Topic: What's Philosophy Do You Follow? (Quiz)

[Neoadept]

Neo, while I agree that people are sort of like a wave, you can't duplicate that wave and call it the exact same wave. We experience continual consciousness because, while we are constantly losing neurone, it is a gradual rotation of the old into the new. A constant stream of insignificant cell death. As I said, this is why I would have myself be converted to a computer gradually, at the cellular level.

Now, killing all those cells simultaneously is not how we naturally experience consciousness. There has not been a single observed case of brain duplication, and even if there was, it'd would be difficult nigh-on impossible to prove it's the same consciousness, which is what I was asking you to do.

I'll take 50% over ?% when it comes to self preservation, thanks.

Oh yes, it's almost certain that the instance of myself destroyed in the transporter genuinely dies, and that there is no continuity between the two.

I just prefer a guarantee that another iteration of myself survives to the mere possibility of preserving the original.

I measure the value of my life by it's effect on the world, and choose to categorize the effects of any duplicates as being identical to my own, since their existence and shape are directly reliant upon the decisions I made.  Whether or not they are "me" is irrelevant by this reckoning.  Their actions are my own, and through them my actions and goals continue on into a future I may not see.  I may not be eternal, but my will, my drive and purpose, can continue long after my demise.

It's an entirely subjective system, no more or less valid than yours.

[emmet]

Oh.

Well in that case, I agree with you, and I think you misunderstood Flisch's standpoint because he seems to believe that you wouldn't die.

The only difference is I'd rather risk it. The idea that another iteration of me will continue after my death is comforting, but I'd rather not die anyway, thanks.

Anyway, the scenario is ridiculous because I'd refuse to go to Mars if they were my only options. >_>

[Josasa]

YES! Finally, an actual argument! And like always (or at least how I used to do it), I'm going to go against the majority here (for the most part).

Normally, I would hate myself for bringing religion into an argument of this nature, but I think it is very relavent, and quite ironic that we are rehashing something that has been discussed thousands of years ago. Check this out. This is basically the same metaphor that several people have brought up before (Sam, Flisch, probably someone else...), but it comes to a much different conclusion than what's being discussed here. And while that article seems to be avoiding many different things by concretely stating nothing, it does bring up some excellent points.

First off, it seems that we've come to a rut by believing that 'we' actually exist. Everyone automatically assumes that there is an 'I' (thanks to Descartes, no doubt), but how can we establish this? We can't. Either we haven't reached that level of technology yet, or the concept of being and existing is so far beyond our grasp that we may never understand it. On the other hand, seeing that we have limitations in this area, we can assume that 'we' do not actually exist and are actually part of something greater (as in the universe). This has some scientific backing, knowing that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and seeing as we do not have a great deal of knowledge about the metaphysical world, we should not draw too much from it. The existence of a soul or something similar can be argued back and forth, but I think that misses the point and detracts from the argument. Even if a soul does exist, that doesn't necessarily argue for the fact that a 'self' exists, just that there may be something that survives after death. And yet, there are plenty of things that survive after death. Every bit of our body exists after death. It's just that there is no life in it.

Even as we sit here and argue about this, there really isn't any true idea of 'us' that exists. Sure, we use terms such as we, I, you, them, him, her, etc. (I've already used them 31 times and I've cringed every time) as it makes things easier to understand. Try playing a game of Waterfalls (or whatever you call it), and make one of the rules "No Pronouns." Couple that with a "No Cussing" rule and the game ends pretty quickly.

So can anyone offer a valid argument for the existence of a 'self' or something similar? I know, I probably pissed a lot of people off by switching the argument like this.

[emmet]

Yeah, that seems to be an almost totally different argument.

I believe in myself because that is what I experience, and it doesn't matter what the truth is. I don't care if I'm in a dream or a simulation or whatever, it changes nothing.

So yeah, that's my view. It's either very naive or very wise!

[Josasa]

Yeah, that seems to be an almost totally different argument.

I believe in myself because that is what I experience, and it doesn't matter what the truth is. I don't care if I'm in a dream or a simulation or whatever, it changes nothing.

So yeah, that's my view. It's either very naive or very wise!

I wouldn't say that it's totally different, just that it focuses on a different area of the argument. We've all been debating about the idea of existence in the first place. This just shifts it back to the beginning on whether or not 'we' actually exist. Everyone just seemed to skip over that idea.

As for your beliefs, there doesn't seem to be much basis for them, as I cannot experience them, or feel them, or measure them or anything of that nature (not that you can really 'measure' those things anyway). And while it may not matter to you, it certainly matters to me, just because I cannot experience these things (and vice versa). For all I know, you are just a simulation, but it's from my perspective. Then it comes down to how someone observes the world, because we all view it from our own perspectives (or so I've heard).

[munchkin5]

I know I exist because I am defined as the conscious experience that understands this fact, that is "the self" and that is what has to survive for me to survive, its a relatively simple propostion. If i didn't exist there would be no experience, there is an experience therefore "I"(As defined earlier) do exist.

As for the world around me there is no certainty, but I can be certain that I do exist, not that you exist though.

I believe this is actually the anthropic principle.

[emmet]

Josasa, I don't care if you're a non-conscious simulation. You act conscious so it makes no difference.

I'd wager that if you care about this, it's only very rarely. I've yet to meet someone concerned about this during their day to day life.

[Josasa]

I know I exist because I am defined as the conscious experience that understands this fact, that is "the self" and that is what has to survive for me to survive, its a relatively simple propostion. If i didn't exist there would be no experience, there is an experience therefore "I"(As defined earlier) do exist.

As for the world around me there is no certainty, but I can be certain that I do exist, not that you exist though.

I believe this is actually the anthropic principle.

Which kinda goes back to what I was just saying. How can I know that you actually exist (and vice versa)?

But claiming to understand existence is quite a big statement to make without having any serious evidence to support your claim. If you "understood" existence (and therefore consciously experienced it), not only would you be living, but you would understand the nature of life, the nature of the metaphysical world, and everything in between. To make such a bold claim only goes to show your true lack of knowledge in the area of existence.

Josasa, I don't care if you're a non-conscious simulation. You act conscious so it makes no difference.

I'd wager that if you care about this, it's only very rarely. I've yet to meet someone concerned about this during their day to day life.

What is it to "act consciously?" That seems to be a rather vague statement. By the way, I'm not trying to be a dick and be vague about this, it's just that this is a very non-specific argument when you really think about it.

Honestly, I can't say that I think on this in a day to day basis. I can say, that I probably think about this more than the average person. In fact, because of the religion class that I took this last semester, I can say that I thought about this every other day (as in, Monday, Wednesday and Friday) and that I don't really remember Saturday. Sunday I was too busy catching up with homework.

[emmet]

You, and everyone I know, insist that they are conscious and sentient, and certainly act like it. That's all I need. Doesn't matter if they don't exist, they're still good company.

This is like the argument about whether we all see the same colours. It's a nice thought, but has absolutely no bearing on anyone's life.

[Josasa]

Hopefully it would cause you to question your actual existence.

[munchkin5]

I know I exist because I am defined as the conscious experience that understands this fact, that is "the self" and that is what has to survive for me to survive, its a relatively simple propostion. If i didn't exist there would be no experience, there is an experience therefore "I"(As defined earlier) do exist.

As for the world around me there is no certainty, but I can be certain that I do exist, not that you exist though.

I believe this is actually the anthropic principle.

Which kinda goes back to what I was just saying. How can I know that you actually exist (and vice versa)?

But claiming to understand existence is quite a big statement to make without having any serious evidence to support your claim. If you "understood" existence (and therefore consciously experienced it), not only would you be living, but you would understand the nature of life, the nature of the metaphysical world, and everything in between. To make such a bold claim only goes to show your true lack of knowledge in the area of existence.

It actually just goes to show your lack of understanding of the anthropic principle, my existence is a logical inference of my experience, the later couldn't exist without the former.

[emmet]

Hopefully it would cause you to question your actual existence.

If I don't exist, I'm certainly doing a very good job of convincing myself that I do.

[Josasa]

I know I exist because I am defined as the conscious experience that understands this fact, that is "the self" and that is what has to survive for me to survive, its a relatively simple propostion. If i didn't exist there would be no experience, there is an experience therefore "I"(As defined earlier) do exist.

As for the world around me there is no certainty, but I can be certain that I do exist, not that you exist though.

I believe this is actually the anthropic principle.

Which kinda goes back to what I was just saying. How can I know that you actually exist (and vice versa)?

But claiming to understand existence is quite a big statement to make without having any serious evidence to support your claim. If you "understood" existence (and therefore consciously experienced it), not only would you be living, but you would understand the nature of life, the nature of the metaphysical world, and everything in between. To make such a bold claim only goes to show your true lack of knowledge in the area of existence.

It actually just goes to show your lack of understanding of the anthropic principle, my existence is a logical inference of my experience, the latter* couldn't exist without the former.

But how can you argue for the former (existence) in the first place?

[munchkin5]

Thats what I just told you, it was just written in the wrong order, my experience => my existence.

As in I know I am experiencing things, its happening right now, I also have memories of former experiences, experience infers existence of the person having that experience to that person, therefore I know I exist, whats so hard to get?

[Josasa]

Thats what I just told you, it was just written in the wrong order, my experience => my existence.

As in I know I am experiencing things, its happening right now, I also have memories of former experiences, experience infers existence of the person having that experience to that person, therefore I know I exist, whats so hard to get?

And it looks like you're just using circular logic. So your experience justifies your existence, through the use of the anthropic principle. But then how do you justify your experiences? Wouldn't that rely on you actually 'existing'  in the first place? Circular logic doesn't work, because circular logic says so.