>almost 21 centuries since its inception >still nobody

>>9687580
Well consider the new quandry.

We find a way to emulate and copy human consciousness (reading the electrical signals, synapses, reasoning and intelligence, and brain matter storage and transferring to SSD) before death.

Is that still the persons soul? Or some electrical homunculous. What about a cut and paste instead of a copy? Does this person still have rights, or is it an image of the deceased?

The Soul of Theseus.

It is a false problem related to the brain's prioritizing quick and practical abstractions over true correspondence.

>>9687590
There is no soul you mongoloid. All there is is electrical and chemical reactions inside a meatchunk. If one can copy down the medium in which those reactions happen AND maintain a continuity between the original brain's reactions and the new medium's (the bit-by-bit replacement concept), then you have the same person in the sense that their continuity of experience WILL continue in the new medium.

We know this works because the brain and all other parts of the body continuously replace their own atoms, with total atomic replacement estimated to happen around once every 7 years in adults. Now, the nature of whatever the new brain medium is and how its sensory, locomotive and mood-regulating systems will interact can and almost definitely would change the personality of the individual whose mind was copied, but that's no more creating a new person than is blowing a railroad spike through someone's skull. The person before and after the change are not metaphysically different.

>>9687580
There never was a ship. Just a constellation of things we chose to call "ship". The name we give to things have no barring on the existence of these things however.

>>9687609
Congratulations, you completely missed the point. It's an ontological problem not a semantic one.

>>9687617
>There never was a ship
>semantics
retard

File: 74336.jpg (9KB, 210x210px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 210x210px

>>9687606
>There is no soul you mongoloid. All there is is electrical and chemical reactions inside a meatchunk.

File: 140px-Simulated_Connectivity_Damage_of_Phineas_Gage_SkullDisplayWarren.jpg (8KB, 140x192px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 140x192px

>>9687606
Just saw Gage at harvard.

>>9687617
Ontologically, it's clearly the second ship since that one is made of the same material as the original. The mistake that leads to denying this is accepting that the original is the same as the ship with the first replaced piece. Ontologically, it is not. The original ship and the one built from its pieces are the only ontologically identical pair of ships. The only reason there's a problem is because dum dums like you mistake the semantic result of a cognitive accounting shortcut to be reflective of ontology.

>>9687606
>AND maintain a continuity between the original brain's reactions and the new medium's (the bit-by-bit replacement concept), then you have the same person in the sense that their continuity of experience WILL continue in the new medium
Why would you have to do bit-by-bit replacement? If you just pause all reactions, and continue those same reactions 1000 years later, the resulting information content and processing of the new brain will still be subjectively a continuation of the old one. Sure, this kinda fucks with your head when you consider making 1000s of copies and shit, but that's all the more reason to accept that the continuity of your identity is merely a useful illusion.

>>9687643
Not an argument
>>9687650
>posts something retarded
>gets called on posting something retarded
>DURRR I WAS MERELY PRETENDING
Ok anon

>>9687672
I'm >>9687591 and >>9687650, not >>9687609

>>9687617
Ontological problems are semantic problems, my man. That was my entire point.

>>9687606
Fucking materialists, when will they learn?

>>9687722
What is there to learn when you are already 100% right?

>>9687606
>There is no soul you mongoloid. All there is is electrical and chemical reactions inside a meatchunk.
This is the most reddit thing I have read all day

>>9687745
The arrogance with which you defend your shallow and misconceived claims is actually really sad and if I were your mother I would wish you had never been born.

>>9687722
>>9687754
>has no argument
>unironically thinks this is an argument
Lmao

File: shipsizes.jpg (94KB, 1023x472px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1023x472px

Of course it's the same ship. The question was written on clay, animal hides, papyrus, paper, and now it's on my screen. It's been in the mouths and ears of Greeks and Persians and such, now it is in mine. All of this variation is meaningless, it's the same question.

Regardless of Material entropy, any effort to PRESERVE aspects of its Material formalism would loosen the ship's tether to its of Theseusness in the Consciousness that spawned it.

It is why this question is still this question and why ships today are functionally analogous to ships from Ancient Greece.

Materialists drink diarrhea.

>>9687754
Defending your position with a reddit accusation is pretty shallow.

>>9687609
>There never was a ship
Never? You cannot cut relations like that. There was a ship after it was built and before it was destroyed. Both in your mind and out.

>>9687766
DUDE
LIKE
WHAT IF
LIKE
FOLLOW ME HERE GUYS
WHAT IF
LIKE
YOU LISTENING?
GUYS
WHAT IF
GUYS
WHAT IF MAGIC LMAOOOOOOO

>>9687606
>There is no soul
So why pretend that being wrong is wrong? Machines do what machines do. Why interact? You want them to be your gratification machines?
Oh wait, no. Your body operates as if there was a you that did want that.

>>9687606
All these pseuds are salty but this is objectively probably correct desu

>>9687774
Technology is magic. You put numerical values on things, then act as if it were true, and it becomes true.

>>9687776
>So why pretend that being wrong is wrong?
Morality (or, in truth Ethics) does not require extrasensory compulsion you giant retard. It is a false dichotomy to equate biological life in even the most material sense to machinery that is explicitly designed with a limited and concrete series of commands and an explicit purpose
>inb4 dude but like Jesus God programmed humans lmao

File: 1488128473818.jpg (547KB, 2136x3216px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 2136x3216px

>>9687606

File: download (5).jpg (7KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 223x226px

>>9687780
>Technology is magic. You put numerical values on things, then act as if it were true, and it becomes true.

>being an actual Luddite
>[Current Year]

>>9687786
Not an argument.

>>9687785
>Morality
So falsehood is evil? Ha! Nonsense. It is another pattern among patterns of things. You act on it if you can't do otherwise. Does it activate your "feel-good" parts? How great that must be!

Falsehood is viable. It is a strategy among others. You merely have a preference based on instinct. What a slave.

>>9687795
>hating magic
Captcha is made for you
>Pedestre TAXI

>>9687798
>1 up'd
Congratulations! Now you get to pretend that you were right for the next 5 years. Congratulations!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Bix44C1EzY

>>9687799
I forgot to say, but falsehood does not exist. It's all a signal, after all.

ITT: fedorafag STEMtards pretending that being a smartass with loopholes and technicalities == actually answering the question

Is Theseus sailing the ship? If so, it is the Ship of Theseus. If not, it is not the Ship of Theseus. Since Theseus has been dead for thousands of years, he has not been able to sail a ship - therefore, no ship is the Ship of Theseus.

>>9687799
>so falsehood is evil
Neat strawman sempaitachi
>>9687829
>le STEM meme
>a serious biological answer to Ship of Theseus as it relates to the human consciousness is "strawmans and loopholes"
Stay triggered

>>9687848
>Neat strawman sempaitachi
How do you justify morality over amorality? I did construct something, it happens to be the construct that humans have used forever.

Trick question, the ship never belonged to Theseus because property is a spook.

My answer to the ship problem.
The ship is a 'huge thing', it includes all its forms where it had been perceived in, and possibly even those it wasn't.
Don't let your thoughts be limited by time/Kronos. Same for your actions.

File: night_crawlers.gif (2MB, 250x311px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x311px

>>9687580
I'm a dumb pseud, so my response is probably horrible, but like all people I feel the urge to respond to stuff.

Everything is subject to change. The cells in my body die and regenerate, and within a few years all of my original cells are gone. Even on a sub-atomic level we see incredible changes in an entity's physical structure. A can of soda is fundamentally different from the 'same' can of soda sitting there a second ago, but for practical reasons we call them the same. So we see a conscious acceptance of these two being the same; not through any form of reasoning, but from an innate understanding that an object sitting there is the same as the one there a moment ago. From this perspective one could argue that it is self-evident that the objects are the same 'being.'

But is it self-evident that the ship is the 'same'? Lets look at it from the opposing point of view. One might argue that no level of consciousness accepts that the two objects are the same, and it is merely a sensory issue. We cannot detect any differences, so the goldfish your parents buy to replace the one that just died is exactly the 'same' as the old one. This is an argument against that route of reasoning, as suddenly our psyche cannot confirm accurately that it is the same. Unless there is some kind of sub-conscious recognition that it is not the same, but that is treading into an area of metaphysics of which I don't have enough experience. Though there are many educated men who would argue in favor of this kind of 'psychic' phenomena.

So now we are at a stage where we can argue that it is self-evident that it is the same object, so long as one has no prior knowledge of the 'transformation' taking place. I think this is my final answer. We can never really experience that goldfish, we can only observe, or even touch it. I know this is beating a dead, and often abused horse; but I'm reminded of the double-split experiment, which shows that observing a particle could actually change it. So this may be solipsistic to say, but we can only confirm that we exist, and anything else is only a construct of sensory information fed to us. This is more of an individual approach rather than an abstract one, and this may upset people, but I can't think of a good abstract proof or disproof of the ship's identity.

>>9687855
First off you need to separate Morality, which is interpersonal and subjective, from Ethics which is built on a definable authoritative relationship.
Morality is in and of itself pretty much unprovable and equally unfalsifiable in its merit, while Ethics (which many throughout history have used to substitute morality within groups, see Christians with their Golden Rule and Ten Commandments) can be falsified at least insofar as an Ethical concept either is or is not intrinsically correct within the internal logic of a set of principles.

The correlation of varying principles of Ethics (alongside a healthy dose of natural pareidolia on the part of humans) gives rise to what people like you deem to be metaphysical patterns, in the same way that an ant colony expresses desires, needs and moods beyond that of individual ants. This does not require Grand Design on the part of the Queen.

>>9687893
>First off you need to separate Morality, which is interpersonal and subjective
It's objective and personal. Tied to the species behavior. Why behave like my species would prefer me to behave?
Ie. if they prefer truth, why should I? If they prefer falsehood, why should I?
>from Ethics which is built on a definable authoritative relationship
Why care about those authorities or that relationship?

STEMfags should learn that their world view has removed all intellectual reason to take their world view seriously. It is tasteless and bland.

If anybody asks why nobody takes /lit/ seriously, direct them to this thread.

>>9687901
>Seriousness is serious business
What did the fleshbag mean by this?

>>9687759
Demonstrate that the soul exists, then.

The only conclusive response to the Theseus paradoxon is mereological nihilism.

>>9687906
Demonstrate that thoughts do. We can demonstrate movement and physical change. Little else.

>>9687580
basic language usage contradicts the idea that the total replacement of an object's constituents destroys that object

>>9687698
this, except the thought that there is a problem to begin with is the mistake

the ship persists, and those who reject its persistence are imposing an artificial external constraint which should be the real object of our puzzlement

read Wittgenstein

>>9687580

I would not consider it as a solution per se, but we have already re-framed this question under the guise of emergence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence).

Consider the ship of Theseus itself. No individual piece belonging to it is a ship, so ontologically AND literally speaking, the ship is not the sum of its parts, it is something functionally more than each of the wood carvings and rope knots constituting it (because none of these alone would function as the ship does). It is also not a linear combination of these things in the sense that you can just put them together. You must follow specific orders of operations (e.g tying, grinding, cutting, nailing) applied to specific particulars, in order to eventually acquire what will be known as the ship.

In light of this, one could argue that, the properties of pieces being more or less the same, and the order of operations being more or less the same, that every ship built will be simply the "emergent effect of being a ship", while others could also argue that being the same type of emergence does not equate being the same aggregate thing (e.g two ships are clearly different from each other, and clearly if you change the pieces the emergent property cannot ever be realistically unchanged). If you care about input from the natural sciences, a collection of particles we switch to another collection, changing one by one by modifying its energy ever so slightly and preserving the switching energy, does not actually change its overall state, but that's because subatomic particles are (so far) de facto indistinguishable, unlike everything we have in our day-to-day ontological considerations.

So, in sum, this would be akin to asking if your conscience would be the same if you changed to a new brain. The short answers can be either yes or no to a good measure really, depending on how far you are willing to stretch the notion of a "thing" (oh_boy_here_we_go.kant) but the long answers should always start with "the emergence can be the same, with the objects being different, so..." . Of course, you can see I'm taking a materialist (transcendental at most?) view here, and I wouldn't be able to properly come up with a more idealist answer myself, but I'd love to read some.

>>9687900
>morality is objective
>lmao things that don't fit with my worldview have no value
>continuing le STEM meme
Every time you post you sound more idiotic, despite trying so evidently to sound intelligent.

>>9687912
>demonstrate that thoughts do
What is an MRI machine, Alex.
>>9687912
Only intelligent argument itt. Don't agree at all but at least your basic point is tangible.

>>9687937
This. Its the same basic Aristotelian logic as ever was, now with better distinction.
Though I would argue that objects in and of themselves do not present Emergence, but rather our notion of what an object and its functions are fall within our own Emergent properties.

>>9687669
Suppose I made an exact copy of you with a machine which has atomic precision. Further suppose that this copy is standing right in front of you.

Would you say that you are the person standing in front of you? Would it matter if the older version of you was annihilated and the copy was permitted to continue living?

Ask Deleuze: ontology is always a matter of a temporal capture of forces and materials in order to make an assemblage (which can be either material or conceptual). When we talk about the Ship of Theseus as an object, what we're really referring to is an abstract machine that selects things like wood, canvas, ropes, sailors, and even words to create an assemblage of a boat capable of routing flows of energy into itself. It does not matter that there is no stable material that makes up this 'object' (really, an assemblage) because what persists is the principle of selection behind which all the material and cultural forces creating "the Ship of Theseus" revolve.

>>9687580

Pshh. The answer is easily no. A more modern variant would be like downloading your consciousness to a machine. Guess what, a copy of your brain map isn't you.

>>9688054
No because you aren't maintaining the continuity of experience you fucking retard
>durr if I make ANOTHER ship is it the same as the first ship hurrr
Humans are a continuity of reactions inside the brain. If you make the same set of reactions in a different brain, you have a copy and not the original. It may be a perfect copy but its still a duplicate.
This is basic damn logic.

>>9687580
It's not the same.

>>9688054
The first (You) is the real one, the prime. Without it any future ones would not be able to be made. If the prime was annihilated and the copy lived on in the prime's place, you could say that for everyone else in that (You)'s life it won't matter, but to the copy it will matter because the copy has knowledge of the truth. The copy knows it's the copy even if it's identical to the prime.

>>9687839
look at this nigga thinkin denotation is bound to connotation in proper names LEL

>>9688077
And if he doesn't know that he's the copy? If neither of you know who's the copy? Why can't you make copies from the copy?
>yfw a fucking Nolan movie is more philosophically-literate than half of /lit/

>>9687580
Who gives a fuck?

Firstly the problem means more or less to people depending on how you're translating it onto real life scenarios. For instance if you're a hardcore old car collector then eventually replacing all of the parts is going to make your car meaningless. However, if you don't give a shit and just use your car to get from point A to point B then it literally does not matter if you replace all or none of the parts, because you don't care about whether it's the original or not. Eventually it WILL be different, so if you care about the original do something about it and if not then do whatever. Sitting around and arguing as to if and when it becomes different is meaningless. It's getting caught up in abstractions rather than practicality.

I know a few leftists who have tried to use something similar when talking about immigration. They try to wrap people who are critically thinking about it up in shit like "oooh, but WHEN is it too much hmmm? 10 percent, 20 percent, 80 percent? where do you draw the line?". They don't actually care about the answer because they see it as irrelevant; they're arguing in bad faith from the beginning. The entire point of the argument is to get people wrapped up in specifics and argue amongst themselves as to the exact point at which something is no longer itself. It doesn't matter! We know that eventually it will no longer be the original country you had, this whole exercise is meant to time waste while the border remain open. Not just immigration either, they apply this kind of tactical nihilism to anything that we on the right try for. It's all bad faith and pointless. Eventually it's not going to be the original so if you care about it you should do all you can to preserve it.

>>9688126
>And if he doesn't know that he's the copy?
Then what? I mean you tried to pose the question in a realistic manner, so then what? If the copy doesn't know, and the prime is killed, the copy just lives the life of the prime because he thinks he is the prime and in that situation, for all intents and purposes, he is the prime. But we know he isn't. To us talking about this scenario, we know he isn't the prime. That's the problem of this, once you "observe" it it's different.

>>9688133
Is this a new copypasta?

>>9688133
I mean, your first paragraph makes is agreeable (to side-step the issue as it usually does not have real life applications), but where did that second paragraph come from? And why is arguing specifics about some complex issue considered "wasting time"?

>>9688154
im not sure. it is 90% made up of a former copypasta that functioned almost identically, although most of the words in this one are slightly different

>>9688030
>what is physical change

>>9688157
Don't take the bait.

>>9688163
My bad. Poe's law and all.

>>9688154
If you wanna use it as such then go ahead, but my points remain the same.
>>9688157
The second paragraph is because this whole kind of reasoning and argumentation is so blisteringly leftist it hurts. It's tactical nihilism that never even pretends to have some kind of practical, meaningful outcome. It's poisonous to society.

>>9688176
You mean Plutarch was a leftist nihilist? That's weird.

>>9688168
No problem. I was actually about to take the bait myself.

>>9688021
Morality is an inbuilt structure humans have and apply on things. As a structure it is objective and it seeks the same things all over the board.
Why value it?

>>9688030
>What is an MRI machine, Alex.
It's probably a physical machine operating on physical grounds measuring physical things.

>>9687606
Here's the (You) my friend.

>>9687650
>implying ontology isn't just overblown semantics

>>9687912
nigger what?

>>9687606
why is it that noone can disagree with this post without fedoras or reddit ad hominem, holy fuck im at a loss for words

>>9688243
Demonstrate that thoughts exist.

>>9688247
If it has no soul, it can't understand it. It's like talking to a wall. The STEMfags are robots without thought, even and especially by their arguments. See >>9688243, >>9687606

easy, when more than 50% of the ship are replaced, it's a different ship.

>>9688206
>As a structure it is objective and it seeks the same things all over the board.
Except morality observably does not. You might say that individual concepts of morality exist to the same extent as all human ideas do exist in the minds of those who posit them. But this is distinct from capital-M Morality itself, which is chiefly subjective and unfalsifiable.
This is the entire basis of Ontological questions, is a thing the same as the Thing we say it is.

>>9688294
>Except morality observably does not.
How come? It seeks survival via approved methods.

>>9688305
Which, again, is both a property of Human Emergence AND misconstrued from Ethical principles.

>>9688293
What about right at the 50% mark

>>9688274
>if I repeat tired talking points and STEM memes I don't have to face burden of proof!
>I literally don't even know what a Turing test is! Things that talk have souls lmao
Just stop my dude

>>9688263
think of a banana

>>9688326
Thoughts and physics exist in separate realm, when it comes to proof.
>>9688346
Sure, I can think. It's you who claim to be limited.

>>9688321
Then, it's Schrödinger's ship :^)

>>9688326
>Turing test
Is that what they call reductionism?

>>9687606
>There is no thought you mongoloid. All there is is electrical and chemical reactions inside a meatchunk. If one can copy down the medium in which those reactions happen AND maintain a continuity between the original brain's reactions and the new medium's (the bit-by-bit replacement concept), then you have the same person in the sense that their continuity of experience WILL continue in the new medium.
>We know this works because the brain and all other parts of the body continuously replace their own atoms, with total atomic replacement estimated to happen around once every 7 years in adults. Now, the nature of whatever the new brain medium is and how its sensory, locomotive and mood-regulating systems will interact can and almost definitely would change the personality of the individual whose mind was copied, but that's no more creating a new person than is blowing a railroad spike through someone's skull. The person before and after the change are not physically different.

>>9688315
Yes, and this does not answer to my point. Why care about morality or the ethical principles? Why the fuzz? I mean, you justified your disdain for falsehood or error with morality. However, you do not justify your morality any way.

Honestly, what is wrong with absolute reductionism? I'm not saying that it is necessarily useful in everyday life, but it certainly appears to be reasonable.

>>9688397
Cogito ergo sum.

>>9688368
What separates chemical and electrical signals in the brain from thought? Your position hinges on this dichotomy you have yet to demonstrate
>>9688364
When no more substantial argument exists, its what we have to work with

>>9688391
>you justified your disdain for falsehood or error
I said literally nothing on that topic, you invented that strawman, were called out on it and are still running with it.
I also explicitly delineated Ethics and Morality and why the distinction is important way back in
>>9687893
Which you were too preoccupied constructing strawmen to read.

>>9688417
>What separates chemical and electrical signals in the brain from thought?
Brain is a perceived thing. It's not a real thing like the soul.

>>9688427
>I said literally nothing on that topic,
What's this? >>9687785
You react to "false information", why? You brought it up. Unless it's a different anon.

>>9688430
>Soul is a perceived thing. It's not a real thing like the brain.
Now which of these positions is actually falsifiable?

>>9688416
Well, I suppose that is a problem when it comes to reducing humans - if we assume that systems made up of matter couldn't achieve consciousness.

But in the case of Theseus' ship, what is wrong with reducing the ship to the parts of the ship, so that there never actually was a ship? Of course we would need to keep that reduction going, but not doing that seems to be a matter of complexity more than anything else.

>>9688436
Cogito ergo sum. I exist, being the soul. If I am something else, fine. Let non-existant things non-exist. But I do. The physical world is secondary or tertiary.
>Existence
>Metaphysics
>Physics

>>9688434
See, you're conflating Morality with Ethics just as I described. I react to false information because there is falsifiable, objective proof that incorrect information damages or weakens societal advancement, not because it interrupts any unfalsifiable higher will.
Its true, of course, that an argument on this Laotian basketweaving forum is not going to have a meaningful societal impact, but like an ant digging a tunnel it is the emergent principle of Humans (and arguably all communal animals) to, through adherence to logical and authoritative rules of Ethics, advance their condition - and your posting abject nonsense in some small way runs contrary to that.

So let me ask you this, do Chimps build tools because of some divine inspiration, or do they do it because those tools advance their momentary aspirations, giving the appearance of higher planning?

>>9688442
Hmm. I think that it has the same error as all the other tools. Fire, thought, technology... Never let it rule you. It serves well, it rules poorly.

As for the ship.
We build more ships and they share the name for convention of thought, perception and behavior.
>We have the original physical ship
>We have the ship of Theseus
>We have the ship with replaced parts
>We create the meta-ship (or we connect to it with the parts and our actions)
Reductionism misses all this.

>>9688461
>See, you're conflating Morality with Ethics just as I described.
So what?
>objective proof that incorrect information damages or weakens societal advancement
Fake news?

>>9688445
Cogito ergo sum is a defense for the self against sollipsism, it is not falsifiable. So it's fine if that line of reasoning clears YOUR questions, but it does not answer the larger issue.
It's a stepping stone, not an endpoint. And the "soul" in that sense could just as easily be an emergent property of the brain, and in that material sense be no less real or organic.

>>9688461
>So let me ask you this, do Chimps build tools because of some divine inspiration
They build them because the structures flow that way. Nothing else exists. Only flesh and matter.
I have no idea where you got the idea of 'false information' from, or 'damage' - it's merely a different set of patterns.

>>9688466
Well, but reductionism can acknowledge language as a layer put above the things in the world to give humans the ability to speak about stuff without picking it apart beforehand.

>>9688474
>Cogito ergo sum is a defense for the self against sollipsism
Against?
>it is not falsifiable
So what? What is the importance of something being falsifiable?

>So it's fine if that line of reasoning clears YOUR questions, but it does not answer the larger issue.
The smaller, more insignificant issue*

>>9688470
>So what?
So, as I said in the first place, Morality is not an inherent factor in what it means to be a human and is not needed to explain natural phenomena which have been falsely equated with divine inspiration. So, the argument that purely material beings cannot ontologically exist is void, and the initially proposed biological answer to the Ship of Theseus as I originally posted is, for lack of any solid argument contrary, perfectly valid.

>>9688487
Reductionism tends to reduce language to signals.

>>9688489
>morality
No, I mean action. Motivation. Why care? Why act? Why react to 'false information'? Especially if truth is irrelevant.
>"it's just different patterns"
Your monkey brain is environment, there is no soul there, and thought is as meaningful as the thought patterns of my door. Why should we bother with you and your world view?

>>9687643
>>9687754
>Le atheist reddit had meme
I really don't see how it's relevant in this case, it's not like that poster was very euphoric or anything.

>>9688480
Then define those terms as a set of material patterns which are not most advantageous to the furthering of any given Emergent community. You're arguing semantics.

>>9688502
If you want to take materialism as a condemnation against action, you go right ahead. I've explained to you why people do act without a moral motivation, if you don't find that compelling (which is certainly an ideological position) then succumb to the nihilism or continue with your unfalsifiable moral positing and I'll continue with my small part in struggling towards the conditions that best benefit humanity as an Emergent community.
Either way it is all absurd, my only argument has been that an Ethical basis has at least intrinsic logic.

>>9688054
>Would you say that you are the person standing in front of you?
Of course not. Both are equally valid continuations of my identity, but as soon as you make two of them, they will diverge, obviously.
>Would it matter if the older version of you was annihilated and the copy was permitted to continue living?
Not if the old one was annihilated without becoming conscious. But if you keep both alive and running for an hour, and then kill one of them, you're killing a separate person who's been living his own life for about an hour.
In Greg Egan's fiction the characters are actually quite okay with this scenario: they make backups in case something goes wrong, and if someone dies and the backup is restored, they view it as a simple case of amnesia over the span of that one hour. But that's taking it a little bit too far IMO.

>>9688063
>Humans are a continuity of reactions inside the brain. If you make the same set of reactions in a different brain, you have a copy and not the original. It may be a perfect copy but its still a duplicate.
>This is basic damn logic.
Why do you include "continuity" in your definition? If someone goes in a coma or is cryogenically frozen for a year, would you say the before and after are separate humans?

>>9688077
>>9688141
Relevant comic for you
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1

>>9688540
>Why do you include "continuity" in your definition? If someone goes in a coma or is cryogenically frozen for a year, would you say the before and after are separate humans?
Continuity is preserved after temporary death, this is evident.
As for the cryogenics thing, it remains to be demonstrated that it is possible to resuscitate someone after truly stopping l chemical and electrical reactions. We do not know.
We do know if you killed someone and then started up a copy of them, there would A: be divergence and B: the copy would not maintain the consciousness of the original.

>>9687580
23 1 The site on which Anon shitposted with other anons who blew up a van, the thirty-boarded imageboard, was preserved by Moot down to the time of Hiroshima Nagasaki. They took away and made other boards from time to time, and put new and better though still imperfect code replacing the original one, so that the site became standing illustration for the philosophers in the mooted (jej) question of growth, some declaring that it remained the same, others that it was not the same site.

>>9688554
>As for the cryogenics thing, it remains to be demonstrated that it is possible to resuscitate someone after truly stopping l chemical and electrical reactions. We do not know.
Man this is a lame cop-out for sure. Just assume that it is possible, for the sake of argument, you know.

>>9688539
>If you want to take materialism as a condemnation against action, you go right ahead.
Reductionism is against action, as it reduces the options until you have determinism or no action.
> I've explained to you why people do act without a moral motivation
All I've gotten from you is Cleverbot speech. Why act when all possible actions are the same? If they aren't, then you can reduce the difference. Why reduce certain things but not all things? You certainly haven't reduce error to 'yet another neural pattern'. Why not?

>>9688565
You're not wrong, it is a cop-out. But since our medical science is not yet at the point of performing such resuscitation, any argument would be pure ontological conjecture, which doesn't really interest me. All my arguments so far have been solely biological.
If you have an idea of what the answer would be, feel free to throw it out though. I think the more meaningful question would be the Johnny Got His Gun scenario - when explicitly removed from its biological functions, is something alive still ontologically the same.

>>9688566
>reductionism is against action so let me keep reducing this argument lmao
Anon, please

>>9688554
>Continuity is preserved after temporary death, this is evident.
You seem very focused on the continuity of the specific atoms that make up a brain (correct me if I'm wrong), while I don't think that matters at all. The thing that generates consciousness is the information and information processing encoded in those atoms, while the physical matter itself is interchangeable. The only thing that's necessary (in my view) is continuity of the information processing from a computational point of view. Cloning/teleporting etc.. doesn't break this continuity.

>>9688599
>some particles have preferences
I have preferences, they will always trump the preferences of particles.

>>9687759
If you want to argue, present an argument.

>>9688602
>You seem very focused on the continuity of the specific atoms that make up a brain
No. As I said, if you replace every component of the brain slow enough without altering function, you have the same person. Literally, the electro-chemical reactions in the brain are what matter. As long as you keep that sensory continuity (or consciousness, though some retard will meme that up) and don't damage the medium, you have the same person.
Its a big issue with the clone scenario, "is the second person the same as the first"? Well evidently not, as the first is not experiencing the world through the second's body and vice versa.
It also raises hard questions about brain death and the like, as I suggested in
>>9688599

>>9688599
>Anon, please
You act as if some things weren't merely different patterns/matter. Yet you do think that they are. You push a world view that they are only patterns/matter.

God, give me demons who can pass the Turing's test.

>>9688133
>Who gives a fuck?
I genuinely think this is the best answer to the Ship of Theseus problem.

>>9688645
See >>9688556

I give a fuck, but I still can't answer it. It's not the same 4chan, but it is 4chan.

That's what makes it a paradox, I guess.

>>9688638
No, I explain why from a certain perspective it APPEARS as though there are more than basic material patterns. The definition of Emergence. Which is present in any sufficiently complex system, be it an ant colony or human brain neurons. This does not contradict hard materialism, as I have spent the entire thread explaining to you.

>>9688658
>No, I explain why from a certain perspective it APPEARS as though there are more than basic material patterns.
You behave as if there were. You explain thought away, and then you attempt to interact with it. It's futile!
Use chemicals.

>>9688636
>No. As I said, if you replace every component of the brain slow enough without altering function, you have the same person. Literally, the electro-chemical reactions in the brain are what matter. As long as you keep that sensory continuity (or consciousness, though some retard will meme that up) and don't damage the medium, you have the same person.
>Its a big issue with the clone scenario, "is the second person the same as the first"? Well evidently not, as the first is not experiencing the world through the second's body and vice versa.
I have trouble reconciling these two lines. First you say the electro-chemical reactions are what matter, but then you say the clone is obviously a different person. But, if the clone is good enough, the electrochemical reactions are actually the same as they would've been in the original, which constitutes continuity.
Of course the physical bodies are different, but that doesn't mean the minds can't be the same.

>>9688650
It's not a paradox, you just have to accept that when you say "4chan" there isn't a 100% black versus white delineation of everything in the world between 4chan and not-4chan. That's not paradoxical, it's just the impreciseness of 1) language, and 2) the concept of 4chan itself.
It's just like that guy who got a tour of Oxford and keeps asking "but where is the university?".

>>9688663
All people behave as if there were. You, as an ideologue, behave AS IF there were a higher meaning, which as I've said again and again is merely an Emergent principle. I, as a material idealist, behave AS IF there were an objective benefit - which, again, there is at least internal logic to support.
At this point your ideology is blinding you to reason.

>>9688702
>All people behave as if there were
So they are more than mere matter.

>>9688702
>an objective benefit
So that would be separate from the structure?

>>9688697
>electro-chemical reactions
The clone is having distinctly separate reactions, at a different point in space and time. Its an entirely different (though identical) brain, with different senses, you do not experience its experiences.

>>9688747
Well in that case the same argument that holds for individual atoms also holds for chemical reactions. The specific reactions themselves are interchangeable, they are simply a means of encoding information.

>>9688781
Once you have identical particles, they are linked. Acting on one will result in action on the other. The thought experiment is separate from real life physics.
Quantum entanglement is what you should study.

>>9687580
Identity is subjective, solved.

>>9687606

The soul isn't some physical ghost that lives on after the body. It's imaginary, and therefore only real if you want it to be. It's a concept- much like "the Ship of Theseus", which lives on despite the actual ship being dust swirling around in the ocean.

>>9688801
>Once you have identical particles, they are linked. Acting on one will result in action on the other.
Wut? That's not how physics works anon.
Not all particles that are identical are quantum-entangled, and furthermore even for entangled particles "acting on one will result in action on the other" is simply false.

>>9688808
Right. It's a sensory perception of the brain. My entire argument.
Biologically it has no value, though it can be described in raw ontological terms.

>>9688894
>Not all particles that are identical are quantum-entangled
Quantum-entanglement is a prerequisite to being identical, though. You can't erase the difference of space-time better. At least yet.
I mean, the ideal thought experiment condition is where the amount is the only difference, so I say we take every step we can to achieve that. It would mean that it is a more complex situation than expected. Which, by the way, should be an expectation with every thought experiment.