It is impossible that I moved the bishop and won the game, because I moved another piece and lost. — unenlightened
It would have been someone else. — schopenhauer1
How could it be someone else if I don't exist? — Ludwig V
So maybe I considered moving the bishop and decided to do something else. When I did something else, it was no longer possible. But it was possible when I considered it. Surely? — Ludwig V
Well, bits of metaphysics that I can never know do not concern me greatly. I'm funny like that. — Ludwig V
But when discussing the past, it's always going to be in relation to the YOU existing now. — schopenhauer1
In a sense, yes. Which is why I went back to the past before I existed - when there was no me for anything to be in relation to. — Ludwig V
But, supposing I am the first child of my parents, there would still be a first child. Why wouldn't that be me, but different? — Ludwig V
I happen to know that they intended to call their first child Ludwig if it was a boy. I forget what the choice would have been if I had turned out to be a girl. — Ludwig V
And then, presumably, the name Ludwig would have rigidly designated their first child if it was a boy, or their second if that was a boy and so on. Then gametes would be irrelevant. — Ludwig V
I am claiming that it is necessary not sufficient, which is harder to say about almost any of the other subsequent things in the causal history. If we took those away, they might or might not contribute to identity, but what is absolutely needed is that initial gamete combination and blueprint. — schopenhauer1
So maybe I considered moving the bishop and decided to do something else. When I did something else, it was no longer possible. But it was possible when I considered it. Surely? — Ludwig V
Hopefully, it means that one might sometimes survive gene therapy. — unenlightened
But then again when I think about identity or what it means for a counterfactual person to be you, I don't really find sound criteria or meaning anyway. — Apustimelogist
The reason this is important, is that it then establishes some other more interpretive things. That is to say, you cannot in reality have a person born under different circumstances (prior to the point of conception) because those circumstances would almost certainly result in a different set of gametes, and hence a different person than the one that is reflecting back on the altered history. — schopenhauer1
Quite so. I think the difficulty here is that if one is looking forwards, possibilities could become actual. But if one is looking backward, they could not. If one then says that the moves one actually made are now necessary, it looks as if someone is trying to deny that what was a possibility then, is not a possibility now. If that were true, one could not consider them after the game. Which is absurd.it is very instructive to go through an old game of one's own with an experienced player who can point out problems one had not seen and possibilities one did not consider, — unenlightened
In terms of counterfactual scenarios, though, I think schopenhauer1 is correct to say that, in consideration of the genesis of any particular organism, any circumstances which would have produced a different genotype at conception, would result in a different entity existing. — Janus
Yes, I get the intuition. It seems to make sense, more from the causal link standpoint than the blueprint one because I am not sure that DNA can be identified with us as opposed to picking out us in a way that is somewhat incidental. — Apustimelogist
I think that's why it is important not to frame these issues by reference to the first or second person. They are a lot clearer if one asks the questions in the third person.There is nothing here and I confused why there is a needless back and forth debating why YOU is important as some non-existent being that is never non-existent because YOU exist. — I like sushi
If one then says that the moves one actually made are now necessary, it looks as if someone is trying to deny that what was a possibility then, is not a possibility now. If that were true, one could not consider them after the game. Which is absurd. — Ludwig V
If the sperm that "won the race" in your case had not made it, someone else, not you would have existed in your place. — Janus
Surely we all know that the point at which the changes to the ship make it a different ship is not clearly defined. — Ludwig V
This whole thread is a case of overreach by the thought police. — unenlightened
It is pretty clear. Piece by piece if every part is replaced it is still ‘the original’ as it is their ship. Someone collecting and reassembling the parts produce their own ship not someone else’s ‘original’ ship. — I like sushi
Is this meant seriously? — wonderer1
The genes obviously contribute but seems intuitive one might change genetic information or phenotypic traits of a person and retain the identity. Its not clear where the dividing line is. I can even conceive of changing lots of genetic information which otherwise has little effect on the parts of the person crucial for its identity. — Apustimelogist
Still has a causal link tied with it. — schopenhauer1
The start of an object isn’t just the substance so it was more nuanced. Also isn’t there volumes of philosophical literature on identity, essence, and similar issues?
Seems rather dismissive, so I wonder if it’s just you don’t like when I argue it rather than X “legitimate” philosopher in SEP. — schopenhauer1
Not sure what you're getting at. — Apustimelogist
In one sentence you dismiss the work of many philosophical writings in that subject, because you thought about it deeply.Yup, I was just saying that when I think about it more deeply, I just discard identity or self from an objective standpoint entirely. — Apustimelogist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.