]
problem is one piece of paper wouldnt know its a piece of paper because it disappeared
No, seriously though. How does entanglement work?
i never read on entanglement.
johnnymo will most likely be able to help you out on this one.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29253384]If there's no difference, why do you insist on drawing a distinction?[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying there is a distinction. A gets destroyed and B gets created. B has the same conciousness and is the exact same person in every way and there is no difference at all but A is still destroyed. I probably don't see your point.
You are both saying the same thing, Johnny is just extending upon it and saying that, while they are different entities, but that, if they are indistinguishable, it does not matter that they aren't the same.
Which means we could consider them the same.
[QUOTE=Gonzales Santos;29253830]i never read on entanglement.
johnnymo will most likely be able to help you out on this one.[/QUOTE]
Alas no, I am not well versed in it either.
The most I know is you have two particles in an entangled state, meaning knowledge about a property of one particle gives you knowledge of the other particle. Then you separate them by a large distance and then observe the one particle, and you collapse the possible states of the second particle into one state instantly.
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
I wish I had a more technical understanding of it.
Also, on these two states thing. Are there really two systems in th same system or is this just from an analytical standpoint? Same for Heisenberg's principle.
I'm not sure I'd jump to say that the destroyed object and the new object are indistinguishable. Maybe they share the exact same structure, but the fact they're two objects automatically means they're not [i]identical,[/i] as identity is a relationship that an object can only ever bare to itself.
Meh, its location in space that seperates them. On what matter to the Self, they are equal.
I have an exam on identity in a month's time; this thread is good revision. :dance:
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29253029]I won't purport to know that you suddenly zip into the new body and start controlling it, but the consciousness controlling the new creation is utterly indistinguishable from the old one. (if consciousness is purely mechanical) So what makes them different people? How can you say someone has died if he is recreated in perfect detail? Does that consciousness really end, then?[/QUOTE]
So what if the original consciousness isn't destroyed, and a perfect copy is made?
Then you have TWO (initially) identical consciousnesses.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29254695]So what if the original consciousness isn't destroyed, and a perfect copy is made?
Then you have TWO (initially) identical consciousnesses.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Yes you do.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29254722]Yes. Yes you do.[/QUOTE]
What I'm saying is, there's obviously a distinction there, so why are you saying there's no distinction between the destroyed original and created copy?
[editline]18th April 2011[/editline]
Or, I dunno. Are you?
Location in space.
there is a distinction in the sense that you you wouldnt be the same you since consciousness isnt transported
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
talkin to Turnips5
I dunno. If you were the created copy, it'd feel like you DID go through the teleporter, you'd have all the memories of your original and so you wouldn't be able to tell that you were a copy.
For the original though, it'd just be like getting killed.
[QUOTE=Gonzales Santos;29254836]there is a distinction in the sense that you you wouldnt be the same you since consciousness isnt transported[/QUOTE]
well it would have all your memories and stuff so why wouldn't it be the same consciousness
as in, the consciousness would be more or less the same (unless we're saying your memories are metaphysical)
[QUOTE=Gonzales Santos;29254836]there is a distinction in the sense that you you wouldnt be the same you since consciousness isnt transported
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
talkin to Turnips5[/QUOTE]
That's what I'm trying to say, I think
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29254695]So what if the original consciousness isn't destroyed, and a perfect copy is made?
Then you have TWO (initially) identical consciousnesses.[/QUOTE]
This post made me realise a conclusion I came to in one of my seminars, when someone asked the same question. I basically concluded that the concept of self and 'youness' is useful illusion. I think that's the reason these thought experiments are so complicated; the whole concept is ontologically/metaphysically useless (useful in discourse, perhaps). When people are trying to solve the mystery of where 'self' is, I think they're ultimately doomed because they're presupposing that it exists.
It's really hard for me to explain this position (I got some funny looks from my seminar group when I came up with it). The whole notion of self is so evolutionarily advantageous that it's hard to divorce yourself from the idea. But when it comes to ontology and metaphysics, I think you have to.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;29255013]This post made me realise a conclusion I came to in one of my seminars, when someone asked the same question. I basically concluded that the concept of self and 'youness' is useful illusion. I think that's the reason these thought experiments are so complicated; the whole concept is ontologically/metaphysically useless (useful in discourse, perhaps). When people are trying to solve the mystery of where 'self' is, I think they're ultimately doomed because they're presupposing that it exists.
It's really hard for me to explain this position (I got some funny looks from my seminar group when I came up with it). The whole notion of self is so evolutionarily advantageous that it's hard to divorce yourself from the idea. But when it comes to ontology and metaphysics, I think you have to.[/QUOTE]
I like where you're going with this
[QUOTE=blubafoon;29254888](unless we're saying your memories are metaphysical)[/QUOTE]
Just as a quick note, 'metaphysics' doesn't necessarily mean something supernatural. Metaphysics is just an area of philosophy that deals with questions of [i]what is.[/i]
[url]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/[/url]
Metaphysics is a confusing term so it's an easy mistake to make :dance:
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29254762]there's obviously a distinction there,[/QUOTE]
Is there? This has been a pretty in-depth discussion so far. "The distinction is evident," is not going to cut it.
[QUOTE=Gonzales Santos;29254836]there is a distinction in the sense that you you wouldnt be the same you since consciousness isnt transported[/QUOTE]
this depends on whether you're a functionalist or not. Functionalists are of the belief that consciousness itself is just an arrangement of mechanical parts, rather than the mechanical parts themselves. Hence, it doesn't matter if it's the same brain itself, as the new one is arranged in the same way as the old one.
Personally I'm a functionalist but I really it's just a case of finding a perspective that describes it best for you (though I don't remember what the other schools of thought on this are called, to tell the truth).
Functionalism has some kinda weird conclusions. If you're committed to the idea that consciousness is the function itself, consciousness can be reduced to computer functions, and even a complex system of [i]flag waving[/i]. This puts a lot of people off the view, but personally I really like the idea...
[QUOTE=Robbobin;29255268]this depends on whether you're a functionalist or not. Functionalists are of the belief that consciousness itself is just an arrangement of mechanical parts, rather than the mechanical parts themselves. Hence, it doesn't matter if it's the same brain itself, as the new one is arranged in the same way as the old one.
Personally I'm a functionalist but I really it's just a case of finding a perspective that describes it best for you (though I don't remember what the other schools of thought on this are called, to tell the truth).
Functionalism has some kinda weird conclusions. If you're committed to the idea that consciousness is the function itself, consciousness can be reduced to computer functions, and even a complex system of [i]flag waving[/i]. This puts a lot of people off the view, but personally I really like the idea...[/QUOTE]
I don't understand why someone would be put off by that. I've always found the idea of finding consciousness in something like that interesting.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29255210]Is there? This has been a pretty in-depth discussion so far. "The distinction is evident," is not going to cut it.[/QUOTE]
You can't be both people at once, can you?
but this is going back to the "no concept of self" that Robin brought up
Surely then, this has all sorts of weird implications for what happens when you die
[QUOTE=Robbobin;29255013]This post made me realise a conclusion I came to in one of my seminars, when someone asked the same question. I basically concluded that the concept of self and 'youness' is useful illusion. I think that's the reason these thought experiments are so complicated; the whole concept is ontologically/metaphysically useless (useful in discourse, perhaps). When people are trying to solve the mystery of where 'self' is, I think they're ultimately doomed because they're presupposing that it exists.
It's really hard for me to explain this position (I got some funny looks from my seminar group when I came up with it). The whole notion of self is so evolutionarily advantageous that it's hard to divorce yourself from the idea. But when it comes to ontology and metaphysics, I think you have to.[/QUOTE]
you got funny looks?
you're in the right path then :v:
that point is definitely interesting. further develop it.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29255340]You can't be both people at once, can you?
but this is going back to the "no concept of self" that Robin brought up
Surely then, this has all sorts of weird implications for the afterlife[/QUOTE]
Well those consciousnesses are obviously going to become distinct over time since they're put into different environments and they're both still in the same universe. I think the issue is bringing up the notion of "you being." I don't think it's possible to define the idea of someone being a consciousness outside the consciousness itself. I think the idea of "am I this consciousness" is broken. A consciousness is itself. It's just a system of particles arranged in such a way that self-awareness arises. There's no real control. They're not distinct in some way that non self-aware systems are not.
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
More importantly, I believe like Robin that there's is no "self." All the things I think I'm experiencing are just manifestations of the way my consciousness interprets the world. There isn't a metaphysical person inside my consciousness experiencing it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
