4 ms·
But a book is not a person. A book does not have experiences. A book does not think or live. There's a mechanistic, reductionist point of view that runs thro
by pmoriarty 6y ago
But a book is not a person. A book does not have experiences. A book does not think or live.
There's a mechanistic, reductionist point of view that runs throughout many of the HN comments here that I find really disturbing.
A lot of people seem to think that we are just machines. If we are, then sure, replacing one machine with another that works the same and has the same "data" might be unproblematic, but I don't share such a bleak and narrow view of humanity. To think and feel is not just to run a program on a computer.
- indrax 6y agoI'm starting to lean more towards a consciousness-first idealism. I don't think it's less mechanistic to say that the second copy creates a second entity. Why do you think that the thinking and feeling is tied to the original body?
- nick_kline 6y agoReligious people pine for any proof of consciousness being something other than a mechanical thing in our body but all availableinformation points to there being no magic.