ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags adolf hitler , alternate history , World War II history

Reply
Old 29th January 2019, 10:10 AM   #121
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,522
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Over a dozen separate Jabba threads going on over a half decade where his entire argument was "It wouldn't be the same!" disagree with you.

This is basically evoking a soul.

If literally everything is the same... then everything is the same.
That's exactly the opposite. You are the one indicating a soul, as you apparently believe you can survive bodily destruction. You cannot. The clone imposter may be a 'spiritual successor' in an allegorical sense but it certainly isn't the deceased individual.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:11 AM   #122
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,522
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
And if the new "you" is exactly the same as the original "you" would have been, it's a distinction without difference.
Except you're dead. That's a distinction most people find significant, when applied to themselves.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:24 AM   #123
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,579
That's like saying if close my browser window and open it up we're no longer having the same discussion and the old discussion is forever dead, but we can continue a new discussion that is exactly like the old one would have been if I hadn't closed my browser window.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:28 AM   #124
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,502
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Except you're dead. That's a distinction most people find significant, when applied to themselves.
Still not really a problem for next me, though. And if I don't have a problem with the concept of next me just taking over when current me ends, then by definition neither does next me.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:33 AM   #125
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,579
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Except you're dead. That's a distinction most people find significant, when applied to themselves.
I'm "dead" in a way that is functionally identical to still being alive.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:33 AM   #126
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,522
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's like saying if close my browser window and open it up we're no longer having the same discussion and the old discussion is forever dead, but we can continue a new discussion that is exactly like the old one would have been if I hadn't closed my browser window.
No, it's saying that counterfeits are not the same items as the things they're copies of. Try passing some counterfeit bills to the Secret Service, I'm certain they'd explain the flaw in your philosophy at length.

You are not a conversation, or a process, or a set of ideas. You are a particular lump of matter. Another very similar lump of matter isn't you. And when your lump gets disarranged past certain parameters you cease to be.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:34 AM   #127
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,522
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm "dead" in a way that is functionally identical to still being alive.
Not from the perspective of you, though, because you won't have a perspective at that point. If all the world thinks that crazy lady is Princess Anastasia it doesn't make her so.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:36 AM   #128
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,579
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You are not a conversation, or a process, or a set of ideas.
No that's exactly what I am. There's not a single molecule in my body that I share (probability wise) with the molecules that were in the body of the baby that shared my name at the moment of it's birth.

"Me" is software, not hardware. The grey matter is just the computer the program runs on. If the program can keep running on other hardware... I'm not gonna freak out about.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:36 AM   #129
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,654
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's like saying if close my browser window and open it up we're no longer having the same discussion and the old discussion is forever dead, but we can continue a new discussion that is exactly like the old one would have been if I hadn't closed my browser window.
It's not like saying that at all.

It's more like saying, if I destroy your body in one place and recreate its state in another place, that doesn't provide the continuity of state that we normally think of as "being alive".
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:36 AM   #130
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,522
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Still not really a problem for next me, though. And if I don't have a problem with the concept of next me just taking over when current me ends, then by definition neither does next me.
That you don't care about yourself or potential copies doesn't make you not yourself or make them you. Feelings don't come into it: you're dead or alive regardless of how you feel about it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:40 AM   #131
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,522
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
No that's exactly what I am. There's not a single molecule in my body that I share (probability wise) with the molecules that were in the body of the baby that shared my name at the moment of it's birth.

"Me" is software, not hardware. The grey matter is just the computer the program runs on. If the program can keep running on other hardware... I'm not gonna freak out about.
Can you prove this magical ability to survive complete bodily destruction? Again, how you feel about death doesn't make you immune to it. Suicidal people don't mind dying either, yet oddly enough they are not rendered immortal.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:40 AM   #132
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,579
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
That you don't care about yourself or potential copies doesn't make you not yourself or make them you. Feelings don't come into it: you're dead or alive regardless of how you feel about it.
I don't care about a process stopping and then starting again in a way that is functionally identical to, indeed indistinguishable from, the process just being continuous.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:42 AM   #133
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,579
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Can you prove this magical ability to survive complete bodily destruction? Again, how you feel about death doesn't make you immune to it. Suicidal people don't mind dying either, yet oddly enough they are not rendered immortal.
Okay so it's not a transporter. It's a duplicator. The beam creates a "you" at the new location, but "you" remain at the original location, like happened to Riker that one.

Which one is the real you? Which Riker gets to claim the title of "one true Riker?"
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:47 AM   #134
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,522
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I don't care about a process stopping and then starting again in a way that is functionally identical to, indeed indistinguishable from, the process just being continuous.
Which works if the process in question is a consciousness that can survive physical destruction. A soul in other words. But as it cannot (barring proof you can no doubt provide), the 'process' starting in a second copied body is in fact a second 'process'. The first ended with the first body. And I repeat again, your feelings don't matter: not minding death, or being a copy, does not make death not occur or turn the copy into the original.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:52 AM   #135
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,579
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Which works if the process in question is a consciousness that can survive physical destruction. A soul in other words. But as it cannot (barring proof you can no doubt provide), the 'process' starting in a second copied body is in fact a second 'process'. The first ended with the first body. And I repeat again, your feelings don't matter: not minding death, or being a copy, does not make death not occur or turn the copy into the original.
You're an ensign on the Enterprise. One day while sleeping Chief O'Brien transports you from your bed to Troi's bed because that's the kind of thing he does at night when he gets bored.

The next night Commander Riker sneaks into your room, carries you from your bed to Troi's bed because that's the kind of thing he does at night when he gets bored.

They don't tell you on which night they did which. From your perspective all that happened was two nights in a row you went to sleep in your bed and woke in Trois. Sadly in both cases Troi was passed out drunk in the sonic shower.

So basically you "died" on one of those nights, but will forever be unable to know which one. That's stretching the definition of "death" to meaningless levels.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:59 AM   #136
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,522
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay so it's not a transporter. It's a duplicator. The beam creates a "you" at the new location, but "you" remain at the original location, like happened to Riker that one.

Which one is the real you? Which Riker gets to claim the title of "one true Riker?"
A muddled example. In the show the original Riker was destroyed in transport. The only difference between this episode and the normal transporter operation is that two copies were made instead of the usual one. Neither is the original Riker just as neither of the new Rikers is the other new Riker. Three separate persons in total, one dead.

If you meant instead a non-transporter device that duplicates without destroying the original, then the answer is simple: the person who was there before the duplication is the original, and the newly made individual is the copy. Have you never made photocopies? The problem is the destruction of an individual being copied, not the copying. If you were copied without being destroyed do you think the copy would be the same individual as yourself? Would you be able to use its body, feel its sensations, experience its existence despite it being in a separate body?

If not then I don't see how you can claim you would do so if the original body were destroyed.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 11:05 AM   #137
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,522
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
You're an ensign on the Enterprise. One day while sleeping Chief O'Brien transports you from your bed to Troi's bed because that's the kind of thing he does at night when he gets bored.

The next night Commander Riker sneaks into your room, carries you from your bed to Troi's bed because that's the kind of thing he does at night when he gets bored.

They don't tell you on which night they did which. From your perspective all that happened was two nights in a row you went to sleep in your bed and woke in Trois. Sadly in both cases Troi was passed out drunk in the sonic shower.

So basically you "died" on one of those nights, but will forever be unable to know which one. That's stretching the definition of "death" to meaningless levels.
Nonsense again. If the body is destroyed, a person dies. That a new person thinks they are the first person doesn't make it so, no matter how strongly they believe it. You seem to think that belief makes reality. It doesn't. Dead is dead, you are you, other people are not you, you are not other people.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 11:05 AM   #138
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,579
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
If not then I don't see how you can claim you would do so if the original body were destroyed.
This all just seems so amazingly arbitrary to me (and this is with zero snark, it's fascinating how people look at things differently.)

So we have a magic machine that can make some 100% perfect copy of something, thing and process, down to quantum perfection. You put in a cup, you get back two cups which are identical to each other down to the smallest detail. You put in a record playing playing "Tennessee Waltz" and you get back two record players each playing "Tennessee Waltz" in perfect, to the Planck second, synchronicity.

You see one as inherently in continuity with the original and one as not, inferring some special quality of "the original" on one and not the other.

I see two objects with absolutely identical qualities and the any attempt to place a special status on one of them and not other would require pointing at some objective quality that one has and the other did not.

I guess I just don't see any purpose in a special quality that only exists as long as we keep track of it. The second we get distracted and forget whether the original cup was on the left and the right the whole thing collapses into pointlessness.

If that makes any sense.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 11:20 AM   #139
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,522
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This all just seems so amazingly arbitrary to me (and this is with zero snark, it's fascinating how people look at things differently.)
Life, death, and existence are supremely arbitrary things. Welcome to the universe, it's not designed for your wellbeing.
Quote:
So we have a magic machine that can make some 100% perfect copy of something, thing and process, down to quantum perfection. You put in a cup, you get back two cups which are identical to each other down to the smallest detail. You put in a record playing playing "Tennessee Waltz" and you get back two record players each playing "Tennessee Waltz" in perfect, to the Planck second, synchronicity.

You see one as inherently in continuity with the original and one as not, inferring some special quality of "the original" on one and not the other.
Existing first isn't a 'special quality'. If anything you're the one arguing for special qualities by suggesting a second, new item is somehow the same individual item as another merely because it's identical. They're two items that look and act the same, but they are not one item. Break one: does the other break also? If you fill one cup with coffee does the other cup fill up, too?

Quote:
I see two objects with absolutely identical qualities and the any attempt to place a special status on one of them and not other would require pointing at some objective quality that one has and the other did not.
As you say: two objects. Not one. They have individual, separate existences.

Quote:
I guess I just don't see any purpose in a special quality that only exists as long as we keep track of it. The second we get distracted and forget whether the original cup was on the left and the right the whole thing collapses into pointlessness.

If that makes any sense.
You're expecting purpose and point to existence? You may as well just rephrase your hypothesis to the soul and seek refuge in theology.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 11:52 AM   #140
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
A muddled example. In the show the original Riker was destroyed in transport. The only difference between this episode and the normal transporter operation is that two copies were made instead of the usual one. Neither is the original Riker just as neither of the new Rikers is the other new Riker. Three separate persons in total, one dead.

If you meant instead a non-transporter device that duplicates without destroying the original, then the answer is simple: the person who was there before the duplication is the original, and the newly made individual is the copy. Have you never made photocopies? The problem is the destruction of an individual being copied, not the copying. If you were copied without being destroyed do you think the copy would be the same individual as yourself? Would you be able to use its body, feel its sensations, experience its existence despite it being in a separate body?

If not then I don't see how you can claim you would do so if the original body were destroyed.
Ah! I see! This is just some Post-TOS heresy ******
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 12:00 PM   #141
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,522
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Ah! I see! This is just some Post-TOS heresy ******
The real thorny question in that episode is what was Troi thinking? She should have got back with Riker Two. He was less pompous, and had been without company for what, eight or nine years? Think of the enthusiasm he'd bring to the bedroom! And it would take Riker One down a few deserved pegs. Troi could blow his mind by suggesting a two-Riker threesome, or urging Riker One to hook up with her mother. Thorny existential questions always lead to erotic chaos.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 12:24 PM   #142
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,579
So if a time traveler were to go back and transport Hitler...
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 29th January 2019 at 12:26 PM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 12:25 PM   #143
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,579
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The real thorny question in that episode is what was Troi thinking? She should have got back with Riker Two. He was less pompous, and had been without company for what, eight or nine years? Think of the enthusiasm he'd bring to the bedroom! And it would take Riker One down a few deserved pegs. Troi could blow his mind by suggesting a two-Riker threesome, or urging Riker One to hook up with her mother. Thorny existential questions always lead to erotic chaos.
I always wondered if Riker2 had to be investigated for what happened on the Pegasus since when that event happened there was still only one Riker.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 12:29 PM   #144
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,522
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I always wondered if Riker2 had to be investigated for what happened on the Pegasus since when that event happened there was still only one Riker.
And the other Riker got out of it by grassing on his captain. Leaving Riker2 without that means to mitigate his crimes. Not that it ultimately mattered, given what he did on DS9.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 01:23 PM   #145
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 15,027
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Because human develop all their standards and morals and "rules" for lack of a better term to fit into the range of experiences we most often function on and on that level the label of "Joe" on the constantly changing but... continuous for our purposes 180 lbs... okay 190... okay 200 around the holidays... mass of meat and bones and skin and flesh that is what is colloquially known as "me" is just a useful thing to conceptualize.

"Joe" isn't a thing on a quantum scale or a universal scale but he's a thing on the scale my wife, my job, and my mortgage company operate on.

Again I don't get why this becomes this big "Oh what does it mean" moment when we're talking about personal identity. Slapping a label on a collection of inter-functioning parts is a thing we do.

Sure there is not one discrete "thing" that is my car. It can be broken down into a frame, an engine, a transmission, four wheels, four tires, two axles, and so forth, all of which could then be broken down into component parts, those component parts of which could be broken down again and again and again until it's just subatomic particles.

But all those things operating together to function as "my car" is just a useful concept to have. If you say "I''m going to go to the store in my car" nobody freaks out that car and store can be broken down into separate things, but they do with "I" for no reason.

We don't freak out whenever we talk about something beyond ...basically the God Particle and Math anywhere outside the "human condition" because it's too easy to assume that "I/me/we/us/you/etc" has to refer to some singular indivisible thing.

I agree, and I've argued the same in JREF/ISF discussion threads many times.

Originally Posted by A previous version of myself circa 2012
You and a another person of the same age and with similar physical characteristics are captured by a sadistic evil wizard, who give you a sadistic choice. One of you will be killed; however, all the memories and perception-habits of the one who is killed will first be transferred to the other's brain, erasing that person's memories and perception-habits in the process. (Let's say, to avoid unnecessary digressions, that the wizard's magic for accomplishing this involves hyper-advanced nanotechnology that unravels all the neural connections in the victim's brain, and then rewires the neural connections in the survivor's brain to match as closely as possible. We can then further specify that the rewiring takes place rapidly but step by step over a period of an hour or two, while the person is awake.)

So, would you prefer to be the one whose body is killed but whose neural configuration (and therefore memories, etc.) is preserved by duplication in the other, or the one whose body survives but whose neural configuration is completely changed?

This is the same basic question as the teleporter, but it also addresses it from the other side, since you can now also examine the point of view directly opposite to the one who's destroyed but re-instantiated as a brain configuration in another body; that is, one who's not destroyed but whose brain configuration is changed to match another's. (In order to avoid another distraction, let's disregard altruism and assume the decision is made solely on self-interest. If necessary we can postulate that the two were mortal enemies who were trying their best to kill each other when the wizard intervened.)

Those who believe in souls or other comparable dualistic ideas would prefer to be the survivor. They would say, "I'll have different memories, of another person, but I'll be the same awareness that continued uninterrupted. I'll be the same soul." In fact, those who believe in reincarnation already believe that exact thing happens, and has happened to "them" countless times previously, when reincarnating from one lifetime to another.

Those who have more materialistic beliefs would prefer to be the "transferred" victim. They would say, "My conscious experience is, and always has been, a perception constructed from memory -- neural wiring and synaptic coefficients -- including both narrative memory and perceptual-habit memory. It will continue to be so, after those structures are re-created in the survivor's brain. My conscious experience won't be 'uninterrupted' but that doesn't matter; it's never been uninterrupted, and it's likely that it is in fact interrupted moment by moment every day." Those are the ones who would willingly ride the teleporter, for the same reasons.

Duplication doesn't raise any difficult questions that this memory transfer process or the teleporter scenario doesn't already. If we imagine that the victim who is to be killed after his memories are transferred to the other, is not yet killed after the transfer is complete (and the transfer process does not damage his own brain), then he will still regard himself as himself even after seeing that the survivor is now experiencing his memories and identity. No magical telepathy develops between them just because they are now duplicates of the same identity. Even though they are copies, they are separate copies, and their experiences immediately start diverging. For instance, they are standing in different places so they see different things.

(Asking whether they are the same person is a pointless question, depending entirely on nuances of meaning that we ascribe to the descriptor "same." They are not one person, they are two; they are (briefly, at the outset) the same identity but two copies. My copy of the script of Hamlet is a different copy than your copy -- I could smudge mine and yours would not become smudged -- yet they are the same play! Is that a deep mysterious paradox? It is not.)

Originally Posted by A different previous version of myself circa 2015
It doesn't matter whether I'm okay with [pushing the big red button to activate the teleporter] or not, and there's no need to push a button. It's what happens every moment of every day. Where is the me who was here a few seconds ago writing that previous paragraph? I don't see any sign of him, do you? Gone, gone, gone, and only those words and this imperfect copy (perhaps better, perhaps worse) to carry on.

Scenarios like teleporters, cryogenic hibernation, ships of Theseus, runaway trolleys, reincarnation, or in this case having your past altered (or altering it yourself) via time travel are just ways of prying open the familiar to examine how it works in more detail. If your toaster is working fine you don't disassemble if because you're hungry for toast, but you might do so because you're curious about how it knows when to pop the bread up.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 29th January 2019 at 02:06 PM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2019, 05:52 AM   #146
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,430
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
So we have a magic machine that can make some 100% perfect copy of something, thing and process, down to quantum perfection.
That's ruled out by the no-cloning theorem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem
Quote:
In physics, the no-cloning theorem states that it is impossible to create an identical copy of an arbitrary unknown quantum state. This no-go theorem of quantum mechanics was articulated by James Park in proving the impossibility of a simple perfect non-disturbing measurement scheme,[1] in 1970 and rediscovered by Wootters and Zurek[2] and by Dieks[3] in 1982. It has profound implications in quantum computing and related fields. The state of one system can be entangled with the state of another system. For instance, one can use the controlled NOT gate and the Walsh–Hadamard gate to entangle two qubits. This is not cloning. No well-defined state can be attributed to a subsystem of an entangled state. Cloning is a process, the result of which is a separable state with identical factors.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.