|
On July 02 2013 20:15 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 20:13 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 20:07 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 19:44 Acertos wrote:On July 02 2013 19:13 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 18:45 Rassy wrote:
Huh?
that can only be possible if they where made at exactly the same time, else the one who is made first is clearly the original and the one who is made later is obviously the copy?
Not to the survivor. You walk into a copy machine, you walk out, the other you is killed. You're the original right? Well, you can't possibly know that since you have the exact same memories. Someone who watched the event will know which is which if there was a time difference etc, but the survivor has no sense of that. It doesnt work like this. If the machine copies you, you will still have the same consciousness, you will still be the same but the machine will make a copy of you so there are now 2 identical people. If it's you who gets to die, you, your own consciousness really die and your copy survive. It doesnt change much for other people because they will have the exact copy of you but you will still die which is a pity btw. This is what I have said all topic. It has nothing to do with the post you quoted. Every copy will be identical to the original, and thus believe they are the original. Yes, if you are the original and are killed, you die and cease to exist. That doesn't stop the copy from thinking it's the original. why would the copy have the notion of 'original'?. does original = self? A person walks into a copying machine. Two people come out. Both people remember being the one entering the copying machine, and they can't tell if they are the one who entered the machine, or the copy. Simple as that. Assuming both people are conscious all the time (well, let's say they're 'generating' memory), arent created at the same place and speak out their memories truthfully, one can always distinguish the copy from the original. In the memory of the copy there should be a supposedly impossible change of locations. Unless of course you assume that the copy is somehow pulled out of the original, but i cant really imagine that.
Strictly the copy should also have a little bit less memory, because i dont think copying a person can take zero time.
|
On July 02 2013 19:21 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 19:19 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 19:11 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 17:11 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 16:50 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 16:33 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 02:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:32 Cynry wrote:On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:13 mcc wrote:
[quote]
Saying that it all means nothing is of course nonsense, as it means something to me. I might be materialistic and deterministic "machine", but that does not negate my autonomy. By definition, it does... I also have free will unless I am being forced, that is because I am autonomous. You just said you have free-will because you have free-will. I do not search for "hope". I have my hopes. I hope that I will not die before I am old. That is not some mystical hope, that is just biological emotion. Precisely. Biological emotion that you have absolutely no control over and are entirely incapable of changing. Most people would not call the instinctual urge to run away from a hopeless situation "hope". The hope you have is not something that is meaningful in any true sense of the word. Basically what you are saying is that emotions are more valid form of knowledge than reason ? That all those instincts that lead us to do stupid shit should be listened to, because they are the sign of spiritual being. I'm saying that the fact that your position is not only biologically untenable, but also carries with it the necessity of "deluding yourself" to be happy is a good indication that the position itself is invalid. Now please explain how religion is not just another delusion ? Also, one may not control the nature of emotions (anger is anger etc), but a lot can be achieved about what trigger said emotions. Religion could be delusion... sure. So what? There is no evidence to say that it is and some evidence to say that it isn't (though let's not get into that discussion). The whole point of determinism is that nothing whatsoever can be "achieved" about triggers or anything at all. What will occur will occur regardless of any non-existent "action" being taken by "actors" that aren't there. Efforts to avoid/embrace a specific turn of events are themselves predetermined, as is their eventual (and inevitable) efficacy. The face a coin will land on is determined at the moment you flip it, I think anyone can agree on that. Does it make it useless to flip a coin when you want to decide something ? Does it make it less random ? no. It doesn't change anything at all. This can be applied with your entire life or the universe, but it still doesn't change anything. "Determinism" is a kind of information that have no concrete effect. Of course it makes it less random, it isn't random at all. Just because you are incapable to predict if the coin will land heads or tails doesn't mean it's random. If it's determined how the coin will land when you flip it (because of the initial state of the coin, the hand, the force used, the current atmosphere etc), it's not random, there's a pattern to it. You can pretend that it is random, and use the illusion of randomness to make decisions for you, but it's still not random. It doesn't have to have a concrete effect, it's a philosophical concept. Either everything was decided more or less at the moment of big bang, or it wasn't. Either it's predetermined what I will do tommorrow at 3PM, or it isn't. We can't prove it and it's going to happen regardless, so it doesn't have any concrete effect. Then again, most philosophical questions do not. Random is a weird concept that doesn't mean much. I was using it in the sense of pseudo-randomness. Anyway, I was responding to people saying stuff like "Determinism make your life meaningless etc..". I was simply noting that it doesn't matter if you think flipping a coin is determined or not, it is still useful to flip a coin and it shouldn't affect your life whatsoever (ie: you're not losing any "meaning" of your life). The meaning of life is a philosophical question, whether you have a meaningful life or not is subjective and has no concrete effect. Yet it affects people a lot. My point is : You can believe in determinism and still find a meaning of life. Sure, or you can not. You can be a person who just finds it all meaningless if everything is predetermined. Saying "Flipping a coin is just as random" to a person who is of the philosophy that free will is important is just meaningless. Personally, I agree with you. I'm a determinist and I don't think of it as a problem, but a lot of people disagree.
How can you be a determinist with all that quantum physics jazz going on. Not saying the world isnt deterministic, but if your main argument is science and then u have quantum physics in which one of the major concepts is "randomness", than it would make me at least raise an eyebrow.
And determinism is an awfully depressing view at life if you think about it. I guess it was a rather legitimate way to see life up until quantum physics arrived, but now there is nothing appealing in it for me.
|
On July 02 2013 17:12 iNbluE wrote:
This thread is so full of college freshmen thinking they OWN science, it makes me nauseous.
It is indeed kind of ridiculous
To expand on the matter over mind question regarding the relationship between mind and brain, imagine the brain is like the keyboard for your mind.
Your keyboard can be altered in many diferent ways. Direcly affecting the result of what you type.
Doesnt mean that there isnt something going on behind the scenes that we cant measure yet
|
On July 02 2013 20:36 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 19:21 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 19:19 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 19:11 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 17:11 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 16:50 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 16:33 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 02:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:32 Cynry wrote:On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
By definition, it does...
[quote]
You just said you have free-will because you have free-will.
[quote] Precisely. Biological emotion that you have absolutely no control over and are entirely incapable of changing. Most people would not call the instinctual urge to run away from a hopeless situation "hope". The hope you have is not something that is meaningful in any true sense of the word.
[quote]I'm saying that the fact that your position is not only biologically untenable, but also carries with it the necessity of "deluding yourself" to be happy is a good indication that the position itself is invalid.
Now please explain how religion is not just another delusion ? Also, one may not control the nature of emotions (anger is anger etc), but a lot can be achieved about what trigger said emotions. Religion could be delusion... sure. So what? There is no evidence to say that it is and some evidence to say that it isn't (though let's not get into that discussion). The whole point of determinism is that nothing whatsoever can be "achieved" about triggers or anything at all. What will occur will occur regardless of any non-existent "action" being taken by "actors" that aren't there. Efforts to avoid/embrace a specific turn of events are themselves predetermined, as is their eventual (and inevitable) efficacy. The face a coin will land on is determined at the moment you flip it, I think anyone can agree on that. Does it make it useless to flip a coin when you want to decide something ? Does it make it less random ? no. It doesn't change anything at all. This can be applied with your entire life or the universe, but it still doesn't change anything. "Determinism" is a kind of information that have no concrete effect. Of course it makes it less random, it isn't random at all. Just because you are incapable to predict if the coin will land heads or tails doesn't mean it's random. If it's determined how the coin will land when you flip it (because of the initial state of the coin, the hand, the force used, the current atmosphere etc), it's not random, there's a pattern to it. You can pretend that it is random, and use the illusion of randomness to make decisions for you, but it's still not random. It doesn't have to have a concrete effect, it's a philosophical concept. Either everything was decided more or less at the moment of big bang, or it wasn't. Either it's predetermined what I will do tommorrow at 3PM, or it isn't. We can't prove it and it's going to happen regardless, so it doesn't have any concrete effect. Then again, most philosophical questions do not. Random is a weird concept that doesn't mean much. I was using it in the sense of pseudo-randomness. Anyway, I was responding to people saying stuff like "Determinism make your life meaningless etc..". I was simply noting that it doesn't matter if you think flipping a coin is determined or not, it is still useful to flip a coin and it shouldn't affect your life whatsoever (ie: you're not losing any "meaning" of your life). The meaning of life is a philosophical question, whether you have a meaningful life or not is subjective and has no concrete effect. Yet it affects people a lot. My point is : You can believe in determinism and still find a meaning of life. Sure, or you can not. You can be a person who just finds it all meaningless if everything is predetermined. Saying "Flipping a coin is just as random" to a person who is of the philosophy that free will is important is just meaningless. Personally, I agree with you. I'm a determinist and I don't think of it as a problem, but a lot of people disagree. How can you be a determinist with all that quantum physics jazz going on. Not saying the world isnt deterministic, but if your main argument is science and then u have quantum physics in which one of the major concepts is "randomness", than it would make me at least raise an eyebrow. And determinism is an awfully depressing view at life if you think about it. I guess it was a rather legitimate way to see life up until quantum physics arrived, but now there is nothing appealing in it for me.
If we take determinism as opposed to free will, it's not like quantum physics adds anything to free will right ? We're still living in a world where everything you do is pre-determined based on the minor randomness which is completely out for control for us.
|
On July 02 2013 20:33 Yorbon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 20:15 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:13 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 20:07 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 19:44 Acertos wrote:On July 02 2013 19:13 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 18:45 Rassy wrote:
Huh?
that can only be possible if they where made at exactly the same time, else the one who is made first is clearly the original and the one who is made later is obviously the copy?
Not to the survivor. You walk into a copy machine, you walk out, the other you is killed. You're the original right? Well, you can't possibly know that since you have the exact same memories. Someone who watched the event will know which is which if there was a time difference etc, but the survivor has no sense of that. It doesnt work like this. If the machine copies you, you will still have the same consciousness, you will still be the same but the machine will make a copy of you so there are now 2 identical people. If it's you who gets to die, you, your own consciousness really die and your copy survive. It doesnt change much for other people because they will have the exact copy of you but you will still die which is a pity btw. This is what I have said all topic. It has nothing to do with the post you quoted. Every copy will be identical to the original, and thus believe they are the original. Yes, if you are the original and are killed, you die and cease to exist. That doesn't stop the copy from thinking it's the original. why would the copy have the notion of 'original'?. does original = self? A person walks into a copying machine. Two people come out. Both people remember being the one entering the copying machine, and they can't tell if they are the one who entered the machine, or the copy. Simple as that. Assuming both people are conscious all the time (well, let's say they're 'generating' memory), arent created at the same place and speak out their memories truthfully, one can always distinguish the copy from the original. In the memory of the copy there should be a supposedly impossible change of locations. Unless of course you assume that the copy is somehow pulled out of the original, but i cant really imagine that. Strictly the copy should also have a little bit less memory, because i dont think copying a person can take zero time.
Yes, but that means the copy is being told by "a third party" that it's a copy, such as the change of location, or the knowledge that the copy will experience a disconnect while the original will not. There's no way the copy can INTERNALLY distinguish itself from the original, so to speak. If you come out of a copy machine, remembering entering it then everything being black for a while, then coming out, you're not going to know that you're the copy unless you're told that only the copy will have this "blackout" experience.
|
On July 02 2013 20:51 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 20:36 NukeD wrote:On July 02 2013 19:21 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 19:19 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 19:11 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 17:11 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 16:50 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 16:33 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 02:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:32 Cynry wrote:
[quote]
Now please explain how religion is not just another delusion ?
Also, one may not control the nature of emotions (anger is anger etc), but a lot can be achieved about what trigger said emotions. Religion could be delusion... sure. So what? There is no evidence to say that it is and some evidence to say that it isn't (though let's not get into that discussion). The whole point of determinism is that nothing whatsoever can be "achieved" about triggers or anything at all. What will occur will occur regardless of any non-existent "action" being taken by "actors" that aren't there. Efforts to avoid/embrace a specific turn of events are themselves predetermined, as is their eventual (and inevitable) efficacy. The face a coin will land on is determined at the moment you flip it, I think anyone can agree on that. Does it make it useless to flip a coin when you want to decide something ? Does it make it less random ? no. It doesn't change anything at all. This can be applied with your entire life or the universe, but it still doesn't change anything. "Determinism" is a kind of information that have no concrete effect. Of course it makes it less random, it isn't random at all. Just because you are incapable to predict if the coin will land heads or tails doesn't mean it's random. If it's determined how the coin will land when you flip it (because of the initial state of the coin, the hand, the force used, the current atmosphere etc), it's not random, there's a pattern to it. You can pretend that it is random, and use the illusion of randomness to make decisions for you, but it's still not random. It doesn't have to have a concrete effect, it's a philosophical concept. Either everything was decided more or less at the moment of big bang, or it wasn't. Either it's predetermined what I will do tommorrow at 3PM, or it isn't. We can't prove it and it's going to happen regardless, so it doesn't have any concrete effect. Then again, most philosophical questions do not. Random is a weird concept that doesn't mean much. I was using it in the sense of pseudo-randomness. Anyway, I was responding to people saying stuff like "Determinism make your life meaningless etc..". I was simply noting that it doesn't matter if you think flipping a coin is determined or not, it is still useful to flip a coin and it shouldn't affect your life whatsoever (ie: you're not losing any "meaning" of your life). The meaning of life is a philosophical question, whether you have a meaningful life or not is subjective and has no concrete effect. Yet it affects people a lot. My point is : You can believe in determinism and still find a meaning of life. Sure, or you can not. You can be a person who just finds it all meaningless if everything is predetermined. Saying "Flipping a coin is just as random" to a person who is of the philosophy that free will is important is just meaningless. Personally, I agree with you. I'm a determinist and I don't think of it as a problem, but a lot of people disagree. How can you be a determinist with all that quantum physics jazz going on. Not saying the world isnt deterministic, but if your main argument is science and then u have quantum physics in which one of the major concepts is "randomness", than it would make me at least raise an eyebrow. And determinism is an awfully depressing view at life if you think about it. I guess it was a rather legitimate way to see life up until quantum physics arrived, but now there is nothing appealing in it for me. If we take determinism as opposed to free will, it's not like quantum physics adds anything to free will right ? We're still living in a world where everything you do is pre-determined based on the minor randomness which is completely out for control for us.
Im not too sure about that. In my limited and laughable knowledge of quantum physics Ive come too think that it does add a bit to the concept of free will. Or that is what I came up out of the double slit experiment.
All Im saying is it makes the concept of determinism not so firm anymore, I didnt say it completely denies it nor do I believe that.
|
On July 02 2013 20:36 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 19:21 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 19:19 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 19:11 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 17:11 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 16:50 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 16:33 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 02:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:32 Cynry wrote:On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
By definition, it does...
[quote]
You just said you have free-will because you have free-will.
[quote] Precisely. Biological emotion that you have absolutely no control over and are entirely incapable of changing. Most people would not call the instinctual urge to run away from a hopeless situation "hope". The hope you have is not something that is meaningful in any true sense of the word.
[quote]I'm saying that the fact that your position is not only biologically untenable, but also carries with it the necessity of "deluding yourself" to be happy is a good indication that the position itself is invalid.
Now please explain how religion is not just another delusion ? Also, one may not control the nature of emotions (anger is anger etc), but a lot can be achieved about what trigger said emotions. Religion could be delusion... sure. So what? There is no evidence to say that it is and some evidence to say that it isn't (though let's not get into that discussion). The whole point of determinism is that nothing whatsoever can be "achieved" about triggers or anything at all. What will occur will occur regardless of any non-existent "action" being taken by "actors" that aren't there. Efforts to avoid/embrace a specific turn of events are themselves predetermined, as is their eventual (and inevitable) efficacy. The face a coin will land on is determined at the moment you flip it, I think anyone can agree on that. Does it make it useless to flip a coin when you want to decide something ? Does it make it less random ? no. It doesn't change anything at all. This can be applied with your entire life or the universe, but it still doesn't change anything. "Determinism" is a kind of information that have no concrete effect. Of course it makes it less random, it isn't random at all. Just because you are incapable to predict if the coin will land heads or tails doesn't mean it's random. If it's determined how the coin will land when you flip it (because of the initial state of the coin, the hand, the force used, the current atmosphere etc), it's not random, there's a pattern to it. You can pretend that it is random, and use the illusion of randomness to make decisions for you, but it's still not random. It doesn't have to have a concrete effect, it's a philosophical concept. Either everything was decided more or less at the moment of big bang, or it wasn't. Either it's predetermined what I will do tommorrow at 3PM, or it isn't. We can't prove it and it's going to happen regardless, so it doesn't have any concrete effect. Then again, most philosophical questions do not. Random is a weird concept that doesn't mean much. I was using it in the sense of pseudo-randomness. Anyway, I was responding to people saying stuff like "Determinism make your life meaningless etc..". I was simply noting that it doesn't matter if you think flipping a coin is determined or not, it is still useful to flip a coin and it shouldn't affect your life whatsoever (ie: you're not losing any "meaning" of your life). The meaning of life is a philosophical question, whether you have a meaningful life or not is subjective and has no concrete effect. Yet it affects people a lot. My point is : You can believe in determinism and still find a meaning of life. Sure, or you can not. You can be a person who just finds it all meaningless if everything is predetermined. Saying "Flipping a coin is just as random" to a person who is of the philosophy that free will is important is just meaningless. Personally, I agree with you. I'm a determinist and I don't think of it as a problem, but a lot of people disagree. How can you be a determinist with all that quantum physics jazz going on. Not saying the world isnt deterministic, but if your main argument is science and then u have quantum physics in which one of the major concepts is "randomness", than it would make me at least raise an eyebrow. And determinism is an awfully depressing view at life if you think about it. I guess it was a rather legitimate way to see life up until quantum physics arrived, but now there is nothing appealing in it for me.
From a purely logical perspective, I don't believe quantum fluctuations are actually random. It certainly seems that way to us, but I think it's a matter of understanding, I think it's being dictated by forces outside of our understanding (other dimensions or whatever). There's really no reason to believe it's not random, I mean, it's considered random by most scientists, but since we still know so little about the area, and quantum physics is the ONLY area where "true randomness" exists, it makes sense to me that the exception is due to our limited knowledge.
Regardless, as was mentioned before, whether quantum physics have an actual random component or not, we still can't have free will. Either our decisions are determined by the fixed environment, or random quantum fluctuations. Neither means much for our free will.
|
On July 02 2013 20:33 Yorbon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 20:15 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:13 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 20:07 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 19:44 Acertos wrote:On July 02 2013 19:13 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 18:45 Rassy wrote:
Huh?
that can only be possible if they where made at exactly the same time, else the one who is made first is clearly the original and the one who is made later is obviously the copy?
Not to the survivor. You walk into a copy machine, you walk out, the other you is killed. You're the original right? Well, you can't possibly know that since you have the exact same memories. Someone who watched the event will know which is which if there was a time difference etc, but the survivor has no sense of that. It doesnt work like this. If the machine copies you, you will still have the same consciousness, you will still be the same but the machine will make a copy of you so there are now 2 identical people. If it's you who gets to die, you, your own consciousness really die and your copy survive. It doesnt change much for other people because they will have the exact copy of you but you will still die which is a pity btw. This is what I have said all topic. It has nothing to do with the post you quoted. Every copy will be identical to the original, and thus believe they are the original. Yes, if you are the original and are killed, you die and cease to exist. That doesn't stop the copy from thinking it's the original. why would the copy have the notion of 'original'?. does original = self? A person walks into a copying machine. Two people come out. Both people remember being the one entering the copying machine, and they can't tell if they are the one who entered the machine, or the copy. Simple as that. Assuming both people are conscious all the time (well, let's say they're 'generating' memory), arent created at the same place and speak out their memories truthfully, one can always distinguish the copy from the original. In the memory of the copy there should be a supposedly impossible change of locations. Unless of course you assume that the copy is somehow pulled out of the original, but i cant really imagine that. Strictly the copy should also have a little bit less memory, because i dont think copying a person can take zero time.
Well you can't copy a person so the logistics of copying a person don't really come into it. For the purposes of the analogy you can just assume you walk through a machine and 2 of you walk out and as far as you both know you both just walked through the machine.
And yes I believe everything we experience, including the mind can be explained in terms of physical processes in the brain. Things like love, compassion and empathy are really easy to explain in terms of physical processes, we know about the electrical and chemical changes in the brain that cause these feelings and they are very easy to explain in terms of evolutionary theory.
I don't know about imagination, I still believe it can be explained in terms of physical processes in the brain but I don't know about research that has been done into this area.
When you sit back and think about how everything we experience, all the beauty of life, actually leads back to a brownish pink peace of flesh in our head it's incredible.
|
On July 02 2013 20:54 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 20:33 Yorbon wrote:On July 02 2013 20:15 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:13 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 20:07 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 19:44 Acertos wrote:On July 02 2013 19:13 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 18:45 Rassy wrote:
Huh?
that can only be possible if they where made at exactly the same time, else the one who is made first is clearly the original and the one who is made later is obviously the copy?
Not to the survivor. You walk into a copy machine, you walk out, the other you is killed. You're the original right? Well, you can't possibly know that since you have the exact same memories. Someone who watched the event will know which is which if there was a time difference etc, but the survivor has no sense of that. It doesnt work like this. If the machine copies you, you will still have the same consciousness, you will still be the same but the machine will make a copy of you so there are now 2 identical people. If it's you who gets to die, you, your own consciousness really die and your copy survive. It doesnt change much for other people because they will have the exact copy of you but you will still die which is a pity btw. This is what I have said all topic. It has nothing to do with the post you quoted. Every copy will be identical to the original, and thus believe they are the original. Yes, if you are the original and are killed, you die and cease to exist. That doesn't stop the copy from thinking it's the original. why would the copy have the notion of 'original'?. does original = self? A person walks into a copying machine. Two people come out. Both people remember being the one entering the copying machine, and they can't tell if they are the one who entered the machine, or the copy. Simple as that. Assuming both people are conscious all the time (well, let's say they're 'generating' memory), arent created at the same place and speak out their memories truthfully, one can always distinguish the copy from the original. In the memory of the copy there should be a supposedly impossible change of locations. Unless of course you assume that the copy is somehow pulled out of the original, but i cant really imagine that. Strictly the copy should also have a little bit less memory, because i dont think copying a person can take zero time. Yes, but that means the copy is being told by "a third party" that it's a copy, such as the change of location, or the knowledge that the copy will experience a disconnect while the original will not. There's no way the copy can INTERNALLY distinguish itself from the original, so to speak. If you come out of a copy machine, remembering entering it then everything being black for a while, then coming out, you're not going to know that you're the copy unless you're told that only the copy will have this "blackout" experience.
See, this is kind of a basic problem of philosophy trussed up to look like it has something to do with consciousness. If I have a machine that destroys an apple and instantly rebuilds it in its exact same position, etc... is it still the same apple? No one can really answer that, but that's not because apples have some mysterious metaphysical property - it's because the concept of instantaneous physically identical replacement is fuckin weird, no matter what gets copied. Same applies to brains and consciousness and whatever other physical process we want to use. It's not that they have some special property, it's that the scenario itself is ambiguous.
|
On July 02 2013 21:14 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 20:54 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:33 Yorbon wrote:On July 02 2013 20:15 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:13 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 20:07 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 19:44 Acertos wrote:On July 02 2013 19:13 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 18:45 Rassy wrote:
Huh?
that can only be possible if they where made at exactly the same time, else the one who is made first is clearly the original and the one who is made later is obviously the copy?
Not to the survivor. You walk into a copy machine, you walk out, the other you is killed. You're the original right? Well, you can't possibly know that since you have the exact same memories. Someone who watched the event will know which is which if there was a time difference etc, but the survivor has no sense of that. It doesnt work like this. If the machine copies you, you will still have the same consciousness, you will still be the same but the machine will make a copy of you so there are now 2 identical people. If it's you who gets to die, you, your own consciousness really die and your copy survive. It doesnt change much for other people because they will have the exact copy of you but you will still die which is a pity btw. This is what I have said all topic. It has nothing to do with the post you quoted. Every copy will be identical to the original, and thus believe they are the original. Yes, if you are the original and are killed, you die and cease to exist. That doesn't stop the copy from thinking it's the original. why would the copy have the notion of 'original'?. does original = self? A person walks into a copying machine. Two people come out. Both people remember being the one entering the copying machine, and they can't tell if they are the one who entered the machine, or the copy. Simple as that. Assuming both people are conscious all the time (well, let's say they're 'generating' memory), arent created at the same place and speak out their memories truthfully, one can always distinguish the copy from the original. In the memory of the copy there should be a supposedly impossible change of locations. Unless of course you assume that the copy is somehow pulled out of the original, but i cant really imagine that. Strictly the copy should also have a little bit less memory, because i dont think copying a person can take zero time. Yes, but that means the copy is being told by "a third party" that it's a copy, such as the change of location, or the knowledge that the copy will experience a disconnect while the original will not. There's no way the copy can INTERNALLY distinguish itself from the original, so to speak. If you come out of a copy machine, remembering entering it then everything being black for a while, then coming out, you're not going to know that you're the copy unless you're told that only the copy will have this "blackout" experience. See, this is kind of a basic problem of philosophy trussed up to look like it has something to do with consciousness. If I have a machine that destroys an apple and instantly rebuilds it in its exact same position, etc... is it still the same apple? No one can really answer that, but that's not because apples have some mysterious metaphysical property - it's because the concept of instantaneous physically identical replacement is fuckin weird, no matter what gets copied. Same applies to brains and consciousness and whatever other physical process we want to use. It's not that they have some special property, it's that the scenario itself is ambiguous.
Your argument is built on the fact that you've already settled that consciousness is the same as a physical object, like an apple. I disagree. The very fact that a concious mind dies and another "takes its place" means I can't use your simple "whatever other physical process we want to use" argument.
|
I think alot of the replies in this thread are really thought provoking and interesting.
What always strikes me when I think and read about this subject is how tricky language is when we debate these topics.
There seems to be alot of room for refinement in how we speak about the brain and how we speak about the mind.
Personally, I subscribe to the notion that the mind is in a meaningful way part of the brain. That the mind is on some fundamental level a property of something physical. However, the simple presence of experience, the fact that there is a subjective perciever, that warrants alot of thought and could point towards properties of the physical "stuff" of the universe that go far beyond our established notion of the "emerging mind".
|
If people are interested in copying-machine scenarios and such I recommend reading Derek Parfit. On the topic, there is currently no competing theory that makes any sense. The problem is that the idea that consciousness is purely physical doesn't make sense either at all. But it has less problems compared to competing theories (epiphenomenalism, property dualism etc.)
|
On July 02 2013 21:21 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 21:14 Zahir wrote:On July 02 2013 20:54 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:33 Yorbon wrote:On July 02 2013 20:15 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:13 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 20:07 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 19:44 Acertos wrote:On July 02 2013 19:13 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 18:45 Rassy wrote:
Huh?
that can only be possible if they where made at exactly the same time, else the one who is made first is clearly the original and the one who is made later is obviously the copy?
Not to the survivor. You walk into a copy machine, you walk out, the other you is killed. You're the original right? Well, you can't possibly know that since you have the exact same memories. Someone who watched the event will know which is which if there was a time difference etc, but the survivor has no sense of that. It doesnt work like this. If the machine copies you, you will still have the same consciousness, you will still be the same but the machine will make a copy of you so there are now 2 identical people. If it's you who gets to die, you, your own consciousness really die and your copy survive. It doesnt change much for other people because they will have the exact copy of you but you will still die which is a pity btw. This is what I have said all topic. It has nothing to do with the post you quoted. Every copy will be identical to the original, and thus believe they are the original. Yes, if you are the original and are killed, you die and cease to exist. That doesn't stop the copy from thinking it's the original. why would the copy have the notion of 'original'?. does original = self? A person walks into a copying machine. Two people come out. Both people remember being the one entering the copying machine, and they can't tell if they are the one who entered the machine, or the copy. Simple as that. Assuming both people are conscious all the time (well, let's say they're 'generating' memory), arent created at the same place and speak out their memories truthfully, one can always distinguish the copy from the original. In the memory of the copy there should be a supposedly impossible change of locations. Unless of course you assume that the copy is somehow pulled out of the original, but i cant really imagine that. Strictly the copy should also have a little bit less memory, because i dont think copying a person can take zero time. Yes, but that means the copy is being told by "a third party" that it's a copy, such as the change of location, or the knowledge that the copy will experience a disconnect while the original will not. There's no way the copy can INTERNALLY distinguish itself from the original, so to speak. If you come out of a copy machine, remembering entering it then everything being black for a while, then coming out, you're not going to know that you're the copy unless you're told that only the copy will have this "blackout" experience. See, this is kind of a basic problem of philosophy trussed up to look like it has something to do with consciousness. If I have a machine that destroys an apple and instantly rebuilds it in its exact same position, etc... is it still the same apple? No one can really answer that, but that's not because apples have some mysterious metaphysical property - it's because the concept of instantaneous physically identical replacement is fuckin weird, no matter what gets copied. Same applies to brains and consciousness and whatever other physical process we want to use. It's not that they have some special property, it's that the scenario itself is ambiguous. Your argument is built on the fact that you've already settled that consciousness is the same as a physical object, like an apple. I disagree. The very fact that a concious mind dies and another "takes its place" means I can't use your simple "whatever other physical process we want to use" argument.
each time you fall asleep your conscious mind "dies". At least in a sense that is comparable to if your body was destroyed and then instantly recreated. The question could be posed like this: Lets imagine a world in which every night when youre unconscious, scientists replace your body with an in every structural and functional aspect identical copy. Is that world different from this one as it relates to your consciousness?
|
On July 02 2013 21:21 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 21:14 Zahir wrote:On July 02 2013 20:54 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:33 Yorbon wrote:On July 02 2013 20:15 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:13 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 20:07 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 19:44 Acertos wrote:On July 02 2013 19:13 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 18:45 Rassy wrote:
Huh?
that can only be possible if they where made at exactly the same time, else the one who is made first is clearly the original and the one who is made later is obviously the copy?
Not to the survivor. You walk into a copy machine, you walk out, the other you is killed. You're the original right? Well, you can't possibly know that since you have the exact same memories. Someone who watched the event will know which is which if there was a time difference etc, but the survivor has no sense of that. It doesnt work like this. If the machine copies you, you will still have the same consciousness, you will still be the same but the machine will make a copy of you so there are now 2 identical people. If it's you who gets to die, you, your own consciousness really die and your copy survive. It doesnt change much for other people because they will have the exact copy of you but you will still die which is a pity btw. This is what I have said all topic. It has nothing to do with the post you quoted. Every copy will be identical to the original, and thus believe they are the original. Yes, if you are the original and are killed, you die and cease to exist. That doesn't stop the copy from thinking it's the original. why would the copy have the notion of 'original'?. does original = self? A person walks into a copying machine. Two people come out. Both people remember being the one entering the copying machine, and they can't tell if they are the one who entered the machine, or the copy. Simple as that. Assuming both people are conscious all the time (well, let's say they're 'generating' memory), arent created at the same place and speak out their memories truthfully, one can always distinguish the copy from the original. In the memory of the copy there should be a supposedly impossible change of locations. Unless of course you assume that the copy is somehow pulled out of the original, but i cant really imagine that. Strictly the copy should also have a little bit less memory, because i dont think copying a person can take zero time. Yes, but that means the copy is being told by "a third party" that it's a copy, such as the change of location, or the knowledge that the copy will experience a disconnect while the original will not. There's no way the copy can INTERNALLY distinguish itself from the original, so to speak. If you come out of a copy machine, remembering entering it then everything being black for a while, then coming out, you're not going to know that you're the copy unless you're told that only the copy will have this "blackout" experience. See, this is kind of a basic problem of philosophy trussed up to look like it has something to do with consciousness. If I have a machine that destroys an apple and instantly rebuilds it in its exact same position, etc... is it still the same apple? No one can really answer that, but that's not because apples have some mysterious metaphysical property - it's because the concept of instantaneous physically identical replacement is fuckin weird, no matter what gets copied. Same applies to brains and consciousness and whatever other physical process we want to use. It's not that they have some special property, it's that the scenario itself is ambiguous. Your argument is built on the fact that you've already settled that consciousness is the same as a physical object, like an apple. I disagree. The very fact that a concious mind dies and another "takes its place" means I can't use your simple "whatever other physical process we want to use" argument.
Could you clarify what you think the thought experiment shows about consciousness/the mind having metaphysical properties? From what I understand, the point here is to show that the mind is special because it stays dead even if you make a physically identical copy. What I'm saying is that the same logic applies to any other object. If the original is destroyed, it doesn't magically pop back into existence just because someone made an identical copy of it. The original is gone, period, no matter whether it is a brain or an apple.
|
On July 02 2013 21:26 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 21:21 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 21:14 Zahir wrote:On July 02 2013 20:54 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:33 Yorbon wrote:On July 02 2013 20:15 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:13 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 20:07 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 19:44 Acertos wrote:On July 02 2013 19:13 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
Not to the survivor. You walk into a copy machine, you walk out, the other you is killed. You're the original right? Well, you can't possibly know that since you have the exact same memories. Someone who watched the event will know which is which if there was a time difference etc, but the survivor has no sense of that. It doesnt work like this. If the machine copies you, you will still have the same consciousness, you will still be the same but the machine will make a copy of you so there are now 2 identical people. If it's you who gets to die, you, your own consciousness really die and your copy survive. It doesnt change much for other people because they will have the exact copy of you but you will still die which is a pity btw. This is what I have said all topic. It has nothing to do with the post you quoted. Every copy will be identical to the original, and thus believe they are the original. Yes, if you are the original and are killed, you die and cease to exist. That doesn't stop the copy from thinking it's the original. why would the copy have the notion of 'original'?. does original = self? A person walks into a copying machine. Two people come out. Both people remember being the one entering the copying machine, and they can't tell if they are the one who entered the machine, or the copy. Simple as that. Assuming both people are conscious all the time (well, let's say they're 'generating' memory), arent created at the same place and speak out their memories truthfully, one can always distinguish the copy from the original. In the memory of the copy there should be a supposedly impossible change of locations. Unless of course you assume that the copy is somehow pulled out of the original, but i cant really imagine that. Strictly the copy should also have a little bit less memory, because i dont think copying a person can take zero time. Yes, but that means the copy is being told by "a third party" that it's a copy, such as the change of location, or the knowledge that the copy will experience a disconnect while the original will not. There's no way the copy can INTERNALLY distinguish itself from the original, so to speak. If you come out of a copy machine, remembering entering it then everything being black for a while, then coming out, you're not going to know that you're the copy unless you're told that only the copy will have this "blackout" experience. See, this is kind of a basic problem of philosophy trussed up to look like it has something to do with consciousness. If I have a machine that destroys an apple and instantly rebuilds it in its exact same position, etc... is it still the same apple? No one can really answer that, but that's not because apples have some mysterious metaphysical property - it's because the concept of instantaneous physically identical replacement is fuckin weird, no matter what gets copied. Same applies to brains and consciousness and whatever other physical process we want to use. It's not that they have some special property, it's that the scenario itself is ambiguous. Your argument is built on the fact that you've already settled that consciousness is the same as a physical object, like an apple. I disagree. The very fact that a concious mind dies and another "takes its place" means I can't use your simple "whatever other physical process we want to use" argument. each time you fall asleep your conscious mind "dies". At least in a sense that is comparable to if your body was destroyed and then instantly recreated. The question could be posed like this: Lets imagine a world in which every night when youre unconscious, scientists replace your body with an in every structural and functional aspect identical copy. Is that world different from this one as it relates to your consciousness?
I would take it a step further and say the consciousness "dies" continually and it's only the impression of memory upon one's thoughts that gives the illusion of continuity.
|
On July 02 2013 21:26 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 21:21 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 21:14 Zahir wrote:On July 02 2013 20:54 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:33 Yorbon wrote:On July 02 2013 20:15 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:13 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 20:07 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 19:44 Acertos wrote:On July 02 2013 19:13 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
Not to the survivor. You walk into a copy machine, you walk out, the other you is killed. You're the original right? Well, you can't possibly know that since you have the exact same memories. Someone who watched the event will know which is which if there was a time difference etc, but the survivor has no sense of that. It doesnt work like this. If the machine copies you, you will still have the same consciousness, you will still be the same but the machine will make a copy of you so there are now 2 identical people. If it's you who gets to die, you, your own consciousness really die and your copy survive. It doesnt change much for other people because they will have the exact copy of you but you will still die which is a pity btw. This is what I have said all topic. It has nothing to do with the post you quoted. Every copy will be identical to the original, and thus believe they are the original. Yes, if you are the original and are killed, you die and cease to exist. That doesn't stop the copy from thinking it's the original. why would the copy have the notion of 'original'?. does original = self? A person walks into a copying machine. Two people come out. Both people remember being the one entering the copying machine, and they can't tell if they are the one who entered the machine, or the copy. Simple as that. Assuming both people are conscious all the time (well, let's say they're 'generating' memory), arent created at the same place and speak out their memories truthfully, one can always distinguish the copy from the original. In the memory of the copy there should be a supposedly impossible change of locations. Unless of course you assume that the copy is somehow pulled out of the original, but i cant really imagine that. Strictly the copy should also have a little bit less memory, because i dont think copying a person can take zero time. Yes, but that means the copy is being told by "a third party" that it's a copy, such as the change of location, or the knowledge that the copy will experience a disconnect while the original will not. There's no way the copy can INTERNALLY distinguish itself from the original, so to speak. If you come out of a copy machine, remembering entering it then everything being black for a while, then coming out, you're not going to know that you're the copy unless you're told that only the copy will have this "blackout" experience. See, this is kind of a basic problem of philosophy trussed up to look like it has something to do with consciousness. If I have a machine that destroys an apple and instantly rebuilds it in its exact same position, etc... is it still the same apple? No one can really answer that, but that's not because apples have some mysterious metaphysical property - it's because the concept of instantaneous physically identical replacement is fuckin weird, no matter what gets copied. Same applies to brains and consciousness and whatever other physical process we want to use. It's not that they have some special property, it's that the scenario itself is ambiguous. Your argument is built on the fact that you've already settled that consciousness is the same as a physical object, like an apple. I disagree. The very fact that a concious mind dies and another "takes its place" means I can't use your simple "whatever other physical process we want to use" argument. each time you fall asleep your conscious mind "dies". At least in a sense that is comparable to if your body was destroyed and then instantly recreated. The question could be posed like this: Lets imagine a world in which every night when youre unconscious, scientists replace your body with an in every structural and functional aspect identical copy. Is that world different from this one as it relates to your consciousness?
It's kind of hilarious how this topic just repeats itself, I was asked this exact question literally 3-4 pages ago.
Is that world different? I don't know. Maybe our consciousness DOES die every night when we sleep and is replaced by a copy. As we already covered, the copy won't know it's a copy since it has the exact same memories as the original. So we can't know if it's different, so how can it matter? It matters for a very simple reason: If we COULD prove this happens every time we go to sleep, I sure as hell wouldn't go to sleep.
|
On July 02 2013 21:29 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 21:21 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 21:14 Zahir wrote:On July 02 2013 20:54 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:33 Yorbon wrote:On July 02 2013 20:15 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:13 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 20:07 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 19:44 Acertos wrote:On July 02 2013 19:13 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
Not to the survivor. You walk into a copy machine, you walk out, the other you is killed. You're the original right? Well, you can't possibly know that since you have the exact same memories. Someone who watched the event will know which is which if there was a time difference etc, but the survivor has no sense of that. It doesnt work like this. If the machine copies you, you will still have the same consciousness, you will still be the same but the machine will make a copy of you so there are now 2 identical people. If it's you who gets to die, you, your own consciousness really die and your copy survive. It doesnt change much for other people because they will have the exact copy of you but you will still die which is a pity btw. This is what I have said all topic. It has nothing to do with the post you quoted. Every copy will be identical to the original, and thus believe they are the original. Yes, if you are the original and are killed, you die and cease to exist. That doesn't stop the copy from thinking it's the original. why would the copy have the notion of 'original'?. does original = self? A person walks into a copying machine. Two people come out. Both people remember being the one entering the copying machine, and they can't tell if they are the one who entered the machine, or the copy. Simple as that. Assuming both people are conscious all the time (well, let's say they're 'generating' memory), arent created at the same place and speak out their memories truthfully, one can always distinguish the copy from the original. In the memory of the copy there should be a supposedly impossible change of locations. Unless of course you assume that the copy is somehow pulled out of the original, but i cant really imagine that. Strictly the copy should also have a little bit less memory, because i dont think copying a person can take zero time. Yes, but that means the copy is being told by "a third party" that it's a copy, such as the change of location, or the knowledge that the copy will experience a disconnect while the original will not. There's no way the copy can INTERNALLY distinguish itself from the original, so to speak. If you come out of a copy machine, remembering entering it then everything being black for a while, then coming out, you're not going to know that you're the copy unless you're told that only the copy will have this "blackout" experience. See, this is kind of a basic problem of philosophy trussed up to look like it has something to do with consciousness. If I have a machine that destroys an apple and instantly rebuilds it in its exact same position, etc... is it still the same apple? No one can really answer that, but that's not because apples have some mysterious metaphysical property - it's because the concept of instantaneous physically identical replacement is fuckin weird, no matter what gets copied. Same applies to brains and consciousness and whatever other physical process we want to use. It's not that they have some special property, it's that the scenario itself is ambiguous. Your argument is built on the fact that you've already settled that consciousness is the same as a physical object, like an apple. I disagree. The very fact that a concious mind dies and another "takes its place" means I can't use your simple "whatever other physical process we want to use" argument. Could you clarify what you think the thought experiment shows about consciousness/the mind having metaphysical properties? From what I understand, the point here is to show that the mind is special because it stays dead even if you make a physically identical copy. What I'm saying is that the same logic applies to any other object. If the original is destroyed, it doesn't magically pop back into existence just because someone made an identical copy of it. The original is gone, period, no matter whether it is a brain or an apple.
I'm not denying this. My focus has been on the IMPORTANCE we put on our consciousness. The original is gone for any object, brain or apple, but the apple doesn't give a shit, the brain does. That's the only difference, but I find it massively important.
|
novatrix Canada. July 02 2013 20:21. Posts 27
Gift TL+ PM Profile Report Quote #
There is some thories about the brain functioning like a quantum computer. Very interesting! + Show Spoiler +
http://www.higgo.com/quantum/qti.htm
Anyone know more about that?
Lol that is verry interesting.
I dont feel compelled to try out the experiment though, and i guess it has no meaning as it will be impossible to go from one universe to the other, it can never be proven or am i missing something?
The explanation about the brains beeing affected by quantum effects makes alot of sense to me, and i do strongly believe that our consiousness comes in one way or the other from quantum effects.
Meh about the copys, i dont think an exact copy would be theoretical possible so for me it has no meaning, but if indeed it would be possible to make exact 100% copys then the copys and observers wont notice a difference i agree, but outside observers will still be able to tell wich is the copy and wich is the original,if they can observe the whole copying process?
|
On July 02 2013 21:33 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 21:29 Zahir wrote:On July 02 2013 21:21 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 21:14 Zahir wrote:On July 02 2013 20:54 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:33 Yorbon wrote:On July 02 2013 20:15 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 20:13 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 20:07 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 19:44 Acertos wrote:
[quote]
It doesnt work like this.
If the machine copies you, you will still have the same consciousness, you will still be the same but the machine will make a copy of you so there are now 2 identical people. If it's you who gets to die, you, your own consciousness really die and your copy survive.
It doesnt change much for other people because they will have the exact copy of you but you will still die which is a pity btw. This is what I have said all topic. It has nothing to do with the post you quoted. Every copy will be identical to the original, and thus believe they are the original. Yes, if you are the original and are killed, you die and cease to exist. That doesn't stop the copy from thinking it's the original. why would the copy have the notion of 'original'?. does original = self? A person walks into a copying machine. Two people come out. Both people remember being the one entering the copying machine, and they can't tell if they are the one who entered the machine, or the copy. Simple as that. Assuming both people are conscious all the time (well, let's say they're 'generating' memory), arent created at the same place and speak out their memories truthfully, one can always distinguish the copy from the original. In the memory of the copy there should be a supposedly impossible change of locations. Unless of course you assume that the copy is somehow pulled out of the original, but i cant really imagine that. Strictly the copy should also have a little bit less memory, because i dont think copying a person can take zero time. Yes, but that means the copy is being told by "a third party" that it's a copy, such as the change of location, or the knowledge that the copy will experience a disconnect while the original will not. There's no way the copy can INTERNALLY distinguish itself from the original, so to speak. If you come out of a copy machine, remembering entering it then everything being black for a while, then coming out, you're not going to know that you're the copy unless you're told that only the copy will have this "blackout" experience. See, this is kind of a basic problem of philosophy trussed up to look like it has something to do with consciousness. If I have a machine that destroys an apple and instantly rebuilds it in its exact same position, etc... is it still the same apple? No one can really answer that, but that's not because apples have some mysterious metaphysical property - it's because the concept of instantaneous physically identical replacement is fuckin weird, no matter what gets copied. Same applies to brains and consciousness and whatever other physical process we want to use. It's not that they have some special property, it's that the scenario itself is ambiguous. Your argument is built on the fact that you've already settled that consciousness is the same as a physical object, like an apple. I disagree. The very fact that a concious mind dies and another "takes its place" means I can't use your simple "whatever other physical process we want to use" argument. Could you clarify what you think the thought experiment shows about consciousness/the mind having metaphysical properties? From what I understand, the point here is to show that the mind is special because it stays dead even if you make a physically identical copy. What I'm saying is that the same logic applies to any other object. If the original is destroyed, it doesn't magically pop back into existence just because someone made an identical copy of it. The original is gone, period, no matter whether it is a brain or an apple. I'm not denying this. My focus has been on the IMPORTANCE we put on our consciousness. The original is gone f one hror any object, brain or apple, but the apple doesn't give a shit, the brain does. That's the only difference, but I find it massively important.
We're in agreement then. Im mostly just trying to make sure everyone here realizes that the 'worlds beyond the physical' alluded to in the OP are basically a load of bunk.
|
On July 02 2013 20:36 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 19:21 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 19:19 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 19:11 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 17:11 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 16:50 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 16:33 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 02:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:32 Cynry wrote:On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
By definition, it does...
[quote]
You just said you have free-will because you have free-will.
[quote] Precisely. Biological emotion that you have absolutely no control over and are entirely incapable of changing. Most people would not call the instinctual urge to run away from a hopeless situation "hope". The hope you have is not something that is meaningful in any true sense of the word.
[quote]I'm saying that the fact that your position is not only biologically untenable, but also carries with it the necessity of "deluding yourself" to be happy is a good indication that the position itself is invalid.
Now please explain how religion is not just another delusion ? Also, one may not control the nature of emotions (anger is anger etc), but a lot can be achieved about what trigger said emotions. Religion could be delusion... sure. So what? There is no evidence to say that it is and some evidence to say that it isn't (though let's not get into that discussion). The whole point of determinism is that nothing whatsoever can be "achieved" about triggers or anything at all. What will occur will occur regardless of any non-existent "action" being taken by "actors" that aren't there. Efforts to avoid/embrace a specific turn of events are themselves predetermined, as is their eventual (and inevitable) efficacy. The face a coin will land on is determined at the moment you flip it, I think anyone can agree on that. Does it make it useless to flip a coin when you want to decide something ? Does it make it less random ? no. It doesn't change anything at all. This can be applied with your entire life or the universe, but it still doesn't change anything. "Determinism" is a kind of information that have no concrete effect. Of course it makes it less random, it isn't random at all. Just because you are incapable to predict if the coin will land heads or tails doesn't mean it's random. If it's determined how the coin will land when you flip it (because of the initial state of the coin, the hand, the force used, the current atmosphere etc), it's not random, there's a pattern to it. You can pretend that it is random, and use the illusion of randomness to make decisions for you, but it's still not random. It doesn't have to have a concrete effect, it's a philosophical concept. Either everything was decided more or less at the moment of big bang, or it wasn't. Either it's predetermined what I will do tommorrow at 3PM, or it isn't. We can't prove it and it's going to happen regardless, so it doesn't have any concrete effect. Then again, most philosophical questions do not. Random is a weird concept that doesn't mean much. I was using it in the sense of pseudo-randomness. Anyway, I was responding to people saying stuff like "Determinism make your life meaningless etc..". I was simply noting that it doesn't matter if you think flipping a coin is determined or not, it is still useful to flip a coin and it shouldn't affect your life whatsoever (ie: you're not losing any "meaning" of your life). The meaning of life is a philosophical question, whether you have a meaningful life or not is subjective and has no concrete effect. Yet it affects people a lot. My point is : You can believe in determinism and still find a meaning of life. Sure, or you can not. You can be a person who just finds it all meaningless if everything is predetermined. Saying "Flipping a coin is just as random" to a person who is of the philosophy that free will is important is just meaningless. Personally, I agree with you. I'm a determinist and I don't think of it as a problem, but a lot of people disagree. How can you be a determinist with all that quantum physics jazz going on. Not saying the world isnt deterministic, but if your main argument is science and then u have quantum physics in which one of the major concepts is "randomness", than it would make me at least raise an eyebrow. And determinism is an awfully depressing view at life if you think about it. I guess it was a rather legitimate way to see life up until quantum physics arrived, but now there is nothing appealing in it for me.
You are assuming quantum phenomena play any role in how brain functions. Of course they play role in our cells and so on, but I meant that they "bubble up" to higher levels of function, that they are not "filtered" out on the lower levels. And nothing actually points to the fact that they play any significant role in that area. The same way as they do not play any significant role in me throwing a rock at something. So while quantum physics introduced non-determinism in the world at large, it does not necessarily change the deterministic nature of many systems. Plus randomness is no way less depressing view of life, isn't it ? How random dice rolls improve the view of life. They give absolutely no additional freedom to your life. It is actually the opposite, in deterministic view you, as in all your experience and character, are at least really the source of all the decisions and actions, although deterministic. In "quantum" random view many of your actions and decisions are just dice rolls. How is it more optimistic ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
