Print

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

[SOLDIER First]

>:0
SCIENCE HAS LIED TO ME

[Happy Demon]

The whole "are we still the same person" thing is pretty much a philosophical question.
We don't know if the present "I" only lasts as long as a neural impulse and we're kept going by consistent "I"s that act roughly the same as the previous "I"s (mood changes/swings).
So basically, don't bother with the question, you can never hope to get a 100% correct answer.

As for replacing, considering Humans can be created inside other Humans, we should technically be able to recreate ourselves, we just need some adjustment.
Heck, it'd be awesome if we could just regrow our teeth, that way we could just yank out the teeth with holes in them and let new ones grow.

My head hurts, it's not made for philosophy.

[_DivideByZero_]

It's only really a problem if you have a flawed conception of what it means to be a person.

People aren't their matter. Otherwise a corpse would still be a person. So it's obvious that a person is not identical to the matter that makes him up.
People aren't a form either, because if you make an exact copy of a person with a copy of their form, it creates a second person distinct from the original. So it's obvious that a person is not identical to the form his matter has. If you duplicate an AI, you get two independent AI's. So an AI is not equivalent to its programming (unless AI's aren't persons).

Aristotelians have the term substance to refer to things that are basically forms with matter.

[~Neri]

AI are people.

Also not gonna update till bay12 stops 504ing, would rather not lose posts/make fifteen posts on accident.

[IcyTea31]

Just for fun, my answer to the conundrum. The original conundrum uses Odysseus' (might've been some other ancient Greek hero) ship having its boards and other parts replaced one by one between his adventures, until no original ones remain.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It both is and isn't the same ship, but mostly is. "Odysseus' ship" is not just one object, but also the idea of the ship he owns. It is Odysseus' ship; there are many like it, but it is his, as the creed goes. This doesn't mean him acquiring a completely new ship and christening it by the same name would be the same as the scenario. Odysseus' mythical adventures give, by proxy, a similar status to his ship. King Arthur's sword may or may not have been magical, yet its legend lives on just as strong as the man's himself. Even though he replaces boards constantly, the ones he doesn't have already been on at least one adventure, and it most likely shows on them. Maybe a board has a notch from a javelin hit or an underwater crag, or a burn mark from a torch during a small nightly adventure. Each of these boards and parts with their own stories form the whole idea and object of Odysseus' ship. Replacing one doesn't remove the idea, and neither does replacing all of them, as long as you do it slowly enough. In short, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Then we get to the second part of the conundrum: if you build a ship (or AI nanocloud) from the parts displaced, is it still the same ship? Can both of the ships be the 'real' one? I believe my thoughts above answer this question as well.

So basically, don't bother with the question, you can never hope to get a 100% correct answer.

Philosophy isn't necessarily about 'correct' answers. An 80% correct answer can still teach one many things.

[Happy Demon]

Exactly, I like concrete stuff, but philosophy kinda throws "Cogito ergo sum" out the window. So I can't be certain of anything when philosophy is involved.

[Andres]

Aristotelians have the term substance to refer to things that are basically forms with matter.

Aristotle was an idiot. Take everything he said with a grain of salt at best.

AI are people.

Also not gonna update till bay12 stops 504ing, would rather not lose posts/make fifteen posts on accident.

Just post. If it 504s after you post, it means you posted. Don't resubmit the form or anything - it's fine. Also, copy all posts before you post them in case of accidents.

[_DivideByZero_]

Aristotelians have the term substance to refer to things that are basically forms with matter.

Aristotle was an idiot. Take everything he said with a grain of salt at best.

Modern Aristotelians don't follow Aristotle. It's a branch of philosophy that started with Aristotle.

AI are people.

Also not gonna update till bay12 stops 504ing, would rather not lose posts/make fifteen posts on accident.

People use AI to refer to both intelligent and non-intelligent entities.

Just for fun, my answer to the conundrum. The original conundrum uses Odysseus' (might've been some other ancient Greek hero) ship having its boards and other parts replaced one by one between his adventures, until no original ones remain.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It both is and isn't the same ship, but mostly is. "Odysseus' ship" is not just one object, but also the idea of the ship he owns. It is Odysseus' ship; there are many like it, but it is his, as the creed goes. This doesn't mean him acquiring a completely new ship and christening it by the same name would be the same as the scenario. Odysseus' mythical adventures give, by proxy, a similar status to his ship. King Arthur's sword may or may not have been magical, yet its legend lives on just as strong as the man's himself. Even though he replaces boards constantly, the ones he doesn't have already been on at least one adventure, and it most likely shows on them. Maybe a board has a notch from a javelin hit or an underwater crag, or a burn mark from a torch during a small nightly adventure. Each of these boards and parts with their own stories form the whole idea and object of Odysseus' ship. Replacing one doesn't remove the idea, and neither does replacing all of them, as long as you do it slowly enough. In short, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Then we get to the second part of the conundrum: if you build a ship (or AI nanocloud) from the parts displaced, is it still the same ship? Can both of the ships be the 'real' one? I believe my thoughts above answer this question as well.

Nobody should really care if it's "the" ship because ships don't have any form of self-identity. In that case I agree with you. But the analogy doesn't hold for self-aware beings. Ships don't think or feel. Humans think and are conscious. Animals are conscious.

A machine that macerates puppies and prints out exact copies of the originals would still be animal abuse. It doesn't matter if the ends justify the means, the means still involve hopelessly tearing apart animals.

So basically, don't bother with the question, you can never hope to get a 100% correct answer.

Philosophy isn't necessarily about 'correct' answers. An 80% correct answer can still teach one many things.

The last 20% could still be useful. You don't know if it's unimportant or not until someone discovers it.

[~Neri]

VI are non intelligent entities. A Cat is akin to a VI. AI are self aware entities. A human is akin to an AI.

[_DivideByZero_]

VI are non intelligent entities. A Cat is akin to a VI. AI are self aware entities. A human is akin to an AI.

Are you trying to argue something or are you describing the terms used in-universe? Because I'm just saying that people use the term AI liberally.

[flame99]

VI are non intelligent entities. A Cat is akin to a VI. AI are self aware entities. A human is akin to an AI.

Richard would like to disagree

[~Neri]

VI are non intelligent entities. A Cat is akin to a VI. AI are self aware entities. A human is akin to an AI.

Are you trying to argue something or are you describing the terms used in-universe? Because I'm just saying that people use the term AI liberally.

I'm stating the literal definitions. People do use AI liberally, however there are scientific definitions for both.

Also using that format in universe~

[Lenglon]

VI are non intelligent entities. A Cat is akin to a VI. AI are self aware entities. A human is akin to an AI.

Kit may cause some legal battles by accident then.

[~Neri]

Kit is a hivemind, technically not a single cat.

[Lenglon]

yes, but by proving that cats - when linked - are self aware intelligent entities. it puts the legal status of non-hive cats in question. what about if someone links two cats together? did they just give birth to a new cathive? are they legally responsible for their child?

what about kit herself? Is she a child and valid for child abuse laws? since she is made of non-intelligent entities, does she have rights at all?

seriously, the legal and moral implications of Kit could actually cause major trouble.