Life or no-life after death - Is it an Objective reality?

[Blackened Cat]

Do you think the existence of a soul enduring after death is an objective or subjective idea?

So whether you believe you go to Christian heaven, Mormon heaven, Buddhist rebirth or athiest style material non-existence..... is there an actual objective reality to this?

Can it be determined?

Even if the answer is - nothing... can that be determined?

And if there is life after death, and for example it's a Christian protestant one... can we know in the here and now that this is real?

What can we base any knowledge of an afterlife on?

[Sledge]

Show me the soul, then we'll talk about what happens to it after death.

[Complexity]

There is no evidence of the existence of a soul.

[MikeSun5]

Best bumper sticker I've ever seen:

"MILITANT AGNOSTIC: I DON'T KNOW AND NEITHER DO YOU."

[Olowkow]

A soul enduring after death isn't necessarily "life after death". What's a soul? What is life when its shell can't interact with the real world? There is a long way to go in defining your terms before you can even think of getting anything but stock answers.

Welcome, by the way.


ETA: Hey guys, we have to quit meeting this way!:D

[tourmaline]

You are asking if a soul or a place you go after death can be determined. This would be objective if you could determine it -- if you are using "determined" to mean known for a fact and demonstrable for everyone. Otherwise its subjective like someone being dead for a few minutes, getting resuscitated, and saying they saw angles. I dont have anything to site, but i think those kinds of experiences are rare, cant be shown to be real, and can be explained neurologically without evoking the supernatural.

[Blackened Cat]

Thanks for the welcome.


To answer all the question dodgers....you know what I mean...

Then rephrase the question, can we know the buddhist after life exists (if Greek concepts of soul somehow offends).

Is there an objective afterlife reality?

[Sledge]

Thanks for the welcome.


To answer all the question dodgers....you know what I mean...

Then rephrase the question, can we know the buddhist after life exists (if Greek concepts of soul somehow offends).
No one was offended, and no one was dodging the question. If what you said isn't what you meant, the problem lies with your post, not the people responding to it.
Is there an objective afterlife reality?
No.

[Dancing David]

Do you think the existence of a soul enduring after death is an objective or subjective idea?

So whether you believe you go to Christian heaven, Mormon heaven, Buddhist rebirth or athiest style material non-existence..... is there an actual objective reality to this?

Can it be determined?

Even if the answer is - nothing... can that be determined?

And if there is life after death, and for example it's a Christian protestant one... can we know in the here and now that this is real?

What can we base any knowledge of an afterlife on?


Could be, no evidence that there is.

[Dancing David]

Thanks for the welcome.


To answer all the question dodgers....you know what I mean...

Then rephrase the question, can we know the buddhist after life exists (if Greek concepts of soul somehow offends).

Is there an objective afterlife reality?

Well the buddhist after life is in contradiction to the teachings of thw Alleged Historical Buddha.

Consequences carry, there is no atman.

ETA: So taught the AHB: anatta.

[MikeSun5]

Is there an objective afterlife reality?

If there is, it can't be proven by today's technology. Of course absence of proof is not proof of absence, so logically as it stands right now, we can't know for sure.

All we can do is wager one way or another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager). :D

[Olowkow]

Not a question of offending, but the words are just so slippery, "soul", "afterlife", "spirit", etc that they only have meaning for theists, much like "sin". I have no real concept of "sin" in my world. I understand hurting people and breaking the law, and having guilt for what I do wrong, but "sin", this is only relevant if one is a believer. I'm not dodging any questions, I just don't understand a question that is similar to, "can we ever determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Namely, what the heck is an angel to an atheist?

[paximperium]

What's a soul and what use is it?

[Sledge]

It stops your foot from going right through your shoe?

[MikeSun5]

What's a soul and what use is it?

An invisible fairy-like thing that lives inside you, which leaves your body when you die and allows admittance to the heaven or (slides down to the hell) of whichever religion you have ascribed to so you can hang out with your dead relatives.

...and it weighs 21 grams.

[Loss Leader]

Is there an objective afterlife reality?


Really, you could put any word in place of "afterlife" and have the same question. Is there an objective afterlife realty? There's no evidence of one. Is there an objective Peyton Manning reality? There is evidence (some of it in Tennessee) that Peyton Manning exists. Is there an objective Iranian nuclear weapon reality? There is some evidence of one but some evidence that there is not.

In all cases, we are making deductions based on the evidence of our senses. And in all cases, the evidence of our senses is in some ways equivocal.

At its heart, you may be asking, "Is there an objective reality?" That question has no satisfactory answer. Each of us has no evidence that anything exists outside of our individual selves or that we existed in any moment but the present. I tend to think the answer is yes. Reality is consistent and boring (where as dreams are shifting and exciting). But some would disagree.

Are you asking about the existence of an objective reality? Or are you assuming that there is a measurable and definable objective reality and just asking if the afterlife exists within it?

[Blackened Cat]

"can we ever determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

That's a perfectly valid philosophical question and is akin to what I was asking.

I don't have any agenda to push, just asking a question.

[paximperium]

That's a perfectly valid philosophical question and is akin to what I was asking.

I don't have any agenda to push, just asking a question.
But first you need to actually define the terms you are using. In philosophical discussion, semantics and definitions really matter. We don't don't know what you mean with a "soul".

If you can define it, we can at least start with that issue.

[Olowkow]

That's a perfectly valid philosophical question and is akin to what I was asking.

I don't have any agenda to push, just asking a question.

If one cannot define "angel", I'm going to have to say, "no", it cannot be determined how many can dance on the head of a pin, though I can certainly define a pin, and tell you the surface area.

I would have to know how much space they take up, and how much they weigh before I can even begin to say that it can or cannot be determined. Then, I can say, well, I don't have enough information yet, or yes, I can now attempt to determine how many can dance, providing your definition of angel states that they are able to dance.

[Blackened Cat]

Are you asking about the existence of an objective reality? Or are you assuming that there is a measurable and definable objective reality and just asking if the afterlife exists within it?

Yeah that is part of my current pondering. I may not have spelled that out well in the OP.

[phantomb]

Things that we say are objectively known can always be tested for accuracy by either side in a debate, because knowledge is demonstrable and measurable. The afterlife is an idea that lacks supporting evidence because nothing about it is testable, and the whole thing is centred around a handful of assumptions which themselves are based on nothing. Consequently, the afterlife is not an objective idea and we currently cannot base claimed knowledge about it on anything.

[Loss Leader]

Are you asking about the existence of an objective reality? Or are you assuming that there is a measurable and definable objective reality and just asking if the afterlife exists within it?
Yeah that is part of my current pondering. I may not have spelled that out well in the OP.


Well, um, which one? I asked an either/ or question. Are you asking if objective reality exists OR are you assuming that objective reality exists? Pick one or the other.

[Blackened Cat]

Well, um, which one? I asked an either/ or question. Are you asking if objective reality exists OR are you assuming that objective reality exists? Pick one or the other.

First one. "If objective reality exists" It's something I'm questioning at the moment.

[Eric D]

Do you think the existence of a soul enduring after death is an objective or subjective idea?

So whether you believe you go to Christian heaven, Mormon heaven, Buddhist rebirth or athiest style material non-existence..... is there an actual objective reality to this?

Can it be determined?

Even if the answer is - nothing... can that be determined?

And if there is life after death, and for example it's a Christian protestant one... can we know in the here and now that this is real?

What can we base any knowledge of an afterlife on?

There is no knowledge of an afterlife at all. If there was this kind of knowledge, it would have to be based on evidence.

[Loss Leader]

First one. "If objective reality exists" It's something I'm questioning at the moment.


Well, good luck with that. There's no answer. There's just an endless debate that goes something like this:

Realist: The universe exists because I have gathered evidence of its existence.
Anti-Realist: But all of that evidence was gathered by your senses.
Realist: So?
Anti-Realist: Your senses could be lying to you.
Realist: So, what? Nothing exists?
Anti-Realist: Things exist as constructs in our minds.
Realist: So, our minds must exist.
Anti-Realist: Well, mine does. Yours, I'm not so sure about.
Realist: You're a jerk.
Anti-Realist: And you're an idiot.
Realist: Well, at least I'm an idiot who exists!
Anti-Realist: Not for long!
[Huge sissy slapfight ensues. Non-philosophy majors laugh, have lives, and get laid.]

[StrangeLoop]

It makes as much sense to posit a daisy afterlife or a chrysanthemum afterlife. We esteem ourselves too highly.

[John Jones]

Yeah that is part of my current pondering. I may not have spelled that out well in the OP.

That was an either/or question.

ETA: Nevermind. I see this has been addressed already.

[Complexity]

Thanks for the welcome.

To answer all the question dodgers....you know what I mean...

Then rephrase the question, can we know the buddhist after life exists (if Greek concepts of soul somehow offends).

Is there an objective afterlife reality?


No, and no.

[Complexity]

That's a perfectly valid philosophical question and is akin to what I was asking.


Must disagree - I don't think that "Can we ever determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is either valid or philosophical.

It assumes something for which there is no evidence.

It is also insulting to the intellect.

[Complexity]

First one. "If objective reality exists" It's something I'm questioning at the moment.


Yes, I think there is an objective reality.

I do not think that we will every understand any aspect of it perfectly.

The best we can hope for is incrementally better models of reality that serve us well as we can muster.

These we get from science.

It may be that none of our brains will ever be able to imagine, let alone apprehend, many aspects of it. We won't know this, of course.

[Maia]

The best answer I've ever found to this is probably in John Shelby Spong's latest book. (But then, isn't everything?) ;)

[Blackened Cat]

Well, good luck with that. There's no answer. There's just an endless debate that goes something like this:


Do you have a belief either way? Which side would you take?

I tend to veer towards Objective reality existing.

[Blackened Cat]

It makes as much sense to posit a daisy afterlife or a chrysanthemum afterlife. We esteem ourselves too highly.

So when approaching religious questions or philosophical questions...is it better to evaluate or explore them, or instead just accept them? or discard them?

[Blackened Cat]

Must disagree - I don't think that "Can we ever determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is either valid or philosophical.

It assumes something for which there is no evidence.

It is also insulting to the intellect.

Are all theoretically situations insulting?

If I pose a maths question that starts "If Suzie took the number 2 bus to.."

Would I then be questioned over the existence of Suzie or the number 2 bus? If I could not prove that Suzie exists, and that Suzie took the bus on that day... would I have insulted the intellect?

Can you define what an insult to intellect would be? Can you prove that the intellect does in fact exist? and is not over inflated? And why would 'the' intellect has so little grace as not to be able to withstand the smallest of slights? Is the intellect that inexperienced in life? Was the intellect sheltered?

Is there an end to the endless dissecting of questions in order to escape confronting of their basis?

[Blackened Cat]

These we get from science.

Is science the only way to understand objective and expperience reality?

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Is science the only way to understand objective and expperience reality?

Science is the only way we can gather and interpret data about out reality objectively. Its also the only known way with which to predict things about our reality.
However it has nothing to do with experiencing reality, that is something our brain does.

As for an afterlife, no scientific experiment has ever shown anything to prove it exists. So if it does our best current methods are unable to interact with it making the whole question philosophical.

If an intangible soul that does not interact with matter in any way truly exists, you'd best hope there is an afterlife to go to though, otherwise each time someone dies they'll be stuck in empty space watching the earth and the entire solar system rush away from them at high speed.

[Maia]

Is science the only way to understand objective and expperience reality?



Y'all know what's going to happen if this keeps up, right?

Oh, come on. You KNOW what's going to happen.

I'm going to bring in Stephen Jay Gould... and NOMA... I WILL bring up NOMA. It'll happen. We will go there, if need be. ;)

(hands out key lime tarts for everyone to help with the discussion. I just finished making some. They're so cute. However, these are virtual key lime tarts, because the real ones... let's just say that they're not going to last very long.)

[lionking]

Is science the only way to understand objective and expperience reality?
Do you think there are other ways? How about answering a question instead of "just asking".

[Akhenaten]

Do you think the existence of a soul enduring after death is an objective or subjective idea?





Objective.


http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Ba.jpg

Ba (not humbug)



So whether you believe you go to Christian heaven, Mormon heaven, Buddhist rebirth or athiest style material non-existence..... is there an actual objective reality to this?





No. These things you speak of are at best just make-believe and at worst, heresy. There is only the Tuat.



Can it be determined?





Yes. Ask Hathor



Even if the answer is - nothing... can that be determined?





Yes. Ask Anubis.



And if there is life after death, and for example it's a Christian protestant one... can we know in the here and now that this is real?





What's a Christian? What's he protesting about? Is this anything to do with those reedcutters?



What can we base any knowledge of an afterlife on?





The Book of Spells of Going Forth By Day, sometimes referred to as the Book of the Dead.

Try Amazon.

[Soapy Sam]

"What's a key lime tart", asked Sam, instantly recognising the sole interesting thing in the thread, "and can they be air freighted to Kazakhstan?"

Look- Either we exist, or we don't. If we don't, then let's concentrate on imagining more beer.
If we do exist (and by heck it feels like it in the mornings) then it looks like life is actually a chemical process and awareness is too. When the process stops, the candle flame doesn't go anywhere. The burning of wax just stops. The flame WAS the burning of wax. That's what burning of wax looks like.

Of course we can't test for life after death, but as in Monty Python's Great Debate on the question, all the dead people stand silent.

My bet is that being dead is a lot like not having been born.
ETA- Unless you manage to be fossilised.

[Hokulele]

Do you have a belief either way? Which side would you take?

I tend to veer towards Objective reality existing.


I choose the one which shows the most practical benefits (objective reality existing, because choosing the opposite can leads to owies). But then again, I am a pragmatist before all else.

[Bikewer]

I always like Samuel Johnson's reply to much the same question.."I refute it thus!" (kicking a rock to emphasize...)
As Hokulele says above, it's certainly more practical to accept that the universe exists as objective reality, and that we just happen to inhabit it, than it is to think that we somehow generate the whole thing with the power of our minds.
That always begs the question of what the universe might have looked like when there was nothing more evolved than a sea slug...
I know philosophers get all wound up with such things; we had several young philosphy students on the Facebook "Atheist" forum and they would go on and on and on....

[Maia]

"What's a key lime tart", asked Sam, instantly recognising the sole interesting thing in the thread, "and can they be air freighted to Kazakhstan?"



There were five key lime tarts. Now there are two. Where did the other three go?

(Maia hastily hides the three itty bitty empty tart pans)

Um... they were never a part of objective reality. Yup. That's it.

Oh! Here's some news. :) I led the Secular Life Meetup discussion on John Shelby Spong last night. (Yes, this actually has a lot of relevance to this thread.) It was held at a local upscale pizza place during happy hour, so there was a lot of beer at the table. I handed out his 12 Theses for the Reformation of Christianity and talked about his ideas, and got varying responses.

Atheist: "It sounds like he wants to have his cake and eat it too."

Me: "Well, if you have your cake, you can eat it. Don't you think?"

Atheist: "Okay, it sounds like he just threw a bunch of cake ingredients in a pan and CALLED it cake."

Me: "Maybe you could make a pudding."

The most frequent criticism was that after dismantling the vast majority of everything associated with traditional Christianity (as JSS does), nobody saw the point of what was left. Well, I did. An atheist in the group I knew who goes to the Quaker meeting house sort of did too. #2 AItGIK was showing everyone illustrated verses from the Brick Testament on his IPhone. That was fun.

Anyway, all of JSS's books that I had are now packed in boxes for the move, except for his autobiography and the most recent book,Eternal Life: A New Vision, Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell. We didn't get to the eternal-life part of that book in the discussion, focusing instead on the parts where he talked about life being accidental, we are not the products of anyone's intelligent design, religion has enabled us to hide from reality, traditional prayer is an experience of ritual hypnosis where everyone says the words but nobody is expected to actually believe them... and then there was the chapter called “The Tools of Religious Manipulation”, here’s another one, “The Death of Religion”... so we kind of got sidetracked.

But it's all there. It's definitely a book about dismantling just about everything in Christianity connected with beliefs about life after death, particularly ideas about heaven, hell, reward, and punishment. But there's even more than that; in the book's intro, in fact, JSS says that after all of his research into NDE's, "I came away more skeptical than convinced." Now, that's really something to admit when you realize he's edited a book that was basically on that subject (1987 - Consciousness and Survival: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry into the possibility of Life Beyond Biological Death (edited by John S. Spong, introduction by Claiborne Pell) and came close to writing another one. And the NDE stuff is not at all what he bases his conclusions on in this book, and they aren't based on quantum-y weirdness or convoluted philosophical arguments, either.

To see a good example of this kind of silliness, you could read Dinesh D'Souza's book (Life After Death:The Evidence), which is an obvious ripoff of JSS's book, IMHO. It even has the same cover design!! Driven by morbid curiousity, I did get that book, and even started a thread on it here. (I could find it again, if anybody really wants to see it.)

But the last chapter in the book is "I Believe in Life Beyond Death." (JSS's book, I mean.):eye-poppi

[Complexity]

Are all theoretically situations insulting?

If I pose a maths question that starts "If Suzie took the number 2 bus to.."

Would I then be questioned over the existence of Suzie or the number 2 bus? If I could not prove that Suzie exists, and that Suzie took the bus on that day... would I have insulted the intellect?

Can you define what an insult to intellect would be? Can you prove that the intellect does in fact exist? and is not over inflated? And why would 'the' intellect has so little grace as not to be able to withstand the smallest of slights? Is the intellect that inexperienced in life? Was the intellect sheltered?

Is there an end to the endless dissecting of questions in order to escape confronting of their basis?


Belief in angels would be insulting to my intellect.

It ought to be to yours.

The assumption of the existence of angels in the original question renders the question useless and not interesting philosophically.

[Complexity]

Is science the only way to understand objective and expperience reality?


Yes.

I will note, however, that your question is oddly phrased. I answered what I thought you were asking.

Science isn't always done by scientists - it is a way of approaching and modeling reality.

[Complexity]

Y'all know what's going to happen if this keeps up, right?

Oh, come on. You KNOW what's going to happen.

I'm going to bring in Stephen Jay Gould... and NOMA... I WILL bring up NOMA. It'll happen. We will go there, if need be. ;)

(hands out key lime tarts for everyone to help with the discussion. I just finished making some. They're so cute. However, these are virtual key lime tarts, because the real ones... let's just say that they're not going to last very long.)


Don't. Gould was wrong about NOMA. It has been beaten to death.

[Nick227]

Belief in angels would be insulting to my intellect.

It ought to be to yours.

The assumption of the existence of angels in the original question renders the question useless and not interesting philosophically.

Can you explain how your intellect is insulted? Do you believe it has a separate sense of self? Or do you mean that you feel insulted?

Earlier in this thread we also had someone claim that their brain "experienced." Brains process. They don't experience.

Regarding the soul, as a materialist who also meditates, I would say that personally it is clear for me that there appears to be "something" behind this self that is constantly constructed by the mind through thinking. Whether this "something" is really a thing, as in "limited entity", I don't know. But there is something present or witnessing of self in meditation could not take place. Maybe it's soul or maybe it's neural substrate or maybe they're the same.

Nick

[Complexity]

Can you explain how your intellect is insulted? Do you believe it has a separate sense of self? Or do you mean that you feel insulted?

Earlier in this thread we also had someone claim that their brain "experienced." Brains process. They don't experience.

Regarding the soul, as a materialist who also meditates, I would say that personally it is clear for me that there appears to be "something" behind this self that is constantly constructed by the mind through thinking. Whether this "something" is really a thing, as in "limited entity", I don't know. But there is something present or witnessing of self in meditation could not take place. Maybe it's soul or maybe it's neural substrate or maybe they're the same.

Nick


People speak of a substance being an insult to the liver, for example. I simply extended that to the intellect, which is an aspect of a functioning brain.

I think you are wrong about your interpretation of what is happening when you meditate. There is no soul or anything similar to one.

[MikeSun5]

Regarding the soul, as a materialist who also meditates, I would say that personally it is clear for me that there appears to be "something" behind this self that is constantly constructed by the mind through thinking. Whether this "something" is really a thing, as in "limited entity", I don't know. But there is something present or witnessing of self in meditation could not take place. Maybe it's soul or maybe it's neural substrate or maybe they're the same.

This is a good post because it I think it clearly illustrates the thought process behind the concept of a soul.

The difference between Nick and religious crazies is that Nick isn't saying his personal opinion is proof of a soul.

[Twiler]

The 'objective reality' question boils down to 'Can things happen without, I, the asker of this question, being aware of them?'

And, as this question is impossible to answer, the answer is unknowable, and thus irrelevant.

On the other issues, I believe that science is the only way to understand reality and I don't believe that souls exist, because I see no evidence.

[Nick227]

People speak of a substance being an insult to the liver, for example. I simply extended that to the intellect, which is an aspect of a functioning brain.

Fair enough.

I think you are wrong about your interpretation of what is happening when you meditate. There is no soul or anything similar to one.

Well, for me I still find it inevitable that people try and objectively account for phenomena encountered in meditation. Regular practice of vipassana (placing all attention of the breath) subjectively demonstrates to me the immateriality of the mental self. It is not what it appears to be, but merely an "illusion" created by thinking. This is in line with materialism.

But, in this subjective demonstration, there now arises the question - what is it that apparently experiences this illusory sense of self? What is this sense of "presence" discovered beneath the wrigglings of the thinking mind? And, in trying to answer this question, several millenia worth of meditators have come up with "soul." Some claim it is endless, others that it is limited to the individual body. Either way it is an issue for those with sufficient awareness to come across it.

Nick

[Dancing David]

Realist: Well, at least I'm an idiot who exists!


Primo!

[Ichneumonwasp]

Do you think the existence of a soul enduring after death is an objective or subjective idea?

So whether you believe you go to Christian heaven, Mormon heaven, Buddhist rebirth or athiest style material non-existence..... is there an actual objective reality to this?

Can it be determined?

Even if the answer is - nothing... can that be determined?

And if there is life after death, and for example it's a Christian protestant one... can we know in the here and now that this is real?

What can we base any knowledge of an afterlife on?


I might start by asking the question -- what do we mean by 'objective'?

We seem to mean several different things when we use the word, but I assume you refer to the existence of reality completely independent of people, as Twiler just posted.

So, analyzing the situation, we all 'live' in our own subjective realities. But we think, probably rightly, that there is an independent reality for two very good reasons. One is that we share a common reality that we can speak of as inter-subjective (one meaning of 'objective') and the other is that when we close our eyes and re-open them we still encounter the same world, the same tree we were looking at. There is no way for us to prove in our subjective experience that there is an objective world, but it's the best, most practical solution to the knowledge problem.

When it comes to life after death, though, we don't have the same sort of information. We have very limited reports from only some people who experience near-death. And those reports tend to have only a vague similarity. A tunnel and light as well as a presence and a feeling of love are often reported immediately after awakening from such experiences; but aside from that there do not seem to be any concrete, shared experiences that most people report. What they do report tends to be culturally biased; and the memories grow over time with all sorts of details being thrown into the mix long after the events (so the memories are almost definitely created after the fact).

These experiences, like our experience of the world, are subjective. But the near-death experiences lack the coherence, the shared congruence, and the persistence of our experience of the outside world that allows us to postulate that there is an external reality. Add to this that we can recreate some of the same experiences by depriving the brain of blood/oxygen in a large centrifuge and the fact that these experiences happen to people under extraordinary stress (they are near death). We know that stressed brains hallucinate. So we have reason to doubt the reality of the experiences that people do report. And we should expect that brains of similar construction (human brains) will tend to have some similar experiences when stressed, which could easily account for the mild similarities we see with near-death experiences.

Taken together, I would have to say that I have pretty good reasons to suspect that there is an external world and no particularly good reasons to suspect that there is anything after death based on the limited evidence that is available. There might be. Who knows? We are not privvy to the information, though.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Fair enough.



Well, for me I still find it inevitable that people try and objectively account for phenomena encountered in meditation. Regular practice of vipassana (placing all attention of the breath) subjectively demonstrates to me the immateriality of the mental self. It is not what it appears to be, but merely an "illusion" created by thinking. This is in line with materialism.

But, in this subjective demonstration, there now arises the question - what is it that apparently experiences this illusory sense of self? What is this sense of "presence" discovered beneath the wrigglings of the thinking mind? And, in trying to answer this question, several millenia worth of meditators have come up with "soul." Some claim it is endless, others that it is limited to the individual body. Either way it is an issue for those with sufficient awareness to come across it.

Nick


Hey, Nick. Good to see you back.

[sadhatter]

Are all theoretically situations insulting?

If I pose a maths question that starts "If Suzie took the number 2 bus to.."

Would I then be questioned over the existence of Suzie or the number 2 bus? If I could not prove that Suzie exists, and that Suzie took the bus on that day... would I have insulted the intellect?

Can you define what an insult to intellect would be? Can you prove that the intellect does in fact exist? and is not over inflated? And why would 'the' intellect has so little grace as not to be able to withstand the smallest of slights? Is the intellect that inexperienced in life? Was the intellect sheltered?

Is there an end to the endless dissecting of questions in order to escape confronting of their basis?

that is a very apples and oranges situation.

A math question's intent is nothing more than to show that the person answering the question knows how to arrive at the answer. A philosophical question is intended to come to a conclusion.

It is called GIGO garbage in garbage out, if your question contains flaws, then the answer is going to be flawed, so one has to figure out what is the proper question before trying to answer.

It would be like if you wrote your math problem as follows

" suzy has 2 apples, maybe. And tim possibly has 5 apples. Now find out how much they could sell the apples for."

As you can see it makes no sense to even attempt to answer the question because of the flaws therein, so said question needs to be dissected and fixed before any useful answer can be obtained. No one wants to waste their time answering what languages a unicorn speaks.

[Complexity]

Fair enough.



Well, for me I still find it inevitable that people try and objectively account for phenomena encountered in meditation. Regular practice of vipassana (placing all attention of the breath) subjectively demonstrates to me the immateriality of the mental self. It is not what it appears to be, but merely an "illusion" created by thinking. This is in line with materialism.

But, in this subjective demonstration, there now arises the question - what is it that apparently experiences this illusory sense of self? What is this sense of "presence" discovered beneath the wrigglings of the thinking mind? And, in trying to answer this question, several millenia worth of meditators have come up with "soul." Some claim it is endless, others that it is limited to the individual body. Either way it is an issue for those with sufficient awareness to come across it.

Nick


I think that your understanding of what happens when you meditate is in error.

You are experiencing and interpreting what you experience in light of your worldview and beliefs. Others, having different worldviews and beliefs, experience and interpret differently. What you think about what you experience and how you interpret it really isn't reliable and shouldn't be given any credence.

[phantomb]

Is science the only way to understand objective and expperience reality?

I would say no. For example, one way to understand and experience reality might be to evaluate hypotheses through an elaborate system of coin flipping. I'm confident in saying that it wouldn't lead to a very good understanding, but you could do it.

Science is the best (maybe the best possible) tool we have for investigating the universe and approximating truth. One thing I think everybody should try is sitting down and honestly considering how we should go about evaluating hypotheses and why. When I did this at least, the scientific method is more or less what I came up with. Science is objective, rigorous, and self correcting. No competing method has ever been able to match it for predictive power.

[Pup]

I think that your understanding of what happens when you meditate is in error.

You are experiencing and interpreting what you experience in light of your worldview and beliefs. Others, having different worldviews and beliefs, experience and interpret differently. What you think about what you experience and how you interpret it really isn't reliable and shouldn't be given any credence.

What he said.

One might as well say that an experience which felt like being in the presence of god, while taking a drug, showed that there was a god and therefore the next logical step would be to figure out that god's attributes.

[I Ratant]

Do you have a belief either way? Which side would you take?

I tend to veer towards Objective reality existing.
.
Souls and angels and devils are constructs of wishful thinking, that one is just too magnificent a creation to stop after death, so there has to be something sensible following.
There's no reason other than ego for the idea.
Hammer hits thumb.
Real.
Guardian angel protecting from harm.
Childish and naive.
I can point you to 19 guardian angels that overwhelmed 3000 others, just a few years back, if you wish to consider angels as real and having some (any) influence on reality.

[Maia]

Don't. Gould was wrong about NOMA. It has been beaten to death.

If you mean by those horrible UE threads, I think he was always beating something else to death. It's hard to say what this was, but it didn't have much to do with anything SJG actually said. As for Gould being wrong, well...that's one of those statements which is a matter of opinion.
I really think it's better to presage them with "I think", "I believe," "IMHO," "it seems to me," "as a result of my research, I have come to the conclusion that"... Sorry, but there's a little too much of the opposite around here sometimes... IMHO!

[Tanstaafl]

I think the problem is that when you draw the line between the magisteria, you're hard pressed to find any religion that's willing to stay on its side of the line.

[Complexity]

If you mean by those horrible UE threads, I think he was always beating something else to death. It's hard to say what this was, but it didn't have much to do with anything SJG actually said. As for Gould being wrong, well...that's one of those statements which is a matter of opinion.
I really think it's better to presage them with "I think", "I believe," "IMHO," "it seems to me," "as a result of my research, I have come to the conclusion that"... Sorry, but there's a little too much of the opposite around here sometimes... IMHO!


I preface everything that I or anyone else says with something like "it seems to me that". I don't worry about making it explicit.

As to Gould's being wrong - whether he was right or wrong on NOMA is a matter of fact - we simply do not have a way of determining what this fact is.

Based upon my life's experience through this afternoon, Gould was wrong about NOMA.

Any discussion of NOMA will boil down to "I'm right, you're wrong" repeated ad nauseum. No resolution is possible.

Have the discussion if you need to, but I find the subject rather tacky.

[MikeSun5]

Souls and angels and devils are constructs of wishful thinking, that one is just too magnificent a creation to stop after death, so there has to be something sensible following.
There's no reason other than ego for the idea.

:clap: I like that and I plan to steal it.

[Nick227]

I think that your understanding of what happens when you meditate is in error.

You are experiencing and interpreting what you experience in light of your worldview and beliefs. Others, having different worldviews and beliefs, experience and interpret differently. What you think about what you experience and how you interpret it really isn't reliable and shouldn't be given any credence.

If you read what I'm writing you will see that I am not saying that "soul" exists. I'm saying that in meditation materialism is ratified - there is no mental self, in the sense of there being an observer or experiencer. Yet there is this sense of presence that is clear underneath all the thinking that causes the arisal of the belief in self.

What spiritualists call "soul", may be to materialists "neural substrate." They can be the same. Now, is it truly limited? That's a good question.

Nice to see you again too, INW!

Nick

eta: BTW, Complexity, no one is experiencing. The concept of experience is inconsistent with materialism.

[Complexity]

If you read what I'm writing you will see that I am not saying that "soul" exists. I'm saying that in meditation materialism is ratified - there is no mental self, in the sense of there being an observer or experiencer. Yet there is this sense of presence that is clear underneath all the thinking that causes the arisal of the belief in self.

What spiritualists call "soul", may be to materialists "neural substrate." They can be the same. Now, is it truly limited? That's a good question.


My apologies for not having read carefully enough.

[I Ratant]

:clap: I like that and I plan to steal it.
.
The religious have made fortunes with that! :)

[Maia]

I preface everything that I or anyone else says with something like "it seems to me that". I don't worry about making it explicit.

As to Gould's being wrong - whether he was right or wrong on NOMA is a matter of fact - we simply do not have a way of determining what this fact is.

Based upon my life's experience through this afternoon, Gould was wrong about NOMA.

Any discussion of NOMA will boil down to "I'm right, you're wrong" repeated ad nauseum. No resolution is possible.



I can't agree, because there were simply too many aspects to his NOMA. There was nothing particularly simple about it. That being said, what happened to BC???

[Blackened Cat]

That being said, what happened to BC???

I live in Australia. It's Saturday morning and I slept in.

Doing stuff.

[Blackened Cat]

Belief in angels would be insulting to my intellect.

It ought to be to yours.

The assumption of the existence of angels in the original question renders the question useless and not interesting philosophically.


We could go on and on and on about this argument. I could quote many famous scientists who had a belief in Angels...

But let's just accept that you are insulted by this.

I apologise for any slight. None was intended.

[Blackened Cat]

Yes.

I will note, however, that your question is oddly phrased. I answered what I thought you were asking.

Science isn't always done by scientists - it is a way of approaching and modeling reality.

To know what is real, should we first consult science? Or are we making leaps of faith until science confirms this?

How many studies do we do until we confirm something is real? 1, 2? 12?

Or are most of us constantly running on assumptions. I assume that office building across the street is real. But I'm not sure. I haven't read studies. I haven't tested that it is built of materials and in a certain way that constitutes a building. In fact I haven't read studies or science that defines the parameters of what is a building.

Instead, when I was a child I was told that shape is a building. I can see it. I assume.

[Blackened Cat]

here is no soul or anything similar to one.

What point of reference can you make that assumption then?

Are you just a bunch of temporary formations? Like an illusion.

Why should anyone believe a temporary illusion? In fact if you content that you don't have any inherent existence.... then why should you believe your own conclusions?

[Blackened Cat]

And, as this question is impossible to answer, the answer is unknowable, and thus irrelevant.


What is the criteria for impossible, and has that criteria been met?



because I see no evidence.

I know it's a turn of phrase, but does the evidence have to be visual?

If it is, are blind people screwed over in never being able to know?

[Blackened Cat]

Taken together, I would have to say that I have pretty good reasons to suspect that there is an external world and no particularly good reasons to suspect that there is anything after death based on the limited evidence that is available. There might be. Who knows? We are not privvy to the information, though.


Yeah, logically...that's pretty much where I sit on the matter.

[Resume]

We could go on and on and on about this argument. I could quote many famous scientists who had a belief in Angels...

But let's just accept that you are insulted by this.

I apologise for any slight. None was intended.

Could you do that please?

[Blackened Cat]

A philosophical question is intended to come to a conclusion.

I disagree.

Philosophical questions, are like Maths problems... the answers aren't given up front.

There is not necessarily an intent for them to be solved.

[Hokulele]

Could you do that please?


Johannes Kepler.


To the larger point, scientists can believe looney stuff as easily as anyone. Compartmentalization isn't just for trains!

[Blackened Cat]

I think that your understanding of what happens when you meditate is in error.

You are experiencing and interpreting what you experience in light of your worldview and beliefs. Others, having different worldviews and beliefs, experience and interpret differently. What you think about what you experience and how you interpret it really isn't reliable and shouldn't be given any credence.

How can we interpret anything then? even science data? We can't rely on the scientists either, because they operate the same as you describe above.

[Blackened Cat]

Could you do that please?

Would it satisfy the criteria, to get a list of famous scientists who had varying Religious/spiritual/occult beliefs through the Judeo-christian world?

If you come from the Christian or Jewish tradition, belief in Angels would be part of the package.

For instance Issac Newton was an Anti-trinitarian Christian who had occult like beliefs and even had his own end times predictions happening.

But I suppose he would be considered an insulting bashtard on this board? I kid! :P

[Blackened Cat]

Scientists are people.

The bulk of Western science was developed in the Western world by people who went to Church, who had religious upbringing.

[Resume]

I can't agree, because there were simply too many aspects to his NOMA. There was nothing particularly simple about it. That being said, what happened to BC???

Problem is that most, if not all religions make claims about the physical universe that are overt trespasses into the realm of scientific endeavor. These claims are found in their texts (virgin birth, rising from the dead) and unless they are advanced as metaphorical, one can argue they indeed overlap.

Of course if one makes the argument that all these stories are metaphorical, metaphysical in nature, or philosophical . . . well, a good tart, lime or otherwise, is more interesting.

[Resume]

Scientists are people.

The bulk of Western science was developed in the Western world by people who went to Church, who had religious upbringing.

Even when I was a good little Catholic altar boy, I never once bought into the concept of angels.

[Resume]

Johannes Kepler.


To the larger point, scientists can believe looney stuff as easily as anyone. Compartmentalization isn't just for trains!

That's a one. I was hoping for the "many" Cat claimed. And a bit more contemporary.

Though your point about compartmentalization is noted and agreed with.

[Maia]

Problem is that most, if not all religions make claims about the physical universe that are overt trespasses into the realm of scientific endeavor. These claims are found in their texts (virgin birth, rising from the dead) and unless they are advanced as metaphorical, one can argue they indeed overlap.

Of course if one makes the argument that all these stories are metaphorical, metaphysical in nature, or philosophical . . . well, a good tart, lime or otherwise, is more interesting.

That's not exactly what I meant... SJG's NOMA was not of a simplistic character, which was, I think, exactly what he intended. There was a very strong element of shrewd compromise with reality. Religious people are not disappearing. They are not leaving the planet tomorrow (the Rapture definitely isn't happening.) So what's the best way to start dialogues with them? Agressive confrontations and rants will not work; SJG knew that better than anyone. He wasn't interested in addressing fundamentalists, because they weren't going to listen no matter what happened, so the book was designed to appeal to more mainstream Christians.

But if y'all have read it, the structure was also pretty sneaky. The beginning lulled people's anxieties and drew them in, essays about creationism in the middle, softly softly catchee monkee, and then the trap gradually CLOSED!! Well, okay, it didn't exactly snap shut.. but what people were reading by the end was NOT what they'd been led to believe they were going to get from the beginning of the book at all.

[PixyMisa]

Is science the only way to understand objective and expperience reality?
It's the only one that works.

[Resume]

the book was designed to appeal to more mainstream Christians.

And the problem with this is that I am not familiar with single mainstream, "moderate" christian who is familiar with NOMA, much less one who has read it and found it appealing.

However I am aquainted with moderate christians who have no problem accepting most "miracles" attributed to Christ. These are violations of known physical laws and as such subject to scientific scrutiny. An overlap, if you will. My take only, of course.

[Resume]

It's the only one that works.

The best model we have to date.

[Soapy Sam]

I present the New Synthesis:-
"It's only the best model we have to date that works."



While it turns out there are atheists in foxholes, (also foxes) it seems unlikely there exists a single person who, at 33000 feet in heavy turbulence , does not believe in proximate reality; and who would not prefer to believe the aircraft carrying him was designed by scientific engineers rather than by post modernist english professors.

[Twiler]

What is the criteria for impossible, and has that criteria been met?


I'd say a question is impossible to answer if evidence cannot be used to distinguish between a reality where one answer is true, and a reality where another answer is true.

In order to prove that things can happen without you knowing about them, you would have to discover something which had happened without you knowing about it; But as soon as you did, you would know about it, thus making the effort self-defeating. Hence, impossible question.



I know it's a turn of phrase, but does the evidence have to be visual?

If it is, are blind people screwed over in never being able to know?

I can't see any reason why it needs to be visual.

[Third Eye Open]

Best bumper sticker I've ever seen:

"MILITANT AGNOSTIC: I DON'T KNOW AND NEITHER DO YOU."

Assuming this is referring to 'god' then, yes, I do know. By any useful definition of the word 'know'.

[Complexity]

We could go on and on and on about this argument. I could quote many famous scientists who had a belief in Angels...

But let's just accept that you are insulted by this.

I apologise for any slight. None was intended.


Many people have accomplished things in spite of believing in woo and other foolish things.

That is no excuse not to honestly examine one's beliefs, discarding all that are discovered to be unfounded.

[Complexity]

To know what is real, should we first consult science? Or are we making leaps of faith until science confirms this?

How many studies do we do until we confirm something is real? 1, 2? 12?

Or are most of us constantly running on assumptions. I assume that office building across the street is real. But I'm not sure. I haven't read studies. I haven't tested that it is built of materials and in a certain way that constitutes a building. In fact I haven't read studies or science that defines the parameters of what is a building.

Instead, when I was a child I was told that shape is a building. I can see it. I assume.


As I said, science isn't always done by scientists - it is primarily a way of approaching the world, and some of us try to approach the world scientifically as much of the time as we can. We tend to be skeptics.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yeah, logically...that's pretty much where I sit on the matter.


I think that's as far as we can take it from a positive outlook -- meaning only looking at the good side of the matter, which is pretty bad for the life after death crowd.

But there is the other issue -- the negative side -- which has been brought up more than once in this thread. It is this: we know that we think magically at times and we know that we project our wants on the universe. Life after death has this character -- magical thinking and based in human desire.

So, not only do we not have good reason to believe that life after death is likely, but we have very good reason to suspect that it is human projection, sheer fantasy.

Sounds like two major strikes against the idea, which should be teetering on the brink of non-existence.

[I Ratant]

What is the criteria for impossible, and has that criteria been met?
I know it's a turn of phrase, but does the evidence have to be visual?

If it is, are blind people screwed over in never being able to know?
.
Measurable. Pints, frog yards, pounds, furlongs, light years, something tangible.
Beauty, intangible.
Religion, impossible. :)

[I Ratant]

Johannes Kepler.


To the larger point, scientists can believe looney stuff as easily as anyone. Compartmentalization isn't just for trains!
.
And the giant of all, Newton.
Copernicus. Galileo.. Most of the early archeologists who began to ponder the true of the earth were preachers with lots of time on their hands to look at things.

[I Ratant]

I present the New Synthesis:-
"It's only the best model we have to date that works."



While it turns out there are atheists in foxholes, (also foxes) it seems unlikely there exists a single person who, at 33000 feet in heavy turbulence , does not believe in proximate reality; and who would not prefer to believe the aircraft carrying him was designed by scientific engineers rather than by post modernist english professors.
.
Read up on the "Chrismas Bullet". A killer of a machine that got funded based on a good sales pitch.

[wogoga]

Johannes Kepler.


See Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106630), post #439 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6156372&postcount=439)

[Complexity]

See Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106630), post #439 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6156372&postcount=439)


No.

[I Ratant]

No, Hell no, and ridiculous.

[Nick227]

How can we interpret anything then? even science data? We can't rely on the scientists either, because they operate the same as you describe above.

Blackened Cat,

I'd love to know how level a playing field you have around this reincarnation thing. If it were demonstrated to you, theoretically and via some unknown means, that reincarnation absolutely couldn't happen, would you be cool with this?

I mean, do you consider that you have an emotional investment in believing in reincarnation or are you just interested and not bothered either way? I ask because my experience is that a lot of people who are acutely concerned about their mortality start believing in reincarnation as a way of avoiding their fears.

For myself, I can tell you something that you can of course accept or not. There may be a soul. There may be higher dimensional bodies and they may have the possibility to incarnate another physical body. For me it's possible. But what I can 100% guarantee you is that, if this should happen, then this new body will form its own sense of self. The "you" that appears to be experiencing the world around you is not coming back after death, because it has no actual existence anyway. It emerges from brain activity and appears to be the subject of various experiences but it is not. It's an illusion. So the "you", the "me," has no possibility to return. There is no one looking out from your eyes so the notion that he could return is invalid.

Nick

[Loss Leader]

Philosophical questions, are like Maths problems


Philosophical questions are entirely unlike math problems.

[I Ratant]

Blackened Cat,

I'd love to know how level a playing field you have around this reincarnation thing. If it were demonstrated to you, theoretically and via some unknown means, that reincarnation absolutely couldn't happen, would you be cool with this?

I mean, do you consider that you have an emotional investment in believing in reincarnation or are you just interested and not bothered either way? I ask because my experience is that a lot of people who are acutely concerned about their mortality start believing in reincarnation as a way of avoiding their fears.

For myself, I can tell you something that you can of course accept or not. There may be a soul. There may be higher dimensional bodies and they may have the possibility to incarnate another physical body. For me it's possible. But what I can 100% guarantee you is that, if this should happen, then this new body will form its own sense of self. The "you" that appears to be experiencing the world around you is not coming back after death, because it has no actual existence anyway. It emerges from brain activity and appears to be the subject of various experiences but it is not. It's an illusion. So the "you", the "me," has no possibility to return. There is no one looking out from your eyes so the notion that he could return is invalid.

Nick
.
How come it is that none of these "reincarnated" souls were William or Johnny spear chucker, dead at say Hastings... like these two guys?
The "reincarnated" are always like King Harold, or some other muckety from history, but never just an ordinary bloke, cannon fodder, etc.

[bokonon]

But the last chapter in the book is "I Believe in Life Beyond Death." (JSS's book, I mean.):eye-poppi
Never heard of Sprong, but as with life after birth: I'll believe it when I see it.

[Hokulele]

See Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106630), post #439 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6156372&postcount=439)


No, thank you. I participated in that thread early on, and if I recall correctly, you did not address any of the points I made. In addition, if you are calling upon the ghost of Kepler to support your case for reincarnation, as I said in the post you partially quoted, people believe all kinds of looney things. Smarts in one field does not guarantee smarts in all fields.

[Complexity]

Smarts in one field does not guarantee smarts in all fields.


On the other hand, utter ignorance in one field does not guarantee competence in any field.

It is not a case of "Everyone is special in their own way!"

Many people aren't smart about anything.

[bokonon]

Many people aren't smart about anything.
You mean, dead people?

[Maia]

Never heard of Sprong, but as with life after birth: I'll believe it when I see it.

I never heard of Sprong either, but John Shelby Spong... yes. ;)

Anyway, I was actually convinced by the end of the book that he had proved his case, which was, as stated in the last chapter, that he believed in life after death. This may seem like an easy case to prove, but after reading through most of the chapters in the book, it seemed about as likely as proving the afterlife itself.

Niles Eldridge also does an excellent summary of NOMA, but it's too late at night to talk about it right now.

[Halfcentaur]

The idea of an afterlife strikes me a strange, because it's really a very arbitrary scenario to consider.

Is it more or less likely that when we die our spirits all drift to the magnetic north pole and form clouds that lead to the Earth's weather system than it is that when we die our minds go to another reality where we are rewarded or find improvement of some sense? I think the idea of an afterlife is really just as arbitrary as saying when we die we teleport to the sun and the invisible light of our souls turns to the stuff of nuclear fusion.

Is one any less arbitrary than the other?

Does one seem to give comfort in the face of a bleak materialist reality? Which funny enough incidentally, we know that at least all there is to be seen and know is what one would expect from a purely material reality.

Does the idea of an afterlife make more sense logically than the existence of a before life? Before you were born? Why would you suddenly start to exist and then go on to live forever, when you could have always been existing?
Infinity makes more sense when it's always been and forever been, than to arbitrarily begin and then go on forever. Or does it? If there was a before life, why don't you remember it? Will you expect to remember this life in the afterlife?

Sadly in the romantic sense, the idea that we were not always here implies we won't always be here to me. But I am just a half centaur.

I find great joy and inspiration in this finite life, an accidental gift to be appreciated for it's sheer complexity. And I find that complexity infinitely more inspiring than the anthropomorphic limitations of a creator or an afterlife, considering how large the field is for such a tiny game.

I would aslo wonder, if there is a possibility of an afterlife and a before life, is there also a possibility of an inbetween life? Where do we go when we sleep?

[Complexity]

You mean, dead people?


Oh, no - I don't mock dead people, at least for being unintelligent.

There are a great many living people, however, who are less intelligent than (living) turnips.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Blackened Cat,

I'd love to know how level a playing field you have around this reincarnation thing. If it were demonstrated to you, theoretically and via some unknown means, that reincarnation absolutely couldn't happen, would you be cool with this?

I mean, do you consider that you have an emotional investment in believing in reincarnation or are you just interested and not bothered either way? I ask because my experience is that a lot of people who are acutely concerned about their mortality start believing in reincarnation as a way of avoiding their fears.

For myself, I can tell you something that you can of course accept or not. There may be a soul. There may be higher dimensional bodies and they may have the possibility to incarnate another physical body. For me it's possible. But what I can 100% guarantee you is that, if this should happen, then this new body will form its own sense of self. The "you" that appears to be experiencing the world around you is not coming back after death, because it has no actual existence anyway. It emerges from brain activity and appears to be the subject of various experiences but it is not. It's an illusion. So the "you", the "me," has no possibility to return. There is no one looking out from your eyes so the notion that he could return is invalid.

Nick



Well stated. What he said.

[Maia]

The "you" that appears to be experiencing the world around you is not coming back after death, because it has no actual existence anyway. It emerges from brain activity and appears to be the subject of various experiences but it is not. It's an illusion. So the "you", the "me," has no possibility to return. There is no one looking out from your eyes so the notion that he could return is invalid.


I have to be honest-- there's one thing that really bothers me about statements like this. They begin with a statement that is factually accurate (that would be the highlighted one.) But they then go on to make philosophical/psychological conclusions which are not automatically supported by the one statement that is empirically verifiable.

Here's an example of what I mean. Steven Rose is a neuroscientist. He is an atheist and a materialist, and he flatly states that any genuine scientist believes that thoughts emerge from brain activity and that anything resembling "Cartesian dualism" has no place in science. However, the conclusions he draws from his body of work about the functioning of the brain are very much opposed to those of Steven Pinker (who doesn't have Rose's credentials, actually). They've had a number of debates.

He certainly wouldn't agree with the quoted statement above. However, there is no way to say that this disagreement would be based on weird, vague, woo-ish ideas about reincarnation, or soul-like things floating around, or anything that David Chalmers might bring up. So the thing I don't like is the implication in these types of statements that anybody who would disagree with the rest of what's in them can't possibly be coming from a scientific stance, because this is just not the case. The statement itself is not particularly scientific ("There is no one looking out from your eyes" is a phrase that should not be appearing anywhere in a double-blind study anytime soon); it just includes one fact that is empirically verifiable, but the rest of the ideas can't simply piggyback on that. To be fair, though, I think that when people make these kinds of statements, they really don't realize that this is what they're doing.

[Complexity]

The "you" that appears to be experiencing the world around you is not coming back after death, because it has no actual existence anyway. It emerges from brain activity and appears to be the subject of various experiences but it is not. It's an illusion. So the "you", the "me," has no possibility to return. There is no one looking out from your eyes so the notion that he could return is invalid.


I have to be honest-- there's one thing that really bothers me about statements like this. They begin with a statement that is factually accurate (that would be the highlighted one.) But they then go on to make philosophical/psychological conclusions which are not automatically supported by the one statement that is empirically verifiable.


I disagree with your (highlighted) assertion.

I recommend Dennett's Consciousness Explained.

Maia, please include the original poster's nick when you quote them.

[Nick227]

I have to be honest

Great. Always the basis for a good relationship.

-- there's one thing that really bothers me about statements like this. They begin with a statement that is factually accurate (that would be the highlighted one.) But they then go on to make philosophical/psychological conclusions which are not automatically supported by the one statement that is empirically verifiable.

You may be bothered, but I am not trying to draw conclusions from prior statements. I'm giving you my take, which I think I stated pretty clearly at the beginning of the paragraph you quoted.

Here's an example of what I mean. Steven Rose is a neuroscientist. He is an atheist and a materialist, and he flatly states that any genuine scientist believes that thoughts emerge from brain activity and that anything resembling "Cartesian dualism" has no place in science. However, the conclusions he draws from his body of work about the functioning of the brain are very much opposed to those of Steven Pinker (who doesn't have Rose's credentials, actually). They've had a number of debates.

Sure, people disagree.

He certainly wouldn't agree with the quoted statement above.

Who wouldn't and why not?

However, there is no way to say that this disagreement would be based on weird, vague, woo-ish ideas about reincarnation, or soul-like things floating around, or anything that David Chalmers might bring up. So the thing I don't like is the implication in these types of statements that anybody who would disagree with the rest of what's in them can't possibly be coming from a scientific stance, because this is just not the case.

See reply at top.

The statement itself is not particularly scientific ("There is no one looking out from your eyes" is a phrase that should not be appearing anywhere in a double-blind study anytime soon);

Maybe not. But I think it's a clear statement that may be easily understood and one that addresses the issue directly. For those that believe in reincarnation, it does seem to often be the case that they believe that there is this soul experiencing the world and that if this body should die then it will one day grow a new one and the soul will continue its experiencing.

What I'm saying is that even if there is a soul, even if there is reincarnation, then still this will not happen. For the simple reason that it isn't happening now and actually never has.

Nick

[Ron_Tomkins]

Must disagree - I don't think that "Can we ever determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is either valid or philosophical.

Are all theoretically situations insulting?

If I pose a maths question that starts "If Suzie took the number 2 bus to.."

Would I then be questioned over the existence of Suzie or the number 2 bus? If I could not prove that Suzie exists, and that Suzie took the bus on that day... would I have insulted the intellect?

False analogy.

We don't need there to be an actual Suzie. The math problem you've suggested is one that can be proved in real life by using 1) any human being (regardless of whether it's a Suzie or not) and 2) any real bus. In other words, the example you provided uses variables that are proven to exist: buses and human beings.

The example Complexity provided uses a variable that isn't proven to exist at all: Angels.

The argument Complexity made is: Using a theorem that is already assuming that some or all of its variables exist; is a waste of time and an insult to intelligence.

[Complexity]

False analogy.

We don't need there to be an actual Suzie. The math problem you've suggested is one that can be proved in real life by using 1) any human being (regardless of whether it's a Suzie or not) and 2) any real bus. In other words, the example you provided uses variables that are proven to exist: buses and human beings.

The example Complexity provided uses a variable that isn't proven to exist at all: Angels.

The argument Complexity made is: Using a theorem that is already assuming that some or all of its variables exist; is a waste of time and an insult to intelligence.


Exactly.

[Halfcentaur]

Watching the extremely subtle changes in my father's mind after the head injuries from his youth began to catch up with him in his later years in life, and the radical changes that came with the strokes he experienced later in his life, it really drove home to me a lot of the things we think about self are really very arbitrary. The same sort of issues with my mother's deteriorated mental state, as well as the moments when she was actually dying before my eyes, in many ways sealed the deal on a lot of ideas about consciousness I have had.

Many of the religious would say these states were injuries to some kind of true self deep down, and death would free them of these defects, like some sort of reboot. The trouble I have with that, is when exactly is this point of their self that is being rebooted? In the case of my father, he witnessed his mother being murdered by his father when he was 8 years old, and that messed him up in a lot of ways psychologically. He was raised in a state home, endured all manner of abuse there, as well as by the Catholic Priest who looked over the boys there, and he then went on to have more jarring experiences in the Vietnam war. In his twenties he hit a tree on his motorcycle going nearly 90 mph, and after dying for nearly 3 minutes was in a coma for 5 days (where he interestingly had a classic near death experience of his own he recounted for me often). There were also several car crashes in his life after that, all of which led to him having to have fluid drained from his brain in his later years.

Many of these traumas shaped who he was, and by the time I came around, this would mean I never knew my father, and every moment we had in my 29 years never happened. Or perhaps the spiritual argument would say he's really down there somewhere waiting to be freed of his mortal coil and regain his clarity of mind. He also suffered from agoraphobia and bipolar disorder, and I have show tendencies towards those as well since I was a toddler.

Watching the gradual deterioration of my mother's mind, especially in the last 3 minutes of her life as the light of lucidity faded from her eyes, there was no indication to me of anything but increased loss of self awareness. In those three minutes, it was very clear that the blood clot from her leg that passed to her lungs and heart was damaging her mind even more, and while she was awake until the last moment, her sense of self was growing more and more cloudy, until it was over.

If these are damaged states to some core soul or spirit that endures after death, at which point is there in your life that is being rebooted? The experiences that shape us and damage us make us who we are, and if damage to the brain can wipe out entire aspects of your personality, does mental illness also qualify as some malady you will shed at death? Or do those endure in this afterlife, or are we suddenly relieved of these things and given a clarity never experienced before, like we were silent observers in our own lives?

Without my own issues with mood and anxiety, I would not be who I was today. And this is all a very shallow examination without even getting into the experiences themselves in life who shape who we are. At any given moment we are changing our fundamental sense of identity, throughout life we are in some ways many different people. I think our sense of self is really an illusion, a process we have to have to maintain a frame of reference. I've heard this is talked about in a book, I am a Strange Loop, I've been meaning to read. I think it's worth examining though, this idea of the brain's physical make up being responsible for much of what we think of as self. Simply believing deep down there is a soul that is keeping a back up file of your true self brings some scary realizations with it.

I was raised by a mother who loved her Christian culture and family, and by an athiest father. His near death experience he attributes to natural phenomenon. He described a beautiful comforting light, and the sensation of moving on an escalator up towards this light. He felt all his loved ones around him, and then felt the presence of God himself, who he said reminded him of Santa Claus, this jolly superior intelligence. My father demanded he was not yet ready to die, and next thing he knew he was awake from his 3 day coma.

He is still alive today, but his mind is badly deteriorated, he suffers from extreme dementia that leaves him nearly a vegetable but for when he experiences his manic states. He then believes he is going to go to school online and get his degree to cure cancer, as well as run for political office. All the while he is unable to swallow and is given nourishment from a tube and is barely able to answer a question. It's impossible to draw a line really from when I was young and how he seemed then, to how he is now.

I suppose I am mostly thinking out loud more than making a point. But it does raise some questions I think that are connected with the idea of an enduring consciousness.

[godless dave]

First one. "If objective reality exists" It's something I'm questioning at the moment.

I have devised a simple test for this.

1. Blindfold yourself.

2. Walk around your house or apartment with the blindfold on.

You will soon encounter evidence of an objective physical reality. It may be painful.

[Ichneumonwasp]

He certainly wouldn't agree with the quoted statement above. However, there is no way to say that this disagreement would be based on weird, vague, woo-ish ideas about reincarnation, or soul-like things floating around, or anything that David Chalmers might bring up. So the thing I don't like is the implication in these types of statements that anybody who would disagree with the rest of what's in them can't possibly be coming from a scientific stance, because this is just not the case. The statement itself is not particularly scientific ("There is no one looking out from your eyes" is a phrase that should not be appearing anywhere in a double-blind study anytime soon); it just includes one fact that is empirically verifiable, but the rest of the ideas can't simply piggyback on that. To be fair, though, I think that when people make these kinds of statements, they really don't realize that this is what they're doing.



Maia,

Perhaps I did not either, but I'm not sure you completely understood Nick's point.

What I took him to mean (outside of the no-self stuff, which goes way back and requires much more explication) can be summarized by thinking in terms of a teleporter thought experiment.

If we could do the Star Trek thing and disintegrate you and have you re-emerge over there, it would still be the case that the bundle of wants and desires that is 'you' right now would die. Whatever might form over there when the pattern is re-established would not be that bundle of desires, but another identical bundle of desires and motivations having the same form and same pattern.

While that would be great for that 'new' bundle of desires and motivations, it still would not be me; it would not be my current fears which are going to be extinguished when the teleporter kicks in. While that pattern is going to persist in the future, it won't be me, 'me' being an entirely personal construct. Of course, the funny thing is that there is, strictly speaking, no completely integrated 'me' or 'you' to begin with. 'We' are just a bundle of patterns.

The thing that gets us bogged down in all debates about consciousness is that desires and motivations are always entirely personal/subjective (which some folks take advantage of and warp the conversation inappropriately when they misuse subjective-objective distinctions). While may people may share some set of desires, the desires I have constitute 'me', one of the more important being, at least for me, that I want to continue living.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Watching the extremely subtle changes in my father's mind after the head injuries from his youth began to catch up with him in his later years in life, and the radical changes that came with the strokes he experienced later in his life, it really drove home to me a lot of the things we think about self are really very arbitrary. The same sort of issues with my mother's deteriorated mental state, as well as the moments when she was actually dying before my eyes, in many ways sealed the deal on a lot of ideas about consciousness I have had.

Many of the religious would say these states were injuries to some kind of true self deep down, and death would free them of these defects, like some sort of reboot. The trouble I have with that, is when exactly is this point of their self that is being rebooted? In the case of my father, he witnessed his mother being murdered by his father when he was 8 years old, and that messed him up in a lot of ways psychologically. He was raised in a state home, endured all manner of abuse there, as well as by the Catholic Priest who looked over the boys there, and he then went on to have more jarring experiences in the Vietnam war. In his twenties he hit a tree on his motorcycle going nearly 90 mph, and after dying for nearly 3 minutes was in a coma for 5 days (where he interestingly had a classic near death experience of his own he recounted for me often). There were also several car crashes in his life after that, all of which led to him having to have fluid drained from his brain in his later years.

Many of these traumas shaped who he was, and by the time I came around, this would mean I never knew my father, and every moment we had in my 29 years never happened. Or perhaps the spiritual argument would say he's really down there somewhere waiting to be freed of his mortal coil and regain his clarity of mind. He also suffered from agoraphobia and bipolar disorder, and I have show tendencies towards those as well since I was a toddler.

Watching the gradual deterioration of my mother's mind, especially in the last 3 minutes of her life as the light of lucidity faded from her eyes, there was no indication to me of anything but increased loss of self awareness. In those three minutes, it was very clear that the blood clot from her leg that passed to her lungs and heart was damaging her mind even more, and while she was awake until the last moment, her sense of self was growing more and more cloudy, until it was over.

If these are damaged states to some core soul or spirit that endures after death, at which point is there in your life that is being rebooted? The experiences that shape us and damage us make us who we are, and if damage to the brain can wipe out entire aspects of your personality, does mental illness also qualify as some malady you will shed at death? Or do those endure in this afterlife, or are we suddenly relieved of these things and given a clarity never experienced before, like we were silent observers in our own lives?

Without my own issues with mood and anxiety, I would not be who I was today. And this is all a very shallow examination without even getting into the experiences themselves in life who shape who we are. At any given moment we are changing our fundamental sense of identity, throughout life we are in some ways many different people. I think our sense of self is really an illusion, a process we have to have to maintain a frame of reference. I've heard this is talked about in a book, I am a Strange Loop, I've been meaning to read. I think it's worth examining though, this idea of the brain's physical make up being responsible for much of what we think of as self. Simply believing deep down there is a soul that is keeping a back up file of your true self brings some scary realizations with it.

I was raised by a mother who loved her Christian culture and family, and by an athiest father. His near death experience he attributes to natural phenomenon. He described a beautiful comforting light, and the sensation of moving on an escalator up towards this light. He felt all his loved ones around him, and then felt the presence of God himself, who he said reminded him of Santa Claus, this jolly superior intelligence. My father demanded he was not yet ready to die, and next thing he knew he was awake from his 3 day coma.

He is still alive today, but his mind is badly deteriorated, he suffers from extreme dementia that leaves him nearly a vegetable but for when he experiences his manic states. He then believes he is going to go to school online and get his degree to cure cancer, as well as run for political office. All the while he is unable to swallow and is given nourishment from a tube and is barely able to answer a question. It's impossible to draw a line really from when I was young and how he seemed then, to how he is now.

I suppose I am mostly thinking out loud more than making a point. But it does raise some questions I think that are connected with the idea of an enduring consciousness.



Welcome to the forum, and excellent post.

[StrangeLoop]

Watching the gradual deterioration of my mother's mind, especially in the last 3 minutes of her life as the light of lucidity faded from her eyes, there was no indication to me of anything but increased loss of self awareness. In those three minutes, it was very clear that the blood clot from her leg that passed to her lungs and heart was damaging her mind even more, and while she was awake until the last moment, her sense of self was growing more and more cloudy, until it was over.

If these are damaged states to some core soul or spirit that endures after death, at which point is there in your life that is being rebooted?




On top of the obvious metaphysical problems with dualism I've thought similar to you. Of my octogenarian grandmother, she is very rapidly declining into a second childhood, physically and mentally; which prompts me to wonder how one could take a physical view, a doctor says this or that is happening to her brain, but when a person dims completely? AHH the incorporeal immortal soul! One can imagine a slider of brain function that corresponds to a person, an "I", it can be taken all the way down to 1 where a person's "I" is very dim, little or no self-awareness, but it is only at 0 that the magic can happen.

And which stage of identity does the soul assume? The 20-year-old, 30, 40, 50? What if a person is happiest at 20 but most developed as a person at 50? Or becomes unrecognizable from 20 to 50, or 20 to 30? What an incredibly untenable position, both philosophically/scientifically and in the everyday.

You will like Hofstadter's Strange Loop if for no other reason than for liking Hofstadter himself.

[Halfcentaur]

Thanks for the warm reception, I've been lurking for quite a while, just started to post really. I've been waiting on a friend to lend me Strange Loop. Learning about chaos, how feedback of a very basic variance looped can lead to incredibly complex designs one would only expect from a designer at first glance, had me speaking with a friend about it who recommended the book based on that. It served to inspire within me a whole new regard for concepts like the golden ratio, seeing branching patterns and fractals emerge from chaos, and got me thinking of how intelligence would almost inevitably emerge from such a process on it's own, and how great it is to reach that point of being able to become aware of the process. In a poetic sense, it's almost like I am the product of the universe waking up to see itself, not to sound woo'ish, but it's a very romantic idea, and I am after all a component of the universe. I also only recently really discovered the categorization and terminology of fallacies, and am taking a great delight in having all these common errors I've noticed ( I think the first occasions were when watching talk show audiences in the 90s with their biased commentary) being used by people and being given names, it's great to see other people are aware of them to such a complicated depth. I hope one day to be able to recognize more of them by name and concept with greater competence and command. It's always an hour after the debate I work them out at this point, besides a few. :blush:

[Nick227]

It served to inspire within me a whole new regard for concepts like the golden ratio, seeing branching patterns and fractals emerge from chaos, and got me thinking of how intelligence would almost inevitably emerge from such a process on it's own, and how great it is to reach that point of being able to become aware of the process. In a poetic sense, it's almost like I am the product of the universe waking up to see itself, not to sound woo'ish, but it's a very romantic idea, and I am after all a component of the universe.

If you really follow materialist theories of consciousness to their natural conclusion, I don't think you can avoid sounding woo'ish. It's inevitable, if you ask me, because as soon as you really touch on selfhood you come to conclusions which appear deeply counter-intuitive.

The way to avoid sounding woo'ish is to join the JREF, and to absolutely demand that scientific principles be applied to the world outside of you, but then to steadfastly refuse to apply the same to what you consider to be "yourself." And, of course, to immediately react to an assortment of "woo-sounding" buzzwords with scorn and pomposity.

Say it loud and proud, Halfcentaur... may consciousness awaken to its own true nature!

Nick

[Halfcentaur]

I'd say the danger in the woo with that statement would really only be woo were I speaking of my-self alone. But I was talking about consciousness as a whole being an inevitable thing to emerge somewhere given a long enough loop of the most basic feedback as long as there's a tiny amount of variation. And it seems that's the nature of what reality does, for some reason, it creates what we would think of as complex order out of chaos by it's own behavior, and as long as there are variables in that process, a whale could spontaneously appear in the atmosphere,... maybe(no not really though). The Secret Life of Chaos is a great BBC documentary that got me thinking about this seemingly natural behavior of reality to give rise to self emergent order. Now that I think about it, I think Carl Sagan had the same line of thought regarding the evolution of consciousness. Consciousness being the point at which the universe wakes up to reflect upon itself.

But then, maybe you are being facetious and making a funny at the expense of the common behaviors that crop up in this community and I am confused in my nubile noobishness. I've had a problem lately of staying up for 24 hour stretches and sleeping for ten. I just hit the 25th hour and am preparing to go to the "in between" life, where the mind goes when you sleep, yeah? (Lake Baikal, Siberia of course)

Really, much as we're just a collection of billions of tiny independent components working in seeming concert that call's itself a self, that moment the universe churned something out that could look around and reflect on it's surroundings is in some sense the universe waking up to look at itself, woo free, no? But it won't be until the trans galactic federation of entities creates a universe wide wireless internet connection that the universe then becomes what it was destined to be, which is the RESURRECTION OF ZEUS with the lower body of Jesus fused at the spine with Kali the Destroyer, and this shall be the hermaphrodite empress of the ultra moment !


While these things and more are subject to change, I'm just a half centaur, so I can't really say what's what.

[Nick227]

But then, maybe you are being facetious and making a funny at the expense of the common behaviors that crop up in this community and I am confused in my nubile noobishness. I've had a problem lately of staying up for 24 hour stretches and sleeping for ten. I just hit the 25th hour and am preparing to go to the "in between" life, where the mind goes when you sleep, yeah? (Lake Baikal, Siberia of course)

Well, I like the occasional dig at what I consider the JREF materialist mindset, to create somewhat unfairly another self out of something that is not really so concrete.

Really, much as we're just a collection of billions of tiny independent components working in seeming concert that call's itself a self, that moment the universe churned something out that could look around and reflect on it's surroundings is in some sense the universe waking up to look at itself, woo free, no?

Yup. But for many JREFers you'd no doubt be getting dangerously close to the woo line with such terminology, and the reality of the situation is lost on them.

As I mentioned before, if you follow materialism and apply it to the inner world as well as the outer, you run slap bang into major paradox, and for many JREFers they prefer to stick on more solid ground. See an earlier thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=171419&highlight=materialism) for example.

Nick

[godless dave]

As I mentioned before, if you follow materialism and apply it to the inner world as well as the outer, you run slap bang into major paradox,

You do? Like what?

[Nick227]

You do? Like what?

Would you have an issue with dying if an exact replica of you took your place? If so, how do you justify this as a materialist? Or do you accept that there is in reality no experiencer, no self which experiences? And that thus no one is dying in such a scenario.

Nick

[Pup]

Would you have an issue with dying if an exact replica of you took your place? If so, how do you justify this as a materialist? Or do you accept that there is in reality no experiencer, no self which experiences? And that thus no one is dying in such a scenario.

If my memories were replicated along with everything else, I couldn't even tell it happened unless I was conscious during the procedure. For all I know, someone did that to me while I slept last night. Isn't there a factoid or urban legend or something that every seven years all our molecules have been replaced by other ones anyway? So it wouldn't bother me at all.

[Complexity]

Would you have an issue with dying if an exact replica of you took your place?


Of course not.

[Halfcentaur]

If my memories were replicated along with everything else, I couldn't even tell it happened unless I was conscious during the procedure. For all I know, someone did that to me while I slept last night. Isn't there a factoid or urban legend or something that every seven years all our molecules have been replaced by other ones anyway? So it wouldn't bother me at all.

It's true, the skeletal system and organs for the most part have been replaced by new cells in around a 7 year period as I recall. The much more "spooky" thing though, is at particle levels, your matter is bumping into other matter at all times and exchanging properties, flowing, in effect trading places. So in that sense, every second from the next you are fluctuating, a new body every moment. That's just really spooky to me. Your memories happened to another figure, your sense of self is the only constant. But everytime you change your mind about one thing, your "me" is a little bit different too.

Dawkins talks about it in his Ted talk on the queerness of the universe.
I recommend it.

I can't post URLs yet, not having 15 posts under my belt. Just go to ted.com and find Dawkins talk labeled "The queerness of the universe".

[Nick227]

The much more "spooky" thing though, is at particle levels, your matter is bumping into other matter at all times and exchanging properties, flowing, in effect trading places. So in that sense, every second from the next you are fluctuating, a new body every moment. That's just really spooky to me. Your memories happened to another figure, your sense of self is the only constant. But everytime you change your mind about one thing, your "me" is a little bit different too.

Well, I don't see it that you can really consider "sense of self" a constant. There are no constants here. It is simply that the body is relatively constant.

There is no "persisting self" under materialism, to use the more philosophical term. "Your memories" didn't really happen to anyone - now or previously. It is rather that the passage of thinking creates the sense of there being someone who is doing the thinking or hearing the thinking. And the sense of this person existing is actually all there is and it is constantly in flux - existing in the instant, dying away again, and being recreated with the next thought. Cool, eh?

Nick

[Ichneumonwasp]

Would you have an issue with dying if an exact replica of you took your place? If so, how do you justify this as a materialist? Or do you accept that there is in reality no experiencer, no self which experiences? And that thus no one is dying in such a scenario.

Nick



How does that reveal a paradox? Not wanting to die is a local feeling, built into 'our' structure aiding survival. That there is no integrated self that actually dies doesn't make that feeling go away.

[Halfcentaur]

Well, I don't see it that you can really consider "sense of self" a constant. There are no constants here. It is simply that the body is relatively constant.

There is no "persisting self" under materialism, to use the more philosophical term. "Your memories" didn't really happen to anyone - now or previously. It is rather that the passage of thinking creates the sense of there being someone who is doing the thinking or hearing the thinking. And the sense of this person existing is actually all there is and it is constantly in flux - existing in the instant, dying away again, and being recreated with the next thought. Cool, eh?

Nick

Yeah, yeah, yeah, truth in the context of materialism. I suppose I was speaking in the context of the "things you take for granted about reality as an average joe". I could have split hairs all day, but seeing as we already established the illusion of self, where would my point have wandered off to (and I thought when I threw in the bit about your "me" being different too I had successfully eluded to that) ? An interesting factoid must draw the line somewhere. :)

If I was to be as literal as possible from this point forward, words like I, you, me, him, etc would end up lost in a pool of reiteration.

[Nick227]

How does that reveal a paradox? Not wanting to die is a local feeling, built into 'our' structure aiding survival. That there is no integrated self that actually dies doesn't make that feeling go away.

I would consider the disparity between logic and feeling here essentially paradoxical. For it doesn't seem to me, on a feeling level, that it would "make it better" to have an identical copy of me take my place at the moment of death. Yet, materialist logic dictates that in such a scenario no one has been lost. Understanding self as non-persisting is IMO paradoxical for most people.

Nick

[paximperium]

Would you have an issue with dying if an exact replica of you took your place?Yup.
If so, how do you justify this as a materialist? Justify what? A desire to not die? Sorry that's an emotional response.

Or do you accept that there is in reality no experiencer, no self which experiences? And that thus no one is dying in such a scenario.
No. The original is dead. The copy is alive. Does not change the fact I(the original) would be dead.

[Halfcentaur]

I would consider the disparity between logic and feeling here essentially paradoxical. For it doesn't seem to me, on a feeling level, that it would "make it better" to have an identical copy of me take my place at the moment of death. Yet, materialist logic dictates that in such a scenario no one has been lost. Understanding self as non-persisting is IMO paradoxical for most people.

Nick

And this is why Bones despised the transporter pad, along with green blooded hobgoblins.

[Nick227]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, truth in the context of materialism. I suppose I was speaking in the context of the "things you take for granted about reality as an average joe". I could have split hairs all day, but seeing as we already established the illusion of self, where would my point have wandered off to (and I thought when I threw in the bit about your "me" being different too I had successfully eluded to that) ? An interesting factoid must draw the line somewhere. :)

If I was to be as literal as possible from this point forward, words like I, you, me, him, etc would end up lost in a pool of reiteration.

I submit that you are missing the point. Your statement was "your sense of self is the only constant." You could equally have written "the sense of self is the only constant," which would leave out personal pronouns altogether. It is not about splitting hairs and it is not about not being able to use personal pronouns. It is simply that the statement you made is not IMO accurate.

Nick

[Halfcentaur]

Very well. I misspoke on an assumption and shall suffer the consequences.

[paximperium]

Yet, materialist logic dictates that in such a scenario no one has been lost. When people state "materialistic logic", I smell a tidal full of bullcrap coming.
No. The original is gone. The original is quite dead.

Understanding self as non-persisting is IMO paradoxical for most people. Nope. Not to those who actually understand the "logic".

[Halfcentaur]

I don't think it's paradoxical, it just appeals to most people's emotions and makes them uncomfortable.

[Nick227]

Yup.
Justify what? A desire to not die? Sorry that's an emotional response.

For sure there's a desire not to die. It's scary. But materialist logic dictates that the fear is invalid, because nothing is lost if you are replaced by the copy. Can you state what you believe would be lost?

No. The original is dead. The copy is alive. Does not change the fact I(the original) would be dead.

I shouldn't have written "no one is dying" because "dying" is not strictly accurate here. My apologies.

Nick

[paximperium]

I don't think it's paradoxical, it just appeals to most people's emotions and makes them uncomfortable.
I would like to have an original Action Comics number 1 and not a replica.

[Nick227]

When people state "materialistic logic", I smell a tidal full of bullcrap coming.
No. The original is gone. The original is quite dead.

The original is gone, but you are alive and well, according to materialism.

Nick

[Halfcentaur]

I would like to have an original Action Comics number 1 and not a replica.

Me too. I don't want to be replaced by a replica. I don't like it one bit.
If I suddenly teleported outside of a tank of water with my perfect replica trapped within it, I would have an urge to let it die. Or I would shoot it with a gun and leave it on a pile of hats.

[Nick227]

I would like to have an original Action Comics number 1 and not a replica.

But do you think the Action Comics #1 itself is concerned?

Nick

[Nick227]

Me too. I don't want to be replaced by a replica. I don't like it one bit.

Rest assured, neither would your replica!

But can you state just what you believe is being lost in this scenario that causes you to object to it?

Nick

[paximperium]

For sure there's a desire not to die. It's scary. But materialist logic dictates that the fear is invalid, because nothing is lost if you are replaced by the copy. Can you state what you believe would be lost? The original.

[Halfcentaur]

Rest assured, neither would your replica!

But can you state just what you believe is being lost in this scenario that causes you to object to it?

Nick

I think that's your problem. I don't claim my desires are based in accuracy and logic. I am not an android or a green blooded hobgoblin.

[paximperium]

But do you think the Action Comics #1 itself is concerned?
You do realize that Comic books don't have emotions.

[paximperium]

I think that's your problem. I don't claim my desires are based in accuracy and logic. I am not an android or a green blooded hobgoblin.
It seems like Nick is attempting to argue that to have an emotional response that is illogical somehow invalidates the whole "materialistic logic", nevermind that entire premise is illogical.

[Halfcentaur]

It seems like Nick is attempting to argue that to have an emotional response that is illogical somehow invalidates the whole "materialistic logic", nevermind that entire premise is illogical.
I agree. It seems like this to me(the we-us-collective-I that is halfcentaur)as well.

[paximperium]

Me too. I don't want to be replaced by a replica. I don't like it one bit.
If I suddenly teleported outside of a tank of water with my perfect replica trapped within it, I would have an urge to let it die. Or I would shoot it with a gun and leave it on a pile of hats.
"The Prestige" Conundrum? I actually brought that up in a similar argument here...about 6months ago I think.

[Halfcentaur]

Yessir. I liked that movie. I've been meaning to go see Inception.
Not that I am using the movie as a frame of reference to make a point, just musing on the similarities. I don't think anyone is actually arguing that the desire to not be replaced is founded in materialistic logic.

[paximperium]

Yessir. I liked that movie. I've been meaning to go see Inception.
Not that I am using the movie as a frame of reference to make a point, just musing on the similarities. I don't think anyone is actually arguing that the desire to not be replaced is founded in materialistic logic.
I love Inception.
It was more action oriented than I thought. Great espionage thriller.
The whole dream and memory thing is not exactly original in the world of sci-fi but they did it pretty well and I loved the ambiguous ending(no spoilers).
If you like the Matrix, Inception is really good.

[\end derail]

[Ichneumonwasp]

I would consider the disparity between logic and feeling here essentially paradoxical. For it doesn't seem to me, on a feeling level, that it would "make it better" to have an identical copy of me take my place at the moment of death. Yet, materialist logic dictates that in such a scenario no one has been lost. Understanding self as non-persisting is IMO paradoxical for most people.

Nick


Ok. I wouldn't call that a paradox, though.

It doesn't make it better on a strictly feeling level to have a copy made. But I can create a new set of feelings based on what I know to be logically true -- that I am not losing a self.

I think there are simply certain situations in which feeling tends to trump logic. While I logically know that there is no integrated self lost in the process, that knowledge can only mitigate but not eliminate the extremely strong emotion I would have -- being killed.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Rest assured, neither would your replica!

But can you state just what you believe is being lost in this scenario that causes you to object to it?

Nick



I can. This local bundle of emotions that has one big one -- the desire not to be killed. Without that emotion, and emotions are always local affairs, the group of genes that help cook what we call "us" would not survive as easily. There is a very good evolutionary argument why I have the feeling of not wanting to die. Knowing in some sense that there is no "I" there doesn't help one bit. The feeling is very real and no amount of logic is going to make it go away.

[Halfcentaur]

I can. This local bundle of emotions that has one big one -- the desire not to be killed. Without that emotion, and emotions are always local affairs, the group of genes that help cook what we call "us" would not survive as easily. There is a very good evolutionary argument why I have the feeling of not wanting to die. Knowing in some sense that there is no "I" there doesn't help one bit. The feeling is very real and no amount of logic is going to make it go away.
Quite true. We have developed over the eons to protect this bundle of organs right here, not those over there, even if we know there's no difference in the part of our organs that computes such things. Green blooded hobgoblins and androids are free from such boundaries, at least the green blooded hobgoblins train themselves to be. In that sense, I am also striving for a similar freedom, but I would be dishonest were I to claim I've found it.

*And for those who think I am speaking gibberish, just as i was eluding to the movie "the Prestige" for dealing with the concept of our emotional response to perfect replicas, I am also eluding to Doctor Leonard McCoy and his distaste for the transporter pad for the same emotional dilemma, and his distaste for green blooded hobgoblins named Spock.

[Nick227]

The original.

This is what concerns you? Not that you would die? Nick

[Nick227]

I think that's your problem. I don't claim my desires are based in accuracy and logic. I am not an android or a green blooded hobgoblin.

Actually, it is frequently asserted these days that desires and emotions are anything but illogical. IIRC Cummins called them the "executors of evolutionary logic."

But anyway I'm not asking you to account for your emotions, I'm asking you what you believe is being lost.

Nick

[Nick227]

I can. This local bundle of emotions that has one big one -- the desire not to be killed. Without that emotion, and emotions are always local affairs, the group of genes that help cook what we call "us" would not survive as easily. There is a very good evolutionary argument why I have the feeling of not wanting to die. Knowing in some sense that there is no "I" there doesn't help one bit. The feeling is very real and no amount of logic is going to make it go away.

I am not asking this and I am not disputing that the emotions are real or that they have developed through evolutionary logic for good reason. I'm asking you what you personally believe is being lost.

You can continue to justify instinctual behaviour, but this is avoiding the question.

Nick

[paximperium]

This is what concerns you?

Not that you would die? Nick
The original is me. The original will die. I like my original.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I am not asking this and I am not disputing that the emotions are real or that they have developed through evolutionary logic for good reason. I'm asking you what you personally believe is being lost.

You can continue to justify instinctual behaviour, but this is avoiding the question.

Nick


If the question is "what is lost?", then the answer is "not much of anything". Technically the local emotions are lost, but the same emotional responses are going to appear 'over there'.

But I still don't see where there is a paradox. The reason why we act as though something is lost is not based in logic but in instinctual emotional responses.


ETA:

You know, I think I should rephrase that, because it is a framing issue.

From the universe's perspective, or the perspective of anyone outside of 'me', nothing is lost.

From 'my' perspective, everything is lost.

[Nick227]

The original is me. The original will die. I like my original.

The copy will feel the same. So where's the problem?

Nick

[Nick227]

From 'my' perspective, everything is lost.

From your perspective nothing is lost (unless you simply follow your instinctual response).

If you look at it logically, from the materialist standpoint, then nothing is lost regardless of who's perspective it is.

Nick

[Pup]

I wonder if the fact that it's a thought experiment with no possible way for it to actually happen at present, is what causes the emotional reaction?

We tell somebody they're going to "die" in the experiment, yet we're using the word "die" in a way that may or may not actually mean "die." Also, since we have no technology to duplicate something exactly down to the atomic level, we have no word for that process. A "copy" means "almost but not quite the same."

And then we get into the more confusing issue (no pun intended) that a comic book actually does contain the same molecules for its whole existence, but a living thing doesn't. So exactly copying and destroying a comic book (you can't, even in theory) and copying and then killing a person (can you?) actually mean two different things, yet we don't really have words to describe the difference.

So the way the question is worded, we're told that we're going to "die" even though the word was never meant for this situation, and then we're told we'll be "copied" even though the word was never meant for that situation either.

When one says an exact copy of a person, does that mean literally the same molecules, as would be required for an exact copy of a comic book? That would be impossible, since they're already being used at the moment of death or by the comic book that will be destroyed.

Or does that mean the exact same type of molecules reassembled in the same way? That's not precisely an exact copy, and wouldn't be exact enough for the comic book, but we might consider it close enough for anything living, since living things are always rearranging molecules anyway.

[MRC_Hans]

Do you have a belief either way? Which side would you take?

I tend to veer towards Objective reality existing.The idea of no objective reality leads to solipsism. Solipsism can be tested empirically, or at least, pragmatically:


MRC_Hans' practical test of Solipsism . (tm)

Disclaimer: This experiment might not only bruise your ego, but also your body, so you undertake it entirely at your own risk. I will not be held responsible for any consequences, including, but not limited to, loss of pride, peace of mind, teeth, etc.

1) Find a busy city street.

2) Wait for large aggressive looking male to walk by (generally, the more tattoos, the better).

3) Walk up behind said large aggressive looking male and direct a solid kick at the lower, rear portion of his body.

4) When he turns, tell him: "That was because you mother is so ugly".

5) Observe.

You will soon have tangible evidence for the following:

a) You exist physically.

b) At least one other entity exists physically.

c) You and that other entity are in communication, both abstractly and physically.

d) The other entity probably has a mother.

You may conclude that all your observations are, after all, part of an illusion, but the experience should convince you that you had better treat the illusion as reality .

Good luck!

Hans :D

[paximperium]

The copy will feel the same. So where's the problem?So? It's not the original.

So do you think a copy of the Declaration of Independence is the same as the original? It's just words, right? I know it doesn't matter but the original still has emotional significance.

[Halfcentaur]

These are the sorts of concepts that kept me awake at night as a young halfcentaur on the grassy fields with my stallion of a father dismissing it as nonsense.

As for what is being lost, I would say my emotional involvement would be lost, though perhaps if my double were to know of the details behind it's creation and situation it would feel a corresponding emotional response itself, pity, horror, relief at being the successive doppelganger. But not until the moment we were separate and I was gone and it learned of the exact mechanics. Until that point, having my emotions, it would share the horror of my realization, if in fact I was aware of what was about to happen and had no power to stop the copy and termination.

*
If you look at it logically, from the materialist standpoint, then nothing is lost regardless of who's perspective it is.

Nick

Was someone positing something to the contrary? I was under the implication that the only position of objection to this stance came from exactly outside the position of the purely materialist standpoint. So all we're being called out on is not being purely materialist observers.

*edit* I've been editing to keep from double posting, perhaps I should just post again when I feel I've something to add immediately after posting at the rate things go.

[paximperium]

I wonder if the fact that it's a thought experiment with no possible way for it to actually happen at present, is what causes the emotional reaction?

We tell somebody they're going to "die" in the experiment, yet we're using the word "die" in a way that may or may not actually mean "die." Also, since we have no technology to duplicate something exactly down to the atomic level, we have no word for that process. A "copy" means "almost but not quite the same."

And then we get into the more confusing issue (no pun intended) that a comic book actually does contain the same molecules for its whole existence, but a living thing doesn't. So exactly copying and destroying a comic book (you can't, even in theory) and copying and then killing a person (can you?) actually mean two different things, yet we don't really have words to describe the difference.

So the way the question is worded, we're told that we're going to "die" even though the word was never meant for this situation, and then we're told we'll be "copied" even though the word was never meant for that situation either.

When one says an exact copy of a person, does that mean literally the same molecules, as would be required for an exact copy of a comic book? That would be impossible, since they're already being used at the moment of death or by the comic book that will be destroyed.

Or does that mean the exact same type of molecules reassembled in the same way? That's not precisely an exact copy, and wouldn't be exact enough for the comic book, but we might consider it close enough for anything living, since living things are always rearranging molecules anyway.
So let's say you were in the Star Trek universe.
The teleporter essentially vaporized the original, copies the information down and reassembles an exact copy in the other teleporter pad.

Practically-nothing has changed. The copy and the original is the exact same thing. Emotionally(at present), I don't like being vaporized despite knowing that another copy will be made. Maybe that hypothetical me could get used to the concept of being vaporized and remade via the teleporter.

[Nick227]

So? It's not the original.

So do you think a copy of the Declaration of Independence is the same as the original? It's just words, right? I know it doesn't matter but the original still has emotional significance.

We can get attached to things for sure. But I do feel that discussing inanimate objects here is substantially different from examining human beings. Your body is anyway renewing itself on various differing levels all the time. Yet I'm willing to bet that you don't spend your days bereaving the loss of each cell that falls away to be replaced.

Nick

[Nick227]

Practically-nothing has changed. The copy and the original is the exact same thing. Emotionally(at present), I don't like being vaporized despite knowing that another copy will be made. Maybe that hypothetical me could get used to the concept of being vaporized and remade via the teleporter.

Materialist reasoning has the possibility to overwhelm the instinctual response. If you can see clearly, through applying rationality, that there can be no experiencing self (at least not one that persists) then you teleport in peace.

Nick

[paximperium]

We can get attached to things for sure. But I do feel that discussing inanimate objects here is substantially different from examining human beings. Your body is anyway completely renewing itself on various differing levels all the time. Yet I'm willing to bet that you don't spend your days bereaving the loss of each cell that falls away to be replaced.No. I consider it the same thing.

Words in the original documents are equivalent to the memories and information that makes a copy exactly the same as the original. The medium(ie. paper/body) has changed. Practically the essence(words/memories etc) are the same but I still like the original.

There is nothing rational about it. Some people look at Einsteins shoes or Washington's pen with awe. Its a damn shoe and pen. Who cares? For some strange reason we do.

We're not arguing about anything at this point. You seem to have this strange concept that an irrational emotional attachment to the "original" is somehow paradoxical to "materialist logic". Uh...yuh, that's what people have stated. There is nothing logical about it but there is nothing paradoxical about it either.

[Halfcentaur]

We can get attached to things for sure. But I do feel that discussing inanimate objects here is substantially different from examining human beings. Your body is anyway completely renewing itself on various differing levels all the time. Yet I'm willing to bet that you don't spend your days bereaving the loss of each cell that falls away to be replaced.

Nick

Or the fact that at any given moment your elementary particles are exchanging places with other particles, making you a at all times a fluctuation of copies.
At first I found it spooky and unsettling, now I find it fascinating, one of those things I derive amazement from that make life intriguing.

[Nick227]

Was someone positing something to the contrary?

INW was. Nick

[Halfcentaur]

Materialist reasoning has the possibility to overwhelm the instinctual response. If you can see clearly, through applying rationality, that there can be no experiencing self (at least not one that persists) then you teleport in peace.

Nick

Which is what happens every time you watch Star Trek and someone willfully uses the transporter pad.

[Halfcentaur]

INW was. Nick

As my name is actually Nick, your use of our name as a signature is giving me momentary pauses. And I hope you're not a copy of myself from the future.

[Nick227]

No. I consider it the same thing.

Words in the original documents are equivalent to the memories and information that makes a copy exactly the same as the original. The medium(ie. paper/body) has changed. Practically the essence(words/memories etc) are the same but I still like the original.

Yes. But in the case of a human body the cells are anyway in a state of constant change.

Anyway, how about you imagine that you are now the copy, looking back... would you consider the original paximp to have been superior?

Nick

[paximperium]

Yes. But in the case of a human body the cells are anyway in a state of constant change.

Anyway, how about you consider that you are now the copy, looking back... would you consider the original paximp to have been superior?Ahhhh, but do you notice the continuum?
The past "me" has a direct gradual connection to the current "me". Bits of "me" are slowly replaced over time.

A teleported "me" has every molecule replaced at a single moment.

Like I said, practically no difference. Emotionally, I still like the original.

[Nick227]

Ahhhh, but do you notice the continuum?
The past "me" has a direct gradual connection to the current "me". Bits of "me" are slowly replaced over time.

A teleported "me" has every molecule replaced at a single moment.

Like I said, practically no difference. Emotionally, I still like the original.

So, if you now imagine yourself to be the copy, and you look back... do you consider yourself in some way inferior to the original?

Nick

[Halfcentaur]

So, if you now imagine yourself to be the copy, and you look back... do you consider yourself in some way inferior to the original?

Nick

I never thought about it like that. Hehe. Thank you for the novel approach.

[Ichneumonwasp]

From your perspective nothing is lost (unless you simply follow your instinctual response).

If you look at it logically, from the materialist standpoint, then nothing is lost regardless of who's perspective it is.

Nick

The instinctual response is my perspective. Perspective is based in value; otherwise the word 'perspective' is meaningless. Value derives from emotion. Logic is something we use to solve problems, it is not a perspective.

[Nick227]

The instinctual response is my perspective. Perspective is based in value; otherwise the word 'perspective' is meaningless. Value derives from emotion. Logic is something we use to solve problems, it is not a perspective.

The instinctual response is an aspect of your perspective. The logical appraisal another one. Perspective is not created solely by emotions. There are thoughts. There is analysis going on in the background.

Nick

[Pup]

Words in the original documents are equivalent to the memories and information that makes a copy exactly the same as the original. The medium(ie. paper/body) has changed. Practically the essence(words/memories etc) are the same but I still like the original.

I don't think you're using "exact copy" to really mean "exact." You're emphasizing that it's primarily about containing the same information, as if typing the Declaration of Independence on a disk is an "exact copy" because it contains the same information.

But that's nowhere near an exact copy. An exact copy would need to contain the very same molecules as the original. Therefore, there can never be an exact copy of the Declaration of Independence, even in a Star Trek world, because its molecules are already in use.

The only way we can even consider an exact copy of a living thing is that its molecules are already changing, so it's less defined by its exact molecules.

[paximperium]

So, if you now imagine yourself to be the copy, and you look back... do you consider yourself in some way inferior to the original?
Sadly yes. I had hair then :(

[Ichneumonwasp]

INW was. Nick



I was? Where?

[Ichneumonwasp]

INW was. Nick

The instinctual response is an aspect of your perspective. The logical appraisal another one. Perspective is not created solely by emotions. There are thoughts. There is analysis going on in the background.

Nick


Of course there are other aspects to a perspective, but the meaning of any perspective comes from the emotions and motivations -- they are the sources of value. So, my perspective is largely a result of my emotional life. So, from my perspective, I will lose everything. Even though I know logically that there is no "I" there in the first place.

[Nick227]

I was? Where?

Here! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6164600#post6164600)

From the universe's perspective, or the perspective of anyone outside of 'me', nothing is lost.

From 'my' perspective, everything is lost.

[Nick227]

Of course there are other aspects to a perspective, but the meaning of any perspective comes from the emotions and motivations -- they are the sources of value. So, my perspective is largely a result of my emotional life. So, from my perspective, I will lose everything. Even though I know logically that there is no "I" there in the first place.

That depends on the strength of your rationale against the strength of your logic. It appears similarly reckless to jump out of an aeroplane yet many thousands of parachuters do it nonetheless. Rationally they understand that the parachute will stop them from being splatted on the ground. Of course you can witness parachuting third hand without having to jump, which makes it easier, but nevertheless the same principle can apply.

What you are essentially saying, if I understand you correctly, is that we are all inevitable victims of instinctual responses and that there's nothing logic or understanding can do about this.

Nick

[Ichneumonwasp]

That depends on the strength of your rationale against the strength of your logic. It appears similarly reckless to jump out of an aeroplane yet many thousands of parachuters do it nonetheless. Rationally they understand that the parachute will stop them from being splatted on the ground. Of course you can witness parachuting third hand without having to jump, which makes it easier, but nevertheless the same principle can apply.

What you are essentially saying, if I understand you correctly, is that we are all inevitable victims of instinctual responses and that there's nothing logic or understanding can do about this.

Nick



No, no, that is not what I am saying.

What I am giving is a rationale for why people do think the way they do -- why they feel that there is something wrong with the whole transporter thing. The reason is that they instinctually feel that their death is something that they want to avoid. Logically speaking, there is nothing rational in that fear because the same pattern is going to be recreated 'over there'. But the feeling of wanting to avoid death is so strong that it is nearly impossible to shake the feeling that there is something wrong with the whole scenario.

We can certainly mitigate the fear by knowing that nothing is really lost from an outside perspective, but there is always going to be that little niggling issue of "Oops, I'm going to die". That is why Asimov had the robot develop a sense of humor when he was exposed to this dilemma -- he knew the person he was transporting was going to die, which he was strictly forbidden to allow to happen, but that same person would be recreated 'over there', so ultimately all was well.

The problem arises because of subjective perspective and the whole issue of valuation. Human values do not exist independent of people. My values, your values, everything that is actually important to you or I exists in the bundle of emotions that constitute what we call "us". Technically, when the transporter eradicates that bundle of emotions in 'me', "I" will cease to exist. "I" can learn not to be bothered by this by the simple act of being transported many times and seeing that "I" am recreated the same each time. But one of the problems is that I can only have one perspective and the new "me" that is re-created on the other end can never be 100% sure that I am the same as the person who was transported in the first place. I would need to place some faith in the process.

So, technically speaking, the thing that is lost is the local expression of values that constitutes a large part of "who I am" despite the fact that an identical set of the same values will appear over there. That new person 'over there' will be identical to me for all intents and purposes, but it still won't be me because "I" cannot feel what "that other I" feels, even if it is exactly the same thing.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Here! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6164600#post6164600)

Right, the local arrangement of emotion/value will be lost. That is unavoidable. It's a minor thing in the scheme of things, but there is something that is lost.

[Nick227]

No, no, that is not what I am saying.

What I am giving is a rationale for why people do think the way they do -- why they feel that there is something wrong with the whole transporter thing.

Well, I think it's clear that both of us, plus at least a few other posters, understand why people are afraid. It's entirely natural to be afraid. But that to me is not the point. The point for me is to really, on a personal level, examine one's own psyche for what is actually going on - how the mind attempts to rationalise its instinctive fear. The reasons it throws up. Because though doing this we can ourselves become more aware and overcome prejudice. Remember, no one is actually being teletransported. It is simply a thought experiment.

I find it healthy to be able to really put myself mentally in the teleporter pod. The switch is going to flick, this body will die and another at a remote location will take its place. Now, there is fear. What's it actually about on a personal level? What attempts at logic does my mind come up with to rationalise its position? Fascinating to see.

Nick

[Nick227]

Sadly yes. I had hair then :(

Personally, if I imagine myself the copy and look back, it doesn't seem to me that Nick227#1 was a better or more exciting human being in any way. We are one and we do our thing.

Rationally, I know that there is no persisting self anyway, so the Nick227 that completes this post is many versions on from the one that started it anyhow.

Nick

[Belz...]

The copy will feel the same. So where's the problem?

I'm the original, and I no longer am.

A copy is not the original. To everyone else, including the copy, everything's the same. But not to the original.

[Belz...]

So, if you now imagine yourself to be the copy, and you look back... do you consider yourself in some way inferior to the original?

Nick

We've had this discussion before. If the original is not destroyed in the teleport, then you have two yous. You are not the copy and the copy isn't you, and you're not experiencing both lives. When the original dies, you die. Your copy is an entirely different entity.

[Belz...]

Personally, if I imagine myself the copy and look back, it doesn't seem to me that Nick227#1 was a better or more exciting human being in any way. We are one and we do our thing.

That's thing. You imagine yourself the copy but you are two different objects with distinct "minds". In a teleporter, You cease to exist.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, I think it's clear that both of us, plus at least a few other posters, understand why people are afraid. It's entirely natural to be afraid. But that to me is not the point. The point for me is to really, on a personal level, examine one's own psyche for what is actually going on - how the mind attempts to rationalise its instinctive fear. The reasons it throws up. Because though doing this we can ourselves become more aware and overcome prejudice. Remember, no one is actually being teletransported. It is simply a thought experiment.

I find it healthy to be able to really put myself mentally in the teleporter pod. The switch is going to flick, this body will die and another at a remote location will take its place. Now, there is fear. What's it actually about on a personal level? What attempts at logic does my mind come up with to rationalise its position? Fascinating to see.

Nick



Well, that's why even though I know there is an issue with it, I would still go ahead with all the weird scenarios that we propose if they were possible. I would get in the teleporter. I would have my brain patterns copied. Even though the subjective bit is a problem.

I know that there is no 'me' as an integrated self to begin with, but this isn't an issue about my reasoning ability. The fear of death is a purely emotional enterprise -- and that is just a description of the way things are.

The thing we have to watch out for always is that some people want to make more of an issue about the subjective 'experiencer' than is warranted and turn it into a separate 'thing' about which science cannot comment. That is simply wrong.

[Nick227]

The thing we have to watch out for always is that some people want to make more of an issue about the subjective 'experiencer' than is warranted and turn it into a separate 'thing' about which science cannot comment. That is simply wrong.

Agreed.

Nick

[Nick227]

You are not the copy and the copy isn't you, and you're not experiencing both lives. When the original dies, you die. Your copy is an entirely different entity.

"You" is a process. And no one is actually "experiencing" anyway. This is materialism.

There is, in actuality, no self that experiences. There merely appears to be. And this appearance can be perfectly replicated. What you have written is asserting dualism.

Nick

[paximperium]

"You" is a process. And no one is actually "experiencing" anyway. This is materialism. Man, you seem to love to assert what materialism says. Why is that?
But yup, "you" is a process but your second point is complete and utter garbage, nothing more than a semantic shift.
"You" are "experiencing".

There is, in actuality, no self that experiences. There merely appears to be. Nope. The "self" is the process. This "self" experiences.
And this appearance can be perfectly replicated. Yup. So?
The original is still lost.
The copy is not the original no matter how you keep twisting and changing your multiple points.

What you have written is asserting dualism. No. You may want to recheck your logical train derail.

[Nick227]

Man, you seem to love to assert what materialism says. Why is that?
But yup, "you" is a process but your second point is complete and utter garbage, nothing more than a semantic shift.
"You" are "experiencing".

"You" and "experience" are both processes that emerge from ancilliary brain processing. In simple sensory consciousness there is no "you" and there is no "experiencing." There is just sensory information. The mind categorizes it into "You" and "not you" as part of its function but this is not innate to sensory consciousness. If you just sit down and watch internally you can see it happening constantly. The mind creates from sensory reality a story about a "me" that is "experiencing." It has been programmed through evolution to do this. But it is just a story.

Nope. The "self" is the process. This "self" experiences.

Both emerge simultaneously from ancilliary processing. The mind constructs a me, presumably as a means to try and create a functional coherence from the vast mass of differing brain organs that comprise the brain. It creates a story about a "me" - a me that is doing things, a me that is experiencing. But this is just a means it has evolved to try and create integrity. And in most matters the difference between the story and the reality do not matter. But in hypothetical situations such as the Teleporter the separation can be seen.

Nick

[Belz...]

"You" is a process. And no one is actually "experiencing" anyway. This is materialism.

There is, in actuality, no self that experiences. There merely appears to be. And this appearance can be perfectly replicated. What you have written is asserting dualism.

It has nothing to do with dualism. I'm not claiming that there is a soul or some nonsensical thing other than the molecules that are being copied.

But don't forget that one of the parameters of each of those molecules is location. The copy is a different animal from the original. He'll act the same, think the same and appear the same to everybody else, including himself and me, but he won't be me, still.

Why ?

Perhaps, this time, someone can answer this:

If you copy someone but keep the original, will the original feel and experience what the copy feels and experiences ? I assume you'll say "no". If no, then if the original ceases to be, his experiencing stops. Sure, the copy carries on, so to everybody else all is the same. But the original is gone, and has stopped experiencing. If I'm the original, I don't want that to happen: the knowledge that an exact copy of me will endure is no comfort for oblivion.

So far NO ONE has ever adressed that.

[Ichneumonwasp]

"You" and "experience" are both processes that emerge from ancilliary brain processing. In simple sensory consciousness there is no "you" and there is no "experiencing." There is just sensory information. The mind categorizes it into "You" and "not you" as part of its function but this is not innate to sensory consciousness. If you just sit down and watch internally you can see it happening constantly. The mind creates from sensory reality a story about a "me" that is "experiencing." It has been programmed through evolution to do this. But it is just a story.



Both emerge simultaneously from ancilliary processing. The mind constructs a me, presumably as a means to try and create a functional coherence from the vast mass of differing brain organs that comprise the brain. It creates a story about a "me" - a me that is doing things, a me that is experiencing. But this is just a means it has evolved to try and create integrity. And in most matters the difference between the story and the reality do not matter. But in hypothetical situations such as the Teleporter the separation can be seen.

Nick



Yes, but meaning only emerges through the story; and what matters evolutionarily is the survival of the individual since the genes can't do it on their own. They reporduce by means of reproducing the entire individual. Hence the strong feeling of not wanting to die and the equally strong feeling that we are all integrated selves.

The fact that this is just a story doesn't help anyone except in terms of thinking about what is going on in the brain.

Life decisions are not made at the level of individual neurons or neural systems. Life decisions concern the individual.

[paximperium]

Simple question Nick.
You create an exact copy of the original but the original continues to be alive.
So you have an original and a copy that is 100% identical.
Which is "you"?
Which would you prefer to live?

[Pup]

Perhaps, this time, someone can answer this:

If you copy someone but keep the original, will the original feel and experience what the copy feels and experiences ? I assume you'll say "no". If no, then if the original ceases to be, his experiencing stops. Sure, the copy carries on, so to everybody else all is the same. But the original is gone, and has stopped experiencing. If I'm the original, I don't want that to happen: the knowledge that an exact copy of me will endure is no comfort for oblivion.

So far NO ONE has ever adressed that.

If there was an exact copy, how would you know which is the original and which is the copy, so you would know which one is the "you" that doesn't want to die?

Everything about "you" at the moment that the copy was made, would be duplicated.

After that, both would experience separate lives, but each would equally feel that it was the original.

Let's say your name is John Smith. What if you woke up from surgery and someone said to you, "We made a copy of John Smith while he was unconscious in case he died on the operating table. He didn't die, but you're the copy, so now we'll dispose of you." And sure enough, there's someone else who looks just like you lying on the next table.

You'd feel just like "you" because you'd have all your memories up to the moment the anaesthetic started.

How could you prove to the doctors that they'd made a mix-up and you were actually "you," not the copy?

I think people aren't really groking what "copy" in this sense means.

[Ichneumonwasp]

If there was an exact copy, how would you know which is the original and which is the copy, so you would know which one is the "you" that doesn't want to die?

Everything about "you" at the moment that the copy was made, would be duplicated.

After that, both would experience separate lives, but each would equally feel that it was the original.

Let's say your name is John Smith. What if you woke up from surgery and someone said to you, "We made a copy of John Smith while he was unconscious in case he died on the operating table. He didn't die, but you're the copy, so now we'll dispose of you." And sure enough, there's someone else who looks just like you lying on the next table.

You'd feel just like "you" because you'd have all your memories up to the moment the anaesthetic started.

How could you prove to the doctors that they'd made a mix-up and you were actually "you," not the copy?

I think people aren't really groking what "copy" in this sense means.


There is no way to prove that you are "you" and not a copy.

That is why this is simply a frame problem. Looked at from the outside, both are identical at the time the copy is made, so from the outside it doesn't matter which is 'sacrificed'.

But from the "inside" it matters completely since each subject is the only one capable of experiencing his or her experiences. And all value derives from the individual's emotions. We each value our particular life, whether or not there is an exact copy of us standing over there.

The way one answers this question depends on which frame of reference one uses to approach it.

[Nick227]

Yes, but meaning only emerges through the story; and what matters evolutionarily is the survival of the individual since the genes can't do it on their own. They reporduce by means of reproducing the entire individual. Hence the strong feeling of not wanting to die and the equally strong feeling that we are all integrated selves.

The fact that this is just a story doesn't help anyone except in terms of thinking about what is going on in the brain.

Life decisions are not made at the level of individual neurons or neural systems. Life decisions concern the individual.

I agree entirely. However, this doesn't change the fact that both self and experience emerge simultaneously from ancilliary processing. They are not innate to sensory consciousness. And they are not what they appear to be, which is the crux of it here for me.

Yes, nature endows us with a strong sense of self. Sensory processing is created according to the needs of self and interpreted as relating to self. But it is not itself "self-ish". Yes, grasping the mettle of self and of experience allows us to mature as beings. Identification is good. But it is not what it seems to be and this leaps straight to the foreground when you consider Parfit's famous thought experiment.

Nick

[Nick227]

Simple question Nick.
You create an exact copy of the original but the original continues to be alive.
So you have an original and a copy that is 100% identical.
Which is "you"?
Which would you prefer to live?

For me these kinds of moralist dilemmas have nothing to do with the basic scenario and are more an attempt to avoid looking inside. They always come up when Parfit's Teletransporter scenario is discussed. The "guts" of Parfit's TE for me is to ask myself to justify my fear of pushing the button. What rationally am I losing? It seems obvious "My god, you fool, I'm going to die, isn't it obvious etc" but then "OK, so what, as a materialist do I believe is really being lost? State it." This is the crux for me and the various "oh but what if there's a mistake and then the guard has to come in and kill you, or there are now 2 yous etc etc" are just a sideshow to avoid the crux. That's my take.

Nick

[Belz...]

If there was an exact copy, how would you know which is the original and which is the copy, so you would know which one is the "you" that doesn't want to die?

Everything about "you" at the moment that the copy was made, would be duplicated.

After that, both would experience separate lives, but each would equally feel that it was the original.

Let's say your name is John Smith. What if you woke up from surgery and someone said to you, "We made a copy of John Smith while he was unconscious in case he died on the operating table. He didn't die, but you're the copy, so now we'll dispose of you." And sure enough, there's someone else who looks just like you lying on the next table.

You'd feel just like "you" because you'd have all your memories up to the moment the anaesthetic started.

How could you prove to the doctors that they'd made a mix-up and you were actually "you," not the copy?

I think people aren't really groking what "copy" in this sense means.

That's all irrelevant. All these arguments are made from the COPY's perspective. I'm talking about the original, who has CEASED to exist and NO LONGER experiences. That is a fact: the original is dead and his consciousness, however you define it, has been terminated.

I don't want to be terminated.

[Nick227]

But from the "inside" it matters completely since each subject is the only one capable of experiencing his or her experiences...

...appears to be "experiencing his or her experiences." Because the self is not actual, in material terms, but is merely a virtual reference point, it is not actually having any experiences. The brain, as a whole, exists. And the brain, as a whole, will be recreated. The notion that something is being lost is simply created by a lack of awareness. It appears that there "is someone" seeing the computer screen. It appears that there "is someone" hearing the thoughts, but in material terms there simply is not. It's an illusion.

Nick

[Ichneumonwasp]

...appears to be "experiencing his or her experiences." Because the self is not actual, in material terms, but is merely a virtual reference point, it is not actually having any experiences. The brain, as a whole, exists. And the brain, as a whole, will be recreated. The notion that something is being lost is simply created by a lack of awareness. It appears that there "is someone" seeing the computer screen. It appears that there "is someone" hearing the thoughts, but in material terms there simply is not. It's an illusion.

Nick


Unfortunately we are stuck with the language we inherited, but, yes.

[Nick227]

That's all irrelevant. All these arguments are made from the COPY's perspective. I'm talking about the original, who has CEASED to exist and NO LONGER experiences. That is a fact: the original is dead and his consciousness, however you define it, has been terminated.

Neither the copy nor the original are actually experiencing. Not in the sense they believe they are. In material terms there is not a self. It is simply a virtual reference point created by the mind. The brain is the self. Or the whole body is the self, whatever. And these things will be recreated.

Nick

[Pup]

That's all irrelevant. All these arguments are made from the COPY's perspective. I'm talking about the original, who has CEASED to exist and NO LONGER experiences. That is a fact: the original is dead and his consciousness, however you define it, has been terminated.

I don't want to be terminated.

Why do you assume that my operating-room scenario is from the copy's perspective? How do you know there wasn't really a mix-up, and it's being told from the original's perspective?

[paximperium]

Neither the copy nor the original are actually experiencing. Not in the sense they believe they are. In material terms there is not a self. It is simply a virtual reference point created by the mind. The brain is the self. Or the whole body is the self, whatever. And these things will be recreated.

Nick
Sounds good so far.

[Belz...]

Neither the copy nor the original are actually experiencing.

That's interesting. So what's all these things I think I'm experiencing, and why do you think we need another word for it ?

In material terms there is not a self. It is simply a virtual reference point created by the mind. The brain is the self. Or the whole body is the self, whatever. And these things will be recreated.

Granted. However the COPY has a different "self", although it is identical, it is a distinct object. Since you do not share the copy's mind (a point which you, unsurprisingly, have not adressed), you are not the same "self" and therefore, when the original dies, _you_ die. The copy may be identical, but it is a distinct object which you are not.

[Belz...]

Why do you assume that my operating-room scenario is from the copy's perspective? How do you know there wasn't really a mix-up, and it's being told from the original's perspective?

:rolleyes: I really have no love for philosophical nonsense.

Answer this:

If you get into a teleporter, and the teleporter half-fails, creating a duplicate without destroying you, do you share the copy's thoughts and feelings ? And, if not, why do you seem to assume that the copy really is the same person ?

Now assume the teleporter worked. Again, the copy is not the same object. Sure enough, from the perspective of everybody except the original, nothing has changed. But, specifically from the POV of the original, everything has changed, since it has ceased to exist.

[Nick227]

That's interesting. So what's all these things I think I'm experiencing, and why do you think we need another word for it ?

It is not so much a matter of needing another word for it. It is simply that in reality there is not a self that experiences. This self that experiences exists through inner dialogue - thinking. There is thinking, and from thinking the appearance of a self who is experiencing emerges.

Granted. However the COPY has a different "self", although it is identical, it is a distinct object

Now it gets a little complex because the term "self" covers a variety of phenomena on a variety a levels. The copy has a different body, for sure, and self can mean body. But the self that experiences is not the body. Neither is it the brain. The self that experiences is, as we've said, just this virtual reference point, created by the mind. It emerges from ancilliary processing and it is not what it seems. As paximperium gave earlier as an analogy, it's a bit like the book and what's written in the book.


Since you do not share the copy's mind (a point which you, unsurprisingly, have not adressed),

"You" emerges from mental activity. There is not a "you" that owns the mind. The mind creates this "you", this sense of a virtual user or owner.

you are not the same "self" and therefore, when the original dies, _you_ die.

Something which does not exist in the first place cannot really die.

Nick

[calebprime]

...

Something which does not exist in the first place cannot really die.

Nick

Those sacks of flesh walking around--thinking they exist--actually exist.

They feel strongly, in particular, about certain other sacks of flesh that also exist.

When another sack of flesh that one feels strongly about stops talking and walking around forever, and gets stinky and has to be buried or incinerated, the aforementioned sacks of flesh who were associated with him/her are often sad. And rightfully so. That sack of flesh has ceased to exist. Really.

My kid would miss me if I were dead. There would be one less person to look after him, who knows his jokes and sense of humor. One less ally. One less person to pick him up from camp. One less person who he knows he can trust. One less person who shares subtle affinities with him because of genetic similiarites and a shared past together.

Death happens. Death is real. All the silly juggling of words you wish to engage in can't change that.

[Belz...]

It is not so much a matter of needing another word for it. It is simply that in reality there is not a self that experiences. This self that experiences exists through inner dialogue - thinking. There is thinking, and from thinking the appearance of a self who is experiencing emerges.

Again, you're redefining words for no reason. "Self" means the person (meatbag, human, etc.) processing the information from the "outside" world. Each person has such processes, which we call experiences. Therefore I experience. My copy experiences, too. But since I am not the same object as he, I do not share his experiences. Ergo, when I die, my experiences cease.

Now it gets a little complex because the term "self" covers a variety of phenomena on a variety a levels. The copy has a different body, for sure, and self can mean body. But the self that experiences is not the body. Neither is it the brain. The self that experiences is, as we've said, just this virtual reference point, created by the mind. It emerges from ancilliary processing and it is not what it seems. As paximperium gave earlier as an analogy, it's a bit like the book and what's written in the book.

But each copy will have a different reference point. And you STILL haven't adressed my malfunctioning teleporter analogy. Is it some kind of taboo I haven't heard about ?

"You" emerges from mental activity. There is not a "you" that owns the mind. The mind creates this "you", this sense of a virtual user or owner.

Okay, what ?

Something which does not exist in the first place cannot really die.

I exist. Hell, even solipsists agree to that.

[Nick227]

Those sacks of flesh walking around--thinking they exist--actually exist.

The word "self" has different attibutions. In one usage it can refer to the body. And in the Teleporter scenario of the course one body will cease to be. No doubt about it.

But when we we talk about a "self that is experiencing" we are referring to the sense of self that the mind creates in order to help it to function - it's "me." It is not that there really exists, in material terms, a "me that experiences", rather that this is a useful illusion created by the mind. You cannot kill this "me that experiences" for the simple reason that it does not exist. This is covered these days by a multitude of writers, amongst them Dennett, Hofstadter, and plenty more.

Nick

[paximperium]

The word "self" has different attibutions. In one usage it can refer to the body. And in the Teleporter scenario of the course one body will cease to be. No doubt about it. And what about the two exact copy scenario? Which is the "self"?

But when we we talk about a "self that is experiencing" we are referring to the sense of self that the mind creates in order to help it to function - it's "me." It is not that there really exists, in material terms, a "me that experiences", rather that this is a useful illusion created by the mind. You cannot kill this "me that experiences" for the simple reason that it does not exist. This is covered these days by a multitude of writers, amongst them Dennett, Hofstadter, and plenty more. No. The destruction of the "me that experience" is death. Unless you're redefining death.

[Nick227]

Again, you're redefining words for no reason. "Self" means the person (meatbag, human, etc.) processing the information from the "outside" world. Each person has such processes, which we call experiences.

When you use the term "my brain" or "my body", to whom do you refer? If Belz is the owner of Belz's body and Belz's brain then where is this owner? It is a virtual reference point, nothing more. It has no physical existence. But the illusion of it existing serves to help the mass of different modules that comprise our body and brain to function together.


But each copy will have a different reference point.

Neither of which have any physical existence. Are two non-existing virtual points different? I don't think so.

And you STILL haven't adressed my malfunctioning teleporter analogy. Is it some kind of taboo I haven't heard about ?

See reply to paximperium earlier.

Nick

ps why not have a crack at likely the definitive work on the subject - Dennett and Hofstadter's "The Mind's I"? It could help.

[Nick227]

And what about the two exact copy scenario? Which is the "self"?

Each brain will create its own self.

No. The destruction of the "me that experience" is death. Unless you're redefining death.

If thinking stops but sensory consciousness remains there is no longer any "me that experiences." But you're not dead.

Nick

[paximperium]

When you use the term "my brain" or "my body", to whom do you refer? If Belz is the owner of Belz's body and Belz's brain then where is this owner? It is a virtual reference point, nothing more. It has no physical existence. But the illusion of it existing serves to help the mass of different modules that comprise our body and brain to function together. I refer to the process.
Are you claiming a process does not exist?

Neither of which have any physical existence. Are two non-existing virtual points different? I don't think so. A process exist.

[paximperium]

Each brain will create its own self. Okay.

If thinking stops but sensory consciousness remains there is no longer any "me that experiences." But you're not dead. Nope. The process is lost and therefore "the self" is dead.
I consider vegetative or very brain damaged people dead.

[Pup]

:rolleyes: I really have no love for philosophical nonsense.

What you dismiss as philosophical nonsense is the whole point. What would make the original feel he was the original and not the copy? What would make the copy feel he was the copy? How could anyone tell just by examining them? If there's no difference, there's no difference.

If you get into a teleporter, and the teleporter half-fails, creating a duplicate without destroying you, do you share the copy's thoughts and feelings ? And, if not, why do you seem to assume that the copy really is the same person ?

At the instant the copy was made, they're the identical person. That's the definition of "copy." From that point on, their experiences diverge, just like everyone constantly changes based on their experiences from any instant in time, onward.

A year later, the original is no more the same person he was a year ago, than the copy is. If you disagree with that, then we have a fundamental disagreement about the definition of the "same."

Now assume the teleporter worked. Again, the copy is not the same object. Sure enough, from the perspective of everybody except the original, nothing has changed. But, specifically from the POV of the original, everything has changed, since it has ceased to exist.

Yet this happens to everyone every day, and they don't seem to feel that it destroys their self, as long as they seem physically somewhat similar to what they were before and have the same memories, which the copy would. In fact, people even cope with physical changes or minor memory loss with a sense of self intact, up to a point.

Let's say you had a choice:

The teleporter could function and produce a perfect copy of "you" (after destroying the original "you"), with all your memories in tact

Or the teleporter could malfunction and instead of making a copy of you and destroying the original, it would keep the original "you" alive, but wipe out all your memories, replace them with someone else's and make "you" look entirely different, different gender, different race, etc.

Which would seem closer to the death of what was "you"? Which would you prefer?

[Belz...]

When you use the term "my brain" or "my body", to whom do you refer? If Belz is the owner of Belz's body and Belz's brain then where is this owner? It is a virtual reference point, nothing more. It has no physical existence. But the illusion of it existing serves to help the mass of different modules that comprise our body and brain to function together.

You speak of this as though it was entirely non-existent. Whence does this illusion come from if not some reality ?

Neither of which have any physical existence. Are two non-existing virtual points different? I don't think so.

Superman and Batman are different, and yet non existent. :D

I see you STILL haven't adressed the malfunctioning teleporter scenario. What is it about that scenario that is so frightening to you ?

[Belz...]

Each brain will create its own self.

Yes, PRECISELY. So if the original dies, his "self" dissapears. "My" illusion of self dissapears. From my POV, I no longer exist.

[Nick227]

I refer to the process.
Are you claiming a process does not exist?
A process exist.

Process exists for sure. But with the self that experiences the process surrounds a virtual centre, creating the sense of it existing.

Thinking is the process that establishes the sense of mental self. It seems as though there is someone who hears the thoughts and that this person is Nick. This is all very well and fine. But when this becomes one stage extended into "I am experiencing the computer monitor" then now all we have in reality are thoughts. There is no I that is actually experiencing. It is just a useful story. Thus, when you push the Teleport button, it for sure seems as though this experiencing I is going to die, but in actuality it does not exist anyway!

Nick

[Nick227]

Nope. The process is lost and therefore "the self" is dead.
I consider vegetative or very brain damaged people dead.

You would consider someone dead if they have full sensory consciousness, bodily sensations, feelings, and disidentified thoughts? Such a person has no sense of an experiencing self.

Nick

[Nick227]

Yes, PRECISELY. So if the original dies, his "self" dissapears. "My" illusion of self dissapears. From my POV, I no longer exist.

The point is that this experiencing selfhood is only constructed in the moment anyway. Yet it appears to be persisting. It appears as though there is a self that experiences, and that it has been the same self experiencing since birth. But the reality, according to materialism, is that only the sense of this experiencing self actually exists and even this is anyway utterly transitory.

Nick

[MikeSun5]

...the universe then becomes what it was destined to be, which is the RESURRECTION OF ZEUS with the lower body of Jesus fused at the spine with Kali the Destroyer, and this shall be the hermaphrodite empress of the ultra moment !

Yea, I'm cool with that.

[paximperium]

Process exists for sure. But with the self that experiences the process surrounds a virtual centre, creating the sense of it existing. Nope, unless you consider soccer/my Norton anti-virus scanning engine(or any other process), the process that surrounds kicking a ball with some rules/or scanning computer programs(or any processes), creating a sense of it existing.

Thinking is the process that establishes the sense of mental self. It seems as though there is someone who hears the thoughts and that this person is Nick. This is all very well and fine. But when this becomes one stage extended into "I am experiencing the computer monitor" then now all we have in reality are thoughts. There is no I that is actually experiencing. It is just a useful story. Thus, when you push the Teleport button, it for sure seems as though this experiencing I is going to die, but in actuality it does not exist anyway! Nope. As I've stated already. The process is the self and I consider this actually existing.
Just because of it is a virtual illusion does not negate the existence of the process which is the illusion of the I itself. That's the equivalent of claiming that any self-monitoring computer program does not exist because it does not exist as a specific "thing" but as a process in the the computer's CPU.

You would consider someone dead if they have full sensory consciousness, bodily sensations, feelings, and disidentified thoughts? Such a person has no sense of an experiencing self.
Did you just move the goal post again?
Please restate your ORIGINAL claim.

[Halfcentaur]

Yea, I'm cool with that.

More and more I am as well. Which is why I continue to keep the wall in the basement wet with the blood of my neighborhood's dogs, cats, raccoons, possums, and skunks. Never weasels or squirrels though, never.
Once the wall is dry, the things from beyond the sphere will reach inside of our universe and destroy the destiny of the ultra moment.

[Belz...]

The point is that this experiencing selfhood is only constructed in the moment anyway. Yet it appears to be persisting. It appears as though there is a self that experiences, and that it has been the same self experiencing since birth. But the reality, according to materialism, is that only the sense of this experiencing self actually exists and even this is anyway utterly transitory.

That I can agree to. However the is a semi-continuity of consciousness, in the sense that the state of the organism producing it only changes slightly from one moment to the next. Exterminating the organism, whether or not you create a copy, exterminates that consciousness as well. It doesn't magically transfer to the copy.

[blobru]

The copy will feel the same. So where's the problem?

Nick

Assuming some instinct for 'self'-preservation, a materially identical copy will still be functionally distinct from the original: it will value its own life more than the original's (just as the original will value its own life more than the copy's).

Say we create Nick228, a materially identical copy of Nick 227, and express its values as functions; then necessarily:

for Nick228: life(Nick228) > life(Nick227);
for Nick227: life(Nick227) > life(Nick228).

That is, "Nick227" as an input yields a different output for each than "Nick228", so they are functionally distinct.

We might try to get around this by engineering you to be indifferent to your self-preservation, I suppose, so that for Nick227 or Nick228: life(Nick227) = life(Nick228); however, we still get a difference in reference when we request input for either Nick's behavior functions; that is, for Nick227: decision(Nick227) := (reason[Nick227], emotion[Nick227], memory[Nick227], instinct[Nick227], etc[Nick227]), and the same for the copy; the system id, the source of the input to the various functions which input to the decision function, has changed, even if we assume the content of the input is identical.

If we label the copy "Nick227", so that it is functionally identical to the original, then neither is able to distinguish between itself and the other Nick227, and we get some very strange behavior: either is as likely to sample its double's inputs for decision-making as its own (Nick227 taps Nick227 on the shoulder and asks, "hey, how anxious am I to go for a swim?") We then run up against the limits of language: are there enough words to precisely communicate rational, emotional, mnemonic, instinctive, 'etc' content between Nicks. In this absurd case, it seems that even though materially and functionally equivalent, the two Nick227's will be behaviorally different (as soon as one is randomized to access an internal input and the other has to request an approximate communication of that same internal input; indeed, just in the asking, the second has already diverged from the first).

... So, technically speaking, the thing that is lost is the local expression of values that constitutes a large part of "who I am" despite the fact that an identical set of the same values will appear over there. That new person 'over there' will be identical to me for all intents and purposes, but it still won't be me because "I" cannot feel what "that other I" feels, even if it is exactly the same thing.

More or less what I'm trying to say above, except maybe not for all "intents and purposes" (certainly not for all inputs and functions). The fact that each "I" has a different reference, labels a different thing, makes them behaviorally distinct, unique beings, so something is lost when one is replaced by the other.

Anyway, all that's a long-winded, kludgy way to get around whatever technical issues subjectivity and its normal descriptions are thought to present for "materialism". :relieved:

[Nick227]

That I can agree to. However the is a semi-continuity of consciousness, in the sense that the state of the organism producing it only changes slightly from one moment to the next. Exterminating the organism, whether or not you create a copy, exterminates that consciousness as well. It doesn't magically transfer to the copy.

No, for sure, it doesn't magically transfer. New neurons, configured the same, create a copy. But the core of the Teleporter argument is the same as the core of the so-called Hard Problem**. Because it appears that there is someone that experiences, it seems that something tangible must be lost when Body1 is replaced by Body2.

Body1 believes itself to be a self experiencing a world and that if the button is pushed then this experiencing self will die. But of course there is actually not an experiencing self in the first place, so it cannot die. It is illusory. Just a very convincing illusion!

This is no doubt why, when the Enterprise crew teleported to a planet, they seemed to fade out of the deck and fade in to the new location. Rather than Mr Scott sending copies off and then shooting the originals with his phaser! Viewers accepted teleportation as a nifty idea, because of how it was presented.

Nick

** - Of course, the Teletransporter scenario (as Parfit originally titled it) hits nearer to home than Chalmers' Hard Problem, which is why many people who refute the Hard Problem still struggle with the Teletransporter. The latter is much more in your face.

[Nick227]

Nope, unless you consider soccer/my Norton anti-virus scanning engine(or any other process), the process that surrounds kicking a ball with some rules/or scanning computer programs(or any processes), creating a sense of it existing.

I don't see these as related examples. I don't think you need to look at analogies really, because the original is very simple here. Mental selfhood (the self that experiences) is created by thinking. Thinking creates the sense of someone that is doing the thinking. Agreed? No problem. But as I've already mentioned, when this is then extended into a "someone that is experiencing" we have moved onto a purely conceptual level. Brains do not experience. They process. Nothing in the brain is experiencing. Agreed? Yet, we say that the self experiences. All that is actually happening is that thinking is constructing a story about an experiencing self - an I - and its interactions with what is going on around "it."

There is not actually an experiencing self, merely a story about one. And this will of course be replicated.


Nope. As I've stated already. The process is the self and I consider this actually existing.
Just because of it is a virtual illusion does not negate the existence of the process which is the illusion of the I itself. That's the equivalent of claiming that any self-monitoring computer program does not exist because it does not exist as a specific "thing" but as a process in the the computer's CPU.

Only if you say that the program is experiencing.


Did you just move the goal post again?
Please restate your ORIGINAL claim.

Well, it should be further up the page.

Nick

[Belz...]

But the core of the Teleporter argument is the same as the core of the so-called Hard Problem**. Because it appears that there is someone that experiences, it seems that something tangible must be lost when Body1 is replaced by Body2.

I don't see how the teleporter scenario relates to the "hard problem" nonsense. If you make a copy of an apple it's still a distinct object, and if the appels happen to be self-aware, the original's awareness ceases to function when you kill that apple.

Body1 believes itself to be a self experiencing a world and that if the button is pushed then this experiencing self will die. But of course there is actually not an experiencing self in the first place, so it cannot die. It is illusory. Just a very convincing illusion!

That changes nothing. That particular illusion ceases to function. I like my "illusion of self", whatever you call it.

[MikeSun5]

More and more I am as well. Which is why I continue to keep the wall in the basement wet with the blood of my neighborhood's dogs, cats, raccoons, possums, and skunks. Never weasels or squirrels though, never.
Once the wall is dry, the things from beyond the sphere will reach inside of our universe and destroy the destiny of the ultra moment.

Hey, that's no more retarded then say, Christianity. :cool:

[plumjam]

Hey, that's no more retarded then say, Christianity. :cool:

It's than, not then.
But hey, I wouldn't want to interrupt the flow of your accusations of retardation. ;)

[Maia]

(shakes crystal ball)

I knew this was going to happen... I just KNEW it...

This has turned into another one of those consciousness threads. Oh, yes it has. It was inevitable. Like zombies, they just keep coming back.

[MikeSun5]

It's than, not then.
But hey, I wouldn't want to interrupt the flow of your accusations of retardation. ;)

Zoinks. :covereyes

nothing kills a condescending attitude quicker *than* being proven retarded.

[blobru]

(shakes crystal ball)

I knew this was going to happen... I just KNEW it...

This has turned into another one of those consciousness threads. Oh, yes it has. It was inevitable. Like zombies, they just keep coming back.


You're conscious that this is your first post this month(?) that hasn't mentioned a certain bad boy ex-bishop (retd) whose name almost rhymes with Shawn Jellybean Kong? :scarper:--> this way to Maia's ignore list ;)

[Maia]

You're conscious that this is your first post this month(?) that hasn't mentioned a certain bad boy ex-bishop (retd) whose name almost rhymes with Shawn Jellybean Kong? :scarper:--> this way to Maia's ignore list ;)

Oh no it isn't. If you head on over to the "which afterlife would appeal to you" thread... I had fun with Photoshop and Chapter 35 today. No JSS involved.

I like the smilie. If I just start typing in random words and surround them with ::, will mysterious smilies start popping up? Will they gain consciousness? Will they all have weird hair, which seems to be a prerequisite for philosophers these days? :santa claus:

:flibbertigibet:

:easter bunny:

I'm not sure if that worked...

[Nick227]

I don't see how the teleporter scenario relates to the "hard problem" nonsense.

They are both basically about subjectivity. The HP defendant cannot accept that the richness of the world they believe they are experiencing can be created by the brain. The Teleporter idea pushes the materialist to really drop subjectivity as a special phenomenom.

And what you see is that there are a lot of materialists who refute the HP, yet who also say they wouldn't push the teleport button. These guys are happy to apply scientific investigation to the world they perceive outside, but far less willing to do the same to what they consider to be themselves.

I like my "illusion of self"

That "I" is the illusion of self.

Nick

[blobru]

Oh no it isn't. If you head on over to the "which afterlife would appeal to you" thread... I had fun with Photoshop and Chapter 35 today. No JSS involved.

I like the smilie. If I just start typing in random words and surround them with ::, will mysterious smilies start popping up? Will they gain consciousness? Will they all have weird hair, which seems to be a prerequisite for philosophers these days? :santa claus:

:flibbertigibet:

:easter bunny:

I'm not sure if that worked...


weird hair?
:santa4:

.flibbertigibet!
:troll
.....i hop, therefore i have a pancake on my head
:bunpan

(thus far we have covered 3 inevitabilities in R&P: i) all threads, given sufficient posts, become consciousness threads; ii) Maia, unless she's sufficiently diverted by Photoshop, must mention JSSpong; iii) blobru, whether he's been sufficiently medicated or not, will insist on cluttering up your screen with random smilies of dubious relevance to whatever the heck he's yammering on about. Next up: yrreg, atheism, & penises... :odie:)

[Blackened Cat]

I love how my theoretical discussion of Angels is an 'insult to intelligence!', but Gene Roddenberry's imaginary 'matter transporter' is not an insult.

Can't wait to see the justification as to why I'm wrong.

[edge]

I love how my theoretical discussion of Angels is an 'insult to intelligence!', but Gene Roddenberry's imaginary 'matter transporter' is not an insult.

Can't wait to see the justification as to why I'm wrong.

They deny because they haven't made a connection to the father yet.
They have never experienced any evidence for God being real.
Science will lose it's value for them when they are on their death beds, that's how seared their hearts are.
Anything to do with spiritualism will be an insult to their intelligence.

[Twiler]

I love how my theoretical discussion of Angels is an 'insult to intelligence!', but Gene Roddenberry's imaginary 'matter transporter' is not an insult.

Can't wait to see the justification as to why I'm wrong.

I'm not sure I understand what you meant to say about angels. Could you please clarify? I think you might have a point I agree with here.

[Nick227]

I love how my theoretical discussion of Angels is an 'insult to intelligence!', but Gene Roddenberry's imaginary 'matter transporter' is not an insult.

Can't wait to see the justification as to why I'm wrong.

Angels are a notion which many skeptics find unlikely.

The Star Trek Transporter was the inspiration for an enduring thought experiment created by philosopher Derek Parfit in the 1980s.

It is not so much that you are wrong, rather that you are failing IMO to appreciate the context differences.

Nick

[Nick227]

They deny because they haven't made a connection to the father yet.
They have never experienced any evidence for God being real.
Science will lose it's value for them when they are on their death beds, that's how seared their hearts are.
Anything to do with spiritualism will be an insult to their intelligence.

Actually materialism points to something far deeper than God.

Someone who believes in connecting to "the father" is still demonstrably locked in the illusion of separation. They believe that there really is a personal mental self and that this self has somehow become "disconnnected" from some form of "source" - God, the Father, Brahman, whatever. Thus, they imagine, what is needed is to reconnect this so-called personal self to its source.

But, if you truly grasp the mettle of materialism then it points you directly the true nature of the self and thus beyond this whole notion of connection and disconnection.

Nick

[paximperium]

Hey Nick:
Could you try to summarize what the arguments are because I've actually lost track of the argument?..I find myself arguing just because I like to argue.