Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

StrictlyLogical

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2017
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    115

StrictlyLogical last won the day on November 13

StrictlyLogical had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About StrictlyLogical

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

13493 profile views
  1. StrictlyLogical

    What is "Appreciations" relationship to "Value"

    This example is quite different from the first. Any assessment necessarily depends on who gave the person the money, and WHY? Was it part of a trade for spiritual value with a very close friend of loved one? Was it a gift to a wife who raised a billionaire's family, and although she did not directly earn it "out in the marketplace" , she surely earned it from the very hard work expended for the family... Was it simply charity given not for the virtue of the person but specifically for their vices (odd I know)? Let's move on to the first hypothetical (two variants... helicopter and climb) and assume that the person got to the top NOT as a result of any charity, i.e. ONLY because of their own effort. 1. Be careful not to set up a false alternative between appreciation and value. Values are objective, but appreciation itself can be a value. Moreover, and this is obvious, you can appreciate values. Much of the value in "being" at the top of a mountain IS "appreciating" being there. In fact, one could argue there is little to no value in the sheer act of locating oneself at the top of the mountain (for example blindfolded and comfortable in an environmentally controlled box), and most of the value is in virtue of the act of experiencing and appreciating being at the top of the mountain. "Appreciation" is both emotional and cognitive, it is a state of "awareness" of the full import of something, I would say, at all levels. (here I divest the appreciation from any mystical sense of "thankfulness" to the universe). The value of "appreciating" a loved one is of a different nature of the value of appreciating the dangers of mowing the lawn while sloshed, and it depends much on who you are, who your loved one is and what kind of lawnmower you have, so too, the kind of value IN appreciating being at the top of the mountain varies from person to person. 2. Although an assumed "goal" is not the same as the "means" of its "achievement", in reality, all of the consequences of the means are achieved, not just the goal. In this sense "how" you got there is a part of the "end results" which have real consequences psychologically, financially, physically, etc. Those consequences, might separately be values in their own right. Moreover, those separate values might also be appreciated. 3 Notice that your capacity to achieve values, whatever mental and/or physical skills, abilities, capabilities, expertise, etc. useful to achieve values, IS itself a crucial value. Interestingly, expending effort often increases your capacity to expend that kind of effort. The pursuit of values then, increasing your capacity to achieve values, ITSELF becomes a value. In such a case one can and should appreciate and be proud of the act of pursuing values. 4. Struggle, as such, is not a value, and should not be "appreciated" as a value. Achieving values sometimes require struggle, but they always require some effort to be spent. But choosing to slash one's finger off to use it as a paper weight rather than simply using a normal paper weight because its "not enough of a struggle" is simply wrong. Now, your capacity to achieve things despite struggling, or your capacity to endure through a struggle, THAT is a value, and that value should be appreciated. 5. Man and individual men have struggled with achieving values and maximizing his productivity, his capacity to achieve those values and to live. One should keep in mind that the value represented by the achievement of a helicopter ride represent a host of efforts and achievement and their trade among free men. The best brain surgeon in a hypothetically free country might work for months on a multitude of desperately ill very rich people to earn enough money to buy a helicopter and learn to fly it. Compared to a starving pioneer forced to make a several months journey through the mountains against his will, with the only moment to "appreciate" being at the highest point on the mountain, perhaps the brain surgeon's journey, starting with all the work he has done over all those years and then continuing into flying himself to a nice perch on the mountain, AND his appreciation of the place and how he got there are just as, if not more, sublime. To summarize: Values can be appreciated and appreciation can be a value. Results include the original intended goal along with all the consequences of how one achieved the intended goal. The capacity to achieve goals is a value itself, and the act of fortifying and increasing those capacities through the pursuit of values is itself a value and one to be appreciated. Struggle is not itself a value. The capacity to achieve despite struggle or enduring through struggle is a value. Men who achieve goals though different ways though their own effort, should appreciate themselves and how they got there, and that appreciation itself is a value. One's own efficacy in action is the currency of pride and appreciation of one's self - one's self-esteem - and that pride is part of the reward of every achievement.
  2. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    A single mind cannot be of two minds. An earth mind seeing and experiencing earthly things and a moon mind seeing and experiencing moonly things are not the same mind... The tech can either: 1. attempt to coordinate the minds, by rigidly causing them to coincide, but that would require one mind to trump the other, and one of the moon or the earth sights and experiences would be lost... this would require blocking all perception of one "copy" so that nothing from the dropped environment would contaminate the "one mind who are two"... this does not result in two simultaneous experiences. 2. attempt to "add" the minds by mashing the different minds into one... but placing two inputs where there is only one, activating two optical images.. requires now two sets of perceptual apparatus... and experiencing the two environments requires two upper brains to process what these two perceptual apparatus provide... no less than two actual minds would be required... for them to coordinated they would need to be exact copies of each other ... i.e. both minds would need to be in both places... this likely would no longer be a human or even a brain capable of any coherent experience... it would be a living dichotomy and would not be able to function.
  3. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    How do you propose to entangle an external particle (used for the purpose of making an entangled pair) with an "integral" particle from a living human being (which you wish to copy exactly) without affecting the quantum state of the "integral" particle in any way whatever?... and how do you intend to "transfer" that external particle without affecting its state or causing a premature "measurement" or "collapse" of the entangled state? And how can you "transfer" or "entangle" the entire POSITION state (in Hilbert space) of a first particle in a second particle which you then MOVE? Also how do you propose to entangle any one of the integral particles such that the entire QM state of that particle, position and momentum and spin etc. all of it can be copied exactly simultaneously without entanglements on any one property affecting any other property (at least until all of it is copied)? If you don't want to answer me, you can post your theories on www.physicsforums.com and get back to us...
  4. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    Except? I said as long as there is disassembly and reconstruction ... which means creating a copy ... and which also is not what merely transportation is.
  5. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    I do not believe the position of DonAthos depends on the details of transporter as long as there is disassembly and reconstruction even if the reconstruction succeeds in a perfect copy. The pop science you read about “transporting” particles via entanglement is a fanciful way, post Star Trek, to denote the nonlocal correlation of quantum states on collapse/measurement of the entangled pair of particles. Coordination or “remote correlation” would have been better terms and likely would have been used but for the pop culture and physicists’ apparent embrace of it.
  6. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    We are in substantial agreement about discontinuity of a person and death upon a certain kind of deconstruction. We also agree on reconstruction being crucial to the issue. If I daresay, perhaps the meaning and permanence of "death" itself... I'm still trying to draw my line... I keep being brought back to the idea that a mind is a pattern, like a wave, and that in some ways it is independent from which particular parts (those which are interchangeable) of its "substrate" give rise to it... a wave pattern on the water has no concern which molecules of water are participating , requiring only that there are water molecules, the wave pattern can move from area to area using "different water" but maintaining its presence. So in what sense does "not changing" in the ways that "rally matter" trump the actual metaphysical changes to the constituents that give rise to emergence? Does that sense require a sort of continuity in the emergent stuff, to justify an acceptance of the other changes to the constituents? I also am reminded by the fact that I literally am not the same materially and even mentally, as the person I was 25 years ago... this is natural, we change, we grow, we are always in the process of becoming. Metaphysically, in what sense am I the "same" person and in what sense has that younger person "died"... his life having gone out from existence.. and I now only remaining in his place? How much of my FPE has changed? Is a different FPE metaphysically the same FPE as long as there is continuity? I'm not conflating here the epistemological issue of conceptually identifying a changing thing with metaphysics, we CAN stand in the same river twice, but comparing the metaphysical significance of a thing such as FPE having gone through changes ... perhaps profound ones, with an FPE which has not changed. So in what sense does changing in fundamental ways nevertheless not matter, when considering continuity of an FPE? With the issue of freezing, you identify it as fundamentally sleeping and hence there are no issues with the temporary extinguishment of FPE as such... but is not the frozen person "dead"? Without begging the question and defining "death" simply as "that from which one may never be revived", what in PRINCIPLE is it about the cessation of the processes of life which we presume is different from cessation of any other process? Is it not true that our technological prowess is so primitive that we simply cannot "fix" a broken living system which has undergone irreparable damage? Is it not true that our tinkering simply actually "breaks" a living system when we try to "pause it" or "dismantle it"? Without invoking any mystical element to the natural world, is there any reason to suspect that we could not MASTER nature to the point that we could completely stop a living being temporarily ... or disassemble and reassemble it... causing in fact a temporary death (no process of life in action) without causing any irreparable damage. In such a world would not reanimation then be a form of resurrection? Not as an inexplicable fantasy but as just another particular scientific reality? My point, is that there is a near mystical aura surrounding the concept of death and when we "invoke" it, which needs to be kept in mind when speaking of objective reality. Back to the dead frozen person temporarily not exhibiting the FPE, who is fundamentally "sleeping": What if we partially deconstructed the dead frozen person.. taking a single natural constituent out and putting it back... but doing this for all of the natural constituents of the person? Would the non-emergent FPE dormant at the time, the FPE the person is not exhibiting... be harmed in any way? What if we partially deconstructed the dead frozen person.. taking half of the natural constituents out and after some time putting them all back... and then doing the same thing for the other half of natural constituents? Would the non-emergent FPE dormant at the time, the FPE the person is not exhibiting... be harmed in any way? What if we fully deconstructed the dead frozen person... taking each of the natural constituents one at a time... would the non-emergent FPE dormant at the time, the FPE the person is not exhibiting... be harmed in any way? What if we transported the natural constituents piece by piece while dead frozen? What if we reassembled them "exactly" using the exact same natural constituents of the person, each of which only underwent motion? What if we then thawed the now reassembled dead frozen person? Would they not wake up with the same FPE? I'm not saying I have the answers... but these are some of the questions....
  7. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    I’m not throwing examples and hypotheticals around at whim. I think we generally agree about what we would do or refuse to do in pursuit of transportation. What I am trying to get at are the reasons why one “process” or another is a threat to FPE and the emergent entity we identify our mental selves with. I am not putting these forth to be difficult or because I think these considerations are irrelevant. I put forth the considerations because I believe they are relevant no matter how difficult. I apologize for the palpable frustration earlier, but be assured I am in earnest (even taking strong emergence as granted for purposes of discussion...) and sincerely want to know what you think i.e. the reasons for your conclusions.
  8. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    My statement about separate persons included (albeit only implicitly) the assumption that the people were not actually physically linked by communication apparatuses....
  9. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    I essentially agree with everything you have stated here. You have been very careful. (BTW I also find the hive mind idea ridiculous on its face and wholly without merit... any kind of psychological cooperation or communication, sharing of knowledge experience or anything, between real and separate living persons would require supernatural or psychic or parapsychological phenomena, which simply is utter fantasy) The point which I am focused upon is within 4), the details as to why you believe teleportation constitutes deconstruction which extinguishes FPE. I do not think your focus is on the deconstruction of the brain as such, but focused on the something about the brain which gives rise to the emergent mind, and ensuring THAT is not sufficiently "deconstructed" so as to extinguish FPE. A related question is whether FPE can extinguish and re-emerge... What was your answer to the question of whether emergence can be discontinuous, whether upon extinguishing due to a "frozen" brain, could emergence ... "re-emerge" upon starting up the brain again? If we could advance freezing technology such that a brain could literally be frozen without any damage to any of the structure or it future functioning, the only effect would be the cessation of any macroscopic motion or functioning... electrons would still be in their bound quantum states in their atoms, but there would be no transport of chemicals, no motion of molecules nor any changing electric fields etc. By any stretch, such a freezing would extinguish a thinking processing emergent mind... (here I assume that "freezing" a process or an action is for all intents and purposes the same as the absence of that processing or action.. i.e. it makes sense to state motion is extinguished upon stopping, motion is not only "paused" in such a case ... since "paused motion" is in fact not motion of any kind) is there any reason why "thawing" the person would not resurrect an FPE which you would still identify as you?
  10. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    also for purposes of discussion let us assume emergence is very sensitive, so that minor disturbances to that something about the brain which gives rise to the emergence affect that emergence greatly and possibly threaten it ( as opposed to a robust one which would only be greatly affected by major disturbances). An analogy in the abstract might be a pyramid of glasses. If we were a bit more primitive or naive we might think mind emerges from music of geometry of our head or brain matter similar to the music of the spheres ... our head constituents singing in the cosmos might be assumed to be mind. Then shape and vibration might be very important to consider. A transporter is nothing special then when it comes to the need to protect the FPE. IF subtle shapes and vibration in the mind are key one should be wary of excessively loud forms of transportation or extreme vibration. Similar considerations would apply if we found that emergence depended on ambient pressure or altitude in the gravitational field or perhaps was simply limited in the amount of acceleration which could be applied to the brain. Accelerate too quickly and our pyramid of glasses comes crashing down. Here transportation involving air flight might be something to avoid. Of course you might be thinking but we know that the special something about the. brain which gives rise to emergence of mind are not such that small pressure vibration or compression changes to the brain threaten emergence... My point only is that how the relationship between that special something and the resulting emergence are affected by the proposed mode or procedure of transport IS what is crucially important.
  11. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    While I patiently wait for you to reveal your argument let’s assume for discussion that FPE is emergent in the way you believe. Emergence occurs only in the context of natural constituents giving rise to it. One kind of emergence might occur with respect to a first thing while a second kind of emergence occurs with respect to some second thing but some third thing might not exhibit any kind of emergence. Clearly there is something different about the first, second, and third thing which forms the different conditions for the different emergences. In some cases the structure or arrangement or relationships between constituents in the thing is that something different, in other types of emergence it may be the interactions or dynamic processes ... whatever the case emergence emerges in virtue of the identity of that which forms the basis of that emergence. There is something about the identity of the brain which gives rise to mind and to consciousness. There is no doubt that the identity of the emergence is caused by the identity of that which is the source from which it emerges... and more particularly that something about it which matters and is operative to cause the emergence. One question that comes to mind is, in what ways could the identity of the brain be manipulated without affecting the emergent mind. This depends upon that something of the thing (brain) which causes emergence ... the particular how and why the mind arises. Any fiddling with that particular something or somehow meddles with that particular emergence... other changes might in fact have no effect.
  12. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    ok you can start the regression but never complete it
  13. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    Read what I wrote more precisely and carefully please.
  14. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    Ok. That argument is precisely what i have alternatively attempted to draw out from you and asked you directly to provide. I look forward to having something to discuss. There are a few things about FPE which are interesting to note: 1. It is is not acausal or causally impotent, it participates in causing a whole chain of interactions and events including for example memories, decisions, actions, discussions, and the very real physical record of this thread. 2. FPE is in the context of a person, who was slowly created (and continually) from constituents, both the person and the FPE coming into being as part of that process. 3. The FPE is inseparable from the person, it never exists independent of the person. 4. The FPE goes out of existence when the constituents of the person are disintegrated or caused to cease functioning in certain ways. 5. FPE exists is natural and has identity There are a few things about the relationship between viewpoint and existence that are interesting to note: A. Existence of a thing is not caused by a viewer of any viewpoint viewing it. B. A person having a viewpoint or a particular awareness of something does not causally rely upon the person diverting part of the resources for viewing or awareness to introspectively view or hold as an additional object of awareness that first viewpoint or particular awareness of the something. A viewpoint’s existence does not require viewing the viewpoint as a causal factor for its existence. C. In any case, a person and a mind are finite and cannot engage in an infinite number of self referential viewpoints of the self having a viewpoint of the self having a viewpoint of ... D. A third person view of a person can take into account the fact that a person has a first person view... it cannot BE that view but it can view the fact of that view. My telescope can be trained on your telescope and confirm your telescope is pointed in a unique direction from mine.
  15. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    and TODAY DonAthos said: "What I argue is missing in the Star Trek conception of "what comprises a human being" is: the FPE and its metaphysical reality. " All of the above contain the claim that you "argue" something... I have not been able to find that argument anywhere... as such it reverts to a bald assertion... i.e. an assumption.
×