The philosophy thread general discussion

But which one is "you"? Each would believe himself to be the real individual and the others impostors, and there would be no clear way to settle the matter.

I've already agreed with myself that we will rely on sequential order.

edited 28th Jun '16 6:50:39 AM by DeMarquis

If you are cloned as an exact duplicate of your self in the exact state you were when you were cloned, both units will have exactly the same memory of going in the machine (or whatever the process is). You would argue about which of you is the copy and which is the original, and both would be convinced that they're right.

I suppose a solution might be to have someone involved in the process (assuming it still needs more participants than just the person being copied) observe the duplication and make sure that they know which was the original. If the cloning machine is split in two units, it would be fairly simple to know which unit you stepped into and which was empty when you started. That would resolve it. (I assume the clone would feel very disoriented because they'll have come through a different unit of the machine than the one they remember entering.)

If there's no one to help and only one exit in the machine, though, you'll both have to try to figure out a way to know which is the original. I think the most common view about this is that you simply can't ever know.

In that case, we've decided to flip a coin.

If the original "you" is not eliminated in the process of cloning — as a metaphor, imagine a copy machine that makes a perfect reproduction: the original is still there — then an impartial observation could determine which is that original, at least initially.

If there is no original left behind and all copies are made simultaneously, then all bets are off.

I would offer the prediction that your ego would not permit a copy of you to accept the results of such a flip should it go against them.

edited 28th Jun '16 7:11:47 AM by Fighteer

I like to think that all the copies of me would get along just fine. We're all still me, kind of, aren't we? I wouldn't want to fight someone who's identical to me in every way. I would want to be the leader though, but I'm open to making the whole thing a democracy. Since all of us (me?) have the same personality traits and motivations anyway, it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

I'm antisocial as fuck, so all of me would want to be alone as much as possible.

If there was two of me, we'd share everything and attempt to strategise ways to accomplish our mutual goals faster.

That would make sense, yes. All of us/me would have a minor existential crisis and be somewhat pissed off that all these clones want in on my stuff, but we'd also realize that all the rest of us felt the same way.

Besides, having more of me would be kind of cool. We could cosplay as Agent Smith and stuff.

No, I'm cool with it. There's benefits to starting over, after all. I'm not 100% certain which end I want to end up on.

A lot depends on the context, of course. Are we the first/only clones? Are we famous? Are we keeping this secret, etc.

As a Buddhist, I don't believe in the self, and therefore this whole question is moot.

edited 28th Jun '16 6:48:39 PM by SantosLHalper

You are you.

That is truer than true. There is no one alive who is youer than you.

Sure, but am I the only one who is me?

Only the you that is you decides if you're free to be thee.

This and the last three posts are kind of rhyming, and now I'm hoping we can keep up this Philosophy beat.

edited 29th Jun '16 9:48:23 AM by Ekuran

All the little philosophers were good at rhyming, except for... me.

[Shoots self]

So we had a bit of a derail on the US politics thread that ended up veering into politicial philosophy, specifically that of the macroscale motivation of large groups of humans. My position was that based on observed behavior (history) and evolutionary psychology, human beings in aggregate can be said to be motivated by bounded rational self interest.

Bounded meaning that, within the constraints of their personal understanding of the world and the limitations of human information processing, human behavior is rational. Self interest here is define as per the kin selection theory of altruism: humans action seeks to benefit not only oneself, but those who are closely genetically related, as well as those percieved to be "similar" to oneself.

I agree. Based primarily on historical evidence, it appears humans in large groups tend to become psychopathic monsters unless carefully managed. Although this is by no means a universal.

The primary cause of this is that the human instinct for morality is based on personal empathy. This creates problems when you step up to larger scales than the personal, and you rely on your instincts to determine what's right. A lack of empathy means humans effectively lose all ability to understand morality, and become blind to the consequences of their actions, unless they are the type to study morality in order to make sure they get it right no matter what.

My take on human nature:

Humans usually run into the problem of What You Are in the Dark. When doing something immoral is easier than doing the "right thing", we usually take the path of least resistance and usually rationalize this behavior after the fact. For example, a person might decide "My family is starving. That other tribe has food-I'll take their food". Eventually, that person gets good at stealing and more and more comfortable with the idea until he's a dangerous, violent robber. This is also true of dictators as well (power corrupts because of a lack of consequence-same as in anarchy)

In aggregate, humans can be better or worse. Upbringing, peer pressure and the threat of being labeled a criminal can make one less susceptible to doing immoral things. But, what this relies upon is that society's culture has good values. A society with bad values makes the problem worse.

Essentially: Humans Are Flawed, society is necessary to help us treat the worst of these flaws, but can also backfire.

That is a myth though. Most people don't actually do that. A person will avoid the easy option if they are aware it is wrong. Also, that pair of slippery slope arguments needs rewording so they are no longer slippery slope arguments.

It is true that social pressure can prevent immoral behaviour. But belief does a better job, as it causes a person to be aware that certain acts are wrong.

It's entirely possible that the whole "power corrupts" spiel has been putting off those who would remain un-corrupted from seizing it, thereby perpetuating it's own myth.

Poping in from the same derail. If we're going to start in from the basis of the human condition...

My basic premise is that humans are flawed and falible. We're a complex mess of rational thinker and animal instinct cobbled together by evolution and while we have it in us to be rational, it takes education and constant effort. Sometimes even that isn't enough; ask someone who has had a brush with mental illness and seen firsthand that control being taken away from them by their own traitorous brain.^note This is not a hypothetical for me, even if it was temporary.

We are not always conscious of the tricks our brain plays on us. Social phychologists have a come up with a laundry list of ways we regularly screw up - confirmation bias, selection bias, bandwagon effect, and so on. An individual who is aware of their fallibility can often catch themselves in these things, own up to and correct them, but no one's perfect. Most people are not that wise. They respond more to emotion than fact. They may believe things that contradict each other. Their perception of self interest may seek out a scapegoat or prioritize short-term gain over long term stability.

Even take something like the 2008 mortgage bubble. Here's one account of how it came about. You can argue that the bankers should have known better and possibly some of them did but most of them were doing a very through job of deluding themselves that they were trading in sound investments. Mortgage-backed securities were created to satisfy a global demand for places to invest all the new money being generated in developing economies. Some smart people, like Warren Buffet, spoke out against them, but the story you hear again and again is that the brokers deluded themselves into believing that these securities banked on trash loans were safe money, that housing prices would keep going up...until suddenly, they didn't.

My own assessment of that particular idiom is not that power corrupts, but that it is very difficult to gain power without being in some respects corrupt, and even harder to hold it. When you cast aside all the exceptionalist rationalizations and excuses, virtually every American president has been party to mass murder or worse, with a handful exceptions who quickly lost power, thus being the exception that proves the rule, and the same is more or less true of the major decision makers of any great power throughout history.

It should be noted, that I do not necessarily condemn the people making these decisions; societal institutions constrain the will of the powerful to a great extent, as do certain realities of geopolitics. This is particularly true in modern times where formal, stable institutions are the backbone of our governing system.

My own interpretation of the 2008 bubble was that, collectively, the responsible subset of the economic elite were aware of their status as the lynchpin of our economy, and thus, that the political elite would have no choice other than to bail them out if something went wrong. Thus, they went ahead and demonstrated to the world the reason why unconditional insurance policies are a very bad idea.

edited 29th Jun '16 5:16:57 PM by CaptainCapsase

I have a question: is the statement "only falsifiable things are scientific" itself unfalsifiable?