The philosophy thread general discussion

The copy would certain consider itself to be the same person, at least up to the point of divergence. Does it really matter whether the original sack of flesh sticks around if the experience of consciousness remains? Heck, we aren't even the same beings from moment to moment, never mind over a lifetime. Continuity of consciousness is an illusion.

edited 6th Jun '18 8:28:58 AM by Fighteer

If said original sack of flesh is still alive? It kind of would.

Saying that it's fine as long as at least one instance is still around...that's opening a can of worms.

Franken Fran had a particularly disturbing chapter about this.

edited 6th Jun '18 8:31:21 AM by M84

Matter to whom/what? Are you talking morality, philosophy, ethics, law? If, right now, I am duplicated down to the quantum level (yes, that's impossible, but roll with me here), leaving behind two copies of me that are functionally indistinguishable from each other (at least until they diverge), which is "me" — including all legal, moral, and ethical claims to that identity?

edited 6th Jun '18 8:32:48 AM by Fighteer

By your logic, it'd be fine to kill them as long as there's still one left. That's kind of where "does it really matter if the original is still here as long as we've got a copy?" leads.

edited 6th Jun '18 8:33:08 AM by M84

I have made no such claim and I fail to see how anything I said might create such a claim. Are you feeling okay today?

Each copy would immediately diverge from the previous single version and from each other and become a distinct person, each at least hypothetically worthy of the same moral consideration. The problem is in our social concept of identity, not in the physical facts of the situation. Right now, I'm a different person that I was when I started typing (and editing) this post.

edited 6th Jun '18 8:35:58 AM by Fighteer

That's what I'm basing this on here. Now, maybe you mean that said flesh sack is already empty of consciousness or something?

This is more or less what the Expendable Clone tropes is about.

The 6th Day has a particularly creepy moment near the end when the Big Bad, who has been treating cloning as a form of immortality, spends his own dying moments being treated as expendable by his own recently activated clone.

edited 6th Jun '18 8:38:25 AM by M84

Well, I was specifically talking about the idea of uploading one's consciousness into a simulated brain as a means of gaining immortality once the physical body wears out. The idea is that the meat body dies after the transfer so that you don't have all sorts of thorny identity problems — to me this is not suicide but a voluntary transition to a different state of physical being.

This exact plot is used in Otherland. In all cases but one, the beneficiaries are near death and the act is voluntary. Indeed, the design of the project is such that one commits suicide in the real world at the same instant that one's virtual clone is "awakened", ensuring no Cloning Blues.

edited 6th Jun '18 8:39:51 AM by Fighteer

That's the problem then. I was talking about copying yourself. You're talking about transferring yourself. It's a crucial distinction.

edited 6th Jun '18 8:39:27 AM by M84

Ethically it may be a different situation but from the point of view of those who believe that there is some intangible, evanescent "soul" that inhabits a specific physical body independent of what we consider "mind", and to which human rights attach, the difference between copying one's consciousness and transferring it would seem to be moot.

I guess I'm generally wary of things like this that might make people more cavalier with their own lives or the lives of others.

Also, it occurs to me that something like this probably wouldn't be cheap. Which I guess would make the digital afterlife the ultimate gated community.

edited 6th Jun '18 8:51:37 AM by M84

Have you read Otherland? It directly addresses the issues you bring up, including the kind of person who would do that and the resources it might require.

However, it is widely believed among scientists that some form of virtual consciousness is almost inevitable in the technological progression of advanced civilizations.

edited 6th Jun '18 9:38:02 AM by Fighteer

I think I'd prefer more of a Ship Of Theseus approach to mind uploading instead of the standard copy-paste method. Network your brain to a computer and use both at the same time. Once your original meat-brain gives in, it shouldn't technically be all that different from what losing a few brain cells was like before.

Not entirely sure if it would actually make any meaningful difference, but I'd certainly feel a lot better about it.

I always figured it'd be more like an artificially generated lucid dream of sorts rather than an afterlife.

There's an example eerily similar to that in Girl Genius where an android initially acts only as an avatar for a Brain in a Jar but gradually gains more self-awareness, not even noticing when the brain dies, thinking she is still that person rather than the android. She doesn't take it well when she learns the truth.

edited 6th Jun '18 11:24:24 AM by M84

@Morning Star: Well I don't think anybody replied to this, so I'll reply to this:

Aesthetics in philosophy... Well at least one thing that i discussed is the paradox regarding taste. You know, how it is as same time treated as subjective thing and objective thing. Like, how is it possible to have subjective opinions on what is good if there is what is "objective" measurements of what is good, or if taste is objective, how is it possible to have two different subjective opinions that are both right. What is point of art criticism if all taste is subjective and if taste is objective, what that means for conflicting tastes even if both of them like the work?

edited 6th Jun '18 11:54:31 AM by SpookyMask

There is a question that seems to stick on my mind lately: What is beyond the truth?

Nothing.

You have a lot of terms to define before we can even begin unpacking that question. What do you mean by "beyond" and "truth", for starters?

What is to the left of happiness?

I feel like this is a parody, but to answer the rhetorical question I'd think it'd depends on what makes you happy. Happiness derived from selfish interests (like say money for luxuries/social status) tends to veer towards the right. Happiness derived from the suffering of minorities is always to the right and happiness derived from helping others would be leftmost form of happiness.

edited 10th Jun '18 5:32:04 AM by MorningStar1337

I referring to the "truth" in terms of what is reality or in event as they happen. "Beyond" as in beyond facts or figures. The thing is it has been in my mind as of late due to lurking in mystery forums. It seems a little vague but it is question that I am curious about it.

Well, all the truth in the world can't assign meaning to things. That is a unique privilege of thinking beings, and one we shouldn't take lightly.

Pol Pot wasn't real. Got it. He was just acussed for the Evil Americans. The dead Cambodian minorities were actually killed for the Right Wingers. Who killed themselves in the process to ruin the reputation of the poor brave Cambodian leader.

If it wasn't clear, I was being clearly sarcastic

edited 10th Jun '18 9:43:01 AM by KazuyaProta

sarcastic or not that response was uncalled for

I disagree completely, OP's original point was completely wrong and Kazuya was simply pointing that out.

Not to mention that acting as if the Left has a monopoly on feeling good about helping others is just ridiculous, it has zero connection to reality. The Republicans are not the only form of right-wingers in existence, and it's reductionist nonsense to suggest otherwise.

edited 10th Jun '18 9:45:10 AM by Fourthspartan56

I agree that the original poster's remarks make no sense but what so ever but sarcastic posts don't aid in understanding,no matter how it's labelled

edited 10th Jun '18 9:53:38 AM by Ultimatum