|
What else needs to be taken into account is whether you are a physicalist/reductionist, or an epiphenomenalist/phenomenalist (I use the term loosely) of some sort.
I suppose it's imaginable to have every last atom reconstructed by chance, though I imagine the probability to be much lower than your monkey and typewriter example. Aesop raised a good point, though...the probability drops from being guaranteed if there is some kind of an inevitable "end-state" as he said.
However, you have to then decide what consciousness, subjective experience and character, and the like really are. Are they merely inconsequential byproducts of our body's physical processes (or arguably the universe at large's), or is there something akin to a "soul" or whatever...
I put up a thread in general asking a couple questions when I was writing a term paper on mind/body stuff in December...I don't think there's anything very good there, though. I was desperate to finish my paper, and was OD'ing on Adderall after being awake for more than 30 hours. I was also getting pwned by the more well read users here. -____-;;
On January 25 2009 09:21 Try wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2009 07:49 HamerD wrote:
I'm charred as fuck ITT. Give em an inch...
I should find a better forum lol.
Btw like I said before the only two arguments AGAINST your question are a) that souls exist and the soul is differently created (unrandomly, as it were) from the rest of the matter that makes us up; and b) the specific quality of 'time created' is intrinsic to our identity. Well, I am assuming that souls are not made of separate "Godmatter" by systematically removing every possible way a soul can control the body (as a prospective med student, I'm fairly familiar with human anatomy). If the soul does exist, the soul is a very strange thing indeed (does the "soul" of a 70 year old Alzheimer's patient continue to have 70 year old Alzheimer's thoughts when it leaves the body?) Also, an assumption of a soul brings up an entirely new set of issues, including God, that for these purposes, make things unecessarily complicated. Your second point is interesting. What is the point of creation/existence though (when the sperm and egg are created, or conception)? And if that point cannot be specifically defined, it might make the inherent "time created" null. I'll have to give it more thought, and come back to you.
I mentioned this in the earlier part of this post, but I thought I'd be specific and point out that it need not be a "soul" as you seem to be thinking that is tied to the body to create an individual. There are plenty of nonreligious phenomenalist philosophers out there, I'm sure. haha.
Sure, there would undoubtedly by a "mystical" quality to such a thing as a nonphysical, phenomenal part of an individual, but it need not be god-related, or even religion-related to be beyond the immediate reach of the sciences.
|
United States22883 Posts
It really all depends on your view of the 'soul/self', at least until neuroscience grows up a bit and gives us some better clues.
|
I never find these sorts of questions as engaging as moral issues, mainly because there are no actions being taken in this world based on the resolution of any arguments even remotely similar to the one proposed here; why do you (op) find it engaging? In a non-hostile way, I'm just interested? I'm also not saying that I'm not interested in this, just wondering.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 25 2009 07:49 HamerD wrote:
I'm charred as fuck ITT. Give em an inch...
I should find a better forum lol.
Hey, what'd you do to Mischy?
|
Problem is, your molecules don't assemble randomly. They assemble according to a list of specific instructions that gets rewritten with every generation. Genes are constantly being removed and new ones appear, which means that, by the incredible length of time it would require for the exact same set of genes to occur, likelyhood has it some of them would have been phased out already, and humans would have already evolved beyond whatever form we have now (provided we exist at all then).
You better start hoping time is circular.
|
On January 25 2009 06:38 Try wrote:
Over the past couple of days, I have had a thought that has kept me up at night. Now, I don't claim to be a brilliant philosopher.
i wouldnt rush claiming anything below brilliant either, including just philosopher
|
On January 25 2009 10:21 food wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2009 06:38 Try wrote:
Over the past couple of days, I have had a thought that has kept me up at night. Now, I don't claim to be a brilliant philosopher. i wouldnt rush claiming anything below brilliant either, including just philosopher
And the point of this post was?
|
On January 25 2009 10:42 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2009 10:21 food wrote:On January 25 2009 06:38 Try wrote:
Over the past couple of days, I have had a thought that has kept me up at night. Now, I don't claim to be a brilliant philosopher. i wouldnt rush claiming anything below brilliant either, including just philosopher And the point of this post was?
just shared my opinion on something that seemed funny
the point of your post by the way?
|
On January 25 2009 10:21 food wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2009 06:38 Try wrote:
Over the past couple of days, I have had a thought that has kept me up at night. Now, I don't claim to be a brilliant philosopher. i wouldnt rush claiming anything below brilliant either, including just philosopher
Personally, I consider anyone who gives universal, unsolvable problems some degree of objective, rational thought a philosopher.
|
On January 25 2009 09:53 Cpt.Cocaine wrote:
Problem is, your molecules don't assemble randomly. They assemble according to a list of specific instructions that gets rewritten with every generation. Genes are constantly being removed and new ones appear, which means that, by the incredible length of time it would require for the exact same set of genes to occur, likelyhood has it some of them would have been phased out already, and humans would have already evolved beyond whatever form we have now (provided we exist at all then).
You better start hoping time is circular.
If you think about it purely hypothetical and statistical standpoint, a probability can be formulated (again, hypothetically) that your physical body (all the atoms/molecules that constitute your body) will reform in the sense that the exact same constitution will recur. It will be a ludicrously small probability, but one that would exist nonetheless. This, of course, hinges on the physical conservation law...that nothing is created nor destroyed entirely, and less so on the universe's life as well.
|
On January 25 2009 09:45 HamerD wrote:
I never find these sorts of questions as engaging as moral issues, mainly because there are no actions being taken in this world based on the resolution of any arguments even remotely similar to the one proposed here; why do you (op) find it engaging? In a non-hostile way, I'm just interested? I'm also not saying that I'm not interested in this, just wondering.
Well, I'm quite fascinated by the fields of existentialism and nihilism in the modern and postmodern literature movements. Maybe its just my vanity, looking for universal truths and the purpose of life and my existence, and whether these few years are all I have. But I find the subject of consciousness, the soul, and the mind-body problem to be at least as interesting as moral issues. And these are the problems I always find myself thinking about while daydreaming. Whenever I consider moral issues, I am quite commonly stuck in a cycle or loop, where I come back to where I started (which is exhausting). Many moral issues are also impossible to objectively evaluate and must be left up to opinion. I also don't like how people are extremely defensive and lack objectiveness when it comes to moral issues.
|
Only read the first post. But, I will point you in the right direction as far as professional philosophy and suggest you pick up Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons, a significant portion of which is about personal identity. That is, if you are willing to go though dense analytical philosophy. Parfit is in favor of what he calls the time dependence claim. In simple terms, your identity does in fact depend on when you were conceived. Another view is what he calls the descriptive view, in which each person has distinctive properties which do not depend on when you were conceived. In example, Parfit considers a case, if by some amazing coincidence a child had all of the same genes and lived a life the same as someone previous in all important descriptive ways. Still, while there is exact similarity, there are differences in numerical identity because you can distinguish between these two people. Thus, there is still a sense in which your identity depends on when you were conceived.
|
My take on it:
Time difference is sufficient for entities to be distinct. A perfect recreation of me, created 10 years from now, will behave and think like I would if I was suddenly teleported 10 years into the future, with an unbroken stream of consciousness. However, I would not be experiencing this, as I would probably be elsewhere (or dead).
Ever see the movie The Prestige?
+ Show Spoiler +The guy has a machine that makes copies of himself, which he uses to perform magic tricks. He kills the "original" over and over, and explains that he was afraid of stepping into the machine because he didn't know if he would be the one that dies or the one who just performed a teleportation act. I always thought this was silly, as the one who actually steps into the machine always dies. Always.
|
On January 25 2009 10:49 Try wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2009 10:21 food wrote:On January 25 2009 06:38 Try wrote:
Over the past couple of days, I have had a thought that has kept me up at night. Now, I don't claim to be a brilliant philosopher. i wouldnt rush claiming anything below brilliant either, including just philosopher Personally, I consider anyone who gives universal, unsolvable problems some degree of objective, rational thought a philosopher.
Philosophy and rational thought do not fit in the same sentence. Thinking rationally is when you ignore everything associated with philosophy.
|
United States22883 Posts
I'm not sure if you're trying to insult philosophy or rationalism, but you're wrong either way.
|
If you assume that the time on our Earth is endless, and you further assume that molecules would recombine to an exact copy of somebody, and you also believe that someone's mind/consciousness/soul is contained within the copied body, then your question is already answered within those assumptions: it works. Of course the copied mind (and maybe body) would then have to adapt to the new environment over time and change, so it's only the same person in the very moment the cloning takes place.
|
I think unless you have a degree, or are some prodigious exception, calling yourself a "philosopher" is pretentious...
|
On January 25 2009 09:47 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2009 07:49 HamerD wrote:
I'm charred as fuck ITT. Give em an inch...
I should find a better forum lol.
Hey, what'd you do to Mischy?
she just doesn't like TL as much as me
|
On January 26 2009 07:05 PH wrote:
I think unless you have a degree, or are some prodigious exception, calling yourself a "philosopher" is pretentious...
I completely disagree. Calling yourself a 'professional philosopher' or an 'educated philosopher' is pretentious, in my opinion. You only have to look at the etymology of the word, it's just people who like to ponder. Anyone can ponder, anyone can philosophise. The biggest trick of pretentious philosophers is making it look like philosophical concepts aren't easily approachable; through two methods...a) using complex terminology for show and b) throwing names around the place. The arguments are always the same. I've met philosophy graduates who were just as idiotic in existential debates as secondary school pupils.
I think philosophy is also one of the only university courses for which you can pick up most of the lessons by yourself if you open your ears and eyes.
Philosophy is somewhere between the arts and the sciences imo...and as such should be treated like both. If someone with a guitar says 'im a musician', you won't question whether they have reached grade 8 or have been to Julliard. Being a philosopher is a state of mind. It definitely isn't the prerequisite for any jobs (afaik!). It's not a qualification in its own right, imo.
|
On January 26 2009 08:24 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2009 07:05 PH wrote:
I think unless you have a degree, or are some prodigious exception, calling yourself a "philosopher" is pretentious... I completely disagree. Calling yourself a 'professional philosopher' or an 'educated philosopher' is pretentious, in my opinion. You only have to look at the etymology of the word, it's just people who like to ponder. Anyone can ponder, anyone can philosophise. The biggest trick of pretentious philosophers is making it look like philosophical concepts aren't easily approachable; through two methods...a) using complex terminology for show and b) throwing names around the place. The arguments are always the same. I've met philosophy graduates who were just as idiotic in existential debates as secondary school pupils. I think philosophy is also one of the only university courses for which you can pick up most of the lessons by yourself if you open your ears and eyes. Philosophy is somewhere between the arts and the sciences imo...and as such should be treated like both. If someone with a guitar says 'im a musician', you won't question whether they have reached grade 8 or have been to Julliard. Being a philosopher is a state of mind. It definitely isn't the prerequisite for any jobs (afaik!). It's not a qualification in its own right, imo.
Yeah, you're right, for the most part. I especially like those two a and b points you made...very true, lol.
However...no matter the etymology of the word, its usage nowadays has been twisted and altered.
Beyond that, I'm really not sure if anyone can realistically call themselves "philosophers". Even professors in the field get to be so severely limited nowadays that the term loses its magic and meaning when applied to them. Even the faculty at my school call each other "writers", "thinkers", or even just "professor". The term "philosopher" gets thrown around like a joke term.
Perhaps it's just that the pretentious ones ruin it for the rest of us... -_____-;;
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
