Freethought & Rationalism Archive

YHWH666 · 02-21-2002, 04:01 PM

this raises questions about egoisim and ethics.
the "I" or self is just a brain state. when that brain state changes then the "I" dies. This kinda defeats egoisim. If you would suffer to help your future brain states (future selves) than why not the brain states of others? what makes the brain state of your future self diffrent from the brain state of another? the only way you can justify doing anything is admiting an altruistic system of ethics.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: YHWH666 ]</p>

hedonologist · 02-21-2002, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
You started this thread to disprove materialism? I don't see how you could possibly have hoped to accomplish that by investigating people's intuitions about this thought experiment. It might have illustrated the dualism of folk psychology, but like folk physics, that is a very limited approximation of reality.

"Disprove" materialism was a bad choice of words. What I meant was to prove to someone that they were not a "materialist" in this sense.

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
I think of future selves as myself because I will become them, as my past selves have become me. Being similar to my present self is not a requirement to be either a past self or a future self. As a result, I do not think of a future self as merely a "self" who is similar to who I am now.

I see. It has more to do with continuity, I suppose.

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
If after the copy is made on Mars my Earth self could sell some of some of his possessions and make enough money for the operation he would probably do so. I don't see this as a significant modification to the hypothetical scenario, so I would still choose to be copied.

I don't know. I have some amount of empathy for the being I am going to become but hypotheticals like this make me think he is not really "me", he is just someone I have a lot of empathy for.

hedonologist · 02-22-2002, 12:02 AM

I don't know why I started this thread. The future is looking not very bright for me tonight. Maybe my mission here is just to find a way to not have empathy for my future, so I can at least enjoy the present.

1sec · 02-23-2002, 03:08 AM

Good musing.

The only best material copy one can have of himself right now is a wax figure.

And that's a dummy.

Future replicators might... by the way, what might they do?

The philosophy of IF and MAYBE is not philosophy to me.

Once you have a replicator that can accurately copy matter, you can duplicate the whole creation if you want.

Will those universes be one and the same?

tronvillain · 02-23-2002, 03:56 PM

I see you're not one for thought experiments. Your loss.

John Page · 02-24-2002, 05:32 PM

To 1sec-

You said:

"The philosophy of IF and MAYBE is not philosophy to me.
Once you have a replicator that can accurately copy matter, you can duplicate the whole creation if you want.
Will those universes be one and the same?"

IF you had such a replicator then MAYBE we could see IF you could duplicate the whole creation. IF you duplicate the universes I think you would find that:

a) You end up with an infinite number of universes because the one containing the replicator contains also a copy of the replicated universe ad nauseum, and
b) The universes would not be one and the same because there are two or more of them.

Alternatively, you could redefine the word universe to include everything (to satisfy the conclusion that the universes be "one and the same"). Unfortunately it will not then be possible to build a replicator for this newly defined universe, since all copies of things must be contained within it.

1sec · 02-24-2002, 11:40 PM

He, he, dear John Page,

Thanx.

I mean it.

Thank you for excellently formulating what I had in mind and couldn't just put it:

Quote:

)
a)You end up with an infinite number of universes because the one containing the replicator contains also a copy of the replicated universe ad nauseum, and
b) The universes would not be one and the same because there are two or more of them.

So there would clearly be more than any one entity after the replication.

and

Quote:

IF you had such a replicator then MAYBE we could see IF you could duplicate the whole creation.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Maybe we should forward this question to a foreteller.

Wyrdsmyth · 02-26-2002, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strelnieks:
<strong>It is a good test of real "soul belief" to see if someone who claims to not believe in a soul (such as myself) would agree to be transported in such a way. To be more precise: The original is killed and reduced to atoms. Different but identical atoms are reassembled and charged up at a different location. The person being so transported wouldn't notice change or appear to care. But there remains a sinking intuitive feeling beforehand that the process would really mean the end.</strong>

I don't really see what this has to do with testing one's soul belief, or lack of belief in a soul. I'm what you might call a materialist (I don't believe in spooks, just matter and energy and patterns). But, I think it would be lights out to go through the transporter. It's true that the "version" of me at the other end would act exactly like me, and continue on with a life based on the memories of mine. But it wouldn't be me. It would just be an exact copy. To others, it might as well be me. But to me, subjectively, it would be an identical twin. This is made evident when the transporter story introduces the malfunctioning transporter, in which a copy is made somewhere else, yet the original isn't disintigrated like it was supposed to be.

If you have an identical twin, is it you? Of course not. But to other people it might as well be. I don't really see how this has any bearing on the difference between materialism and belief in a soul, or essential substance of self. That seems to be a different issue entirely.

hedonologist · 02-27-2002, 08:54 AM

Wyrdsmyth, would you describe the following in terms of what they are in matter, energy and patterns: "lights out", "me" (you), and subjectivity.

hedonologist · 02-27-2002, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1sec:
Cloning yourself and sending the puppet away to Mars. This is weird. Eerie...

What are you guys talking about? Is it an issue about identity, or the real self? Is it philosophical at all?

[editting for the last paragraph]

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: 1sec ]

Yes, it is an issue of the "real self". If you define the self as objective material, then would a copy be "yourself"? If so, would you "die" for it if it is an "improved" version of yourself? There are all kinds of philosophical, moral, and psychological implications of that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-21-2002, 04:01 PM	#51
YHWH666 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: North America Posts: 457	this raises questions about egoisim and ethics. the "I" or self is just a brain state. when that brain state changes then the "I" dies. This kinda defeats egoisim. If you would suffer to help your future brain states (future selves) than why not the brain states of others? what makes the brain state of your future self diffrent from the brain state of another? the only way you can justify doing anything is admiting an altruistic system of ethics. [ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: YHWH666 ]</p>

02-22-2002, 12:02 AM	#53
hedonologist Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: South CA Posts: 222	I don't know why I started this thread. The future is looking not very bright for me tonight. Maybe my mission here is just to find a way to not have empathy for my future, so I can at least enjoy the present.

02-23-2002, 03:08 AM	#54
1sec Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 41	Good musing. The only best material copy one can have of himself right now is a wax figure. And that's a dummy. Future replicators might... by the way, what might they do? The philosophy of IF and MAYBE is not philosophy to me. Once you have a replicator that can accurately copy matter, you can duplicate the whole creation if you want. Will those universes be one and the same?

02-23-2002, 03:56 PM	#55
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I see you're not one for thought experiments. Your loss.

02-24-2002, 05:32 PM	#56
John Page Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: US Posts: 5,495	To 1sec- You said: "The philosophy of IF and MAYBE is not philosophy to me. Once you have a replicator that can accurately copy matter, you can duplicate the whole creation if you want. Will those universes be one and the same?" IF you had such a replicator then MAYBE we could see IF you could duplicate the whole creation. IF you duplicate the universes I think you would find that: a) You end up with an infinite number of universes because the one containing the replicator contains also a copy of the replicated universe ad nauseum, and b) The universes would not be one and the same because there are two or more of them. Alternatively, you could redefine the word universe to include everything (to satisfy the conclusion that the universes be "one and the same"). Unfortunately it will not then be possible to build a replicator for this newly defined universe, since all copies of things must be contained within it.

02-27-2002, 08:54 AM	#59
hedonologist Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: South CA Posts: 222	Wyrdsmyth, would you describe the following in terms of what they are in matter, energy and patterns: "lights out", "me" (you), and subjectivity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.