Reply
Sat 25 Jul, 2015 11:48 am
"the teleportation case in which a person is destroyed " is not clear to me.
Well, I check out the definition of teleportation:
a hypothetical mode of instantaneous transportation; matter is dematerialized at one place and recreated at another.
So, "destroyed" refers to "dematerialized"? Otherwise, it is difficult to understand how a person who's already destroyed can be replicated.
------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, I've always had the difficulty to understand the meaning of the word "missing". What does " What I fear will be missing is always missing" mean? Does it mean "what is lost is always lost"?
Context:
Parfit pushes the concept of personal identity about as far as it can go and resolves the apparent paradox of teleportation by arguing that "identity is not what matters"; rather we should be concerned only about psychological continuity. However, he also states that psychological continuity cannot take a "branching form" (or at least not for long), as it does when a person is copied on Mars while the original person survives on Earth. Parfit believes that we should view the teleportation case in which a person is destroyed before being replicated as more or less indistinguishable from the normal patten of personal survival throughout our lives. After all, in what way are you subjectively the same as the person who first picked up this book? In the only way you can be: by displaying some degree of psychological continuity with that past self. Viewed in this way, it is difficult to see how teleportation is any different from the mere passage of time. As Parfit say, "I want the person on Mars to be me in a specially intimate way in which no future person will ever be me... What I fear will be missing is always missing... Ordinary survival is about as bad as being destroyed and Replicated."
@oristarA,
Quote:So, "destroyed" refers to "dematerialized"?
Not exactly, Ori, my guess Ori is that something went wrong in the "transportation"
@oristarA,
Teleportation is a hypothetical process supposed to result in a successful rematerialization. Dematerialization would imply maintaining some form of replicability. 'Destroyed' seems to be a poor choice of words in that context, since it would not be the intent to 'recreate' a formless blob or blast the teleportee into the nether regions of space.
Nevertheless, the idea of my being torn asunder and converted to energy particles does seem destructive.
@dalehileman,
Well, thank.
How do you understand "missing"?
@oristarA,
Re: dalehileman (Post 5995946)
Gosh, welc
Quote:How do you understand "missing"?
in
Quote:What does " What I fear will be missing is always missing" mean? Does it mean "what is lost is always lost"?
I don't, Ori.
Neo, Mac, et al, help!
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:Well, thank.
How do you understand "missing"?
I am confused by the context. We are in hypothetical speculation. Does the writer seek a realistic answer? If so, what he sees as missing will always be missing. At present, the only way for him to 'teleport' to Mars is through his active imagination
Harris alleges that Parfit is saying that there is no "stable self" that is carried along from one moment to the next. That is what is "missing".
Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris (2014)
"The best non-Buddhist book on meditation I have read"
"I really wanted to love this book and I found it so empty"
(reader reviews)
Woo-woo philosophy.
@neologist,
neologist wrote:Nevertheless, the idea of my being torn asunder and converted to energy particles does seem destructive.
It has been suggested that using something like a Star Trek transporter might amount to "killing the original life form and replacing it with a recreation that possesses the same memories".
This is likely what the article was referring to.
@oristarA,
Another question remains: What is "future" (As Parfit say, "I want the person on Mars to be me in a specially intimate way in which no
future person will ever be me... What I fear will be missing is always missing... Ordinary survival is about as bad as being destroyed and Replicated.")?
If teleportation takes one milisecond to complete (teleportation is instantaneous transportation), the milisecond after can still be called future and that is exactly what Parfit meant to say?
I saw Parfit being interviewed. He used the teleportation case as a means to discuss the self. He said that if you sat on the teleporter, felt nothing happened, but were then told you'd already travelled successfully and that all that needed to be done was destroy your old body, (you,) you would not be happy.
He is arguing that a perfect copy of yourself with memories etc. is still not you.
All this is theoretical, teleportation does not exist. It was just a means of discussing identity and the self.
@izzythepush,
Thanks.
Why not freeze the old body to avoid sadness?
@oristarA,
It's a theoretical discussion on what constitutes the self. There is no old or new body to freeze. Teleportation has not been invented. It's not a debate on ethics regarding teleportation. It's just an illustration of what constitutes the self. That's all it is.
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace