4 ms·

I hate most philosophy, but I read Parfit's technical Reasons and Persons and genuinely enjoyed it. Did you ever think teleporters could be the basis for an arg

by ucarion 10y ago

I hate most philosophy, but I read Parfit's technical Reasons and Persons and genuinely enjoyed it. Did you ever think teleporters could be the basis for an argument against souls? Parfit thought so. Plus, his writing is optimized for being understandable -- no flowery bullshit. You don't need any special knowledge to appreciate his work. I highly recommend Reasons and Persons: https://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Persons-Derek-Parfit/dp/019824908X https://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Persons-Derek-Parfit/dp/01982... Here's an illegal copy online, which can convince you how good his stuff is: http://chadpearce.com/home/BOOKS/161777473-Derek-Parfit-Reasons-and-Persons.pdf http://chadpearce.com/home/BOOKS/161777473-Derek-Parfit-Reas... The closing words: "Disbelief in God, openly admitted by a majority, is a recent event, not yet completed. Because this event is so recent, Non-Religious Ethics is at a very early stage. We cannot yet predict whether, as in Mathematics, we will all reach agreement. Since we cannot know how Ethics will develop, it is not irrational to have high hopes."

pryelluw 10y ago
Did you ever think teleporters could be the basis for an argument against souls? Holy shit, this is brilliant. Wow. May you post more?
- GavinMcG 10y ago
  I think someone downvoted you, because your comment could be read (uncharitably) as snide, rather than earnest. I don't have anything else re: Parfit to offer, but some more information should be findable with Google.
  - pryelluw 10y ago
    Its real awe. Blew my mind. Ill make sure to research Parfit more, thanks.
- ars 10y ago
  > Holy shit, this is brilliant. Not really. How is that an argument against souls? Souls are not physical, nothing stops them from traveling to the new location of the body, or from being in more than one "place" at a time. Souls are also not indivisible. When you have reincarnation plus resurrection of the dead, which body get the soul? Answer: All of them. They each get a soul, and all those souls are linked, and yet individual. (This also answers the question about heaven and a widow/er - which soul would they be with? Answer: Both, a soul can "exist" more than once at a time.) A copy-transporter would just do the same thing, get a copy of the soul. So no, not a brilliant argument. See here http://www.torahcafe.com/rabbi-asher-crispe/time-travel-and-teleportation-video_cf40fd1b6.html http://www.torahcafe.com/rabbi-asher-crispe/time-travel-and-... for some more on the Jewish perspective on this.
  - pryelluw 10y ago
    I just find it brilliant. You dont and thats OK. But Im not looking to debate religion. I do appreciate you posting your argument because it shows how my comment might be interpreted by a religious person (Im not religious). As someone who aims to communicate better, your comment is valuable feedback.
    - ars 10y ago
      > might be interpreted by a religious person By anyone. Once you entertain the concept of soul, then all the rest follows automatically. I don't see that someone non-religious could understand it any differently (other than not entertaining the concept of soul in the first place).
      - pryelluw 10y ago
        Good feedback, thx.
  - Natsu 10y ago
    I've taken a rather non-traditional view that 'soul' is what people in the past used refer to as the 'program' that runs in our brain. So being copied by a hypothetical teleporter is no obstacle here. Besides, quantum teleportation notwithstanding, I'm not sure QM allows the reproduction of everything at once, which should be required to duplicate the entire pattern.
  - ars 10y ago
    (Note: Just finished watching it, and despite the title, the linked video does not actually touch on this topic. Sorry for the irrelevant link.)
mattmanser 10y ago
I'm glad you enjoyed him and I'm sad he's gone. But you're misremembering as it's not an argument against souls, it's an argument about what constitutes identity. You'll notice the article about it on Wikipedia has no mention of the word 'soul': https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox
- baldfat 10y ago
  I was also going to point out that often misunderstanding about Derek Parfit. He is also misunderstood similar to Soren Kierkegaard. The argument for self and against Emmanuel Kant are not anti-Super Natural.
  - ucarion 10y ago
    It's not "anti-Super Natural" per se, but he is against a separately-existing entity. Why Ulysse Carion yesterday is the same person as Ulysse Carion today is much like why France yesterday is the same country as France today. Personal identity is much like "national" identity -- it's not a very profound connection, just a high degree of correlation and continuity.
- maroonblazer 10y ago
  Right, and which I'd argue has even more profound implications given the definition of 'soul' - as opposed to identity - is so squishy as to be meaningless.
keithnz 10y ago
check http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 it touches on this :)
jaza 10y ago
I don't think that the Teletransportation Paradox particularly proves or disproves the existence of souls. If Fred has no soul, and if Fred becomes Fred-A and Fred-B at a distinct moment in time (thanks to a teleporter that can copy, not just print / scan / fax :P ), then neither Fred-A nor Fred-B have souls. If Fred does have a soul, and if Fred becomes Fred-A and Fred-B at a distinct moment in time, then the most logical conclusion IMHO is that Fred's soul also becomes soul-A and soul-B at that same moment in time. Sort of like branching in version control! There are other possible conclusions, mainly based on imposing some sort of special "no duplicate souls" rule - e.g. the original single soul continues to exist inside the two new Freds simultaneously, the original Fred had a soul but the two new Freds are soulless, etc. Hmmm, I guess this argument is piquing my interest, maybe I should just go and read Parfit's work.
ucarion 10y ago
If you speak to Christians who believe in souls (not philosophers or Jewish theologians, who have boundless capacities for mental contortions), they'll agree that teleportation/copying is problematic to the idea of souls. Who goes to heaven in these situations?
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  It goes deeper than just souls. Even if you don't believe in souls, what do you think it means about identity? What part of you is 'you' (as in, the consciousness you define as yourself)? If you try to limit it to something to bash religious people you're missing the bigger picture.
  - ucarion 10y ago
    I'm not trying to use Parfit to bash religion -- I just chose this particular example. For the average person, souls are more interesting than Mere Addition or mixing your brain with Greta Garbo's. The fact that many have been goaded into replying (and hopefully many more are silently reading Parfit) seems to confirm this.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- koide 10y ago
  I believe what's really problematic is the absence of teleporters or person copiers...

by ucarion 10y ago

pryelluw 10y ago

Did you ever think teleporters could be the basis for an argument against souls? Holy shit, this is brilliant. Wow. May you post more?

GavinMcG 10y ago
I think someone downvoted you, because your comment could be read (uncharitably) as snide, rather than earnest. I don't have anything else re: Parfit to offer, but some more information should be findable with Google.
- pryelluw 10y ago
  Its real awe. Blew my mind. Ill make sure to research Parfit more, thanks.
ars 10y ago
> Holy shit, this is brilliant. Not really. How is that an argument against souls? Souls are not physical, nothing stops them from traveling to the new location of the body, or from being in more than one "place" at a time. Souls are also not indivisible. When you have reincarnation plus resurrection of the dead, which body get the soul? Answer: All of them. They each get a soul, and all those souls are linked, and yet individual. (This also answers the question about heaven and a widow/er - which soul would they be with? Answer: Both, a soul can "exist" more than once at a time.) A copy-transporter would just do the same thing, get a copy of the soul. So no, not a brilliant argument. See here http://www.torahcafe.com/rabbi-asher-crispe/time-travel-and-teleportation-video_cf40fd1b6.html http://www.torahcafe.com/rabbi-asher-crispe/time-travel-and-... for some more on the Jewish perspective on this.
- pryelluw 10y ago
  I just find it brilliant. You dont and thats OK. But Im not looking to debate religion. I do appreciate you posting your argument because it shows how my comment might be interpreted by a religious person (Im not religious). As someone who aims to communicate better, your comment is valuable feedback.
  - ars 10y ago
    > might be interpreted by a religious person By anyone. Once you entertain the concept of soul, then all the rest follows automatically. I don't see that someone non-religious could understand it any differently (other than not entertaining the concept of soul in the first place).
    - pryelluw 10y ago
      Good feedback, thx.
- Natsu 10y ago
  I've taken a rather non-traditional view that 'soul' is what people in the past used refer to as the 'program' that runs in our brain. So being copied by a hypothetical teleporter is no obstacle here. Besides, quantum teleportation notwithstanding, I'm not sure QM allows the reproduction of everything at once, which should be required to duplicate the entire pattern.
- ars 10y ago
  (Note: Just finished watching it, and despite the title, the linked video does not actually touch on this topic. Sorry for the irrelevant link.)

mattmanser 10y ago

I'm glad you enjoyed him and I'm sad he's gone. But you're misremembering as it's not an argument against souls, it's an argument about what constitutes identity. You'll notice the article about it on Wikipedia has no mention of the word 'soul': https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox

baldfat 10y ago
I was also going to point out that often misunderstanding about Derek Parfit. He is also misunderstood similar to Soren Kierkegaard. The argument for self and against Emmanuel Kant are not anti-Super Natural.
- ucarion 10y ago
  It's not "anti-Super Natural" per se, but he is against a separately-existing entity. Why Ulysse Carion yesterday is the same person as Ulysse Carion today is much like why France yesterday is the same country as France today. Personal identity is much like "national" identity -- it's not a very profound connection, just a high degree of correlation and continuity.
maroonblazer 10y ago
Right, and which I'd argue has even more profound implications given the definition of 'soul' - as opposed to identity - is so squishy as to be meaningless.

keithnz 10y ago

check http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 it touches on this :)

jaza 10y ago

I don't think that the Teletransportation Paradox particularly proves or disproves the existence of souls. If Fred has no soul, and if Fred becomes Fred-A and Fred-B at a distinct moment in time (thanks to a teleporter that can copy, not just print / scan / fax :P ), then neither Fred-A nor Fred-B have souls. If Fred does have a soul, and if Fred becomes Fred-A and Fred-B at a distinct moment in time, then the most logical conclusion IMHO is that Fred's soul also becomes soul-A and soul-B at that same moment in time. Sort of like branching in version control! There are other possible conclusions, mainly based on imposing some sort of special "no duplicate souls" rule - e.g. the original single soul continues to exist inside the two new Freds simultaneously, the original Fred had a soul but the two new Freds are soulless, etc. Hmmm, I guess this argument is piquing my interest, maybe I should just go and read Parfit's work.

ucarion 10y ago

If you speak to Christians who believe in souls (not philosophers or Jewish theologians, who have boundless capacities for mental contortions), they'll agree that teleportation/copying is problematic to the idea of souls. Who goes to heaven in these situations?

ZenoArrow 10y ago
It goes deeper than just souls. Even if you don't believe in souls, what do you think it means about identity? What part of you is 'you' (as in, the consciousness you define as yourself)? If you try to limit it to something to bash religious people you're missing the bigger picture.
- ucarion 10y ago
  I'm not trying to use Parfit to bash religion -- I just chose this particular example. For the average person, souls are more interesting than Mere Addition or mixing your brain with Greta Garbo's. The fact that many have been goaded into replying (and hopefully many more are silently reading Parfit) seems to confirm this.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
koide 10y ago
I believe what's really problematic is the absence of teleporters or person copiers...