What is a person? What defines a person? This, I believe, is where we should begin in order to resolve the problem that has you and me in its grips.

The causally interconnected workings of a brain is what generates a singular personal identity; and here we have two distinct causal frameworks. — InPitzotl

You need to flesh that out for me. It's rather vague in its formulation and liable to be misunderstood especially considering the complexity of the matter at hand.

True, but if and only if Mr X & Mr X are entangled entities ... which classically they definitely cannot be; to wit: affecting one does not instantaneously, if at all, affect the other at any distance apart (i.e. Mr X does not scratch his right palm when the other Mr X's right palm itches).

Also, the only (1:1 ratio) "faithful copy" of an original is the original due to (A) quantum uncertainty and (B) intractable computational complexity given any arbitrary time constraint for the 3D scanning –> noise/loss-less transmission –> 3D printing process (i.e. map =|= territory). It is physically impossible – violation of classical locality (Einstein) – for 3D printed "Mr X" to simultaneously be 3D scanned Mr X. — 180 Proof

The practical impossibilities of perfect copying are beside the point. Nevertheless, point made, point noted. Thanks!

Each body has a distinct point of view; one cannot see through the other's eyes and vice versa. — InPitzotl

That's another story. Up to the point when the copy is created, since both mind and body are identical, both the original and the copy are the same. Beyond that, because the expereiences of the original and the copy will differ - the physical environment and mental contents will vary - the two will not be the same person.

What's intriguing to me is that the identity of a person doesn't seem to be defined by attributes inherent to the person but by the relationship with the rest of reality. What I mean is that all people are considered the same/identical until they carve a unique set of experiences, physical and mental, out of reality.

An analogy might help: It's like all of us are, say, identical metal balls. The identity of each metal ball is decided by the unique experience it can have for itself and likewise a person's identity is a function of experiences peculiar to it.
There's no such thing as a person if that person can't describe a set of experiences that only that person has had.

You picked one out of three points and answered it with a counter question. You don't have to answer the counter question to realize that it is nonsense to have two separate bodies. One body is in NY and the other in LA. Can they then communicate telepathically as the same mind? — SolarWind

First off we need to be clear on what a person is i.e. what makes me me or you you? What defines a person's identity?

For my money both the mind and the body together define a person's identity. In the OP's gedanken experiment, the 3D printer produces a faithful copy of the original i.e. if I print Mr. X, what I'll get is another Mr. X. The two Mr. X's will be identical, mentally and physically. In other words the two are the same person.

If you disagree, you need to be both clear and specific as to why?

Your statement that, "...it's nonsense to have two separate bodies..." doesn't quite pack the punch it's intended to because the identity of person is a mind + body affair and there's no difference in those respects between an original person and the copy of that person.

All that you've asked me has been answered, Fool. Read in context, for the purpose of this discussion topic, my meanings are plain and not cryptic.I see no need ro repeat what I've written or expand on it unless the discussion takes a turn that requires it. If you disagree with my statements, then let's gnaw on some bones of contention till we suck the marrow from things-in-themselves. :yum: — 180 Proof

I agree. I need to keep my end of the bargain which I must admit I haven't. Until later then...as and when we can cross swords again - your longsword vs my kitchen knife :lol:

1) They have different locations.
2) They change on a molecular level within seconds.
3) Can you imagine having two bodies? — SolarWind

The last question seems to be self-refuting. The "you" refers to mind and not the body. Ergo, it's ok within this framework of identity to have two bodies with the same mind. The question proves the prevailing intuition on the matter that identity is an affair of the mind but we need to clarify what exactly about the mind determines identity. You first.

Again, you didn't reread my answer given previously. — 180 Proof

To tell you the truth, or if it's all the same to you, I'm asking you to, well, expand and explain (yourself). If it's too much trouble you can decline my request of course.

You didn't reread my answer given previously. — 180 Proof

You mentioned twins and I ran with that. What makes twins different from each other?

Materialism as now understood. Maybe it can be extended to accommodate such notions, but I can’t see how. But this is why the discussion of these topics is a taboo - it threatens the general consensus about the nature of reality according to science.

I recall reading an article some years back about research in remote viewing, which is a standard PSI test. One of the sceptics quoted in this article said that the indicators for remote viewing were strong enough to rate a positive in any other field of research. But, he said, ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ - which is frequently trotted out in respect of anything claimed to be evidence for such.

Consequently, this subject area is very heated and often very nasty, animated by gullible enthusiasts on one side and cynical naysayers on the other. Not a nice place. — Wayfarer

Something feels slightly off here. On one hand science claims to know stuff about reality and insists that it has sufficient proof to back up its claims whatever they maybe. On the other hand, scientists make it a a point to let us know that they're more concerned about disproving rather than proving their own theories.

That ESP is "extraordinary" and thus needs "extraordinary" evidence only makes sense in the context of the image that science projects of itself as the authority on facts but is meaningless if we take into account the words of its practitioners (scientists) who are, by their own admission, eagerly seeking disproofs of their own theories. If scientists put their money where their mouths are, if they really mean what they say, there should be an explosion of interest in parapsychology for the simple reason that any evidence of psychic phenomena would require a reworking of the whole of science not just parts of it.

Embodied psychological continuity (Locke, Parfit ...); different discontinuous brains-bodies, different discontinuous continuities (i.e. divergent selves). 'Identical twins' are different persons, no? — 180 Proof

You didn't read my answer given previously. — 180 Proof

What makes identical twins different persons?

So, do you think it is all about seeing imaginary patterns? — Jack Cummins

Mostly, yes but, do keep an open mind. You never know where the next big scientific discovery will be made.

By the way, and this is where ESP, if real, will make a huge imapct, does anyone have any idea on which currently existing theories, scientific or non-scientific, will be ovrerturned if we get our hands on conclusive evidence for psyhic abilities? Do we throw everything out the window or can we keep those that have room enough for ESP?

One word: Pareidolia...and every other way of thinking that spawns from it.

No worries. Context, like timing, is everything. — 180 Proof

Thanks for the advice.

You didn't answer my question though. What is a person?

I doubt it! — khaled

The force is strong with this one.

Embodied psychological continuity (Locke, Parfit); different discontinuous brains-bodies, different discontinuous continuities (i.e. divergent selves). The only complete, perfect, exact copy is, after all, the original, otherwise it's just a copy. Identical twins are different persons, no? — 180 Proof

Sorry but I don't catch your drift. What is the definition of a person? In asking that I request you remain faithful to the common man's, the non-philosopher's, intuitions on the matter.

We should doubt everything, in fact we should even cast doubt on Descartes' much-discussed and perfectly good argument, the cogito ergo sum. You know how logic, the highly esteemed method of ascertaining truths and exposing lies, gets its street cred? By putting itself on trial i.e. we seem to award the badge of legitimacy only to those things that can self-doubt.

If you're certain, you're certainly wrong because nothing deserves certainty — Bertrand Russell

Of course this is wrong. If the 3D printing process created two persons, both believing being original, which one would you be after awaking? — SolarWind

Yes, there will be two bodies and two minds presumably but both would be the same person. If you disagree you have a heavy burden on your shoulders which is, to be blunt, to inform us, possibly prove, what you mean by person i.e. what makes you you?

Why is teleportation any different from going to sleep and waking up after an interval? — Aoife Jones

Good point! I see no difference between the two. In both cases there's an interval, one between going off the sleep and waking up and the other between being disintegrated at one end and reconstituted at the other. In both cases what decides the identity of the person is memory. If the 3D printing process could be made to mimic sleep it would effectively make the two processes identical; perhaps we could wait for a customer/user to fall asleep first before using the 3D printing process.

Manslaughter, not murder, then? I'm sure the corpse would be relieved. — unenlightened

:rofl: You made my day!

So I would have to agree with you that it's "racist" to be attracted based on false stereotypes such as intelligence, behavior, etc., since these are what would entail normal bigoted beliefs. — I don't get it

What do you mean? At the risk of sounding bigoted myself, do you feel attracted to ugly, morally bankrupt, idiots? I'm fairly certain that I speak for everyone, everyone who's "normal" at least, that looks, brains, moral character are high on the list of requirements in a potential partner.

But what if someone likes taller dudes? — I don't get it

You're way off the mark here. The OP is specifically about attraction based on race and not anything else. Granted that liking tall people will might well look like preferring taller races but then it doesn't preclude a liaison/relationship with a taller member of a comparatively shorter race but being drawn to a particular race would mean one would be happy with a shorter member of whicheve race one is partial to.

All that said, the firsr order of business seems to be to clarify what race means. So, African people are taller than Asians but what about pygmies? Asians have mongoloid eye folds but some Africans have them too. What we have are physical features that don't recognize the racial divisions that we've divvied up humanity into.

Yes it's hard not to generalize. Thanks for the admonition — Gregory

What do you think of my take on human nature? Do the set of emotions humans are capable of define human nature or, because these same emotions are present in other non-human animals in varying degrees, is it that what makes us exeperince feelings a better measure of human nature?

Maybe you're reading too much into Descartes' work. Nothing wrong, happens to all of us but a word of caution - don't put your words in other people's mouth.

It's plain as the nose on your face that the human emotional range is enumerable and at first glance that might give you the impression that there's such a thing as human nature, the set of feelings we're capable of defining it.

However, in my humble opinion, emotions per se don't give human nature meaning; what does though are the things that evoke emotions. So, hatred by itself isn't human nature and neither is love but hating a person who isn't of your race or loving philosophy is what human nature is.

From such a point of view, anyone trying to find an one-size-fits-all human nature has a mountain to climb - not impossible but not easy.

But it isn't a value judgment though, because we don't actually judge anything. It just is. Like when you like a certain flavor, there isn't a judgment, it just is. It isn't valuing one thing over others. Racism is different.

There is a difference between liking something and believing it to be superior to all others or that others are inferior. I don't think vanilla is superior to chocolate, I just prefer it to chocolate. It's just a matter of taste. I don't think chocolate is worse just because I don't like it. Same with people. Just because I'm not physically attracted doesn't mean that I think you're subhuman trash. — Darkneos

From Wikipedia: Attraction is based on physical features which have to be aesthetically pleasing (beautiful/handsome) and/or on traits such as intelligence, how good one is morally speaking, etc.

If and when you're attracted to someone, you're saying, "oh, fae is handsome/fae is beautiful and/or fae is a good man/woman" i.e. you consider that someone to be a cut above the competition in those respects. If you feel attracted not an individual but to a race, the same sentence above becomes "oh, <insert race> are handsome/<insert race> are beautiful and/or <insert race> are good men/women" and that's racism because you're ultimately judging a particular race to possess traits that make them (more) attractive than other races.

I find my explanation better. Why not do the experiment with other kinds of object, not just animals. I'm sure that would produce negative results.

Yeah, so? — 180 Proof

In that "yeah" is the seed of a possibility which you might wish to consider in the context of the distinction between "ego-fantasy beauty" and "ego-suspension beauty". Is there a chance that you might change your mind in re your views on them?

Politicians say 'no comment' because their default setting (and their job) is never to give the game away. Someone is always looking to nail a politician for something (media, the other side, lobby groups), no comment serves to minimize potential ammunition. — Tom Storm

:ok:

So, "no comment" contains information unlike silence but, for my money, silence on the part of "politicians" can be construed in the same way, right? I mean if a "politician" doesn't say anything it means the same thing as faer saying "no comment" - in both cases the "politician" hasn't done anything to let the cat out of the bag. Why then is there this trend to say "no comment" when silence would've achieved the same thing?

No comment is best not read into as it contains a universe of potential meanings - including: 'Fuck you!', 'I don't know', 'I don't feel like sharing now', 'I have no views', 'I feel safer saying nothing as it might be problematic if I comment', 'I don't talk about that subject'.

No comment gains power when attached to some kinds questions and is some contexts. Such as, 'Did you hit that person?' No comment here could be read as an admission of guilt. And on it goes... — Tom Storm

In other words then "no comment" is not the same as keeping one's mouth shut. Last I checked the "no comment" response is usually seen when government officials and the media find an occasion to talk to each other, the media's questions being met with "no comment" answers.

The media's objective is to find out what's going on regarding whatever's the hot topic. The government official's objective is..."no comment"??? Can you pick up the thread from there.

'm offering you options in re the two kinds of beauty. What, in your opinion, is the best among them?
— TheMadFool
Asked and answered ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/507157 — 180 Proof

Have you never encountered something, formed an opinion of it, then changed your mind for whatever reason, and reverted back to what you thought of it at first?

There are only a handful of animals any single person is familiar with and presumably the same animals will be part of the list of flashcards in the experiment. Surely, the experiment will always result in a positive correlation between the subject and the flashcards.

I guess what I'm saying is if you display all the animals an average person is generally familiar with, for certain the animal the subject thinks of will appear in the set of images displayed.

Did the experimenters include exotic animals, insects, birds, animals that people generally have never encountered in their lives, even on TV?

No comment is a holding statement and rich in potential interpretations. — Tom Storm

Sticking to the example question, "does god exist?", I provided, remaining silent and replying, "no comment" BOTH provide zero bytes of information on god. However, silence itself is zero bytes but "no comment" is 9 bytes on a Windows Notepad. There is some information in "no comment", the 9 bytes indicate that this is the case, but no information at all in silence. What is this information contained in "no comment"?

My words were met with a wall of silence. — Anonymous 1

It was as if the pen on the desk was speaking to me — Anonymous 2

Please note, my intuitions maybe a little off the mark.

because people can have different reasons for not commenting. — Marchesk

Are the reasons for replying to a question with "no comment" identical to the reasons for keeping mum?

How exactly is that racism? Being attracted to black men doesn't mean I think they're better than any other race, I'm just physically attracted. It's not like I think they are superior. I don't think vanilla is superior to chocolate, I just like vanilla. Like and dislike isn't really the same as better/worse. — Darkneos

Attraction, whether conscious or subconscious, is a value judgment and, as far as I know, one likes something because one values that thing...over others...and therein lies the rub.

At what point did we prove that it was a number? — Ryan O'Connor

Interesting! So, you think the square root of 2 could be something other than a number. Well, the square root operation is closed over real numbers i.e. a square root of a real number has to be a real number. Does that answer your question?

Let's leave aside our differences for the moment and discuss something else - the link between aesthetics and ethics and what I suppose is the specter of ego in that. I'll go first. Ethics is, in a sense, about aesthetics for the simple reason that immorality, especially extreme cases like torture, genocide, for example, evoke in us disgust, revulsion; bad! Yuck! In short, there's something ugly about immorality and if so, good must be beautiful and that seems to be the case as when we see good people, good actions, good things, we experience the so-called "warm fuzzy feelings". Ergo, ethics, under this interpretation, must be about beauty.

Perfection? Non sequitur, Fool. Your tangent's not ... interesting. — 180 Proof

Don't fixate on the word "perfection". I'm offering you options in re the two kinds of beauty. What, in your opinion, is the best among them?

Could I be mistaken? I haven't been given reasons to doubt my position on "beauty" (or aesthetics) yet. — 180 Proof

I see but you do realize that perfection in beauty would mean the conjunction of both "superficial beauty" and "deep beauty", right? I mean the best case scenario is what can be approximated with the phrase, "beauty with brains" and if you concur then it must mean that "ego-fantasy" beauty isn't all that bad as Murdoch makes it out to be.

If we could list the possible combinations of the two kinds of beauty we're discussing in order of preference it would look like this:

1. Ego-fantasy beauty present AND Ego-suspension beauty present [Aesthetic Perfection]

2. Ego fantasy beauty absent AND Ego-suspension beauty present

3. Ego fantasy beauty present AND Ego-suspension beauty absent

4. Ego-fantasy beauty absent AND Ego-suspension beauty absent [Ugliness Perfection]

The list so constructed suggests ego-fantasy beauty has a value of its own and that only relative to ego-suspension beauty does its value diminish and, more importantly, aesthetic perfection requires both and that Ugliness Perfection means both are absent.

My hunch is that you're worried about 3 and that has prejudiced you against ego-fantasy beauty (once bitten, twice shy :smile: ) Look at the other possibilities.

To All:

Question: Does god exist?

Type 1 Answer: Yes (Theism)/No (Atheism) [Knowledge]

Type 2 Answer: I don't know (Agnosticism) [Ignorance]

Type 3 Answer: Silence [?]

Type 4 Answer: No comment [?]


What are the differences between these 4 categories of answer or more germane to the discussion, what's the difference between answer types 3 and 4?

The "no comment" response occurs in the context of a request for information. The usual way it happens is a question is asked, like the one above, and one option for the person being asked the question is "no comment".

A question is, ultimately, just another way of getting one's hands on a desired piece of information. The question then is, what's the information content of "no comment" as compared to silence as a response/lack of response to a question? This is just one, the most obvious one, of many possible ways to explore the significance of the no comment paradox.

"Is the distinction between" sensation and ecstacy/trauma "an illusion"? :roll: — 180 Proof

So, you do have a low opinion of "ego-fantasy beauty" and prefer "ego-suspension beauty" over it. If so, my question is, could you be mistaken in your assessment? That both are beauty suggests either an identity of form i.e. the same thing about them make them beautiful or an overlap of aesthetic qualities i.e. they aren't so distinct from each other to justify different opinions of them.

It seems that I haven't been able to get my point across at all. All I'm asking: is the distinction between "ego-fantasy beauty" and "ego-suspension beauty" an illusion?

It's ... less worthy than "deep beauty" (e.g. hearing to Rhianna is far less worthy than listening to Ella Fitzgerald; or riding through a Disney safari park is far less worthy than backpacking through the Amazonian rainforest; or celebrating biblical creationism is far less worthy than studying darwinian natural selection; or visiting the Taj Mahal casino in Las Vegas, NV is far less worthy than touring the Taj Mahal monument in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, etc) insofar as it's much easier to forget oneself in, and be profoundly affected by, the difficult pleasures of engaging "deep beauty" (the latter) than the relatively easy enjoyment, or commodification, of "eye candy" (the former).

↪TheMadFool It sounds like you've never engaged yourself in – undertaken pleasurably difficult works of art or scientific & formal theorems, or have been 'quickened' by sublime natural environments & encounters – thar is, experienced ecstacies (i.e. what the poet Rilke suggests are 'the terrors of beauty'). — 180 Proof

Well, that's exactly what I said your view of the "ego-fantasy" kind of beauty is - derogatory. You have a dim view of it. What makes you think that way?

By way of contextualizing the question above I offer the following short paragraphs for your perusal albeit in a religious context.

One one hand, in Hinduism the gods are supposedly aesthetically endowed - male gods are handsome and female gods are gorgeous, so they say. Anyway, that gods are thought to be aesthetically pleasing to behold indicates a deep connection between "superficial beauty" and the "good".

On the other hand, Mara, the demon, reportedly sent his drop-dead-gorgeous daughters to seduce the Buddha in order to prevent the Buddha from attaining nirvana. This tells an entirely different story of "superficial beauty", that it's "bad."

Your thoughts seem aligned to the Buddhist take on "superficial beauty", that it's, in your words, "...less worthy..." What about the Hindu's opinion?