Why do you lose memories when you teleport and why do you posit that I have a continuous memory from birth to now? — Hanover

Please forgive any prickliness here. It seems, outright, you are not reading my entire posts. Eg, the above vs:

You're free to say you were not 'you' before, say, age 4 when clear memories coalesced. — AmadeusD

So, to be clear, I can;t answer your question because I did not make the claim it refers to. I will do my best to ignore this, as it comes up, and just respond to what I can stand behind. So, apologies if things seemed to be missed and such.

You're distinguishing your example from mine — Hanover

By the fact that, in 'my' (it's actually Derek Parfit) case, you choose to use a machine which purports to "recreate" you somewhere else. But what actually happens, is that you go into a machine, it copies you perfectly - atom for atom - then destroys you and sends the data to another machine which 3d-prints you from that data. This is clearly not like your case of simply living through life, even if this reduces to saying they're are just different cases.
Ignoring the question of whether this would preserve psychological continuity (relation R) at all (reductionists are essentially committed to saying yes, it would, by virtue of being your exact physical double at the moment of transfer) and the question of how, moments after re-creation, you couldn't be the original person as your memories now diverge sufficiently to defeat the rule of identity, the point is this:

If there is someone who recalls being you, and is physically identical do you - is this you? The reason this is an important thing to nail down about identity is presented in:

the kicker for this thought experiment is what's called the 'branch-line case" in which the machine malfunctions, and you survive several hours after the transfer and can talk to your double. You are, though, destined to die in the 'normal' way, in several hours time.

Can there be two "you"s? Uncomfortable. But seems fairly true, if relation R holds. You may simply disagree that this is the correct notion of identity and that's totally fine. I've just not come across a better one, however much this has increased my fear of death.

But if I go from Point A to Point B over 50 years and not a single same cell or single same memory exists from age 1 to age 50, then don't I have the same identity problem as you noted in the teleporting? — Hanover

I think the underlined is not quite right. This might be rectified by moving the date forward to age 4, per the above correction I've made to your initial questions. But that said, in your example - not a single cell, and not a single memory remain? You are not the same person. That seems simple. It relies on the same logic/reasoning/position as the teletransporter case. That case is simply the reverse. Can someone who does have the exact physical make-up, and psychological make-up as you.. actually be you? It seems they can. And, for me, the only issue is how to get around the possibility of two "you"s. For me, this is solved by the fact that the exact instant one becomes aware they did not die in the machine, the two have disparate memory banks. Nothing ship-of-theseus rears its head.

Here is a thought experiment - I do not think it is mine, but I cannot remember whose it is — Clearbury

Parfit outlines several versions of this in Reasons and Persons as related to humans. He uses surgeries replacing body parts, and swapping body parts to tease out the intuitions. Far too long to summarize, but that may be helpful in you find the discussion. DM me if you need further help on that...

On the other hand, if the mind stays with the functioning, then the mind stays where it is and the reassembled brain is either just a lump of meat or another mind, but it isn't the original one. — Clearbury

This is a conclusion for a different thought experiment, on my view. Yours speaks to "at what point" certain things become, or are disestablished. The whole-sale transference of matter in the sense of "Reassembling" is not the same question, I don't think. However, I think when you turn this to brains and minds, we don't know enough about functional memory and where/what in the brain houses/contributes to/eliminates memories to justly answer whether or not the "old, reassembled" brain would carry any memories with it.

This is a conclusion for a different thought experiment, on my view. — AmadeusD

I think it's about the one described as there seems to be a radical difference between what our reason tells us about where the valuable machine goes, and where the mind goes, even though we have exactly the same replacement process at play in both.

If our minds are our brains - a view I think is false - then our minds would, like the valuable machine, go with the matter. That there was uninterrupted consciousness in the other place - like the uninterrupted functioning of the machine - would be irrelevant.

But my reason anyway represents my mind to stay with the uninterrupted consciousness.

But it can't plausibly be that the consciousness was uninterrupted that explains why my mind stayed where it was (even though it assures us of it), for clearly a mind can be unconscious for a stretch and still be the same mind afterwards (just as a machine can stop functioning for a while and still be the same machine afterwards).

It's this combination that then implies that the mind is not the brain, but a bearer of conscious states that is associated with brains. That the consciousness was uninterrupted assures us that the mind was present there the whole time, but the consciousness is not the mind, but simply a state the mind was in.

why they think banning abortion is the right thing to do. — Samlw

"If someone is willing to kill even their own unborn children, then how can they be counted on that they won't kill other people?"

This, as far as I can reconstruct, is the concern that is actually behind some of the disapproval of abortion, although I've never heard it directly voiced like this (which is not surprising, given the content).

This also explains why anti-abortionists generally don't have a problem with capital punishment -- it's killing innocents that ix wrong, but not criminals. And also why they are in favor of firearm possession -- it's for personal protection, as they fear for their lives, living among those who are casually willing to kill even their own, innocent children.

Most abortion debates get nowhere because they're focusing on the personhood status of the unborn or the lack of such status, rather than looking at the intention for abortion and the implications of such intention.

The tragedy is the concept of unwanted pregnancies, which have the potential to result in unwanted children. Unwanted children are over represented in the criminal element as adults. Effective Birth Control has lowered this number considerably, but every BC method has a failure rate.

Most abortion debates get nowhere because they're focusing on the personhood status of the unborn or the lack of such status, rather than looking at the intention for abortion and the implications of such intention. — baker

What are the implications?

The brain has all the connections it had before it was removed from your body, so she will have your memories.

And I think that's absurd. It's not the case that Jane forgets her life and remembers yours; it's the case that Jane is dead and you're alive in her body.

You mean my brain is alive in her body. Every person you’ve ever met, and will ever meet, is more than a brain. So that’s large and ever-increasing body of observable evidence just left to the side. It’s why you cannot imagine yourself being a disembodied brain without some sort of mechanism to keep you alive while you’re outside the body. And here I thought persons were supposed to be autonomous, but we are treating the brain like a dependent fetus, something that needs to be kept alive through intervention.

I can't be a single person in two disconnected bodies with two disconnected brains, and neither half is somehow privileged such that one is me and the other isn't. So it must be that neither is me. Therefore I'm dead.

But your brain is still alive. If a person is a brain, and the brain is still alive, the person is still alive, no?

You mean my brain is alive in her body. — NOS4A2

And there is a person. That person remembers growing up as you, not as Jane. Your claim is that this person is Jane because it's Jane's body and my claim is that this person is you because it's your brain (and memories and personality and so on).

I think that my view is more reasonable than your view.

But your brain is still alive. If a person is a brain, and the brain is still alive, the person is still alive, no? — NOS4A2

As I said above, I am a single person. If my brain is cut in half and each part kept alive and put in two different bodies then there are now two people. Given that I am not two people and given that neither new person is privileged, it must be that neither of these two people are me, and so I am dead.

The same reasoning applies to your claim that the organism is the person; if your body is cut in half and each half kept alive by replacement organs then there are now two organisms, not one. You cannot be both, therefore either neither is you or one of them is privileged. But at least in this case I would say that the half that kept the brain is the privileged half and so is you; the other half is just a bunch of organs, not a person.

It’s why you cannot imagine yourself being a disembodied brain without some sort of mechanism to keep you alive while you’re outside the body. — NOS4A2

I certainly could imagine it. It's just not biologically feasible as a brain cannot survive without help.

Relevant to this is this:

Decapitation is quickly fatal to humans and most animals. Unconsciousness occurs within seconds without circulating oxygenated blood (brain ischemia). ... ("[Consciousness is] probably lost within 2–3 seconds, due to a rapid fall of intracranial perfusion of blood").

A laboratory study testing for humane methods of euthanasia in awake animals used EEG monitoring to measure the time duration following decapitation for rats to become fully unconscious, unable to perceive distress and pain. It was estimated that this point was reached within 3–4 seconds, correlating closely with results found in other studies on rodents (2.7 seconds, and 3–6 seconds). The same study also suggested that the massive wave which can be recorded by EEG monitoring approximately one minute after decapitation ultimately reflects brain death. Other studies indicate that electrical activity in the brain has been demonstrated to persist for 13 to 14 seconds following decapitation (although it is disputed as to whether such activity implies that pain is perceived), and a 2010 study reported that decapitation of rats generated responses in EEG indices over a period of 10 seconds that have been linked to nociception across a number of different species of animals, including rats.

There is, perhaps, at least a few seconds where the brain is alive (and a conscious person).

I think it's about the one described — Clearbury

To clarify why I think not, your conclusion requires a different question: What is the nature of consciousness? WHich is not the same as whether or not it is transitive, specifically. In your conclusion, there are several issues I can see: "if the mind stays with teh functioning" cuts across both ways. At some point, both 'items' become 'functional' as built-in to the thought experiment. In this case, it's the basic nature of consciousness, rather htan it's relationship to the brain that would be in question, I think - but I could be misconstruing.

That the consciousness was uninterrupted assures us that the mind was present there the whole time, but the consciousness is not the mind, but simply a state the mind was in. — Clearbury

I don't think we can say that an uninterrupted consciousness is required. We sleep, for instance. It's not hte same, no, but it gives us pause. It's entirely possible that consciousness can be interrupted (perhaps true NDEs are in this category) and return to it's initial state, based on it's carrier. That could support it arising from the brain, and all its unique complexity, or it could support that mind is something else (or atleast, somewhere else)

But it can't plausibly be that the consciousness was uninterrupted that explains why my mind stayed where it was — Clearbury

Similarly, I think it's entirely plausible that this is the reason. We just don't know.. My intuition is also that more than likely, the mind is not synonymous with the brain. But its extremely hard to see why...

Yes, i agree that consciousness's continuation is not necessary for a mind to remain where it is, for we are unconscious every day and yet the same mind occupies my body after I wake up as was there before I went to sleep.

It seems sufficient for a mind to remain where is that there has been no interruption of consciousness. If we can maintain consciousness yet replace the matter of the brain, then that would seem to show that the mind isn't the brain.

I think Parfit was one of those who saw puzzles where there was actually just evidence for the soul.

ah I wish you’d said the first up top.
I can’t see what you’re seeing because I don’t think there is evidence for a soul. He wasn’t seeing evidence of anything - he was trying to answer a question. The soul is just the easiest, and one of the least-plausible accounts he canvasses imo

No, that's just plain untrue. There are lots of arguments for the soul - philosophy is full of them - and no good one against the view.

if the mind is the brain, then when we gradually remove the brain parts and reassemble them, then the mind would 'be' the reassembled brain. For that is what happened in the valuable machine case. In teh valuable machine case it is not in dispute that what has value is the parts of the machine, and thus when we gradually remove them and reassemble them it is the reassembled machine that is valuable, not the original one that is still functioning but has no parts in common.

When we perform the same exercise with a person - so, we gradually remove their brain without interrupting their consciousness - then the mind does not go with the parts we removed. Thus, the person is not their brain. That is what our reason tells us. If we respect what our reason tells us about cases, then it is telling us our minds are souls.

There are a whole stack of other arguments for the soul. There are no good ones for the idea that the mind is the brain, it's just a working hypothesis. But that's not evidence.

But given this thread is about abortion, how does it bear on the matter?

It seems that most of those who believe in the soul seem to think this implies that the soul is present from conception. That's bizarre. Why think that? It's not implied at all (and historically this has not been what people have thought). Whether the mind is material or immaterial makes no difference to the reasonableness or otherwise of assuming the fetus has a mind (for the issues are distinct - there's what has a mind, and then there's what a mind is made of). And yet that is the main issue that's going to bear on whether abortions are right or wrong.

I believe in the soul, yet it seems to me that the evidence indicates (but does not establish) that that fetuses do not have souls.

murder isn't fundamentally different from abortion. Any descriptor of the beginning of life that could be mentioned could be countered by giving an example of an adult human with those characteristics. Ex: A person in a coma that isn't conscious. A person with a pacemaker that doesn't have a heartbeat. The only question that matters is: Why is murder wrong? And from that question comes the following question, why does life have value? My opinion is that life can't have value, because life itself is the value. Murder is wrong because it extinguishes the possibility of the victim to live a full life. With that reasoning, even a painless death is immoral. Here are some common arguments for abortion, and why I think they are wrong. "My body, my choice": It isn't your body, otherwise you couldn't kill it without harming yourself. If it was your body, it also wouldn't have to be removed. There are also multiple arguments about the quality of life after birth. But, life is more valuable than non life, so unless the majority of kids in foster care are suicidal, then your point is null and void. Please respond with more arguments for abortion.

No, that's just plain untrue. There are lots of arguments for the soul - philosophy is full of them - and no good one against the view. — Clearbury

Absolute nonsense.

if the mind is the brain, then when we gradually remove the brain parts and reassemble them, then the mind would 'be' the reassembled brain. — Clearbury

No. You're confusing several positions with one where the brain physically is hte mind. Emergentism might be a better avenue to attack here.

we gradually remove their brain without interrupting their consciousness — Clearbury

Good luck.

here are no good ones for the idea that the mind is the brain, it's just a working hypothesis. — Clearbury

That is not the position. There are extremely good reasons to think the mind is confined to, or arises from the brain,. If you reject htem, so be it.

But given this thread is about abortion, how does it bear on the matter? — Clearbury

If there is no Soul, then any argument from a religious perspective fails and any discussion about personhood can proceed unhindered.

I believe in the soul, yet it seems to me that the evidence indicates (but does not establish) that that fetuses do not have souls. — Clearbury

Sorry to say, I find this absurd to a point that I have to assume you've made some assumptions that are terminal. Such as "there's good evidence for the soul" when there is literally zero.

murder isn't fundamentally different from abortion. — Hyper

Murder is a legal term. It is fundamentally a different species of concept from abortion.

we gradually remove their brain without interrupting their consciousness
— Clearbury

Good luck. — AmadeusD

If a neuron dies, you won't lose consciousness. So, if we replace your neurons, one by one, with functionally equivalent mechanical neurons, you wouldn't lose consciousness during the process. Why would you? And now you, who have been conscious the whole time, has a mechanical brain. Your original biological brain is no longer a factor in who you are as a person anymore.

Murder is a legal term — AmadeusD

I said fundamentally, which means that they have the same effect of terminating life.

Why would you? — RogueAI

Why, or why not, is the entire question.

It may be that different neurons (in terms of identity) precludes your conclusion. We don't know. That's why I say good luck..

I said fundamentally, which means that they have the same effect of terminating life. — Hyper

Oh. Well, fair. Sorry. I would say there's a fundamental difference between ending a clump of cell's life and an adult human's life. They are plainly not hte same thing.
As to your last position, i'd agree. It is not hte brain that matters, but psychological continuity. If it were the case that replacing every neuron, one by one, with an artificial one could maintain the same consciousness as the brain they, collectively, replace, sure. I think this does nothing to your identity.

Ah, another person who doesn't know how to argue

Kudos for recognizing a kindred spirit.

But you can the see the appeal of such a brain replacement thought experiment.

And no doubt another. This barely improves on a youtube comment section tbh.

No doubt? How can you have no doubt without seeing me attempt to argue? Tuck in your shirt, your arrogance is showing.

I would say there's a fundamental difference between ending a clump of cell's life and an adult human's life. They are plainly not hte same thing. — AmadeusD

But the intention for doing either is the same: destroying someone, acting in a way so that someone would not exist.
When and how are just practical matters, whether it takes a gun, a rope, a scalpel, chemicals, etc.

The reason people have abortions is to prevent that "clump of cells" developing and being born a human person.
People don't have abortions merely to remove a "clump of cells". They remove that "clump of cells" precisely because it has the potential of becoming a person, and it's the person they want not to exist.

What are the implications? — praxis

Like I said right away in the post you're quoting:

"If someone is willing to kill even their own unborn children, then how can they be counted on that they won't kill other people?" — baker

Where in the world is there a place where people won’t kill other people? In the United States the federal death penalty applies in all 50 states and U.S. territories. There was around 20k murders in the U.S. last year.

I said fundamentally, which means that they have the same effect of terminating life. — Hyper

Try to be precise, philosophical even: what exactly are you saying?

''

Where in the world is there a place where people won’t kill other people? In the United States the federal death penalty applies in all 50 states and U.S. territories. There was around 20k murders in the U.S. last year. — praxis

So much for the social contract ...

Abortion erodes social trust, like I sketched out above.
As does adultery or any other crime.

But perhaps you want to go all Rand/Thatcher and declare there is no society and everyone is solely responsible for themselves?

"If someone is willing to kill even their own unborn children, then how can they be counted on that they won't kill other people?" — baker

Other people? This implies that the fetus is a person. And what if the mother's life is at stake or we're dealing with a rape victim? You would prohibit abortion in those cases too? After all, if a rape victim will kill her own child, who knows what she's capable of in the future, right?

Other people? This implies that the fetus is a person. — RogueAI

No. It's about the intention to kill. I've been talking about it all along.

And what if the mother's life is at stake or we're dealing with a rape victim?

These are statistical minorities.

The vast majority of abortions are simply advanced contraception measures. In old sex education books, abortion was actually listed in the chapter on contraceptives.

You would prohibit abortion in those cases too?

*sigh*
Abortion debates typically suffer from a lack of precision.

I see little problem with aborting pregnancies due to rape or concerns for the wellbeing of the prospective mother or child. Those are just unfortunate situations.

It's abortions that are simply advanced contraception measures that are morally problematic.

The other big problem is equating the two categories, as if aborting in a case of, for example, preeclampsia, were somehow no different than aborting in the case of failed contraception.

I see little problem with aborting pregnancies due to rape or concerns for the wellbeing of the prospective mother or child. Those are just unfortunate situations. — baker

How does that square with: ""If someone is willing to kill even their own unborn children, then how can they be counted on that they won't kill other people?""

Why should the rape victim be allowed to kill their child? How can she be counted on to not kill another person? Are you making some exceptions to your rule here? If you're allowing rape victims to have abortions, what about women who's husbands have died and they can't afford the child?

So much for the social contract ... — baker

I can't speak for other nations but the majority in the U.S. favor access to abortion. Just this month seven states passed legislation supporting women's right to choose. So I don't know what you're talking about when you say,"So much for the social contract..."