= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
kaiokan12 comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1329)
You basically answered my question when you said
But I'm going to pick at you one more time and then shut up. Both an embryo and a cryonically suspended person are presently unconcious. If what you value is past conciousness, then there's no problem, you're consistent. If you value potential (or long-future) conciousness, there might be a problem. I'm guessing that you value short-future conciousness - a suspended person (or a sleeping person) can in principle be concious in five minutes, while an embryo cannot.
The next stage of the argument asks about infants and animals and so on, but I said I'd shut up.
I think there is a more salient difference, which is that it's not the embryo that will be conscious in ~20 weeks, whereas it is the brain.
By all means continue, I always enjoy parsing these things. My friends are so sick of hearing about trolley cases they'd throw themselves on the tracks.
I don't understand this. What specifically is the important difference between embryo (now) and non-embryo (in 20 weeks)? Conciousness? Memories? Physical structure? How is it that they are different things, while brain (now) and brain (future) are the same thing?
Consciousness. Basically, I want to know if there is a reflective "experiencer" there to care about. If not, I don't give the thing moral standing.
Your cryonically frozen brain presents an odd situation, because the experiencer is sort of "paused." But I think it's still clear that in killing that brain you're ending somebody's (conscious) life prematurely.
I like this discussion for its own sake, but I am curious: do you disagree with something I've said? Or are we just monkeying with scenarios for the sheer hell of it? (Not that that is in any way a bad thing - they are lots of fun.)
If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the suspended brain is concious (just "paused", as you say). So there is some property of a system that we can call "concious" even if it's asleep, suspended, etc., and that embryos (before 20 weeks or so) lack this property.
If this a fair statement, I don't have anything more to say. The infants, animals etc. stuff is being covered in the "infanticide" sub-thread on this page.
Mostly we're monkeying with scenarios for the fun of it. I have somewhat less certainty than you about embryonic stem cell research - I estimate some chance that it is morally problematic.