= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
HoverHell comments on Notion of valued Identity — Physically - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (16)
I'm trying to poke all directions I know about that have at least noticeable chances of working.
Additionally, here I am asking about view on identity specifically from materialistic basis, to at least get vague descriptions with non-vague basis (ontology) instead of vague descriptions from vague basis.
This looks like a quite pathetic atttempt to trolling to me. What did you actually want to express with that?
Oh, and on the outcomes: what I see here is mostly behaviouristic definitions; one reference to the “hard problem of consciousness” was mentioned, but not even here; and, not very surprisingly, I don't see any different points mentioned (not even something about continuity, or continuity of a process specifically).
It was more of a pathetic attempt at humor. Absolutely no hostile intent in that line. I will admit to a tiny bit of hostility (or more accurately exasperation) in the rest of my responses. That is probably the source of your intuition that I am trolling you.
The reason I am a bit exasperated is that you are asking people to address a very difficult problem that we do not yet have the scientific knowledge to solve. You seem to be asking for a reduction of our intuitions of personal identity. As far as I can tell, it is an unsolved problem, though almost all philosophers of mind mention it, and philosophers interested in issues like AI and 'uploading' mention it frequently.
My own outlook on this is that the problem is premature. Either it will be dissolved with all the other puzzles of mind when we reduce mind to brain - or it will not. If it will be resolved, we waste time now speculating about it. If it will not be resolved, we still waste time now speculating about it, because after a successful reduction the problem will be completely transformed.
On the other hand, if someone invents something like a matter transporter before we have completed the reduction, and we need answers quickly, I think that my brand of phenomenological empiricism is about the best we can come up with.
If you are looking for wisdom in an internet forum, the second best way to find it is to politely ask for it. The best way is to just say something wrong, and then to pick the best of the corrections you receive.
If you are dissatisfied with the results of asking the question, why not try supplying your own favorite answer and seeing what happens?
It will not resolve itself; and the problem I'm looking around is less likely to be resolved if significant portion of people think there is no problem (and indeed there is no problem with copying behaviour, though; and I see but cannot yet explain a mistake in that view as well), and another significant portion says that those are wrong but don't even try to find a successful way of explaining why exactly.
Modern controversial problem is related to already available cryonics; though you probably know this side of the story already.
I already did. Results vary between getting called “nonsensical” and getting called “vague”; the “vague” part I'm slowly and carefully trying to correct. That's why I'm looking all around for ideas and bits that might be useful in that.
And, I'm not looking for ready-to-be-used answers (or wisdom). Rather, I'm trying to build an understanding of others' understanding (that by itself says something about the complexity, of course).