4 ms·

This is really NOT the topic that most people are OK handwaving away simply because the evidence isn't there, because this topic is older than the concept of sc

This is really NOT the topic that most people are OK handwaving away simply because the evidence isn't there, because this topic is older than the concept of science itself and it's the #1 thing that gives anything around here any meaning whatsoever. Inventing the scientific method doesn't mean you get a carte blanche to call invalid everything you haven't gotten around to understanding with it. This is not a solved problem and if someone gets this tech it's going to become an issue. A political issue, not a scientific one, because this one is in the region of politics, science doesn't know what's going on here.

kerkeslager 9y ago
> This is really NOT the topic that most people are OK handwaving away simply because the evidence isn't there Whether people are okay with an idea has very little relation to whether it's true. > this topic is older than the concept of science itself On the contrary, what makes science important is that it doesn't just exist in the imaginations of humans, it exists in reality. Incidentally, reality predates humans. > it's the #1 thing that gives anything around here any meaning whatsoever. I derive meaning in my life from curiosity, from beauty, from relationships with other people, from fun. Incidentally, all of these things clearly exist, and aren't so fragile that I feel threatened if someone on the internet says they don't exist. Just because you have chosen to base the meaning of your life on a belief in self existing outside the brain doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to pretend that exists. I'd argue that the underlying reasons you think the idea of a human self outside the human brain is meaningful is that you associate it with community (religion) anyway. Beliefs aren't necessary to have that. > This is not a solved problem and if someone gets this tech it's going to become an issue. I didn't say it was a solved problem; I said it's a nonexistent problem. > A political issue, not a scientific one, because this one is in the region of politics, science doesn't know what's going on here. The facts of whether a human self exists outside of the human brain is totally within the region of science. Whether we as a society try to force your beliefs on people is within the region of politics. I would like to see some evidence that the problem exists before we start making laws to solve it.
- projektir 9y ago
  > Whether people are okay with an idea has very little relation to whether it's true. It has a relation to what degree of evidence people will find satisfactory. Science alone is not sufficient for most people to carry on their lives, and this is one of those topics. This is not an argument for it being true or false, it's an argument against waving it away as a problem on the basis of "well we don't have any proof of it". Of course you don't have any proof of it. There's no solid proof that solipsism isn't true, either, but that doesn't mean I am going to start believing people around me aren't real and don't feel, just because there's no evidence. Science also doesn't have any concrete evidence that being a dick is not a good idea, should I drop that, too? > I derive meaning in my life from curiosity, from beauty, from relationships with other people, from fun. Incidentally, all of these things clearly exist, and aren't so fragile that I feel threatened if someone on the internet says they don't exist. None of these exist if there's no "you" to speak of. Who's curious? If you die every time you go to sleep, curiosity doesn't strike me as a very meaningful concept. That's what I mean by meaning. Basically all the things you list here rely on a stable concept of "you". > The facts of whether a human self exists outside of the human brain is totally within the region of science. I am not talking about a "human self", there's nothing human about it since it's not tied to a specific body or a body at all in the first place. Sometimes I wonder if the problem is that people are still talking about the old concept of "soul", complete with consciousness and memories. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about an address. > Whether we as a society try to force your beliefs on people is within the region of politics. I would like to see some evidence that the problem exists before we start making laws to solve it. People using devices that upload their minds or break continuity is absolutely going to get political I guarantee it, and I can completely imagine people being forced and coerced to use such devices because it's convenient to someone else and because "well the evidence doesn't say there's a problem". Because if you go with that belief, you're not doing anything bad, and the person thinking you're murdering them is just ignorant in your eyes. Hopefully we'll have a more flexible reasoning system by then that didn't completely throw philosophy in the dumpster because we're too smart for it.
  - kerkeslager 9y ago
    > It has a relation to what degree of evidence people will find satisfactory. Science alone is not sufficient for most people to carry on their lives, and this is one of those topics. This is not an argument for it being true or false, it's an argument against waving it away as a problem on the basis of "well we don't have any proof of it". Of course you don't have any proof of it. I'm waving it away because problems which exist are more important to me than problems that don't exist. You can't rationally expect me to care as much about fantasy as I care about reality. For someone who admits they don't have proof for their viewpoint and thinks proof isn't needed, it does seem like you tried surprisingly hard to provide proof. > There's no solid proof that solipsism isn't true, either, Maybe not in a meaningless hypothetical sense, but there's strong evidence that solipsism isn't a constructive theory. Try this experiment: see how long you can go pretending nobody else exists. I'll be impressed if you make it a day. > None of these exist if there's no "you" to speak of. Who's curious? If you die every time you go to sleep, curiosity doesn't strike me as a very meaningful concept. That's what I mean by meaning. Basically all the things you list here rely on a stable concept of "you". Not really. There has to be a me to experience these things, but that "me" doesn't have to be stable in any way really. In fact, I've changed pretty drastically over my lifetime. > I am not talking about a "human self", there's nothing human about it since it's not tied to a specific body or a body at all in the first place. Sometimes I wonder if the problem is that people are still talking about the old concept of "soul", complete with consciousness and memories. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about an address. Okay, that's significantly more reasonable, but that was not at all clear from what you said previously. > People using devices that upload their minds or break continuity is absolutely going to get political I guarantee it, Obviously politics of the future will involve discussing this. I'm not sure how you concluded that I thought otherwise. This should not be mistaken for thinking that politics results in a better understanding of our reality. Consciousness doesn't exist outside of hardware (brains or computers) even if a judge or congress says it does. > and I can completely imagine people being forced and coerced to use such devices because it's convenient to someone else and because "well the evidence doesn't say there's a problem". Well, if that happens I'll be against it. But maybe keep your imagination on topic, since nobody is proposing that as a good idea. > Because if you go with that belief, you're not doing anything bad, and the person thinking you're murdering them is just ignorant in your eyes. If a human self doesn't exist outside the human body, then ending the functioning of the human body is absolutely ending the human self. So I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion from anything I said. If it's done without consent, obviously that's murder. But if that's done without consent, it's not murder. The problem here is consent, not human continuity. We weren't talking about consent until you just now brought consent in by saying we might force people to use this technology (which I would not). The technology being described is clearly not something we should be forcing on anyone, and I don't appreciate you accusing me of saying otherwise.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> This is really NOT the topic that most people are OK handwaving away simply because the evidence isn't there Sure it is, people handwave it away all the time, since it's exactly the same problem as temporal continuity of the self in a changing body.

kerkeslager 9y ago

> This is really NOT the topic that most people are OK handwaving away simply because the evidence isn't there Whether people are okay with an idea has very little relation to whether it's true. > this topic is older than the concept of science itself On the contrary, what makes science important is that it doesn't just exist in the imaginations of humans, it exists in reality. Incidentally, reality predates humans. > it's the #1 thing that gives anything around here any meaning whatsoever. I derive meaning in my life from curiosity, from beauty, from relationships with other people, from fun. Incidentally, all of these things clearly exist, and aren't so fragile that I feel threatened if someone on the internet says they don't exist. Just because you have chosen to base the meaning of your life on a belief in self existing outside the brain doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to pretend that exists. I'd argue that the underlying reasons you think the idea of a human self outside the human brain is meaningful is that you associate it with community (religion) anyway. Beliefs aren't necessary to have that. > This is not a solved problem and if someone gets this tech it's going to become an issue. I didn't say it was a solved problem; I said it's a nonexistent problem. > A political issue, not a scientific one, because this one is in the region of politics, science doesn't know what's going on here. The facts of whether a human self exists outside of the human brain is totally within the region of science. Whether we as a society try to force your beliefs on people is within the region of politics. I would like to see some evidence that the problem exists before we start making laws to solve it.

projektir 9y ago
> Whether people are okay with an idea has very little relation to whether it's true. It has a relation to what degree of evidence people will find satisfactory. Science alone is not sufficient for most people to carry on their lives, and this is one of those topics. This is not an argument for it being true or false, it's an argument against waving it away as a problem on the basis of "well we don't have any proof of it". Of course you don't have any proof of it. There's no solid proof that solipsism isn't true, either, but that doesn't mean I am going to start believing people around me aren't real and don't feel, just because there's no evidence. Science also doesn't have any concrete evidence that being a dick is not a good idea, should I drop that, too? > I derive meaning in my life from curiosity, from beauty, from relationships with other people, from fun. Incidentally, all of these things clearly exist, and aren't so fragile that I feel threatened if someone on the internet says they don't exist. None of these exist if there's no "you" to speak of. Who's curious? If you die every time you go to sleep, curiosity doesn't strike me as a very meaningful concept. That's what I mean by meaning. Basically all the things you list here rely on a stable concept of "you". > The facts of whether a human self exists outside of the human brain is totally within the region of science. I am not talking about a "human self", there's nothing human about it since it's not tied to a specific body or a body at all in the first place. Sometimes I wonder if the problem is that people are still talking about the old concept of "soul", complete with consciousness and memories. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about an address. > Whether we as a society try to force your beliefs on people is within the region of politics. I would like to see some evidence that the problem exists before we start making laws to solve it. People using devices that upload their minds or break continuity is absolutely going to get political I guarantee it, and I can completely imagine people being forced and coerced to use such devices because it's convenient to someone else and because "well the evidence doesn't say there's a problem". Because if you go with that belief, you're not doing anything bad, and the person thinking you're murdering them is just ignorant in your eyes. Hopefully we'll have a more flexible reasoning system by then that didn't completely throw philosophy in the dumpster because we're too smart for it.
- kerkeslager 9y ago
  > It has a relation to what degree of evidence people will find satisfactory. Science alone is not sufficient for most people to carry on their lives, and this is one of those topics. This is not an argument for it being true or false, it's an argument against waving it away as a problem on the basis of "well we don't have any proof of it". Of course you don't have any proof of it. I'm waving it away because problems which exist are more important to me than problems that don't exist. You can't rationally expect me to care as much about fantasy as I care about reality. For someone who admits they don't have proof for their viewpoint and thinks proof isn't needed, it does seem like you tried surprisingly hard to provide proof. > There's no solid proof that solipsism isn't true, either, Maybe not in a meaningless hypothetical sense, but there's strong evidence that solipsism isn't a constructive theory. Try this experiment: see how long you can go pretending nobody else exists. I'll be impressed if you make it a day. > None of these exist if there's no "you" to speak of. Who's curious? If you die every time you go to sleep, curiosity doesn't strike me as a very meaningful concept. That's what I mean by meaning. Basically all the things you list here rely on a stable concept of "you". Not really. There has to be a me to experience these things, but that "me" doesn't have to be stable in any way really. In fact, I've changed pretty drastically over my lifetime. > I am not talking about a "human self", there's nothing human about it since it's not tied to a specific body or a body at all in the first place. Sometimes I wonder if the problem is that people are still talking about the old concept of "soul", complete with consciousness and memories. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about an address. Okay, that's significantly more reasonable, but that was not at all clear from what you said previously. > People using devices that upload their minds or break continuity is absolutely going to get political I guarantee it, Obviously politics of the future will involve discussing this. I'm not sure how you concluded that I thought otherwise. This should not be mistaken for thinking that politics results in a better understanding of our reality. Consciousness doesn't exist outside of hardware (brains or computers) even if a judge or congress says it does. > and I can completely imagine people being forced and coerced to use such devices because it's convenient to someone else and because "well the evidence doesn't say there's a problem". Well, if that happens I'll be against it. But maybe keep your imagination on topic, since nobody is proposing that as a good idea. > Because if you go with that belief, you're not doing anything bad, and the person thinking you're murdering them is just ignorant in your eyes. If a human self doesn't exist outside the human body, then ending the functioning of the human body is absolutely ending the human self. So I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion from anything I said. If it's done without consent, obviously that's murder. But if that's done without consent, it's not murder. The problem here is consent, not human continuity. We weren't talking about consent until you just now brought consent in by saying we might force people to use this technology (which I would not). The technology being described is clearly not something we should be forcing on anyone, and I don't appreciate you accusing me of saying otherwise.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> This is really NOT the topic that most people are OK handwaving away simply because the evidence isn't there Sure it is, people handwave it away all the time, since it's exactly the same problem as temporal continuity of the self in a changing body.