3 ms·

> Or you can decide the leave everything and become a monk. I don't see how that's an argument one way or another. You seem to have missed what I said. I mean

> Or you can decide the leave everything and become a monk. I don't see how that's an argument one way or another. You seem to have missed what I said. I mean that, if I don't wash the dishes today, and I go to sleep, it's still me who's going to have to wash those dishes tomorrow. It's not someone else. It's me. That "me" is the question. I can't just not wake up as "me" tomorrow. If continuity wasn't a thing then the concept of "me" shouldn't exist at all, so there would be no responsible party in the first place, but every morning I find that I need to wake up, go to work, and then sometimes wash the dishes. Of course, the entire experience of "me" can be falsified by a 3rd party, sure, but the world itself could also be falsified, neither of these beliefs are particularly actionable. But "the person who didn't wash the dishes and the person who then suffers the consequences is a continual entity" is actionable, it means I should wash my dishes. > Why? It seems to be the crux of your argument, but you don't justify it in any way. Because I can't wake up and control two people at the same time. That doesn't even happen in the case of multiple personality disorder.

ajuc 9y ago
> I can't just not wake up as "me" tomorrow You sure can. You could have a stroke and change personality completely. The fact that it's still considered "you" by society and the future you doesn't mean it's true. > "the person who didn't wash the dishes and the person who then suffers the consequences is a continual entity" This only requires you to believe that the future you is you, it doesn't require it to be true. It's similar to arguing "There must be a God, because why else would I pray". Well you can simply be wrong. > If continuity wasn't a thing then the concept of "me" shouldn't exist at all Why? There's a lot of concepts out there that exist contrary to facts. Free will probably doesn't exist. Absolute time doesn't exist yet people use it routinely as their model of reality. > I can't wake up and control two people at the same time. That doesn't even happen in the case of multiple personality disorder. You could make a device that controls muscles of another body basing on your neural impulses. Would that change your opinion about identity and consciousness? I doubt it. If I'm right, then that's not your real argument. Give me your real argument, please.

ajuc 9y ago

> I can't just not wake up as "me" tomorrow You sure can. You could have a stroke and change personality completely. The fact that it's still considered "you" by society and the future you doesn't mean it's true. > "the person who didn't wash the dishes and the person who then suffers the consequences is a continual entity" This only requires you to believe that the future you is you, it doesn't require it to be true. It's similar to arguing "There must be a God, because why else would I pray". Well you can simply be wrong. > If continuity wasn't a thing then the concept of "me" shouldn't exist at all Why? There's a lot of concepts out there that exist contrary to facts. Free will probably doesn't exist. Absolute time doesn't exist yet people use it routinely as their model of reality. > I can't wake up and control two people at the same time. That doesn't even happen in the case of multiple personality disorder. You could make a device that controls muscles of another body basing on your neural impulses. Would that change your opinion about identity and consciousness? I doubt it. If I'm right, then that's not your real argument. Give me your real argument, please.