"how do i philosophy"Bellorosso del Fiore wrote:you guys sound nuts to me right now.
I think the convo was interesting, but if you think this then feel free to propose your less nutty topic.
Moderator: Mod Squad
Blood Lord wrote:Because its going no where. You got most of the forum being atheists and agnostics, a few semi-religious people, ever fewer religious people, and a hardcore Mormon. not exactly a subject that everyone wants to jump on and tackle.
Mir@k wrote:I once met a man who was part of the Order of Knight Masons. what he told me about his religion made me feel so much pity for him, all the restrictions imposed upon them make me feel like they aren't even living.
Sentios wrote:Supposing we had the technology to replace your organic brain with a computer that could exactly duplicate the effects of it's functions (your thoughts, subconscious rhythms, it was capable of changing it's structure to accommodate learning/Neuroplasticity, etc) would you still be you?
Mir@k wrote:Religious people with brains will usually hide their religious status, while agnostics and atheists seem like they are waiting for someone to slightly mention the word for them to jump going MEMEMEMEME. Not all of ocurse, there are crazies in both sides, but in this forum at least i know there are various religious people who've maintained their religiousness to themselves.
What do you think of that? I personally think that's a good way of keeping your beliefs intact.
EagleMan wrote:Nope. The continuity of consciousness would be broken.
An exact twin might take my place, but we do not refer to identical twins as being one and the same person. Even identical twins differ in some respects you might say, but let's say they are both exactly the same. Are they the same person? Most people would probably say no. You could swap their brains. How would you decide who is who now? Would you track it by the body or the brain? The brain, I would say.
To imagine it another way to keep the premise the same, imagine you went in for an experiment and were put under anesthesia. When you wake up, an exact clone of you has been made - but how do you know who is who? Neither of you know who is the original. There are 2 of you now. Were you 2 people all along? No. Clearly not. The 2 yous get into a fight and the original dies. The original existed past when his copy was made - so clearly he was still "him", but now the clone can easily assume his place in life. But you're dead. The clone is alive. You are dead and your consciousness is gone. So clearly that other thing is not truly "you" in the meaningful sense - the sense being that your consciousness is continued.
This also has disturbing implications for the casual use of transport technology in Star Trek. Every time you use the beams, you are effectively destroyed and then recreated elsewhere. Every time they step into a transporter, that person dies, and they have a perfect copy replaced elsewhere. But no one really cares, because that perfect copy fulfills that old person's role in everyone's lives exactly the same. The TNG episode where it's revealed 2 Rikers were made in a transporter accident most eloquently addresses this issue.
Vegedus wrote:I don't think consciousness == being awake, in this case. It's more the sense of self, your identity that is stake. Whatever we call that we are so afraid of losing when we die. You can lose any part of yourself, a limb, your body, your intellect, but you're still you, right? Our consciousness is the thing that is us, perhaps hidden somewhere in the brain, or in our non-physical soul if you're religious. That thing presumably does not disappear when we sleep. One could argue that it does, but then, then sleep is just as terrible as death, the person that wakes won't be 'you'.
Sentios wrote:The problem with this argument is humans lose their higher level consciousness every time they go to sleep, effectively this means what you are saying could be taken to mean 'everyday you are a different person'. I don't have any real qualms with that statement but then changing to a new brain like I've described loses all of it's philosophical cons.
noxux wrote:Well that is true but is there evidence of what happens after death? Someone told me to separate the words in way of how people describe them, in this case: Is there life after death or Is there life at the end of life?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests