Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GreatWyrmGold]

Sounds like we should let Sean explain what he meant to all of us.

[Empiricist]

Agreed.

[kisame12794]

Uhhhh, Sean, Cog was entirely biological. Really, the only robots he's made are Thrak, Lukas and Renen.

[Parisbre56]

Uhhhh, Sean, Cog was entirely biological. Really, the only robots he's made are Thrak, Lukas and Renen.

And the arbiters, I think. Or at least was somehow related to their brains.

Oh and a soul, unless provided by some absolute, infinite, supernatural entity that is always right (what one may call God) is in no way different than a mind or body. It's just data. Information. It's just stored elsewhere.

[syvarris]

@Sean Mirrsen
1)Oh, good point.  I guess my answer switches to
"Presumably conciousness is tied to the physical position of all your brain cells and their interaction, you could prove that they have a stream of conciousness since whenever via recording the exact position and state of every cell for every instant since whenever.

Not that you could actually do that."

2)Okay.  I've a rebuttal to you, but it would hurt my argument with GWG.  I'll tell you after if you actually care, or now if you want a PM.


@GWG

Point to where you've given an explanation as to what makes the changes a clone experiences different from the ones the "real" person experiences.

I never did.  I said that the original's death was the final thing that happened to the original.  It ended.  There's a copy that's identical, but the original ended.

Not Grate's clones in specific, clones in general.

Umm... That was talking about clones in general?  It's outright incorrect if used in reference to Grate...

When did I say that?

Ever hear of Last Tuesdayism? Short version, you have no way of knowing that there was a time before the now. It's an interesting philosophical concept. From such a perspective, it isn't hard to see why the concept of "an unbroken chain of consciousness" is kinda silly. How can you ever know if you are, say, the "real" Kriellya or a perfect clone thereof? (Assume that this is possible in your world.)
Any time that someone cannot ever prove that they are "real" is kinda silly and should be avoided.

Hah, my bad, I got it backwards.  You were using it to disprove Kri.

Welp, I'll use it against you instead.  How does your argument not fall into the same trap?  If we only use data we can get from this point on forwards, all we have are memories of the past.  By that definition, you are the same person as any person you can remember being, but none that you have forgotten.  So, the me that ate breakfast three weeks ago is not the me now, but the me from three years ago when I signed up on B12 is the same me, cause I remember that.

Kinda makes sense in a completely deterministic way.  But it's complete gibberish in just about every other method of thinking.  Plus, what's it mean if my memories get corrupted?  I know some of my memories are outright fabrications.  Is fictional memory me more me than the original uncorrupted memory?

That's not a strawman. It's a distillation of your points.
And if you disagree with my interpretation, would you mind providing your own interpretation of your arguments?

I write this out once a post don't I?

The state of the original matters more than the copy.  The copy's experiences are irrelevant, because it's a copy the moment that it exists.  The fact the original already died (or still exists) defines it as a copy.  Not the copy having different experiences.

No. First, your experiences from the early years still influence you. Second...identity isn't a point, it's a line. A line that gets fuzzy towards the beginning, but a line nonetheless. It's a line that changes, largely based on what came before. If you tried to take any one point in the line and call it "you," you would be missing the reason and essence of why you are you.

Hmmm...  You only have proof of one point- the one that is in the current instant, so...

Ever hear of Last Tuesdayism? Short version, you have no way of knowing that there was a time before the now. It's an interesting philosophical concept. From such a perspective, it isn't hard to see why the concept of "an unbroken chain of consciousness" is kinda silly. How can you ever know if you are, say, the "real" Kriellya or a perfect clone thereof? (Assume that this is possible in your world.)
Any time that someone cannot ever prove that they are "real" is kinda silly and should be avoided.

Give me a moment.  The irony is beautiful.
...
Anyways, that's what I've been saying this whole time!  "You" requires a line that can be drawn from your beginning of your life to the end.  I'm happy to see we're coming to an understanding~!

First off, being "your father" has nothing to do with identity and everything to do with biology. Being "your dad" has to do with you, not him. You being "his son" is what matters to him--and if he doesn't remember you as his son, well...to him, you aren't. It's a bit harsh to say you aren't, and not quite right since there's a bunch of other people involved in that, but...yeah, you get my point.
Secondly, it depends. My mother says that some people with Alzheimers "revert" to an earlier stage in their life, forgetting what came before. In this case, they simply moved to a different point on their identity. In the case of other kinds of brain damage where someone becomes someone completely unlike anything he's ever been? I'd say that that could change you to not be you, yes. You'd be a different person by the same name.

Aww, I had hoped you'd fall to the father thing.  Oh well.

Pretty much we agree here.  I had hoped you would just deny it because I implied the opposite, and I would have had you.  Oh well.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Oh and a soul, unless provided by some absolute, infinite, supernatural entity that is always right (what one may call God) is in no way different than a mind or body. It's just data. Information. It's just stored elsewhere.

Eh. Souls can be whatever you want and you'll be as right as anyone else.

1)Oh, good point.  I guess my answer switches to
"Presumably conciousness is tied to the physical position of all your brain cells and their interaction, you could prove that they have a stream of conciousness since whenever via recording the exact position and state of every cell for every instant since whenever.
Not that you could actually do that."

But if you had a perfect clone, wouldn't they also indicate that they were conscious constantly since well before being cloned?

2)Okay.  I've a rebuttal to you, but it would hurt my argument with GWG.

Wait, your position is in conflict with itself?

Umm... That was talking about clones in general?  It's outright incorrect if used in reference to Grate...

...Why would the original die?

Hah, my bad, I got it backwards.  You were using it to disprove Kri.
Welp, I'll use it against you instead.  How does your argument not fall into the same trap?  If we only use data we can get from this point on forwards, all we have are memories of the past.  By that definition, you are the same person as any person you can remember being, but none that you have forgotten.  So, the me that ate breakfast three weeks ago is not the me now, but the me from three years ago when I signed up on B12 is the same me, cause I remember that.

You had me until that last sentence. Especially since my part makes no mention of memory...

I write this out once a post don't I?
The state of the original matters more than the copy.  The copy's experiences are irrelevant, because it's a copy the moment that it exists.  The fact the original already died (or still exists) defines it as a copy.  Not the copy having different experiences.

And what if the original dies?
What makes the original so inherently different from the 100% identical copy?

Hmmm...  You only have proof of one point- the one that is in the current instant, so...

Ever hear of Last Tuesdayism? Short version, you have no way of knowing that there was a time before the now. It's an interesting philosophical concept. From such a perspective, it isn't hard to see why the concept of "an unbroken chain of consciousness" is kinda silly. How can you ever know if you are, say, the "real" Kriellya or a perfect clone thereof? (Assume that this is possible in your world.)
Any time that someone cannot ever prove that they are "real" is kinda silly and should be avoided.

Give me a moment.  The irony is beautiful.
...

Point to where my definition requires proof of the continuity.

Anyways, that's what I've been saying this whole time!  "You" requires a line that can be drawn from your beginning of your life to the end.  I'm happy to see we're coming to an understanding~!

No, no, no! That's not what I meant! Read my later explanations. You don't draw it through time, you draw it through iterations of yourself. Yes, this happens to be going forward in time, in any real-world scenario, but it doesn't always--e.g, clones with memories, reincarnation, time travel, etc.

Aww, I had hoped you'd fall to the father thing.  Oh well.
Pretty much we agree here.  I had hoped you would just deny it because I implied the opposite, and I would have had you.  Oh well.

I'm not an idiot, syvarris.

[syvarris]

But if you had a perfect clone, wouldn't they also indicate that they were conscious constantly since well before being cloned?

They themselves would, but they wouldn't actually have that series of instants of conciousness.  Their series would have started with their creation.

...Why would the original die?

Because I didn't feel like putting in a "(or continues to exist)" there.  The original doesn't need to die- it's irrelevant to my argument.

You had me until that last sentence. Especially since my part makes no mention of memory...

But it does.  Namely, you said that the defining aspect of a person is their amalgamation of past experiences, skills, traits, memories, ect.  But as you pointed out, there is no proof of anything that caused any of those experiences, traits, or skills- any of a number of things could have resulted in them.

Therefore, only your memories define you, because those are the only things in the present that retain information from the past.

And what if the original dies?
What makes the original so inherently different from the 100% identical copy?

The fact that it had an unbroken chain of conciousness since it's creation. 

Point to where my definition requires proof of the continuity.

Right here:

identity isn't a point, it's a line. A line that gets fuzzy towards the beginning, but a line nonetheless. It's a line that changes, largely based on what came before. If you tried to take any one point in the line and call it "you," you would be missing the reason and essence of why you are you.

You said that you have no proof of anything that happened in the past.  Therefore, you only have the point of personality that exists at the very very end of the line- the current instant.

Due to the fact any number of lines could have led to that singular point, you have no proof that your personality is any individual line.  It has equal chance to be any line which results in the you that exists at that point.

No, no, no! That's not what I meant! Read my later explanations. You don't draw it through time, you draw it through iterations of yourself.  Yes, this happens to be going forward in time, in any real-world scenario, but it doesn't always--e.g, clones with memories, reincarnation, time travel, etc.

'Kay then.  My only difference that if a person doesn't exist for a period of time then they're seperate.  *shrug*

If a googleplex of years passed, and a creature that just happened to perfectly replicate you in every way existed, purely by chance, would that creature be you?

[GreatWyrmGold]

They themselves would, but they wouldn't actually have that series of instants of conciousness.  Their series would have started with their creation.

So...only the ones that happened when they exist count? Why wouldn't the others count? They're more integral to who the clone is than the later ones!

But it does.  Namely, you said that the defining aspect of a person is their amalgamation of past experiences, skills, traits, memories, ect.  But as you pointed out, there is no proof of anything that caused any of those experiences, traits, or skills- any of a number of things could have resulted in them.
Therefore, only your memories define you, because those are the only things in the present that retain information from the past.

I'm still not following. You're saying that I said...pretty close to the opposite of what I said?

The fact that it had an unbroken chain of conciousness since it's creation.

So, you're saying that if the memories, experiences, and whatnot you have in your mind aren't the ones your body actually went through, they don't count?

Point to where my definition requires proof of the continuity.

Right here:

identity isn't a point, it's a line. A line that gets fuzzy towards the beginning, but a line nonetheless. It's a line that changes, largely based on what came before. If you tried to take any one point in the line and call it "you," you would be missing the reason and essence of why you are you.

You said that you have no proof of anything that happened in the past.  Therefore, you only have the point of personality that exists at the very very end of the line- the current instant.

You only have proof of that current instant, but the rest exists whether you can really prove it or not. As a corollary: Was the Moon ~200,000 miles from the Earth before we could measure it?

Due to the fact any number of lines could have led to that singular point...

In theory? Perhaps. In practice? No. You aren't a line snaking randomly through space. It's more like a tree, I suppose. You're born in Albuquerque, have stuff happen to you. Because that happened to you, you end up somewhere. If you were born in Beijing, you couldn't end up there as the same person.

If a googleplex of years passed, and a creature that just happened to perfectly replicate you in every way existed, purely by chance, would that creature be you?

I don't see why not.
Of course, I don't see how that's possible. Especially since the universe won't last that long. But hey, this is all speculative.

[piecewise]

Wait, did steve fill the ship with the gas that causes philosophical debates again?

Does anyone else smell melted candles, French men and Solipsism?

[mastahcheese]

Does anyone else smell melted candles, French men and Solipsism?

I always smell that.

Are you saying that you don't?

[Xanmyral]

I think I smell more of a Hellenistic taint in the air, to be honest.

[syvarris]

((Dang it, PW broke the nice syvarris/GWG/syvarris/GWG chain! 

Seriously though, if this is annoying other people I'm fine with stopping or spoilering it.))

So...only the ones that happened when they exist count? Why wouldn't the others count? They're more integral to who the clone is than the later ones!

They count for the clone's individuality the same way they count for the original's.  Just, the thing that seperates the original and the clone is that they had seperate chains of conciousness.

I'm still not following. You're saying that I said...pretty close to the opposite of what I said?

I'm applying an argument you applied to one of Kri's statements to one of your statements.  Presumably, since you were saying Kri's theory was invalid due to that argument, your theory would be compatible with it.  It isn't.

It's kinda pointless considering the argument passed that by without slowing in the slightest, but eh.  That's the point.

So, you're saying that if the memories, experiences, and whatnot you have in your mind aren't the ones your body actually went through, they don't count?

Not for proving that you're the person who experienced them, no.

You only have proof of that current instant, but the rest exists whether you can really prove it or not. As a corollary: Was the Moon ~200,000 miles from the Earth before we could measure it?

True.  That would have been a decent comeback to your argument.

In theory? Perhaps. In practice? No. You aren't a line snaking randomly through space. It's more like a tree, I suppose. You're born in Albuquerque, have stuff happen to you. Because that happened to you, you end up somewhere. If you were born in Beijing, you couldn't end up there as the same person.

I like cats.  Is that because I've always had cats?  Because my parents liked cats?  Because I watched or read lots of cat related media?  Because they don't argue with me like people do?

All of the above are true, except the last one (that's one of my favorite things about people), but I can't really prove that.  At this point I can't say for certain whether I begged my parents for cats after seeing them on TV.  Or if my parents already had them when I was young (what I've been told).  Or if I met someone else's cat, and liked it so much that I got my own.

It's worse when you point out that memory is unreliable.  Many different things might have happened, at which point there are many different potential lines.

Trees don't often have branches which split and promptly merge back together.

I don't see why not.
Of course, I don't see how that's possible. Especially since the universe won't last that long. But hey, this is all speculative.

I'm certainly not a person who keeps up with this, but wasn't there the theory that the universe might end up in a big crunch that is functionally identical to the state matter was in prior to the big bang?  In which case, the universe could potentially last forever?

Even if it's functionally impossible, we've been using a lot of stuff that's functionally impossible in our arguments.  *shrug*

[Xantalos]

((I just skip through them.))

[Empiricist]

Wait, did steve fill the ship with the gas that causes philosophical debates again?

How much does it cost? Can it be used to fumigate areas, forcing people to use speech rolls rather than weapon skills?

[Spinal_Taper]

Wait, did steve fill the ship with the gas that causes philosophical debates again?

How much does it cost? Can it be used to fumigate areas, forcing people to use speech rolls rather than weapon skills?

And all of ARM immediatly loses the war.