Beam me up, Scotty! [Archive]

Garrett

04-06-2008, 06:37 AM

While lurking about here, several times I've encountered references to my "Beam me up" thread from IIDB. I thought that thread was a lot of fun - there were several folks who claim they would take the bullet. Fascinating. Anyway, here in entirety is the original post.

Scott Aaronson (http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec10.5.html)
Near the beginning of Emperor's New Mind, Penrose brings up one of my all-time favorite thought experiments: the teleportation machine. This is a machine that whisks you around the galaxy at the speed of light, by simply scanning your whole body, encoding all the cellular structures as pure information, and then transmitting the information as radio waves. When the information arrives at its destination, nanobots (of the sort we'll have in a few decades, according to Ray Kurzweil et al.) use the information to reconstitute your physical body down to the smallest detail.

Oh, I forgot to mention: since obviously we don't want two copies of you running around, the original is destroyed by a quick, painless gunshot to the head. So, fellow scientific reductionists: which one of you wants to be the first to travel to Mars this way?

What, you feel squeamish about it? Are you going to tell me you're somehow attached to the particular atoms that currently reside in your brain? As I'm sure you're aware, those atoms are replaced every few weeks anyway. So it can't be the atoms themselves that make you you; it has to be the patterns of information they encode. And as long as the information is safely on its way to Mars, who cares about the original meat hard-drive?

So, soul or bullet: take your pick!

It seems clear to me that consciousness must be more than all that "pure information" - it also in some way requires the continuity of the particular instantiation of that information.

I wouldn't take the bullet, but I don't think that continuity implies a soul.

Kingreaper

04-06-2008, 02:25 PM

I don't see how there's a lack of continuity in the transmitted version. It's the information taken from analysing your brain, then transmitted, so it shared a location with your brain first, then with "the copy"'s brain.

That is, it provides continuity of information between the two brains, the latter isn't just a randomly identical one, it's a future of the original.

I'm not too sure I'd be too happy with the gunshot to the head method, but I suppose if it's actually pretty much instant I might try it. I'd be squeamish, because it's very much against my instincts, but logically I can't see a huge reason not to.

Remember, being squeamish isn't evidence for anything other than that my instincts say the situation is bad. It's nothing logical. I'd be squeamish talking to a giant, intelligent, spider, not because I thought it was dangerous but because I would have an instinctive distaste.

trendkill

04-07-2008, 02:21 AM

LOL, trying to restart this is such a "Garrett" thing to do.

Here's (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=218937) the original "Beam me up, Scotty!" thread for reference. It got over 3700 posts before it was locked. Just so we all know what we're getting into. :P

I was more or less on Garrett's side of it. The bifurcation of an individual, even if you grant that it happens in this case (which I eventually decided it technically does not), leads to consequences that sound logically contradictory because we are so ingrained in the thinking that there can only be one of us. Most relevantly, the consequence that even though you will wake up as if from sleep on Mars, you will also die and never wake up, and thus this method of "travel" is nothing more than suicide (even if it is actually also travel). I felt that people didn't take enough consideration of the latter fact, if they even understood it, which IIRC I don't think some of them did. It's highly counterintuitive.

I also felt that the idea that continuity of information meant continuity of a person implied an anti-materialist ontology, which was another point of offense. Can a materialist be a realist about information? I'm not totally sure one way or the other these days, but I still lean toward "no". And if information isn't a thing, ontologically speaking, then continuity of it can't keep you alive. You need continuity of matter, in a way that maintains your "you"-ness at every step, and the machine in the thought experiment doesn't provide that, because it requires that at some point, you either cease to exist or are made up entirely of information.

Febble

04-07-2008, 02:22 AM

Maybe later....

umop apisdn w,I

04-07-2008, 11:07 AM

Oh no! Not this thread again!

AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaargh!

Preno

04-07-2008, 11:10 AM

AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaargh!qft

Strange Loops

04-07-2008, 04:28 PM

trend: "Most relevantly, the consequence that even though you will wake up as if from sleep on Mars, you will also die and never wake up, and thus this method of "travel" is nothing more than suicide (even if it is actually also travel). I felt that people didn't take enough consideration of the latter fact, if they even understood it, which IIRC I don't think some of them did. It's highly counterintuitive."

Maybe intuition can be pumped in the opposite direction with a Quantum Suicide experiment. If the many worlds interpretation of QM is true, some have speculated that you could set up a Schrodinger's(sp?) Cat Box with yourself inside as the cat. Each time a particle decayed and you were shot in a given universe, in some other universe(s) you'd go on living. In fact, you could keep putting a gun to your head over and over and pulling the trigger. In some universes (most, probably, if they can be enumerated and compared like that), you die, blood splatters, and your family in that universe is sad the rest their lives. But in other universes, the gun jams, the bullet's a blank, or worse, the shot goes through your head but just doesn't kill you.

Anyway, the point of it is that you can keep putting yourself in a deadly situation and if there is any possible, imaginable way in which you could escape death, you will in *some* universe, so in some universe your consciousness goes on, (continuous with the old one before the split) (or overlapping with the infinity of identical old ones before the divergence in timelines).

Getting back to main topic: yes going in the machine is suicide insofar as a conscious being dies (there would otherwise be two of them running around, and fully conscious, with diverging experiences starting after the transport process). But the conscious being stepping into it also lives on, continuous and conscious, waking up on Mars (this happens regardless of the death or life of the other). So it's a suicide with no consequence, and shouldn't bother us -- if anything *not* killing the original should and does bother our normal feelings.

Who we are changes. We are a process as much as a moving object. The me 25 years ago is very different from the me now -- not really the same *person*. Sees the world through different eyes, interprets experiences in a different framework, has way different memories (even if some partially overlap -- though our memories fade, change and get reconstructed over time, so we probably *don't* have a ton of direct episodic memory overlap). Should I be sad that that person, the younger me, is dead now?No more than humanity should be sad that Australopithicines(sp?) are gone now. Things change, new forms come about, and need not mourn old ones.

I'd take the bullet if I was confident the process works.

tjakey

04-07-2008, 04:37 PM

If the bullet was delayed for a few minutes, there would be one of me on Mars with all of my memories, and one of me on earth with all of my memories. (Does the "me" on Mars get to keep all my physical scares? I'd feel bad if I lost the one over my eye.)

So clearly the "me" on Mars is a different me then the one on earth, and thus when I take the bullet this "me" ends. I think I'll pass.

trendkill

04-07-2008, 04:40 PM

Maybe intuition can be pumped in the opposite direction with a Quantum Suicide experiment. If the many worlds interpretation of QM is true, some have speculated that you could set up a Schrodinger's(sp?) Cat Box with yourself inside as the cat. Each time a particle decayed and you were shot in a given universe, in some other universe(s) you'd go on living. In fact, you could keep putting a gun to your head over and over and pulling the trigger. In some universes (most, probably, if they can be enumerated and compared like that), you die, blood splatters, and your family in that universe is sad the rest their lives. But in other universes, the gun jams, the bullet's a blank, or worse, the shot goes through your head but just doesn't kill you.

Anyway, the point of it is that you can keep putting yourself in a deadly situation and if there is any possible, imaginable way in which you could escape death, you will in *some* universe, so in some universe your consciousness goes on, (continuous with the old one before the split) (or overlapping with the infinity of identical old ones before the divergence in timelines).And how is this supposed to help? I don't see the point.

Quizalufagus

04-08-2008, 01:14 AM

RexT

04-08-2008, 04:48 AM

I've always found this thought experiment is aggravating. The whole experiment is based on faulty premises; there can be no machine (even in theory) that exactly determines one's state due to the uncertainty principle.Ah, but if memory serves, this is where you'll be accused of not participating in the thought experiment. Absolutely you are right of course, but you can't interject the current limitations of physics into this. You either accept for the sake of the experiment the premise exactly as its presented or you place yourself outside the experiment as a nonparticipant.

Quizalufagus

04-08-2008, 07:03 AM

RexT

04-08-2008, 07:49 AM

If that's what people were saying on the original IIDB thread, then that thread must've been even more asinine than I've heard. It's a basic fact about logic that reasoning from faulty premises can be used to show literally anything, so the validity of the premises of the assumptions of a thought experiment are a central concern.Asinine is a good start, but to really describe it you'd actually have to invent a new word : )

Seriously, it was actually fascinating and challenging far beyond what I originally imagined. I pretty much ignored the first several pages because I thought it was, well, stupid. But the more it went on and began to take twists and turns, the more it pulled me into it. It's a real brain cooker though, so I had to periodically take little mini vacations away from it. I actually hope it gets to rolling here.

Ian Nerr

04-08-2008, 10:20 AM

dug_down_deep

04-08-2008, 11:09 AM

I've always found this thought experiment is aggravating. The whole experiment is based on faulty premises; there can be no machine (even in theory) that exactly determines one's state due to the uncertainty principle.Ah, but if memory serves, this is where you'll be accused of not participating in the thought experiment. Absolutely you are right of course, but you can't interject the current limitations of physics into this. You either accept for the sake of the experiment the premise exactly as its presented or you place yourself outside the experiment as a nonparticipant.
Yeah, IIRC, that's right about where I got booted from the discussion. :D

dug_down_deep

04-08-2008, 11:14 AM

That exact scenario is what happens all the time: you are destroyed and replaced with a (slightly different) copy of yourself. What difference does it make where that copy is?

Continuity is an illusion.

ETA:
I woke up one morning and looked around the room. Something wasn't right. I realized that someone had broken in the night before and replaced everything in my apartment with an exact replica. I couldn't believe it...I got my roommate and showed him. I said, "Look at this--everything's been replaced with an exact replica!" He said, "Do I know you?"
Yeah, and there seems to be plenty of evidence from patients with neurological damage/disorders that suggests that continuity can be broken, while reality remains in place. (Great Steven Wright joke. Of course, every Steven Wright joke is a great Steven Wright joke.)

Ian Nerr

04-08-2008, 12:38 PM

When I woke up this morning my girlfriend asked me, "Did you sleep well?" I said, "No, I made a few mistakes."

Linus

04-08-2008, 02:29 PM

I've always found this thought experiment is aggravating. The whole experiment is based on faulty premises; there can be no machine (even in theory) that exactly determines one's state due to the uncertainty principle.
I don't agree with this for the following reasons:

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle means that we cannot simultaneously determine momentum and position (or other pairs of conjugate quantities) to arbitrary position. But quantum mechanics cuts the number of variables needed to exactly specify a state in half, so we do not need to determine both position and momentum. For example, in most cases it is enough to know that a molecule is in its lowest-energy state to be able to (in principle) determine the state exactly.

It is not possible to make an exact copy of a quantum state due to the no-cloning theorem. But how accurate must the copy be in the above thought experiment on teleportation? At the microscopic level, any human body is far from static. The molecules in the parts of our bodies consisting of liquids are in constant motion, while the molecules in the more solid parts are constantly vibrating. Unless humans minds are constantly destroyed and new created as human bodies undergo microscopic changes, a teleported copy needn't be an exact copy.

trendkill

04-08-2008, 03:27 PM

Indeed, some people in the thread were saying that they didn't see any reason to require an exact copy. Anyway, the "validity of the premises" is different from the soundness of the premises. It seems like the latter is what the complaining is about. This sort of objection seems to miss the point of the thought experiment, which is not to bring us to conclusions in the field of physics, but instead to provide a framework for exploring matters of logic relating to personal identity.

Linus

04-08-2008, 03:38 PM

Ah, trendkill said (in post #19) what I would have said, had I been more articulate.

yautja_cetanu

04-08-2008, 10:07 PM

There is an interesting film called the Prestige but if you don't want the film spoilt don't highlight the text below:

The film has one magician using a machine that makes copies of himself whilst the rest of him is drowned. He never knows if he will be the one in the water or not... definitely watching that film makes me think I'd be squeamish

Wordy

04-08-2008, 10:48 PM

I fail to sort out my feelings on that old very long thread?

Typically of me it confirmed my most pessimistic view on human failure to be rational and logical.

But it could be just me projecting my own lack of skill in being rational.

What was most embarrassing was that I ended up in wrong camp.

I am a materialist/physicalist and most or all of those was in one camp and me supported the wrong camp. Very surprising cause it either tells me have no clue on what it is to be a physicalist.

I fighted fruitlessly trying to make people aware of that it all was a very mean spirited practical joke with a very tragic result. Materialists making a fool of them selves accepting to be killed for an illusion of being able to travel to Mars.

In the end me had to give up and the October schism in IIDB made it troubling to participate too. I joined a boycott so no way to be able to be there but I also ran out of imagination on how to tackle it.

Typical of me is also that that thread confirmed how utterly bad philosophy is. Only make strife and bad feelings among humans. Almost as bad as instutionalized religion and party line politics and ideologized therapeuptic schools on how to help people.

Kingreaper

04-09-2008, 05:50 PM

I was more or less on Garrett's side of it. The bifurcation of an individual, even if you grant that it happens in this case (which I eventually decided it technically does not), leads to consequences that sound logically contradictory because we are so ingrained in the thinking that there can only be one of us. Most relevantly, the consequence that even though you will wake up as if from sleep on Mars, you will also die and never wake up, and thus this method of "travel" is nothing more than suicide (even if it is actually also travel).
Umm, no. It's not "nothing more than suicide" if it is also anything else.

Something is only "nothing more than" if it is nothing more than, and travel is something more; especially if you arrive alive

I also felt that the idea that continuity of information meant continuity of a person implied an anti-materialist ontology, which was another point of offense. Can a materialist be a realist about information? I'm not totally sure one way or the other these days, but I still lean toward "no". And if information isn't a thing, ontologically speaking, then continuity of it can't keep you alive. Remove continuity of information, but leave continuity of matter: Instant death as your body becomes randomly arranged particles and your brain ceases to be.

The information (ie. the arrangement and patterning) is clearly relevant.

You need continuity of matter, in a way that maintains your "you"-ness at every step, and the machine in the thought experiment doesn't provide that, because it requires that at some point, you either cease to exist or are made up entirely of information.Made entirely of information is a misnomer. All information has a substrate, otherwise it couldn't exist in a purely physical world like ours. Hence, you must be transmitted in a form that encodes the information. Thus, at every point, you physically exist, it's just that you spend some time existing as encoded light, not self-interacting, before going back to existing as arranged matter.

trendkill

04-09-2008, 07:13 PM

I was more or less on Garrett's side of it. The bifurcation of an individual, even if you grant that it happens in this case (which I eventually decided it technically does not), leads to consequences that sound logically contradictory because we are so ingrained in the thinking that there can only be one of us. Most relevantly, the consequence that even though you will wake up as if from sleep on Mars, you will also die and never wake up, and thus this method of "travel" is nothing more than suicide (even if it is actually also travel).
Umm, no. It's not "nothing more than suicide" if it is also anything else.

Something is only "nothing more than" if it is nothing more than, and travel is something more; especially if you arrive aliveThis is what your intuition tells you...but it's false. Because you're still thinking of yourself here as one person who has to be either alive or dead. But you're not. You're two people, and for one of those people, it is death and nothing more. And that person is every bit as much you as the person who lives (if not moreso).

Remove continuity of information, but leave continuity of matter: Instant death as your body becomes randomly arranged particles and your brain ceases to be.

The information (ie. the arrangement and patterning) is clearly relevant.No shit. But that doesn't mean the matter isn't relevant. In order for this to be travel, you need the matter to be irrelevant. It's not.

Made entirely of information is a misnomer. All information has a substrate, otherwise it couldn't exist in a purely physical world like ours.I agree, which is why it's not travel. The substrate isn't you, it's a lifeless machine. The transmission of information is not the transmission of you. Therefore, you are not transmitted. Therefore, it's not travel.

In order for it to be travel, it has to be you materially at every point (i.e. the machine has to be you, etc.), or you have to be purely made up of information. Those are your options, there's no way around. Some of the people in the other thread who wanted it to be travel realized this, but they didn't give up, and the result was that they sort of ended up claiming that anyone who bore enough of a resemblance to you would be you, regardless of how that other person came into existence, in order to avoid this issue. It was a bit too bizarre for me.

Wordy

04-09-2008, 07:19 PM

You die on Earth and the thing on Mars is a copy thinking it is you. Maybe they program it to forget it is the copy and they could have a taboo to ever discuss it too.

I guess protesters on Earth will sue the company for killing people.

You will never experience Mars only the copy will but initially or as long the programming doesn't break the copy will think it is you.

Garrett

04-10-2008, 12:58 PM

Quizalufagus
I've always found this thought experiment is aggravating. The whole experiment is based on faulty premises; there can be no machine (even in theory) that exactly determines one's state due to the uncertainty principle.
That the experiment is impossible is irrelevant. Einstein rode a light wave, and we can MagicScan.

In terms of premises and conclusions, the question is whether, given the premises, one's conclusions are valid.

It's a basic fact about logic that reasoning from faulty premises can be used to show literally anything, so the validity of the premises of the assumptions of a thought experiment are a central concern.
Give a cite please about that basic fact.

If you travelled back in time to pre-Proterozoic Earth, could you breath the atmosphere? That's a thought experiment, and I don't see why you could "show literally anything" by imagining the impossible experiment of travelling back in time to breath the air, or why the insight gained by the experiment should be devalued in any way.

If we make a perfect copy of you, would you be the copy? I have lots of reasons for thinking the answer is "of course not".

Garrett

04-10-2008, 01:12 PM

Garrett

04-10-2008, 01:17 PM

the thought experiment

t0: You decide to go to Mars using the new MagicScan Teleport Technology.

t1: You enter the special transmitter chamber.

t2: The MagicScan passively copies and records all the information contained in your body.

t3: The recorded information is transmitted to Mars via radio signal.

t4: On Mars, a nanotech device builds a person using the received information.

t5: Signal sent to Earth confirming the successful construction.

t6: The person on Earth is shot to death.
______

I figure that after t6 I would be dead. Why should I think otherwise?

dug_down_deep

04-10-2008, 01:40 PM

Garrett

04-10-2008, 02:11 PM

dug_down_deep
Which "I" is asking? It seems to me you beg the question.
What difference do you see between the pronoun I used (and just used again) and that pronoun in quotes?

What question did I beg?

You are not the "I" that will exist in the future,
I am the person who will exist in the future. If you want to argue in the experiment I will be two people in the future, then do so.

or else you are both of the "I"s that will exist in the future.
So you think that after t4 I would be on Mars? Since I would still be on Earth, you are saying that I would be two numerically distinct people at the same time. Right?

Those are the only two options that do not beg the question.
Either I would be two people at once or I beg the question? False dichotomy, I bet.

dug_down_deep

04-10-2008, 02:36 PM

dug_down_deep
Which "I" is asking? It seems to me you beg the question.
What difference do you see between the pronoun I used (and just used again) and that pronoun in quotes?
I put the word in quotes only because I am referring to your use of it, not because I am referring to the word itself. If I left off the quotes I would be making a grammatical error. If you wish, I can use the term 'person' instead.

What question did I beg?
OK, you're not really begging the question...yet. ;) You're just stating your opinion. I apologize for misspeaking. But my intent in saying that was not to challenge any argument you've made, just to give an understanding of the pitfalls I see in the problem.

You are not the "I" that will exist in the future,
I am the person who will exist in the future. If you want to argue in the experiment I will be two people in the future, then do so.

or else you are both of the "I"s that will exist in the future.
So you think that after t4 I would be on Mars? Since I would still be on Earth, you are saying that I would be two numerically distinct people at the same time. Right?
Or neither. I see no reason to assume that the term 'I' refers to something that is temporally continuous, or that it refers to something that cannot divide and consist of two new forms of itself. Those are the two options I see that I find equally valid.

Then there is the common-sense option, that I will be dead, and dead only. In this case I see no reason to accept that option.

Those are the only two options that do not beg the question.
Either I would be two people at once or I beg the question? False dichotomy, I bet.
It would be a false dichotomy if I meant accept my argument or be fallacious. But that's not what I meant. I meant that so far I see three options:
1) I am dead and dead only.
2) I am dead and alive.
3) A person is not a temporally continuous object.

I like 2 the best, but I think that 3 is valid. 1 doesn't make sense to me, but it seems like common sense, because in the real world we tend to think of ourselves as unitary objects that travel through time. Which works just fine as a coarse model of reality, but would no longer work fine if we were able to do what the thought experiment puts forward as a condition.

Wordy

04-10-2008, 03:27 PM

I trust this thought experiment to be a rigged trap!
It is rigged to trap materialist physicalists to look like fools cause
they brag they will travel to Mars but everybody being smart enough
knows they will end up dead.

The only way to make the travel alive to Mars is to claim that the rigger
of the trap mistook what he set up to do. Which would be a surprise.

as I got it which is a shaky thing cause me is not bright or smart but
the rigger wanted to say something about identity. His book had that
title. Was it person and identity?

He was very fascinated by buddhist views in no-self and such and
had experiences of doing such meditation and he had had personal
experiences that made him decide on the matter.

He had philosophy as his profession. He wrote a book in two volumes.

As some of you know. I don't trust philosophy at all and I am very skeptical to if us humans at all are rational. We sure have a certain capacity to make rational choices when we are lucky enough to not be too biased by our feelings but my experiences tells me that most of the time it is our conscious or non-conscious or both feelings that rule us to a high degree.

And this thread show that to the full in my opinion. You only have to read from post one and onwards and it is very easy to see. :)

BWE

04-10-2008, 06:36 PM

Remember, being squeamish isn't evidence for anything other than that my instincts say the situation is bad. It's nothing logical. I'd be squeamish talking to a giant, intelligent, spider, not because I thought it was dangerous but because I would have an instinctive distaste.
That seems logical to me. Because it might be dangerous.

Garrett

04-10-2008, 10:31 PM

dug_down_deep
I put the word in quotes only because I am referring to your use of it, not because I am referring to the word itself. If I left off the quotes I would be making a grammatical error. If you wish, I can use the term 'person' instead.
Works for me. But then you question seems rhetorical.

OK, you're not really begging the question...yet. You're just stating your opinion. I apologize for misspeaking. But my intent in saying that was not to challenge any argument you've made, just to give an understanding of the pitfalls I see in the problem.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. Its a fact that I'm a person, and it has to be considered a fact that if you shoot me dead, then I would be dead.

Can a dead person on Earth also be a living person on Mars? That's an extraordinary claim, isn't it?

Or neither. I see no reason to assume that the term 'I' refers to something that is temporally continuous,
Then forget the op experiment. You see no reason to think a person is temporally continuous? I think at a minimum you are guilty of extreme hyperbole. Try telling the IRS that you aren't temporally continuous.

or that it refers to something that cannot divide and consist of two new forms of itself.
Cells divide routinely. Mothers give birth routinely. How does that help you? In the former case, if "it" refers to the original cell, after mitosis it no longer exists - it changed into two new cells. In the latter case, if "it" refers to the mother, after birth it is still a temporally continuous person. Anyway, the person at t1 will not undergo any sort of mitosis or birthing - in essence all that happens is that we take a fancy photograph of that person.

But none of that matters now - if you think continuity is an illusion, then we need a new thread. This thread is for people who pay their own taxes. :)

Then there is the common-sense option, that I will be dead, and dead only. In this case I see no reason to accept that option.
You see no reason to think that if you are shot dead then you would be dead? Again, at the least, you are guilty of extreme hyperbole.

I meant that so far I see three options:
1) I am dead and dead only.
2) I am dead and alive.
3) A person is not a temporally continuous object.
The third is absurd and doesn't deserve any attention. The second sounds like religious belief. There is plenty of evidence for the first, and no evidence contradicts it.

I like 2 the best,
Then produce an argument for it, so I can show you all the many flaws in that line of thinking.

but I think that 3 is valid.
A person is a living human. It is unreasonable to assert that living humans are not temporally continuous. You are expressing an extremely unscientific and unrealistic view. Take it to another thread please.

1 doesn't make sense to me, but it seems like common sense, because in the real world we tend to think of ourselves as unitary objects that travel through time. Which works just fine as a coarse model of reality, but would no longer work fine if we were able to do what the thought experiment puts forward as a condition.
Nonsense. We can already clone organisms. What is so profoundly different in the op experiment?

You seem to be arguing that organisms aren't temporally continuous, therefore a perfect copy of you would be you. Your premise is false, and even if we accept it for argument, your conclusion doesn't follow.

But in all seriousness, your premise is ridiculus. Its a scientific fact that organisms are temporally continuous.

Garrett

04-10-2008, 10:33 PM

Kingreaper
Remember, being squeamish isn't evidence for anything other than that my instincts say the situation is bad. It's nothing logical.
About that point: the question isn't whether you find it distastful to blow your head off. The question is whether you can produce an argument showing that you can travel to Mars by killing yourself on Earth.

Garrett

04-10-2008, 10:41 PM

Wordy
I trust this thought experiment to be a rigged trap!
It is rigged to trap materialist physicalists to look like fools cause
they brag they will travel to Mars but everybody being smart enough
knows they will end up dead.
Actually, the "trap" doesn't snare materialists or physicalists in general - neither materialism nor physicalism entails that in the experiment the person on Earth would somehow arrive on Mars.

The trap snares eliminativists, I think - those who think subjective experience doesn't exist. I guess it also snares people who think continuity is an illusion, a philosophical view for which I have no name.

And it isn't a trap - it's a thought experiment. If people stumble on a street curb, that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy - it means they were clumsy. :rolleyes:

Ian Nerr

04-10-2008, 11:17 PM

Garrett

04-10-2008, 11:39 PM

trendkill
LOL, trying to restart this is such a "Garrett" thing to do.
Is that a bad thing? My first thread ("quantum butterfly") currently has more posts and more views than any other thread on the philosophy board. "Scotty" set records on the IIDB philosophy board. Is raising interesting and controversial issues the "'Garrett' thing to do" you refer to? Seriously - what was the point of your comment?

Garrett

04-10-2008, 11:59 PM

Ian Nerr
Why do you say that? It's based on science.
No it isn't. For example, the Earth has changed over time. Science doesn't claim that the Earth was destroyed and replaced! There haven't been gazillions of Earths over time - there has been one Earth undergoing change. All you are doing is reasserting your absurd assertion, and pretending it represents scientific thought.

more non-sequiturs
*yawn*
A reasonable person would provide argument when they claim "more non-sequiturs".

Even the standard definitions recognize the contextual difference between destruction and change.

Btw, people who yawn for argument are always full of shit.

Ian Nerr

04-11-2008, 12:59 AM

Quizalufagus

04-11-2008, 02:35 AM

Calm down, folks. No need to turn a productive discussion into a fight.

trendkill

04-11-2008, 05:21 AM

trendkill
LOL, trying to restart this is such a "Garrett" thing to do.
Is that a bad thing?Depends on how it turns out. :P

trendkill

04-11-2008, 05:26 AM

Ian Nerr
That exact scenario is what happens all the time: you are destroyed and replaced with a (slightly different) copy of yourself. What difference does it make where that copy is?
That's a very unscientific view.

Continuity is an illusion.
Without continuity, there would be no reason to give you the paycheck you earned for the work you did. There would be no reason for the food you eat to give you nutrition. Etc.Correction, there would be no reason to give you the paycheck for the work someone else did, and it wouldn't serve your own interests to eat because someone else would get the nutrition from it.

Can a dead person on Earth also be a living person on Mars? That's an extraordinary claim, isn't it?
This is where I differed from Garrett in the original thread; I thought that it was logically possible for a dead person to be also living on Mars, I just didn't think it could happen through information transmission.

Garrett

04-11-2008, 06:02 AM

Ian Nerr
The Earth now is not identical to the Earth a few seconds ago.
It changed.

thesaurus (answers.com)

1. Being one and not another or others; not different in nature or identity: identic, same, selfsame, very. See same/different/compare.

Particles don't have any identity.
Sure they do. Otherwise we couldn't identify them. Check the definitions.

Garrett

04-11-2008, 06:08 AM

trendkill

04-11-2008, 08:04 AM

trendkill
Correction, there would be no reason to give you the paycheck for the work someone else did, and it wouldn't serve your own interests to eat because someone else would get the nutrition from it.
With continuity there would be no reason to give you the paycheck for the work someone else did.Well, that's true also. :P But with continuity, there wasn't anyone else with your name and social security number when the work was done.

Without continuity there would be no reason to give you the paycheck for the work you did.Without continuity, it wasn't you who did the work. By the time the paycheck is issued, the person who did the work no longer exists. So you'd be getting paid for someone else's work no matter what. Without continuity the person getting paid has never done any work, ever, because he just started existing one Planck interval ago. So if that person is you, you are getting paid for the work of someone else who just happened to look like you.

I thought that it was logically possible for a dead person to be also living on Mars, I just didn't think it could happen through information transmission.
So let's see the logic showing how a dead person on Earth at the same time be a living person on Mars.I think we did this to death in the other thread. If a person can split into two, and there is continuity in identity over time, then there can be two separate people with the same identity, and one can live while the other dies.

RexT

04-11-2008, 10:29 AM

Without continuity, it wasn't you who did the work. By the time the paycheck is issued, the person who did the work no longer exists. So you'd be getting paid for someone else's work no matter what. Without continuity the person getting paid has never done any work, ever, because he just started existing one Planck interval ago. So if that person is you, you are getting paid for the work of someone else who just happened to look like you.A person doesn't exist within a single Planck interval. A person exists over time or not at all. To be a person for example, one must think. A thought doesn't exist within one Planck interval because it takes time for a thought to exist. No thought is so small it could exist within a single Planck interval.

So what is continuance over time but a person. Interrupt that continuance in any way and there is no person. That could include unconsciousness as an interruption of continuance. Or it could include a trip to Mars via radio signals. The person who awakens in either case is a different person. Once awake though, the person is that which reconnects with its memories. Whatever memories are encountered will determine the person. If for some strange reason I awoke one day and encountered your memories, I would be you. So if the person on mars awakens with my memories, he will be me.

I think you probably agree.

dug_down_deep

04-11-2008, 12:59 PM

Then produce an argument for it, so I can show you all the many flaws in that line of thinking.
OK. I will try to argue for both options 2 and 3. I am alive and dead. Or a person is not a temporally continuous object.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. Its a fact that I'm a person, and it has to be considered a fact that if you shoot me dead, then I would be dead.

Can a dead person on Earth also be a living person on Mars? That's an extraordinary claim, isn't it?

You see no reason to think that if you are shot dead then you would be dead? Again, at the least, you are guilty of extreme hyperbole.
It is a fact because you know that is how the universe works. This is known a posteriori, as a result of the observed rules of this universe.

This universe is not the universe that the OP assumes, as Quiz pointed out. There can be no exact duplication of a person, and an inexact copy would not be the original person. Therefore in this universe you would not be the copy on Mars and you would be dead and dead only on Earth.

But if the OP is taken on its own terms, then you are dead on Earth and alive on Mars. This is known a priori based only on the logic that follows from the terms of the thought experiment.

Then forget the op experiment. You see no reason to think a person is temporally continuous? I think at a minimum you are guilty of extreme hyperbole. Try telling the IRS that you aren't temporally continuous.

Cells divide routinely. Mothers give birth routinely. How does that help you? In the former case, if "it" refers to the original cell, after mitosis it no longer exists - it changed into two new cells. In the latter case, if "it" refers to the mother, after birth it is still a temporally continuous person. Anyway, the person at t1 will not undergo any sort of mitosis or birthing - in essence all that happens is that we take a fancy photograph of that person.

But none of that matters now - if you think continuity is an illusion, then we need a new thread. This thread is for people who pay their own taxes. :)

A person is a living human. It is unreasonable to assert that living humans are not temporally continuous. You are expressing an extremely unscientific and unrealistic view. Take it to another thread please.

You seem to be arguing that organisms aren't temporally continuous, therefore a perfect copy of you would be you. Your premise is false, and even if we accept it for argument, your conclusion doesn't follow.

But in all seriousness, your premise is ridiculus. Its a scientific fact that organisms are temporally continuous.
My argument for option 3 is weaker, of course, since I accept the known universe as a precondition, and what you say is what is known to be true, as common sense.

So I would counter it with what I think Preno said, that the sense that a person is temporally continuous, though wildly popular, is an illusion, whether observed in one's self, or in another organism. And that division deserves a divided treatment.

For my self, I will put on my physicalist hat (which is to say that I will talk about the physical organism). It's clear, even in this universe, that events involving death of the individual destroy continuity. Imagine that I am tied to horses and split in two. Which piece is me? I can extend this, then, to be a valid skepticism aimed at the pre-torn organism as well. Which part of me is me? Am I my brain, my feet, or my breath? No indivisible unity is detected within the organism object.

But when I am talking about me, I am generally talking about the sense of me, not the organism. (That is why this experiment is even coherent.) And I cannot claim that mental objects are real physical objects, else I would believe that the chocolate sundae I am now imagining is a real chocolate sundae.

When I talk about you, of course I am referring to the organism, the physical object. In which case the former paragraph applies.

The third is absurd and doesn't deserve any attention. The second sounds like religious belief. There is plenty of evidence for the first, and no evidence contradicts it.
Religious belief? No. The experiment establishes a fantasy world, and I am adopting the logic of that imaginary world. In this real universe, you are dead, and there is no exact copy on Mars.

Nonsense. We can already clone organisms. What is so profoundly different in the op experiment?
The experiment assumes an exact copy. Such a copy is impossible, for the reasons Quiz mentioned, just to start with.

Wordy

04-11-2008, 01:15 PM

RexT I both agree and do not agree I guess.

I agree that "person doesn't exist". Person is becoming and such takes time. Exist is a tricky word. I fail to use it in consistent ways.

Somebody get a stroke. When they woke up from the stroke and their spouse get interviewed they say things like. Well he look the same but he doesn't act the same and he doesn't feel the same. We lost our Dad and the person I loved. It is a stranger by my side. I still love the person that was there before that stroke but there is another person now within that body and I fail to connect to that person cause that is not the person I married. He is alien to me even though he look identical.

sometimes a person don't have to get struck by a stroke. One only have to know they cheated and the interpretation of who that person is change enough to breach all trust one had in what one saw as them.

A person is an interpretation in that way. A kind of construct. The person themselves do such interpretation too all the I felt such change in me around 1980. I had no way to go back to the pre 1980 persona within me. A "wet-ware firewall" made that person in-accessable to me. I could remember what it felt like to be that person and part of me longed for to be that carelessly happy and totally self-centered but the new me felt very embarrassed me had been so utterly moron for over twenty years. Most likely to protect me from losing all hope in my future. and the illusion did work to a degree. I was in a kind of lived dream. a self delusion of grandeur. Now after 1980 melt down of that persona I realize how false that belief was. I was a loser not somebody grand.

But emotinally I am the same wordy in how I am short tempered and how the food taste and how it feels to be me bodily. How my body react to temperature and wind and Sun and snow and rain and touch and how my body feels when I try to dance and such.

I'm identical in that way. The Motor Circuits and the Sense Organs and such. I sing on tune marginally better now than at ten years old. 50 years of trying to improve has been fruitless. Very few get what melody I try to ape after. False tones comes out of me.

I am identical bodywise. Fall as easily on snowy or icy ground. Each Winter I fall at least two times. Ribcase is dented all over due to all bruises apart from that I am identical.

But hormones have changed. I was very very short tempered some 40 years ago and still some 20 years ago but less so now though still too short tempered formy own good.

So hormone levels has changed.

Bodily feelings are bad at being rational but my gut feeling tells me there no way for me to survive a shot in the head so I would not enter the magical machine. It would only transfer the idea and memory of being me. The one on Mars would be somebody claiming to feel like being Wordy but it would not be me looking out through those eyes.
that experience ends when taking the bullet on Earth.

Wordy

04-11-2008, 01:25 PM

The experiment establishes a fantasy world, and I am adopting the logic of that imaginary world.
D_D_D that is why it is a rigged trap as I numerous times have tried to point out.

Thought experiments are only working within the constraints of a thought construct. One need to do physical experiments to confirm or false them.

That is why they do the collision things in CERN and why we still have no good solution to alternative energy sources. One need to go from fantasy to fact.

Philosophical experiments in that way looks more like faith than evidential facts.

what it feels like to be me is dependent on many factors, physical body is part of it but how people around me makes comment could trigger feelings that over ride the physical measurements of my body. Those struck by anorexia seems to have trouble assessing how fat or thin they are. They at times see beauty in being very skinny and see ugliness in what others see as normal cute chubbiness. So interpretation is vital too.

Garrett

04-11-2008, 01:38 PM

Ian Nerr

04-11-2008, 06:18 PM

Particles don't have any identity.
Sure they do. Otherwise we couldn't identify them. Check the definitions.

Ok. How do I tell one electron from another then?

Ian Nerr

04-11-2008, 06:55 PM

Here's what I mean when I say continuity is an illusion. Even though I consider myself the same person as a small child long ago, I'm clearly different from that child. The person I am now is a different configuration of mostly different atoms. There isn't anything permanent to point to as being identitical. I have memories from those times, but even those are somewhat different. I'm not denying a causal connection between that child and me. I am denying that they (we) are identitical. Paychecks have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Think of an animation of a bird flying. Each frame has an image of a bird. Each image is a little different from the one before. Are they the same bird? Are they the same image?

If I save $20 on a camera that's on discount and then pay my phone bill and buy a sandwich, did the money I saved go toward the phone bill or the sandwich? I was going to pay for both anyway. Does that kind of question even mean anything?

An electron absorbs a photon and then emits a photon of the same wavelength in a different direction. Did the first photon get absorbed and cease to exist, replaced by a new one or did the same photon get deflected? Does this kind of question even make sense?

I don't want to argue about the semantics of identity and sameness. That's not relevant to my point.

Of course I understand that language and most of our normal thinking is based on the idea of objects and people persisting and I'm not denying the value of that way of thinking. What I'm getting at is the physics behind it, at least the way I see it.

Sometimes I have difficulty explaining my views on things because they are so far from our intuitions. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm sorry for getting defensive.

The best way to describe my views is probably The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch and Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett.

dug_down_deep

04-11-2008, 07:14 PM

D_D_D that is why it is a rigged trap as I numerous times have tried to point out.
You're probably correct. It is usually the aim of the philosopher to support their own view. But it is possible to construct a thought experiment and not intentionally build the outcome into the beginning conditions. Do I have an example? No.

Thought experiments are only working within the constraints of a thought construct. One need to do physical experiments to confirm or false them.

That is why they do the collision things in CERN and why we still have no good solution to alternative energy sources. One need to go from fantasy to fact.
Well, CERN is gathering empirical evidence, so I'm not sure why you say that.

Philosophical experiments in that way looks more like faith than evidential facts.
I don't know. How do you tell the difference between philosophical experiments and mathematical problems? Does string theory look like faith also?

Just a thought. I don't really want to get into the legitimacy of philosophy debate in this thread.

Wordy

04-11-2008, 07:45 PM

Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett.

I liked that book a lot. I've read him since 1980 or so.

I don't buy every word he writes but he is among those I find interesting.

The words we use are so conceptual and metaphoric. We use them to
communicate. They barely work as communication. misunderstand abounds.

Here is another view on continuity.

My Mother had a stroke or bleeding in her brain.

Same body, same personality, same feelings, same concern for her Hubby and children and friends, her love was the same as before, her expressions in her face seeing me again after the illness, her embrace the same or even more warmhearted.

But she was not the same intellectually. She even failed to discern between yes and no. She had no intellectual way of communicating. She could only one word.

Ouffa. She tried to tell things using different prosid... in using Ouffa. Accentuating it in different tones and rhythms. Ouffa could mean yes or no or give me my coat or help me up or I am tired I want to sleep and numerous other things.

I asked her many times during the ten years she lived after the illness how she heard her self. Are you aware of that you use Ouffa and that that is the only word you say. Tears from her eyes maybe indicated she was aware of it but could do nothing about it.

It was impossible to find out what really was going on within her. She was the same but very different. But it was easier to love her cause even if her personality was same she had no words for her wishes. she could only show it through emotions. And that was much easier to take for me as her beloved son. So I lost her intellectually but met her emotionally for the first time in some 20 years of trying to get free from her intellectual influences. Her demand that I would get wife and kids. Maybe she still had that wish but during those ten years she lived after the illness she had no way of tell it intellectually so it was easy to show love for her when we met. The first time me could give her a heart felt hug instead of feeling she demanding one and me reluctant faked or feigned it but not felt for to give it.

So was she the same. Yes and no. Same but different.

Wordy

04-11-2008, 07:49 PM

Just a thought. I don't really want to get into the legitimacy of philosophy debate in this thread.

That is the kind of Moderation I like and accept. Yes me plug that to often and eagerly.
Tell Raven and the others behind the curtains that it could work much better doing it that way. Thanks for trusting me to get the mild rep.

Garrett

04-11-2008, 09:59 PM

THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS
dug_down_deep
This universe is not the universe that the OP assumes, as Quiz pointed out.
And I rebutted that claim.

The experiment establishes a fantasy world,
No it doesn't. That's a cop-out, equivalent to saying that since Einstein can't really ride along on a beam of light therefore his insights are based on a "fantasy world".

Thought experiments are a legitimate tool in science and philosophy. See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment) and SEP (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/).

But if the OP is taken on its own terms, then you are dead on Earth and alive on Mars. This is known a priori based only on the logic that follows from the terms of the thought experiment.
If you think that the experiment results in you being alive on Mars, it's your burden to make an argument! All you're doing is asserting your conclusion.

Therefore in this universe you would not be the copy on Mars and you would be dead and dead only on Earth.
You said the thought experiment involves a "fantasy world", yet you just did the experiment in this universe. And you said the experiment results in your being alive on Mars, yet you just did the experiment and concluded you would not be alive on Mars.
_____

IDENTICAL COPIES
There can be no exact duplication of a person, and an inexact copy would not be the original person.
But it isn't physically impossible for two objects to be identical.

A person changes over time yet is still that particular person. And a copy is never the original.

The experiment assumes an exact copy. Such a copy is impossible, for the reasons Quiz mentioned, just to start with.
But it is not physically impossible for two organisms to have identical form and structure.
_____

CONTINUITY
My argument for option 3 is weaker, of course, since I accept the known universe as a precondition, and what you say is what is known to be true, as common sense.
So I would counter it with what I think Preno said, that the sense that a person is temporally continuous, though wildly popular, is an illusion, whether observed in one's self, or in another organism. And that division deserves a divided treatment.
But now you invent a fantasy world, one which doesn't cohere with our actual universe. If an organism isn't temporally continuous, then how do you explain away the fact that we manage to identify it?

And why do you limit the lack of temporal continuity to organisms? Are you implying that non-living things are temporally continuous?
_____

A PERSON IS A TYPE OF ORGANISM
For my self, I will put on my physicalist hat (which is to say that I will talk about the physical organism).
Yes.

It's clear, even in this universe, that events involving death of the individual destroy continuity. Imagine that I am tied to horses and split in two. Which piece is me?
If you die, then neither. If you live, then the piece which still produces your subjective experience.

Btw, you just agreed that organisms are temporally continuous.

I can extend this, then, to be a valid skepticism aimed at the pre-torn organism as well.
My answer extends to the pre-torn organism as well.

Which part of me is me? Am I my brain, my feet, or my breath? No indivisible unity is detected within the organism object.
You commit the fallacy of division. You are the living organism!
_____

SENSE OF IDENTITY
But when I am talking about me, I am generally talking about the sense of me, not the organism.
But every conscious organism has a "sense of me". It seems that all you are saying is that the person on Mars would be conscious. That's a given!

I am not my sense of identity. If I wake up thinking I'm Napolean, I'm still my mama's child, and never am I the historical Napolean's mama's child. Same if some disease wipes out my sense of identity - even if I don't know who I am, I'm still who I was. Think of your "sense of me" as an appendage. You are not your "sense of me" - you are the organism which experiences that "sense of me".

And I cannot claim that mental objects are real physical objects, else I would believe that the chocolate sundae I am now imagining is a real chocolate sundae.
I don't know your definition for "real". Mental events actually occur, though, so they can't just be dismissed. Your imagined sundae isn't an actual sundae - but it is something, unless you claim mental events don't occur.

Mental objects are not actual physical objects - they are actual mental objects!

A person's sense of identity is a mental object associated with a particular living human.

Garrett

04-11-2008, 10:06 PM

Garrett

04-11-2008, 10:51 PM

Ian Nerr
I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm sorry for getting defensive.
Me too, and I appreciate your saying so. I apologize.

Here's what I mean when I say continuity is an illusion. Even though I consider myself the same person as a small child long ago, I'm clearly different from that child. The person I am now is a different configuration of mostly different atoms. There isn't anything permanent to point to as being identical.
Agreed. Think of the time-line which describes the person as he grows from that child. There's the continuity!

Think of an animation of a bird flying. Each frame has an image of a bird. Each image is a little different from the one before. Are they the same bird? Are they the same image?
The word "same" can refer to something which is numerically identical to itself, or instead to something which is not numerically identical but is qualitatively identical. Essentially, "same" can be meant to refer to a single instance over time, or instead to separate instances which share certain characteristics.

answers.com
same
1. Being the very one; identical: the same boat we rented before.
2. Similar in kind, quality, quantity, or degree.

To answer your questions: yes they are the same bird, no they are not the same image (using def.1).

If I save $20 on a camera that's on discount and then pay my phone bill and buy a sandwich, did the money I saved go toward the phone bill or the sandwich? I was going to pay for both anyway. Does that kind of question even mean anything?
I don't see that as relevant. The "discount" is arbitrary - you spent what you spent. You didn't actually "save" any money - that's a capitalist trick. :)

An electron absorbs a photon and then emits a photon of the same wavelength in a different direction. Did the first photon get absorbed and cease to exist, replaced by a new one or did the same photon get deflected? Does this kind of question even make sense?
That does seem relevant. The time-line for the first photon ended when it was absorbed - it no longer existed as a photon. It was absorbed, and a new photon was emitted. I believe that kind of question makes sense.

I don't want to argue about the semantics of identity and sameness. That's not relevant to my point.
I sympathize - but in order to clarify your intended point, dealing with the semantics is a necessary evil, so to speak. I think it helps to read the Wikipedia article on identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_%28philosophy%29).

Of course I understand that language and most of our normal thinking is based on the idea of objects and people persisting and I'm not denying the value of that way of thinking. What I'm getting at is the physics behind it, at least the way I see it.
Your point still isn't clear to me, nor how it applies to the op. All I can do is go back to my point that science depends on the fact that things "persist". We can track time-lines - sometimes it gets fuzzy and difficult, but that doesn't mean things don't really persist.

The best way to describe my views is probably The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch and Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett.
I haven't read the first. About the second: Dennett gives a lot of useful information in that book, but he is eliminative about subjective experience. Of course we actually do have subjective experiences, and so his conclusions are all suspect.

Quizalufagus

04-11-2008, 11:13 PM

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle means that we cannot simultaneously determine momentum and position (or other pairs of conjugate quantities) to arbitrary position. But quantum mechanics cuts the number of variables needed to exactly specify a state in half, so we do not need to determine both position and momentum. For example, in most cases it is enough to know that a molecule is in its lowest-energy state to be able to (in principle) determine the state exactly.

This is a bit misleading. QM doesn't cut the number of variables needed to specify a state in half so much as it tells that we can only specify half the variables. The remaining quantities are free within a range of values.

It is not possible to make an exact copy of a quantum state due to the no-cloning theorem. But how accurate must the copy be in the above thought experiment on teleportation? At the microscopic level, any human body is far from static. The molecules in the parts of our bodies consisting of liquids are in constant motion, while the molecules in the more solid parts are constantly vibrating. Unless humans minds are constantly destroyed and new created as human bodies undergo microscopic changes, a teleported copy needn't be an exact copy.

I think this depends a lot on whether quantum events have a large scale impact on brain states. As far as I know, this question is unanswered.

Indeed, some people in the thread were saying that they didn't see any reason to require an exact copy. Anyway, the "validity of the premises" is different from the soundness of the premises. It seems like the latter is what the complaining is about. This sort of objection seems to miss the point of the thought experiment, which is not to bring us to conclusions in the field of physics, but instead to provide a framework for exploring matters of logic relating to personal identity.

Technically speaking I'm complaining about the falsity of the premises (or, alternatively, the soundness of the argument). In any case, I don't see how anything meaningful can be said about personal identity by appealing to a thought experiment that can't happen.

That the experiment is impossible is irrelevant. Einstein rode a light wave, and we can MagicScan.

In terms of premises and conclusions, the question is whether, given the premises, one's conclusions are valid.

Validity isn't really what we're after--or at least it shouldn't be what we're after. We want to know what's true about identity rather than what's conditionally true about identity.

Give a cite please about that basic fact.

See, for example, the section on the deductive calculus in Herbert Enderton's A Mathematical Introduction to Logic or any other book on classical symbolic logic that covers the deductive calculus. The result is trivially apparent from any such treatment.

If we make a perfect copy of you, would you be the copy? I have lots of reasons for thinking the answer is "of course not".

What do you mean when you refer to me? The answer to that question effectively answers the question about a copy of me.

Garrett

04-11-2008, 11:49 PM

Quizalufagus
I don't see how anything meaningful can be said about personal identity by appealing to a thought experiment that can't happen.
Check out the two links in post 57.

Would you have told Einstein that since he can't really ride along on a beam of light, therefore you can't see how anything meaningful can said by appealing to his thought experiment?

Validity isn't really what we're after--or at least it shouldn't be what we're after. We want to know what's true about identity rather than what's conditionally true about identity.
The MagicScan is just a tool to bring about a certain situation. That situation is not logically or physically impossible - by examining that situation, we can gain insight into the nature of identity. At the least, it helps expose unexamined presuppositions.

See, for example, the section on the deductive calculus in Herbert Enderton's A Mathematical Introduction to Logic or any other book on classical symbolic logic that covers the deductive calculus. The result is trivially apparent from any such treatment.
Something accessible on-line. Give me a link so I can see what you were talking about. You called it a "basic fact" about logic, didn't you?

What do you mean when you refer to me? The answer to that question effectively answers the question about a copy of me.
I mean the person I'm speaking to, and I agree the answer follows - of course you aren't other people, even if those people are perfect copies of you.

What do you mean when you refer to me, and what answer follows?

Quizalufagus

04-12-2008, 12:13 AM

Check out the two links in post 57.

Would you have told Einstein that since he can't really ride along on a beam of light, therefore you can't see how anything meaningful can said by appealing to his thought experiment?

The pertinent part of Einstein's thought experiment wasn't really about riding on a beam of light, though--the important aspect of the idea is what happens in differing frames of reference. The fanciful part of the thought experiment is just a facade which makes the ideas more palatable or more easily understood. They aren't used to derive anything we're supposed to accept as a fact.

Something accessible on-line. Give me a link so I can see what you were talking about. You called it a "basic fact" about logic, didn't you?

Try Ask Dr. Math (http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55617.html), or, for something slightly more technical, try section 3 of Logic (http://www.math.niu.edu/~richard/Math302/chapter2.pdf).

I mean the person I'm speaking to, and I agree the answer follows - of course you aren't other people, even if those people are perfect copies of you.

What do you mean when you refer to me, and what answer follows?

I'm not sure "the person I am speaking to" is any more descriptive than the original phrasing. What does my personhood consist of? Am I my molecules? Am I myself by virtue with continuity with a previous state? Am I something more abstract? I don't think there's a correct answer to any of these questions--they depend on the particular context in which I is used. In some sense I would be preserved by a teleportation machine and in another sense I wouldn't be.

Ian Nerr

04-12-2008, 05:16 AM

Ian Nerr
Ok. How do I tell one electron from another then?
By counting and tracking. Each electron is numerically distinct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_%28philosophy%29). Each has a spatial location distinct from all the others.

You're wrong on both counts here. They are not distinct and they do not have distinct spatial locations.

trendkill

04-12-2008, 06:19 AM

trendkill
Well, that's true also. :P But with continuity, there wasn't anyone else with your name and social security number when the work was done.
Yes. So it makes no sense to claim that continuity is an illusion.

Without continuity, it wasn't you who did the work.
See above.

Without continuity the person getting paid has never done any work, ever,
See above.

If a person can split into two, and there is continuity in identity over time, then there can be two separate people with the same identity, and one can live while the other dies.
But if a person underwent such an event, the identity of that person would end, and the two "daughter" people would each have their own identities. Just like cell mitosis. Track their timelines!They would have their own identities in one obvious sense, but in another sense, they would share an identity, even when separate. This second sense is not trivial. They have the same exact relationships and life experience up to the point they bifurcate; they have the same point of origin; they can both equally look back at the time before their separation as having been their own, singular life. From the point of view of this person before he bifurcates, he will in the future be both alive and dead at the same time.

The AntiChris

04-12-2008, 07:49 AM

Quizalufagus

I'm having difficulty following your reasoning.

You appear to imply that this:

there can be no machine (even in theory) that exactly determines one's state due to the uncertainty principle.

entails this:...a thought experiment that can't happen.It may well be true that it can't happene quite as described but it doesn't follow that an identical replica of a previously existing person cannot exist. It seems to me that the existence of perfect replica doesn't present any logical contradictions and so I don't see how the claim that it "can't happen" is justified.
We want to know what's true about identity rather than what's conditionally true about identity.I'm not sure what it means to talk about "what's true" about identity in the context of thought experiments (other than wanting to know what we intuitively believe to be true).

My understanding of this particular thought experiment is that it's intended to draw out our intuitions about the presented scenario. Unless we have reason to believe that the practical feasibility of any proposed teleportation machine has any bearing on our intuitions regarding preplicated humans then, it's an irrelevance.

My view is that the practical feasibility of the proposed teleportion machine in the OP has no bearing whatsoever on our intuitions (our intuitions would be no different if such a machine were possible even in theory) so I don't think your objection to the thought experiment is justified.

Chris

Quizalufagus

04-12-2008, 08:33 AM

It may well be true that it can't happene quite as described but it doesn't follow that an identical replica of a previously existing person cannot exist. It seems to me that the existence of perfect replica doesn't present any logical contradictions and so I don't see how the claim that it "can't happen" is justified.

Putting aside the teleportation stuff for a moment, it seems to me that if the uncertainty principle holds then there's an inherent problem with the notion of an 'exact copy'. What does it mean for a copy to be exact if the state of a thing is partly probabilistic? Does it mean that deterministic states of the copy and the original are initially the same, and that the wave functions of the copy will collapse in exactly the same manner as the original? Clearly not--the differing surroundings of the copy and the original will cause their respective states to collapse in different ways. We might try to find our way out of this problem by saying that the copy is exact if it has the same initial deterministic state as the original and its states will collapse in exactly the same manner as would the states of the original if it were in the same surroundings.

However, that doesn't seems to capture what we mean by an exact copy either. First of all, the latter notion presumes that the probabilistic states of an object would not differ unless the surroundings were changed--i.e., it contradicts the definition of probabilistic. Secondly, it doesn't even seem clear to speak in terms of such hypotheticals.

Granted that we may decide to weaken our idea of 'exact' to neglect the probabilistic characteristics of the copy and the original. This is a reasonable way of approaching the problem, but I think that it relies on the assumption that subatomic, probabalistic events in an individual's body don't have broad repercussions. As it stands we have no idea what sort of influence the quantum world has on us; we have no idea how important probabilistic, quantum events are in shaping the activity of the brain. Hence neglecting probabilistic events may lead us to regard two rather different sorts of people as exactly the same, apparently obviating the usefulness of the notion.

Given all that, what do you mean by 'exact copy'?

I'm not sure what it means to talk about "what's true" about identity in the context of thought experiments (other than wanting to know what we intuitively believe to be true).

My understanding of this particular thought experiment is that it's intended to draw out our intuitions about the presented scenario. Unless we have reason to believe that the practical feasibility of any proposed teleportation machine has any bearing on our intuitions regarding preplicated humans then, it's an irrelevance.

My view is that the practical feasibility of the proposed teleportion machine in the OP has no bearing whatsoever on our intuitions (our intuitions would be no different if such a machine were possible even in theory) so I don't think your objection to the thought experiment is justified.

I doubt that the sole purpose of the teleportation thought experiment is to clarify intuition. AFAICT the thought experiment is also aimed at attacking our intuition regarding identity.

Wordy

04-12-2008, 08:54 AM

AFAICT the thought experiment is also aimed at attacking our intuition regarding identity.

It tries to tell that our intuitive sense of identity is an illusion and that insight is supposed to make us feel free and even released from our fear of dying?

Most likely by giving the impression we are at one with all that exists. That we are a way that existence expresses itself individually and that when we stop being Wordy we go back to be the One existing something. Nirvana or Nothing.

I have obviously no clue but the experiment challenge the sense of being a continues identity?

The experiment maybe makes the claim that what exists is the ever changing moment of awareness.

RexT

04-12-2008, 09:39 AM

It tries to tell that our intuitive sense of identity is an illusion and that insight is supposed to make us feel free and even released from our fear of dying?I thought that's what being a Christian or other religious person was supposed to make us feel. You know, we're not humans, that's just an illusion; we're eternal spirits that go to heaven.

Most likely by giving the impression we are at one with all that exists. That we are a way that existence expresses itself individually and that when we stop being Wordy we go back to be the One existing something. Nirvana or Nothing.I thought that is what Eastern philosophy was supposed to make us believe.

I have obviously no clue but the experiment challenge the sense of being a continues identity?It does do that.

The experiment maybe makes the claim that what exists is the ever changing moment of awareness. Well, for us, that IS all that exists. You are quite a profound thinker Wordy.

The AntiChris

04-12-2008, 11:34 AM

Given all that, what do you mean by 'exact copy'?I mean that a copy has the same physical composition (qualitatively, not necessarily quantitatively - i.e. carbon atoms must be replaced with carbon atoms - they don't necessarily have to be the same atoms) and the same architectural structure as the original.

I still don't see any reason to believe the notion of an exact replica is logically incoherent.
I doubt that the sole purpose of the teleportation thought experiment is to clarify intuition. AFAICT the thought experiment is also aimed at attacking our intuition regarding identity.Sorry, I'd assumed it was quite evident that I was talking about intuitions about personal identity. My error.

In any event you have yet to show why or how our intuitions regarding personal identity are influenced by the actual theoretical possibility or otherwise of perfect human replication. If it makes no difference to our intuitions, aren't arguments about the actual viability of replication irrelevant?

Chris

Febble

04-12-2008, 11:43 AM

The AntiChris

04-12-2008, 11:46 AM

Hi, Chris! (I'm just lurking on this one)Hi! I don't blame you. ;)

Chris

Wordy

04-12-2008, 12:38 PM

You are quite a profound thinker Wordy.

Not so! Heheh.

I thought aloud trying to remember what Derek Parfit was supposed to tell by his two volume book about identity and the experiment that the OP retell is a variation of his Teleportation challenge to tell physicalists that they are doing illusions or delusions and it is definitively a Buddhist trap set up by Parfit but could have been distorted by Penrose et al. so no Christian thing there.

The only wordy there is my total failure to give Parfit a fair rendering.

Quizalufagus

04-12-2008, 04:21 PM

I mean that a copy has the same physical composition (qualitatively, not necessarily quantitatively - i.e. carbon atoms must be replaced with carbon atoms - they don't necessarily have to be the same atoms) and the same architectural structure as the original.

I still don't see any reason to believe the notion of an exact replica is logically incoherent.

I never argued that exact copies were logically incoherent. Exact copies are merely inconsistent with the laws of physics without additional clarification of what we mean by exact.

Your definition doesn't address all the issues I raised.

Sorry, I'd assumed it was quite evident that I was talking about intuitions about personal identity. My error.

In any event you have yet to show why or how our intuitions regarding personal identity are influenced by the actual theoretical possibility or otherwise of perfect human replication. If it makes no difference to our intuitions, aren't arguments about the actual viability of replication irrelevant?

Why would I need to demonstrate that someone's intuitions are actually influenced by this experiment? I'm only claiming that it's aimed at attacking our intuition, not that it's effective in this aim.

Garrett

04-12-2008, 04:51 PM

Garrett

04-12-2008, 05:13 PM

trendkill
They would have their own identities in one obvious sense, but in another sense, they would share an identity, even when separate. This second sense is not trivial. They have the same exact relationships and life experience up to the point they bifurcate; they have the same point of origin; they can both equally look back at the time before their separation as having been their own, singular life. From the point of view of this person before he bifurcates, he will in the future be both alive and dead at the same time.
Here we're talking about a different experiment, one where the original person actually bifurcates, similar to cell mitosis. I've already given my opinion about how to analyze it: the time-line of the original ends, and two new time-lines begin.

If we imagine a person physically splitting into two people, and send one to Earth and one to Mars, and if you were the pre-split person, there are several possibilities:

1. You cease to exist and will never see Earth or Mars.
2. You will see Earth only.
3. You will see Mars only.
4. You will see both Earth and Mars.

2 and 3 imply that your consciousness continues in one offspring and not the other. 4 implies mental telepathy of some sort.

I know you want to say that from the POV of the pre-split person, option 4 occurs but without the mental telepathy. That doesn't work for me - either I would see Earth, or I would see Mars, or I would see both at once. I see no difference between your version of 4 and the first option - I would be dead, and two new people each see their own environment.

But for the sake of argument I'll assume here that you're right - if a person actually bifurcates into two people then perhaps from the POV of the original person he will become both of the new people without mental telepathy being implied.

Notice however that in the op experiment, no such bifurcation occurs. So even if you're right, that doesn't support the view that in the op experiment the original person would be both on Earth and on Mars.

The AntiChris

04-12-2008, 06:52 PM

I never argued that exact copies were logically incoherent. Exact copies are merely inconsistent with the laws of physics without additional clarification of what we mean by exact.

Your definition doesn't address all the issues I raised.
Then I'm having a problem seeing what point you're making.

I'll take your word for it that "Exact copies are merely inconsistent with the laws of physics" but what I don't see is how that invalidates the usefulness of the thought experiment.
Why would I need to demonstrate that someone's intuitions are actually influenced by this experiment? Not by the experiment but by the theoretical possibility of exact replication.

I'll try to explain. You appear to agree with me that the thought experiment is designed to elicit our intuitions regarding personal identity. Now the only reason I can see for objecting to the hypothesised human replicas in the thought experiment is if by allowing them, our natural intuitions cannot be trusted. The only way I can make sense of this is if you believe that our intuitions about person identity rely, or are based in some way, on the "fact" that exact replicas are "inconsistent with the laws of physics". If this is not what you're saying then I don't see what problem you have with the intuitions evoked by the OP. :dunno:

Chris

Ian Nerr

04-12-2008, 08:23 PM

Ian Nerr
You're wrong on both counts here. They are not distinct and they do not have distinct spatial locations.
They are sub-atomic particles with mass. They are distinct and they do have distinct spatial locations. Scientists can isolate individual electrons and study the way they interact with other electrons or with other types of particles in particle accelerators. They even can control the spin of individual electrons.

I'm wondering why you deny but offer no argumentation at all.

Identicality and the uncertainty principle are fundamental to Quantum Mechanics. I don't know why you are saying my views are unscientific when they come from scientists and you are unfamiliar with the basics of the most successful theory in physics.

Garrett

04-12-2008, 11:26 PM

Ian Nerr

04-12-2008, 11:48 PM

Ian Nerr
Identicality and the uncertainty principle are fundamental to Quantum Mechanics.
So?

I don't know why you are saying my views are unscientific when they come from scientists
I said your claim that "continuity is an illusion" is unscientific, because every science discipline depends on the continuity of things.

you are unfamiliar with the basics of the most successful theory in physics.
You keep making assertions with no argument or reasoning. You keep jumping to unjustified conclusions. And you are retreating to ad homs again.

You've given nothing in support of your assertion that continuity doesn't really exist. Try this: give a link explaining what you mean by "identicality". Explain how "identicality" shows that objects such as rocks and organisms are not temporally continuous.

I already told you what I meant about continuity. I don't want to argue word definitions here. If you want to give a concise and precise definition of what you mean by continuity, I might revise my statements.

Statement: You are unfamiliar with quantum mechanics.
Evidence: You claim electrons have unique identities and occupy discrete positions. These claims are in direct contradiction with quantum mechanics.

Show me where I am making assertions with no argument or reasoning. Show me how my conclusions are unjustified. Show me where I used an ad hominem argument. Show me where I said rocks and organisms are not temporally continuous. Why should I provide a link for an argument I am not making?

As far as I know, continuity only exists in mathematics.

Quizalufagus

04-12-2008, 11:58 PM

Are distance and time elapsed continuous quantities?

Ian Nerr

04-13-2008, 01:51 AM

They seem to be quantized, but it's not certain.

Quizalufagus

04-13-2008, 02:22 AM

Evidence?

Garrett

04-13-2008, 03:01 AM

Ian Nerr
I already told you what I meant about continuity.
You tried, and I addressed every point, and you completely ignored my response.

Apparently you think that although a child grows into an adult, there is no continuity because the child is not identical to the adult.

I don't want to argue word definitions here.
I understand. There is no definition for "continuity" which supports your claim that continuity is an illusion, so you don't want to argue about definitions.

If you want to give a concise and precise definition of what you mean by continuity, I might revise my statements.
answers.com
continuity
1. The state or quality of being continuous.

continuous
1. Uninterrupted in time, sequence, substance, or extent. See synonyms at continual.

Statement: You are unfamiliar with quantum mechanics.
Evidence: You claim electrons have unique identities and occupy discrete positions. These claims are in direct contradiction with quantum mechanics.
Rebuttal based on post 74.

Do you deny that electrons have mass?
Do you deny that scientists can isolate individual electrons and study the way they interact with other electrons or with other types of particles in particle accelerators?
Do you deny that scientists can control the spin of individual electrons?

QM tells me that electrons are subatomic particles.

Show me where I am making assertions with no argument or reasoning.
For example, you assert that QM contradicts my claims, but offer no argument or reasoning, and offer no links explaining what you mean. For another example you will soon claim that continuity exists only in mathematics, again with no argument or reasoning and again with no links which might explain what you mean.

Only one of your posts (53) made any attempt to explain what you mean, and you completely ignored the response!

Show me how my conclusions are unjustified.
To elevate your assertions to the status of "conclusions", really we need some argument. Your nearest attempt, in post 53, makes a fatal error - you apparently think a thing is continuous only if it never changes. That's a view with nothing to support it - no definitions, no argument, no reasoning. And of course no links.

Show me where I used an ad hominem argument.
There should be a principle: folks who tend to insult their opposition will also tend to claim they are unaware of doing so.

Even if my IQ is very low, and I never went to school, and I live in a cave, that doesn't make my claims wrong and it doesn't make your claims correct. Asserting that your opponent doesn't understand something isn't an argument for your view. Especially when you haven't been giving any arguments at all!

Btw, no one understands quantum physics. You don't, for example.

Show me where I said rocks and organisms are not temporally continuous.
Post 14. Where you claimed continuity is an illusion.

Where you also claimed that people are routinely destroyed and replaced. :rolleyes:

Why should I provide a link for an argument I am not making?
Do you retract your claim that continuity is an illusion? If not, its time to make an actual argument or provide actual reasoning, and for crying out loud give actual links showing actual attempts to actually explain what you actually mean!

As far as I know, continuity only exists in mathematics.
Which happens btw to be the language of physics.

Have you bothered to check the actual definitions yet? That might extend and widen the scope of your vision. ;)

Ian Nerr

04-13-2008, 03:52 AM

All electrons are identical.

You aren't going to get very far by arguing against arguments no one is making.

Ian Nerr

04-13-2008, 03:57 AM

Am I the Big Bang? I have continuity with it.

Garrett

04-13-2008, 04:08 AM

Garrett

04-13-2008, 04:14 AM

Garrett

04-13-2008, 04:27 AM

Ian Nerr
Am I the Big Bang? I have continuity with it.
You tell me. Did you exist at the big bang?

Watch him ignore that question!

Garrett

04-13-2008, 04:27 AM

Shotgun post, because I'm right.

Ian Nerr

04-13-2008, 04:28 AM

Ian Nerr
All electrons are identical.
Yes they are. And still there are at least three distinct differences bethween individual electrons!

You aren't going to get very far by arguing against arguments no one is making.
So you retract your claim that continuity is an illusion.

I told you what I meant. Maybe "persistence" is a better word. In any case it's irrelevant. I was never claiming what you are arguing against. I don't want to argue whether something is the same but different or just different. That's a question of how we label things which is not relevant. If something is not the same it's not the same thing.

For the sake of this pointless argument, yes I retract your interpretation of my claim.

Am I the Big Bang? I have continuity with it.
?Try actually explaining what you mean. You did not begin until you were created. Did you exist at the big bang? Or instead did your existence begin at some arbitrary point following your conception?

I was never created.

Anyway, my point is that my physical continuity goes back unbroken to the big bang.

This is really about identity here. It all depends on where you draw the lines.

I'm getting the impression that you just like to argue and are looking to pick a fight. I'm not interested.

Garrett

04-13-2008, 04:29 AM

Sorry, Lizzie, but no bifurcation occurs in the op experiment. :(

Ian Nerr

04-13-2008, 04:30 AM

Ian Nerr
Am I the Big Bang? I have continuity with it.
You tell me. Did you exist at the big bang?

This is easy: No.

Watch him ignore that question!

:rolleyes:

Ian Nerr

04-13-2008, 04:32 AM

Ian Nerr

04-13-2008, 04:38 AM

And that's how it goes. The people claiming they would be on Mars don't make any rational sense when they try to explain how they could be alive on Mars when they are dead on Earth. Now we see them reduced to implying they are the big bang itself. :rolleyes:

If you make an exact copy there are two. When you kill the one on earth, you have one alive on mars (or wherever) and one dead on earth.

What's difficult about that?

Garrett

04-13-2008, 04:40 AM

Ian Nerr
I was never claiming what you are arguing against.
So what do you think I'm arguing against?

Watch him ignore that question!

I don't want to argue whether something is the same but different or just different. That's a question of how we label things which is not relevant. If something is not the same it's not the same thing.

So you insist that if something changes over time then there is no continuity. Right?

For the sake of this pointless argument, yes I retract your interpretation of my claim.

:confused::

I'm not responsible for your failure to support your view.

I was never created.
Omfg. Do you exist? Then you were created. Unless you claim to have existed since before our universe was created. GMAFB.

This is really about identity here. It all depends on where you draw the lines.
If you want to claim that in the op experiment you would arrive on Mars, then we're still waiting for a rational explanation.

I'm getting the impression that you just like to argue and are looking to pick a fight. I'm not interested.
Then limp away. To be consistent, call me names first.

Garrett

04-13-2008, 04:45 AM

Garrett

04-13-2008, 04:51 AM

If you make an exact copy there are two. When you kill the one on earth, you have one alive on mars (or wherever) and one dead on earth.
Yes. And if you were the one on earth, then you would be dead.

What's difficult about that?
Exactly.

Garrett

04-13-2008, 04:56 AM

Watch him ignore that question!

Btw asking that question often changes the outcome.

Quizalufagus

04-13-2008, 05:00 AM

To apply the adjective created to something asserts more than that the something came into being. To say x was created asserts not only that x came into being, but also that x was caused to come into being and that, moreover, x would not have come into being if the situation had been left to natural processes.

ETA: I don't think you understand the point Ian is trying to make, Garrett. As I read this discussion he's trying to point out that the semantics of this debate (i.e., the semantics of identity and continuity in particular) are highly non-trivial. I think that's a reasonable position to hold.

Ian Nerr

04-13-2008, 05:35 AM

Ian Nerr
I was never claiming what you are arguing against.
So what do you think I'm arguing against?

Watch him ignore that question!

I don't care. It's not my responsibility to figure out your strawmen.

I don't want to argue whether something is the same but different or just different. That's a question of how we label things which is not relevant. If something is not the same it's not the same thing.

So you insist that if something changes over time then there is no continuity. Right?

:confused::

No. How many times do I have to tell you that's not what I meant? Get over it already.

I'm not responsible for your failure to support your view.

Omfg. Do you exist? Then you were created. Unless you claim to have existed since before our universe was created. GMAFB.

Are you arguing that if something exists, it was created? Please explain your logic. I have never seen any evidence that anything has ever been created.

This is really about identity here. It all depends on where you draw the lines.
If you want to claim that in the op experiment you would arrive on Mars, then we're still waiting for a rational explanation.

Ok. There's a guy on Mars who looks like me, has my fingerprints, etc., has my memories including stepping into your machine. You are going to tell that guy he's not who he thinks he is?

He's as much me as the person I was 3 seconds ago is me. I don't even understand how you can deny that.

I'm getting the impression that you just like to argue and are looking to pick a fight. I'm not interested.
Then limp away. To be consistent, call me names first.

I haven't called you any names yet. Grow up.

RexT

04-13-2008, 05:43 AM

Well, to be fair, as it is known that none of us are theists, we can interpret the meaning of "created" to simply mean "come to exist" in this particular circumstance. So I would hope we not get sidetracked on semantics. But if you like, we were created when our parents copulated and conceived us. At any rate, me, meaning this person, had a beginning, and will also have an end.

This experiment requires that we rethink the meaning of both identity and self. What qualifies as a thing, its identity, and if that thing is conscious, what does the self refer to? The self is on the one hand a thing, the physical body, and one the other hand is something more than just the body. That is the dualist version. But if we take a purely monist, materialist approach, the self is only this body. And since this body can only be in one place at a time, it cannot both be alive on Mars and dead on Earth.

So one has to confront the notion of self before one can say any more. Or so I think.

RexT

04-13-2008, 06:00 AM

Hi folks, I know from experience that this is one tough thought experiment for everyone involved in it. This is just a friendly reminder to try and use restraint in posting comments about the debaters.

Thanks

Ian Nerr

04-13-2008, 06:03 AM

Ian Nerr
This is easy: No.
I'm glad. So you admit you didn't exist at the big bang,

I was never created.
So you didn't exist at the big bang, and you never came into existence since then. So it follows that you don't exist.

Well, a more positive affirmation of eliminativism about subjective experience is hard to manufacture. Your view, apparently, is that people don't really have subjective experiences.

:dunno:

You don't even need to come to a message board to do this. You can do this kind of shadowboxing at home. Just write down nonsense in a notebook and refute it (or mock it).

http://constanttrek.typepad.com/photos/picardie/strawman.JPG

Garrett

04-13-2008, 03:26 PM

Ian Nerr
I don't care. It's not my responsibility to figure out your strawmen.
Evasion. I'm arguing against your claims.

No. How many times do I have to tell you that's not what I meant? Get over it already.
But you never told me that. So, when you said that continuity is an illusion, and that there is no continuity when a child grows into an adult because the child and adult are not identical, what did you mean?

Are you arguing that if something exists, it was created? Please explain your logic. I have never seen any evidence that anything has ever been created.
You aren't making sense. Check a dictionary!

Ok. There's a guy on Mars who looks like me, has my fingerprints, etc., has my memories including stepping into your machine. You are going to tell that guy he's not who he thinks he is?
If I think I'm the historical Napolean, does that mean I am the historical Napolean? The person on Mars has a copy of your memories. Since you would still be on Earth, what reason is there to think you are on Mars?

He's as much me as the person I was 3 seconds ago is me. I don't even understand how you can deny that.
The person you were 3 seconds ago was you. You messed up the tense.

If you stub your toe would you feel it? If the person on Mars stubs his toe would you feel it?

I haven't called you any names yet. Grow up.
Yes you did. You just did it again. :rolleyes:

You don't even need to come to a message board to do this.
Great picture btw. But all I did was draw implications from your own statements - that isn't a strawman. I complained about your habit of making claims with no attempt to argue or reason, and now you don't even bother to make unargued and unreasoned claims - you just imply your assertion! If you think the implication I drew was invalid, explain why! You're just waving your hands.