3 ms·
Right, but that's missing the forest for the trees, isn't it? The implication of your answer is that you COULDN'T tell that the person is lying, because you'd
by tboyd47 4y ago
Right, but that's missing the forest for the trees, isn't it?
The implication of your answer is that you COULDN'T tell that the person is lying, because you'd be too lost in semantics to tell left from right. So, you fall victim to his charade.
- karpierz 4y agoAre you claiming that it's not possible to define consciousness?
- tboyd47 4y agoNo, I defined it already. You keep trying to show me that my definition isn't good enough, but you haven't yet established why that discussion is relevant to my main point.
- karpierz 4y agoIs this your definition of consciousness? > What I mean by "soul" or "consciousness" is the common usage of the term. Essentially, this person would be claiming that he can move a participant's essence or frame of view (with memories, personality, etc.) from a human body to a digital one. At least, that's how I would interpret it, and I don't think the average person would be that far off. If so, the issue is that you've defined the unknown term ("consciousness"), in terms of other unknown terms ("essence", "frame of view", etc.), which doesn't actually resolve the problem of grounding the word "consciousness". For example, to some Catholics, the "essence" of a person is their soul, which is tied to the body granted to them by God. And so, the salesman in your original question is obviously lying, because by definition, their "essence" is tied to their physical body. The only reason the question is difficult to answer is because it's a metaphysical question. There is no physical definition of consciousness, or frame of view. So whether or not your "consciousness" shifts when you use this machine entirely depends on how your metaphysical beliefs define "consciousness".