You would benefit from reading that post you linked to about dissolving questions. What you seem to be doing is like asking "does free will exist?" and trying to argue that it doesn't. To dissolve the question is to precisely show the thought process that produces the question.
Albert's position is similar to how you know that two calculators will have the same output despite having different physical configurations. If you have an idealized abstract model of say addition, you can draw a boundary around different designs that perform addition despite being different. You will know that something like a unconnected switch won't be enough to make it stop matching the model of addition.
If we take the reason that Albert talks about being Albert and him talking about a person from five minutes ago as himself and build an abstract idealize model, we will see that a lot of physicals differences can take place without effecting the real reason for his report. There is a range of physical designs that match the models prediction and it includes ones were his brain is made of tiny robots. The cause of his report with remain the same regardless of the tiny robots replacing his neurons with themselves.
The implication I see is mind uploading. Where must we draw the boundary to capture the referent of "Albert". How that questions is answered may determine the future.
You liked Umineko? I found it impossible to engage with because we saw plenty of impossible things happening onscreen and were apparently supposed to deduce what was really going on, but it was never clear what we were supposed to take as true / the facts that needed to be explained.
If you are talking about the anime then I agree. The anime version left out the things you need to solve it. The VN has more than enough to know whats real and what isn't.
The important thing to note is who is around to see an event. The fantasy battle in game 3 is witness by no one. When people witness theses things that are killed or are in with the culprit(not necessary that they know people are really dying). The fantasy should not be dismissed though as it contains important clues to the emotions of the characters.
"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon." Susan Ertz
Edit: I read this as "Hey, if I can't add days to the end I'll add them to the middle." It never occurred to me to think the author wanted everyone to die.
I don't want to sound defensive, but lest people think the same of me: I assure you, reader, whoever you are: I do not want you to die. (Never thought I'd have to make that as a contentful disclaimer)
Whether boredom is an issue, death doesn't seem like an ideal solution. If we were a race of immortals and we start to get boredom I don't think that suicide is a solution anyone would propose.
My name is Morgan. I was brought here by my brother and have been lurking for awhile. I've have read most of the sequences which have cleared up some of my confused thinking. There were things that I didn't think about because I didn't have an answer for them. Free will and morality used to confuse me and so I never thought much about them since I didn't have a guarantee that they were answerable.
Lesswrong has helped me get back into programming. It has helped me learn to think about things with precision. And to understand how an Cognitive algorithm feels from the inside to dissolve questions.
I am going to join this community and improve my skills. Tsuyoku Naritai.
View more: Prev
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Voldemort making random rocks into horcruxs? One day someone steps on the wrong rock and turns into LORD VOLDEMORT! I hate it when that happens.