So again you are just taking the position that woke = someone being trans and not hiding i — Mijin

No. This is clearly bollocks. I gave you several reasons, which have nothing to do with being trans. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

at least half of adverts have someone that needs a slap IMO, I don't see any reason to particularly focus on one transwoman. — Mijin

You may. Most people do not. Until we see something egregious. I have explained why that's the case. You're allowed to disagree. What you cannot do, is pretend I've said something else. Mulvaney being trans has nothing to do (i assume) with her overbearing and uncanny behaviour, which puts people off. Clearly, lots of people.

\\

ou've given no example of anything Dylan Mulvaney has done wrong apart from, apparently, making you uncomfortable. — Mijin

You didn't ask for that. You asked for why it's a problem for people., I gave you those reasons, Don't move the goalposts. You're simply allowed to disagree. You seem to think her behaviour is totally normal. Fine. I don't. Most don't. The situation is as it is.

Trans women in bathrooms is absolutely a non-issue; — Mijin

Right o, I'll tell that to the victims and the millions of females it makes unsafe. Cool.

Why would someone pretend to be trans to commit a rape when in America rapists are treated better? — Mijin

I think all 'being trans' is pretend in some sense: You cannot change your sex. It is utterly impossible. There is no version of 'transition' which means anything if gender is a construct/spectrum that means nothing to us as sexes (which is fine, I don't quite have an issue with tha tposition). With that out of the way, people are stupid and that claim is utterly fucking insane. Cummings rant is delusional, and i reject entirely the insulting, disrespectful and self-obsessive statement that rapists are treated better than trans people. Absolutely fuck off with that completley absurd horseshit (that's not direct at you, but this is an important issue for which I will not accept equivalences that puts the rape of females up against the challenges trans people face (which are mostly self-created, anyway).

your list of pinterest t-shirts or whatever totally — Mijin

You, not even bothering to look at the examples given, and then making an erroneous claim designed to denigrate and trivialise? Wow. Couldn't have picked it.

It's not a gotcha, it's a self-own. If you don't watch beer ads, what point were you even trying to originally make? That trans on TV is fine as long as you don't see it? — Mijin

This has nothing, whatsoever, to do with what we're talking about. This is now not a conversation but you ranting. Please stick to what we're talking about.

And again, is the solution here simply that transpeople should not be allowed on TV?
Is any public appearance "woke"? — Mijin

This is the exact type of stupid, bathwater-tossing response that makes this conversation almost impossible to have. We need an adult conversation with nuance, not ridiculous hyperbole as soon as anything gets contentious or is being discussed in "close quarters". We need to be real.

I've thought about it a lot, for a couple of years now. Kant is talking about noumena as assumed objects. Pretyt clearly.

Maybe this is more toward the restrictive version Wayfarer has made sure I stick to. That meaning, what i've said relates to the fact that for humans the "world" is irrelevant, but our perceptions are. So in "our world" our perception differentiates to create entities.

Yes, I do. One of several related works.

I agree, maybe. But I think it's likely, rather than a coin toss.

And, why do you think that your encounters are not referring to real entities? — MoK

I am on drugs. What kind of logic is it that says you alter your consciousness in a way that reliably causes hallucination, yet you take hte entities as real?? Seems utterly bizarre to think they are real without further.

What is interesting in my experience is that my hallucinations are coherent—my conversations, my visions, my other experiences that I cannot explain with words. Therefore, I believe my experiences may refer to other beings, unless my subconscious mind is deceiving me. — MoK

Your imagination is also coherent. This is an absolute nothing in terms of supporting a view that they might be real entites. I have full-blown conversations with my dead dog in my dreams sometimes.

I've actually had one dream where i was with Graham Hancock on a vine-covered river cruiser speaking at length about the possibility that psilocybin mushrooms graduated through ancient Welsh ceremony to the Druids. Two days later, I fell asleep and hte dream picked up in the exact same place. I was able to report hte entire conversation. This simply means my mind is agile.

I appreciate you attempting something of hte kind. Unfortunately, they factually, objectively have not answered this. They have claimed I said something I didn't., and responded to that. Then hid the ball on another issue. I'll explain.

I have asked specifically, in the scenario I gave (with no further elements involved), what I suffer by him receiving my information. This hasn't been answered. What happened was boethius then did two things:

1. Lied and said I claimed it "was nothing" that they have my information. I clearly, objectively did not say this. To claim I did is a literal lie. This is, i'm afraid, not debatable. The words are there to be read, and i did not say the ones he claims i did. q.e.d.;

2. Snuck in the "and you know about it" element. This is, quite obviously, what I had been pushing toward as a flaw in his initial statement. It took about six exchanges, and him sneaking that factor in, as if it were present in the initial claim, to get us anywhere. So, I pulled him back to my initial scenario. Since then he's been extremely immature and unbecoming for a philosophy forum. q.e.d.

My question has not be answered, unless the claim is that I am supposed to do some boat-building and figure out some esoteric position from statements that clearly do not answer the question, despite my attempting to bring it back several times.

Answering my question qith a question, I also note, is absolutely ridiculous, given how easy it would have been to answer.

To be even fucking clearer here are some responses that would have made sense:

"You are psychologically harmed because you feel your privacy has been invaded"

Ok. And this required the element snuck in later in the exchange: I know about it.

Why don't you answer the question, directly, so boethius has an example of the same:

In a scenario (without you adding any further facts) where you have received my personal email information, what do I suffer?

Please do not:

Claim i've said something I haven't.
Answer with a question
Pretend you've already answered it.

If you would suffer nothing, if it was "nothing" to you, as you claim, then you'd just do it to show that. — boethius

You are lying, as I have clearly explained above. I don't need you to agree with me. The facts sit in this thread. I already conditioned out that I know about it - yet you continue to lie, lie, lie.

Inheriring memories is how the persistence of consciousness is accomplished. It's not an illusion. It's just not what people generally think it is if they haven't thought or read/heard much about it. — Patterner

Are you totally sure? I've not read the proceeding conversation, but this seems to be a little bit off the mark to me.
We don't, generally, look at a person suffering from Alzheimer's or similar as lacking consciousness. Is that the take you go for? Not a problem if you say yes - legit position, I just don't see it.

I'm not so sure anymore, I'm moving away from that toward the bodily continuity camp. The kind of argument that is swaying me: suppose the original wasn't dematerialized, by accident. The original would have no clue what was going on with the teleported person. From the original's perspective, the copy is a completely separate person that just so happens to resemble them, like a supremely close identical twin. Then, the mistake is realized, and the original is subsequently killed. Why should killing the the original change that the copy is a separate person? — hypericin

This is, almost exactly, the Branch Line case. The machine malfunctions causing a terminal heart deterioration in you, while beaming your blueprint to be printed on Mars. It gets printed. You2 walks out on Mars with your exact memories up the moment you walked in. You get to live three days while your clone on Mars goes about their business. Which one is you, tends to be the question. I think they are both "you" without need for identity, due to Relation R being what matters. The second part of this is figuring out whether you care that You dies. If someone will continue to be your children's dad, the exceptional lawyer you are, will continue to write that book you're working on etc... You wont be missing from the world. But still - as Mijin noted - You - the exact phenomenal outlet - will cease. That's terrifying to me, fwiw.

Your bold position seems to allow for a transplanted brain, with entirely different biography, to become someone they have literally no concept of in the brain. Is that right? I realise you're not set on it, just exploring things.

In reverse:

That's true and entirely uninteresting and changes nothing about what Meta and I have said. You're right - there could be no differentiation. But if there were no differentiation, we(acknowledging the absurdity of 'we' in this context) wouldn't know different. So it's irrelevant.

I'm not quite understanding the import of the first bit directed at me. I understand, and I think I agree. But as above, that doesn't change anything being noted here.

Remember, our perceptions of, and the actual world are not the same. In the world of a perceiving being, the outside, un-perceivable world means nothing at all.

At the moment of death, you agree the body is identical to the body immediately before death.
Yet, personhood is extinguished at the moment of death. — hypericin

"possible". I certainly give that some air, but I do not think that's right. We lose weight at the moment of death, certain functions cease, capabilities of the body essentially extinguish etc.. etc... and so there is (to my mind) no way to uphold identity of the body through the death process (again, this matters not to my takes here, im just working through things). I think I can see where this was going, but I don't agree with the premise so I'm not sure I need to go further.

You are, again, importing an intuition. Personhood may not be extinguished at death. That "person" remains in the annals of history for all time, once they have existed. For many, that's enough. You need to test these positions rather than assume them, and charge other positions with them as challenges, I think. I'm not even saying you're far off the mark or anything like that - you might be right. But plenty of people will disagree with you, and it is in fact working out which of the possible answers is most reasonable that we're doing.

Moreover, the moment of death is the relevant time. It is the time when personhood drops to zero, while bodily continuity is still intact. What happens months later is of no interest. — hypericin

You will see as clear as day that this is not a workable response in light of the above. It is several of your intuitions presented as an objective timeline. I will comment, thought, that the bold is clearly the wrong answer. If this were true, any changes that happen to the body during life have nothing to do with personal identity, and yet the retention of one singular state of the body at death somehow indicates personhood, and its extinguishment. This is absurd (in the way of being essentially senseless, not that you're being silly or anything). In any case, it is obvious that the body does not remain as it was at the exact moment of death for any time. It is a literal instant. Again, i see where that's going, but in light of the above explications this is either just a description of what you like, in terms of an answer to the personal identity problem, or you are perhaps not quite accounting for some of the empirical facts about the body at death. Either way, your position is fine, but its your position. Not something whic is evident, and usable as reasons for other people to abandon theirs. There answers will simply differ from yours, and then you'll need to test them. I do, roughly, agree that what happens months later isn't of interest - but it is, given its the same processes occurring as in life, as regards 'changes' being relevant to identity.

I would find it as useless as any other discussion of Ship of Theseus criteria. — hypericin

Then you are refusing to test your intuitions. I can't do much with that...

Given that 1:1 is our actual, default experience, the fact that people also believe that personal identity is intrinsically 1:1, despite the quandaries in the TE this entails, carries vanishingly little weight. — hypericin

Its a perception, i can grant that. It is not an 'experience'. If that were the case, we would have clear lines about what constitutes identity. We don't, and your positions don't get us closer. This is why i reject that identity obtains at all. There's no argument under which is survives scrutiny. To illustrate what this means, Parfit's final tome/s was called "On What Matters". This refers to what he calls 'Relation R' which is just the psychological continuity. It could be your mind implanted in another body, but if your wishes, desires, dispositions, goals and ambitions are all continued on, unabated, by someone, then that someone may as well be you. "may as well be" seems the best I can trace up to. Relation R matters, rather than identity. THe problem is this is some pretty damn cold comfort.

The TE shows us that on pretty much any intuitive conception of identity, it is absurd when challenged. I am unsure that anything you're saying changes that.

:ok: Good encapsulation

Selection on someone's part is required for there to be more than one thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

This too.

Thanks for that! I was aware of some of this, but not in any detail. Good reading - thank you!

If we are talking numerical identity, then clearly not. But personal identity is obviously not numerical identity. — hypericin

I think perhaps, like many, this leapfrogs what we want to know: You believe personal identity can be 1:x. That's a big, big concession (not a negative one) in terms of reaching some conclusion. If you take this position, several outcomes of the transporter can be acceptable.

Most do not take this to be the situation. Most take personal identity to be, fundamentally, a 1:1 entity. I don't even think that obtains, but i digress. Whether or not personal identity requires identity is the open question. Once you have an intuition, the TE tests it.

This is most clear in death. When someone dies, their body is the same body as (numerically identical with) the body that was alive. — hypericin

There's a lot to unpack here, but possible. The dead body is not the same body from three months or so prior to death. So, that wont hold. This is how it works - you give an intuition, and we test it against examples and empirical facts. In this case, a dead body is not identical to the body previously known to be the alive person (other than at the moment of death, but clearly this isn't relevant as the change occurs while alive to give us a different body at times t1, t2, t3 etc.. etc.. if we pick sufficient distal times (three-four month increments should do).

We would then discuss whether it actually takes seven years to disclaim identity, as hte skeleton takes longer to be replaced. Which change matters? At what point? To what degree?

In any case, it is not clear at all that the body is self-same across time.

What is relevant is personal continuity, not numerical identity. And it is (logically) possible for two people to be both non-identical with each other and personally continuous with the same ancestor individual. — hypericin

Again, it might be. There is no clear answer. Pretty damn self-evidently.

Now you are contradicting what you said earlier. Differentiation just refers to the existence of more than one thing. So "selection" on our part is not logically required for there to be more than one thing. — Janus

Probably stepping in it a bit, but this seems clearly wrong to me. If differentiation is literally just things existing aside from one another (at all), then our perception does logically require selection into categories of those things. Otherwise, we would not perceive any differentiation. We select for object types, within the confines of a priori time and space. That seems pretty uninteresting or controversial if you take the premises on (I get that you may not, I'm just saying within the framework, this does seem required).

Perhaps. I also didn't get into that misgendering is considered a discriminatory crime in California, if don't deliberately. That is ridiculous, but I 100% understand I misspoke on that. I do believe it can be considered a hate incident, though, within the California framework.

I'd say they amount to the same. 'preachy' seems like its leaning toward education, which I don't think the point is. It's more like saturation or, at worst, brow-beating. But I think we're talking about either the same or very similar and related phenomena.

You still have not said what was wrong with her behaviour, or why it is automatically "woke" (and how any trans person can ever appear on TV in a way you wouldn't label "woke"). — Mijin

I have. It's overbearing, disingenuous, somewhat indicative of sociopathy (the dead eyes, faked emotions, bad acting and overall bad faith display of 'Look at me be feminine!!!!!!!! WAASDIHGS{NVO'. Its preening, over-wrought, transparent and utterly perplexing. Advertising beer to adult men as though you were presenting sesame street is either extremely sexist, or unbelievably stupid.

Your claim now seems to have shifted to just saying it was a bad fit for the brand. — Mijin

Both. But they actually are the same thing here - the opinions meted out by those critical are what's bad for the brand. These don't come apart, really. Both are bad, by my lights, and to some degree all I am doing is distilling the country-wide reports of opinion. I don't drink Bud and never have.

Who is being those things? Do you have an example? — Mijin

Dylan Mulvaney, trans women in bathrooms, the ubiquity of violent threats and entitlement among trans activists. These are random examples off top of my head, but there are literally thousands. This has been going on quite a long time.

You just said you "wouldn't be surprised" if we had been buying beer advertized by trans people without knowing ‍:confused:
If your point was that those people were just behind the camera, out of sight, then you're reinforcing my point, not yours. — Mijin

I don't watch beer ads. This is not a gotcha. You have overstepped wildly to try to make a point not open to you.

I wouldn't be surprised. That's all I said. Not "I've never noticed, while watching beer ads...". Because I don't watch beer ads.

I am not an expert in this field, and I just report what an expert says. — MoK

There is literally a surge of brain activity during NDEs, typically gamma waves. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4576755/ - this paper is a mishmash, and gives us almost nothing to move the field forward. It is someone employing wishful thinking - trying to lump together psychedelic experiences, NDEs and several other notions. These fall apart at the level of basic scrutiny, given the lack of homogenaiety in any of them.

h, that is interesting. So, you used DMT. Have you ever used it in such a dosage to encounter the Elves mentioned in this video? — MoK

I have. I have also spoken at length with Terence's brother Dennis, who is a friend. I have encountered entities. The Elves noted in this video appear in the reportage after Terence became popular. It is not likely, in any way, that these are actual entities. Dennis accepts this, for what that's worth. I have also encountered entities with Mescaline, Psilocybin and Salvia (I do not recommend the latter, at least smoked. It is meant to be chewed fresh).

Some of my experiences are interesting. — MoK

That's fair, but not what I was getting at - it is not interesting to the field. People hallucinate and image things. Wow. Yknow?

Yes, absolutely. It seems you've got a great handle on the ins-and-outs generally. Thanks for the exchange!

I don't think this is a sensible position: whose illusion? — SolarWind

Baked into the position is that it is no one's illusion. Our experience, itself, may be illusory. That doesn't mean it doesn't obtain. We experience in the same sense an orange experiences being eaten. It happens to it. The illusion happens to us. 'I' doesn't need to be adequately defined for this. You can just say the experience is being had the body in question. Not to a 'self'. The qualia could be shared - we have no idea, really.

And what is the problem with that? — hypericin

They are not the same person. Obviously. I can't see how that's being missed?? If we're talking identity, you cannot have two people who are the same person. It violates both the law of identity, and all intuitions about the self. Though, I think those are a weak indicator, anyway, as you note - most people intuit some form of soul, which is totally unsupportable and is probably the only way to maintain identity obtains for a 'self'.

Not even old-old but after 20s people are generally removed from the main stage to accept smaller and smaller roles. — unimportant

What?

What do I suffer when you receive my personal information??? Stop fing around, and answer this question.

You haven't. You haven't tried. You've said other, not relevant things. This isn't my problem. I am now giving you something like the sixth opportunity to tell me what I suffer in that scenario. You are yet to tell me. Go ahead... Tell me, what I will experience as a result of only those facts?? Don't add any. Don't make anything up. Just answer the fucking question.

The OP is about the transporters on Star Tre — Patterner

I have addressed this. No it isn't. A plain reading shows this. The experiment comes from Parfit, not Star Trek. This is not controversial.

these two were identical copies of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy... And years later, during this episode, the Riker we had known all along was many times removed from that. — Patterner

Now this is interesting, and the branch line squarely addresses it. That's not an argument or anything, but more reason to read Parfit's book where this thought experiment stems. No shade at all, but it'll help understanding most of the positions and how/why they work or don't work because Parfit is extremely through. The book took him nearly 14 years.

:strong: Indeed. And with this knowledge, can we all come to terms? Noting that this doesn't deny either bigotry, or ideological absurdity.

1. If brain activity entirely ceased, it could not be restarted. Vegetative states are not death. That's key.

2. I am extremely well-informed about DMT. I spent around 10 years intensely embedded in the communities relevant to it including helping to design research protocols, raising funds, public speaking, ceremony and much else besides..

3. I see, that's fair enough. I'm unsure there is anything interesting there. Infrared light isn't that myusterious, is it?

And this implies that, as intuitive as it sounds, you "continue" after entering the teleporter, after being cloned, etc, because "continuance" is just the succession of these experiences of "self" over time — hypericin

Very clear and precise. Thank you. I don't call that a self, but I think its what matters.

I differ - it seems both, to me. It's obviously unintuitive, but it is also unsatisfactory as it gives us no notion of self. It allows for 1:x without explanation. Isn't that an issue, to you?

Please don't lie. What I said was this

what have i suffered, without something more? It's nothing, isn't it? — AmadeusD

and you've provided absolutely nothing to move that needle. You cannot name a single 'suffering' i endure by you receiving my personal information. You are getting extremely agitated by having to answer a simple question directly related to your contention.

Then then snuck in the something more (that I know about it) and assumed that would cause suffering. Deceitful, assumptive and wrong. You squirmed.

This is why you are not worth engaging with. You are being dishonest, uninteresting and avoiding the challenge entirely. These are facts.

You're very welcome - I will probably flesh it out with objections that I couldn't get to due to word count. Might post somewhere on the forum here once I do.

I don't know what you want here? You've posited three things I think require more than just some wishful thinking to obtain.

THe brain is not entirely shut down during NDEs. That's why they are NDEs. It doesn't suggest much of anything but that the mind is powerful.

I also note fairies appeared nowhere in that?

What spiritual reality?

Behaving like what? — Mijin

So, you say you've seen the ad. There is nothing normal, whatsoever, about how that person is behaving. Its like a childhood television presented. Its really weird, and absolutely out of hte norm for beer, advertising to adults, advertising to (mainly) men, and completely out of left field. I, personally, don't care - but I can 100% see why having someone prancing about like that out of nowhere is disconcerting, off-turning and feels intrusive. It would be the same if a load of white guys with guns and MAGA caps started appearing in Lululemon adverts.

t's good to know though that you're big enough to not label things as woke where you unknowingly see someone trans. It will be a big comfort to the community that they don't need to hide necessarily, as long as they can perfectly pass as cisgender. — Mijin

Two issues (imo):

1. You're making up a problem, as I've explain: being trans is not the issue, for the most part (this is not to deny bigots their existence, either). It is being intrusive, entitled and hateful (again, not to ignore bigotry where it occurs);
2. Sarcasm isn't helpful. Trans people don't pass, in 99.999999999999999999% of cases. It is a pipedream. Because they are not the sex they want to present as, and humans are evolved to tell sex from visual cues subconsciously, though i recognized a lot of slower people around hte place lol.

Aside from those issues, if you watch the Mulvaney advert and do not see something odd and awkward happening, I think you are lying, or naive. You don't have to talk smack about it to recognize these things.

I don't know what you thought would come of this, buuuuuttt.... the period you're tlaking about includes 65 hate crimes against Trans people. 65. There were 125 anti-Asian hate crimes in that year. There is also significant disagreement between types of data collected.

Crimes with a 'gender bias' totaled 7, a decrease from 15 in 2022. So, are hate crimes against trans people not gender-biased? Or what are we doing here? Additionally 'violent' includes at least 30% crimes against property, and not person. Interestingly, perpetrators are not noted by gender or identification. That is a shame, as I am fairly sure we're looking at much, much higher numbers of violent crimes by trans people based on a few relevant stats (like their socio-economic status, mental health status etc... collectively). Speculation, to be sure - but in the face of 65 (likely more like 40) violent crimes against trans people in a state with a higher proportion of trans people, inter-LGBT violence and 55 million people, I don't need to downplay anything. Its a nothing burger.

Is that, like, yes, both? — bongo fury

No. As explained, I am saying that a 'self' and an 'original work of art' are not comparable on a conceptual level, regardless of what might or might not be criteria for each. I then detailed why the criteria aren't related, so they can't be compared (imo). I hope that's clearer..

but evidently you don't bother read through? — bongo fury

No idea what you're referring to. Everything I've said is relevant and seems pertinent at the time I commented it.

Ok, and you don't think the same is true of personal identity? — bongo fury

No, and I don't think you do either. There's nothing that contains 'Napoleon' unless we make assumptions as between bodies and minds. The teletransporter shows this clearly, as it isn't 'your' body on the other side, and its obviously not 'your' mind. But it is hte 'mind of you', so we need to figure out where 'Napoleon' the person exists. It is clearly not in the body, and we don't know what a mind is. So... we're a bit stuck. That's not the case with the piece of art. If you're simply stipulating that, for you, a 'self' is, in fact, a confluence of mind and body in a single, recognizable-over-time entity, that's fine. I just don't think, (and it seems the discussion over a century has found this) that will hold up to many counterexamples.

We have to establish criteria beyond that? I don't follow. — bongo fury

In what does a 'self' consist? This is the central, clearly-still-in-the-air, crux of this and other considerations. If we already knew, point blank, what a 'self' was, the thought experiment could only possibly tell us whether we were happy a clone was wandering about after we die. But that's not how it runs.

ou wouldn't seek to convince me I was deluded by pointing to evidence of provenance contradicting my claim of bodily continuity with Napoleon? By asking me to reconcile that claim with historical evidence of my more recent birth in South London, e.g., etc? — bongo fury

This leapfrogs the question. This is absurd, if your conception of a self is as above. But that concpetion, generally, isn't satisfying when run through these thought experiments. I highly recommend reading Reasons and Persons if you've not. This position is relatively well deconstructed and made obviously unfulfilling or unhelpful beyond describing a widely-held intuition in clear terms.

Given the above, the answer is no, that makes less sense now, but I understand more why you're saying it :)

It's the premise of the OP. — Patterner

The OP vaguely mentions that its 'like star trek'. This thought experiment is from Derek Parfit. Including the problematic versions.

I don't think there's any need for the thread if the person walking out on Mars does NOT think he's me. — Patterner

You seem to have crucially missed, or reversed, the key that makes this senseless: It doesn't matter what he thinks. What do you think? You already know the guy is a 'replica' in the colloquial sense. You knew that before you went in. For you, the you who in real-life knows you have no clones running around - is that an acceptable 'you'? For me, there wasn't a 'me' to be continued, so I don't really need to decide. But its key that person B's opinion is irrelevant. They have been given an artificial worldview, basically. Born at 34 (or whatever age).

and is indistinguishable from me — Patterner

This isn't quite true, once the person is aware they are on Mars. They now have a different set of memories (though, almost identical) to you. And that will just continue to diverge as time goes on. Even arguments that get a 'self' out of the transporter can only maintain it for a literal instant.

If the original is not destroyed, then the copy is more obviously not the original, regardless of how these things are defined. — Patterner

No, not quite. This was run by Parfit and called the branch-line case where identity is considered to be 1:x rather than 1:1. There's no reason, unless you take a soul, to assume this person isn't you. They are exactly the same at the instant they appear (again, beyond this, fail, due to the above). If they have literally the exact same everything, including psychology then there's just two of you. The source and biography are exactly the same. You walked into the machine. They walked into the machine. All is well.

I still reject this, because I think either there are two 'you's, which means one cannot be identical with the other (there are two... its not possible) or there is no self to continue, so 'you' didn't even exist to begin with. It just seems everyone has an underlying assumption about what 'self' is and it exactly this, and in what it consists, that we're trying to drill down on with the thought experiment.

If the idea is this guy, B is 'not you' in the "different atoms" sense, then you must feel it is your bod which continues your self. That is highly unsatisfactory to me. If your mind was in my body, it wouldn't be 'me' in the sense you seem to be getting at (apologies if I'm misunderstanding your version of 'self').

My self is the experience of this body, with these senses; this brain, with these memories; etc. The continuity of self is due to the memories. — Patterner

But this would make B obviously and inarguably you, at the instant they appeared?

How do I know that, if my atoms are separated, I no longer exist? — Patterner

Based on the above, obviously you don't exist. You have no memory or experience and there's no continuity.

This is a genuine question, are you just working through these intuitions as we go?

That is all. — hypericin

I suggest if it were this simple, the answer would be quite obvious: Many people can be you. B is you, and you are you. Does this not seem unsatisfactory to you?

I think there is a difference between two things being identical and two things being the exact same thing. — Patterner

That's true, but this is, I think, about what Identity actually is. My response to this initially was always to move to your 'exact same thing' and reject that B could be me, on any conception other than a Soul being sent through space. I think this sidesteps the question though. Even if exactly me is hte only 'me' in the intuitive sense, there is no reason to think that two people can have that exact same experience. Is that identity? Yeah, shaky to me too, but its worth considering beyond resiling into the 'exact same' version imo. Technically, 'identity' means we can't have two, and they be the same. The issue is that a 'self' may not operate as a object does and could violate that.

If you agree that a world, a universe, of things existed prior to the advent of humanity, then we have nothing to argue. I must say, though, that it puzzles me that you continue to think we are disagreeing about something despite the number of times we have gone over this. — Janus

I very highly agree with this, as a 3p. You both seem to accept that things existed before human minds. That's enough.

Well, we're talking about Star Trek transporters — Patterner

Err, I don't ... think ... that's happening. But nevertheless, if I;ve missed that, it's worth noting that what Star Trek does has zero bearing on the discussion as its not one based within the restrictions of that universe.

Nobody has ever materialized on any of the shows and thought they were a duplicate. — Patterner

The entire point is to figure out whether you think the guy walking out on Mars is 'you' and then if so, how that's the case. Your position is quite clear, happily :P

You obviously don't think it is for similar reasons I don't. That's not particularly relevant, I don't think. We have no idea what B would 'think' because this is fiction, speculation and semi-nonsense all rolled into one.

Your response applies to a body well, but not a self as we can't know what that consists in (currently). But that response - It's the one i gave to Mijin in certain terms - covers any argument for bodily continuity well in this TE. Parfit's take is that there is no 'you'. There is no self - simply relation R. That relation is just psychological continuity. There need be no identity (nor could there be, on his and my conceptions). There was no identity to continue. So while intuitively, I think everything you've said makes sense, when you drill into the thought experiment, they largely don't answer much I think.

No. It is a literal description, which he says.

Further, this simply illustrates what Im talking about. Shut the fuck up about it, and people will stop caring what you identify as. Its this self-aggrandizing, delusional hyperbole. You seem to enjoy it - fine. It's ridiculous to most.

Trans people aren't superheros. They aren't like superheros, unless we want to agree that both categories are deluded. I'd prefer not to do so, but that's all they have in common. Its horseshit.

Hate crimes are generally speaking, based entirely off the reportage of the victim. Those stats mean essentially nothing without hearing the individual stories. Saying 'he' instead of 'she' when someone is demonstrably male is a hate crime, if reported as such. Its "woke" writ large.

But it's not. A trans person behaving like that is 'woke'. And specifically, it's 'woke' because it was a cynical attempt at identity politics for sales point percentage by Bud Light. It has (almost) nothing to do with the simple fact that Dylan is trans and advertising beer. I wouldn't be surprised to find out we've been advertised to by trans people for beer in the past. I, and anyone I know, simply don't care about that. Its the surrounding ideological problems.

o is it the case that anyone that isn't white, male, Christian needs to hide? — Mijin

I have no idea where this has come from. This is the kind of response that definitely Fire and I, perhaps others, find infuriatingly out of step and possibly a form of 'gotcha' we need to ignore. No one has said, intimated or even vaguely referred to anything of this kind, including both the AE and Bud campaigns.

I think perhaps you're missing a few tricks. We can explain everything we currently know without fairies. NDEs, specifically, are a world away from requiring fairies. Unless by 'fairies' you just mean unexplained phenomena. Perhaps, but I still think you're giving it more than it's worth.

Yes, but sort of at a higher level than seems we're on. I mean to say that you can't give a criteria for the 'self' to being 'self-same' isn't quite available. Whereas, the initial piece of art (in our exchange, Guernica) is exactly that piece of art, without having to establish any criteria beyond that it is itself (being painted by x at time y etc..)

I can't see that your further comments then make sense: I could not point to a 'fake self' and support my pointing. I could do so with a piece of art, given I was actually capable of spotting fakes (or, had some evidence of provenance showing it was not the original). It doesn't seem available to the one claiming 'fake self' to do so.

the replica would not know he wasn't me — Patterner

I find it quite exciting that we actually do not know whether this would obtain.

But he wouldn't be. — Patterner

I certainly agree - but humour me - is your take that there's a set of interlocking criteria (these atoms, at this time, in this configuration) that cause someone to be 'you'? Obviously, I take there is only one shot/possible 'you' in this, just asking in that form to get clear response.

Between a fake piece of art and a self? Not at all. If that was an impression I gave, I apologise. That is wrong-headed and doesn't support what I'm saying at all.

My point is that a 'self' is not comparable to a piece of art, because there's an absolute limit to what's called the original piece.

I agree, but we do not entertain the idea of fairies beyond stoned bonfire chats (which are great, do not get me wrong. I love delving into speculative stuff. But here on TPF that's not the bag, imo).

I assume you mean if I don't know.

Becauase there is absolutely no reason to entertain all comers. I will entertain theories with something (even a lick) of indication they might be true. Fairy stories do not fall into this category.

You have devolved into someone not worth exchanging with. That's a shame, as some months back you were consistently contributing well across multiple areas of the forum.

Take care of yourself.

Yes, in a manner of speaking. I think you can successfully convey thought, but its incidental to two, separate, sets of similar-enough internal dictionaries looking up the same words in the same context. But hte thought itself cannot leave the mind. I would like to hear how if you do disagree..

But that is a desire to avoid (as you noted) our ongoing responsibility for (and to) what we say, which also creates the philosophical fantasy that one puts their meaning into words, and the rest is only interpretation and what we “read into them”, say, “take” offense at. — Antony Nickles

But that is factually true. You cannot 'get' anything from my words which aren't already in your mind. It isn't possible, on current knowledge. There is absolutely nothing in 'trying to offend' which includes the other person's offence. It just isn't there... There's a stark difference between things which can offend, and offence.

here is no single way of categorizing things as real or not. It depends on what kind of thing you are talking about. — Ludwig V

I still don't think you'll get a particularly clear criteria unless its contextually baked in. I think conceptually, its really hard to say one way or the other on any example.

I cannot say I am surprised at how quickly you got off the boat. A shame, because it is quite obviously a silly line of thinking.

Absolutely not. This is evidenced by the fact that non-white, gay, trans, weird people do things constantly, in all contexts and we only ever hear anything about it when its preachy, invasive, irritating or obviously performative. The issue, for many, is that any time one of these group do something vaguely noteworthy, they are praised as some kind of supernatural Hero. Literally:

Its grotesque football-passing, virtue signally nonsense. Those of us who notice call it out. It didn't used to be like this.

I've answered it multiple times. It's a shame you can't read simple sentences and also don't know anything about the law despite pretending to. — boethius

I see you immediately devolve into insults and ad hominems. Interesting.

I am telling you that you have said nothing that answers the question: What suffering am I undergoing in the scenario i gave you.

You haven't answered this. THe rest is not much my problem.

You may not suffer if you don't care about your privacy, but this would cause suffering to most people knowing that I have their private personal information when I shouldn't.

As I've stated already multiple times, the suffering also requires becoming aware of the invasion of privacy. — boethius

And now you seek to sneak in answers you refused to give previously. Gotcha.

Here's the 'something extra' i, multple times, noted was required. You now accept it. Great!