User Controls
Identity
-
2017-04-28 at 7:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind After all this discussion I'm starting to conclude that "you" don't actually exist. The concept of an individual identity is like the concept of freewill - it's just a concept, it's just an idea, an idea that can be useful but might not have an actual basis in reality.
Sure a "you" exists. And it has just as much of a basis a in reality as any other concept. The problem you have is that you are trying to find an essential definition of identity and pinning that as your standard for "real", and you have not really justified you have opted for that mode of thinking.
That pursuit is doomed to failure. As with all concepts, they constructs that only make sense within the context of a framework. As you just said. So I do not know why identity in particular is the topic where people insist on breaking down these frameworks and try to find a deeper, essential solution to the problem of identity. It's not like you try to find some complete definition of an electron. Turns out that that is just about as arbitrary as this. -
2017-04-28 at 7:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Well one qualitative difference between humans and modern computers would seem to be the presence of subjective experience. Like that's not just a lack of sophistication in computers, it's not like (or at least I don't see evidence of) digital computers have some minor internal experience and as programs become more complex this will progress towards human-level consciousness. Which is not to say I reject the idea that subjective experience could potentially be sustained on digital substrata, I'm just pointing out there's a fundamental quality of minds that is, at present, as far as I can tell, wholly absent in digital computers.
To be clear, by "subjective experience" I mean essentially qualia, or perhaps a more general category which includes qualia.
Do rocks and trees have subjective experiences? -
2017-04-28 at 7:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Sure a "you" exists. And it has just as much of a basis a in reality as any other concept. The problem you have is that you are trying to find an essential definition of identity and pinning that as your standard for "real", and you have not really justified you have opted for that mode of thinking.
That pursuit is doomed to failure. As with all concepts, they constructs that only make sense within the context of a framework. As you just said. So I do not know why identity in particular is the topic where people insist on breaking down these frameworks and try to find a deeper, essential solution to the problem of identity. It's not like you try to find some complete definition of an electron. Turns out that that is just about as arbitrary as this.
If there really is a "you", I think it has to be the whole complete puzzle, not just a couple pieces. -
2017-04-28 at 7:47 PM UTC
-
2017-04-28 at 7:55 PM UTC
-
2017-04-28 at 7:56 PM UTC
-
2017-04-28 at 8 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind What reasons do you have to believe other people have subjective experiences?
None direct, of course, but I can be certain that I have subjective experience and other people seem to the similar kinds of things as me, the simplest explanation of their behavior would seem to be that they, like me, have an internal experience that mediates their actions. -
2017-04-28 at 8:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny None direct, of course, but I can be certain that I have subjective experience and other people seem to the similar kinds of things as me, the simplest explanation of their behavior would seem to be that they, like me, have an internal experience that mediates their actions.
then what are the people in dreams? -
2017-04-28 at 8:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by just one more mongol then what are the people in dreams?
They're people in dream I suppose?
Is the idea here that things in dreams may show behaviors that seem characteristic of conscious things? Maybe we can say the likeness persons in dreams have consciousness independent of a dreamer, I wouldn't say it's beyond impossible but it seems more likely they qualify as a similar category to p-zombies, things which have the outward appearance of conscious things but which are not. -
2017-04-28 at 8:15 PM UTCit could be the other way around, or both, or neither. do you rly think you could determine this in the year 2017? i'd give it at least 3 centuries
wordenhancement the number 3 to 999 -
2017-04-28 at 8:15 PM UTC"beyond impossible" keklel
-
2017-04-28 at 8:16 PM UTCwhat could be the other way around?
If there is any proposition we could be certain of it would seem to be that we are conscious, in the sense of having subjective experiences. -
2017-04-28 at 8:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny what could be the other way around?
If there is any proposition we could be certain of it would seem to be that we are conscious, in the sense of having subjective experiences.
i meant shared dreamstates
are autistic people sentient?
then wordenhancement 999 to 3 so we can have loops to crash the site -
2017-04-28 at 8:34 PM UTC
-
2017-04-28 at 9:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny None direct, of course, but I can be certain that I have subjective experience and other people seem to the similar kinds of things as me, the simplest explanation of their behavior would seem to be that they, like me, have an internal experience that mediates their actions.
So based on similarities you share with other humans, you assume they also have a subjective experience. If a machine could simulate a human so precisely that you could not tell it was actually a machine, would you consider it to have a subjective experience?
I am guessing that you assume some animals also have a subjective experience, while their consciousness/mind probably isn't the same as at human level, they do seem to experience the world in a subjective way. Where does subjective experience stop? Can we imagine insects having a subjective experience? Plants? Single celled organisms? Minerals? What is the cut off point?
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Well of course. That's why any given thing is one thing and not another. "You" is not a category. Why does identity mean for you?
I think your identity is who/what you are, or maybe it's just who/what you think you are. -
2017-04-28 at 9:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by just one more mongol i meant shared dreamstates
are autistic people sentient?
then wordenhancement 999 to 3 so we can have loops to crash the site
Then yes, but the reality of shared dream states is doubtful enough as to make the question not particularly interesting.
Yes, as far as I can tell.
No. -
2017-04-28 at 9:36 PM UTC
-
2017-04-28 at 9:37 PM UTCIdentity is a fickle topic. I had to figure that out on my own.
-
2017-04-28 at 9:38 PM UTC
-
2017-04-28 at 9:41 PM UTCNot to ask myself but to answer.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
