we need teleportation frankly

    • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Your arrogance is staggering. Is science not also a form of philosophy? And anyway, it’s not a scientific ‘fact’ that your consciousness will do anything at all, the hard problem of consciousness is not yet solved.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        No science is not a form of philosophy. One is based on logic from priors or argument over Ordinary Language and the other is based empirical data. They have vastly different approaches and achieve vastly different goals. I am not going to ask a scientist the proper way to live and I am not going to ask a philosophy department head to explain momentum.

        They might help each other, on occasion, but healing each other does not mean one is a subset of the other.

        • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I hate to break it to you, but philosophy is both the rational (a priori) approach, and the empirical (a posteriori) approach.

          The scientific method, whilst very useful, is still the empirical method with certain postulates.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            The scientific method, whilst very useful, is still the empirical method with certain postulates.

            It really isn’t. The presumption argument requires that you are a mind reader and can be 100% certain that you know what unstated priors a person is operating under. If they deny them, you mere reassert it. It is a non-falisifable claim. Thus the attempt to disprove science required a return to faith.

            Fish do fine and know nothing about water. Birds fly and don’t understand aerodynamics. The vast majority of life in existence conducts energy production via ATP and only a small fraction of the human race has understood that. Fireflies don’t know that they are doing the most efficient form of light production from chemicals ever found.

            The whole presumption apologetics argument is a garbage heap only advocated for by people who value faith over experimental methods. A false attempt to sub in a bad contextualization from the things itself. You don’t need to have a fully worked out from first principles understanding of the universe to conduct a basic experiment. It might be helpful, maybe, but it isn’t required.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Very well. Try it a different way. You claim that scientists have priors that you have discovered. Please provide evidence of your claim. Use the scientific method and try to disprove it and fail.

                • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Very nice. But now it’s not an empirical debate, it’s a linguistics debate. How do you define the scientific method?

        • Kata1yst@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah I’m with you on this. Even from a pure science fiction perspective there’s just no way the experience of consciousness “transfers” by any currently understood science.

          Just like when you move a computer’s file across the Internet the result would be a copy, and that wouldn’t really be noticable or impactful to the copy or the people who know you and the copy would interact with, but it would make a hell of a lot of difference for the person going in. Great if you’re dying and want to do what you can (The Culture book series covers this possibility quite well) but otherwise small comfort.

          Best case scenario is “The Prestige”, but with a much quicker and cleaner death.

          And if someone slaps “quantum entanglement” on the table like that is a real answer for anything, imma not even bother.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      If there is a distinction there should be a difference. Given that a teleported human is indistinguishable from the prior non teleported human there is no difference and thus no distinction.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Consciousness can be thought as software running on hardware (your brain). You do not destroy software by destroying hardware.

      Whether you agree with this or not is not relevant to this discussion, since my point is that whether the above statement is true belongs to philosophy, not to science.

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Again, what we engaging is a philosophical discussion. And it is not a metaphor, it is analogy.

          And while the map is not the territory, the question is what consciousness is. Is it the territory (brain) or the map (software)? It is very easy to argue that AI gives us a good indication that consciousness might appear somehow in AI systems too at some time, and there, there would be no question that it is a software.

            • MxM111@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Once again, ANALOGY, not metaphor. It is not just a figure of speech, but direct comparison.

              Of course, analogy does not prove a thing, however, all we are discussing here with you is not science, but philosophy. Is consciousness a structure which is upon substrate, or is it the substrate itself? Are you information or a physical body? These are not scientific questions, science can only answer how exactly the processes in the brain go, but it cannot explain the subjective feeling of “me”. Nearly by definition, - science deals with objective reality, not subjective perception.

                • MxM111@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  This is why it is important to discuss definitions. But in this particular case (whether consciousness includes matter or not) the discussion belongs to philosophy.

                  However, what you have mention, is quite often happens in philosophy itself. Take for example discussion of whether free will exists. The actual discussion is what free will is. But not everyone admits this.