Your clone takes over when you die. Is that you or not?

[FBM]

It's speculative fiction, you beerbarian.

Oh, my bad.

And it's sojubarian, thanks.

What? They stopped selling beer there?

(I could have called you gaijin.)

Still sell it here, but what's the point as long as there's soju available?

And I could have called you 외국인 but that would be the pot calling the kettle black...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

(Groans go up as this thread defies the DNR order.)

Gravity is weak. Too weak. It should be a stronger force. So say the string theorists, and they explain the weakness by positing that part of gravity is in another universe. Most of it, perhaps.

So, following that lead, what-if our consciousness was an intrusion from another universe. "A dream", if you wish. What then?

[FBM]

never mind...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

never mind...

Wussy.

[FBM]

never mind...

Wussy.

OK, if you want to hear it...

You're reifying consciousness. It is nothing independent from the sensory signals processed by a central processor and the interaction among them all. It's neither a thing nor a force even vagely resembling gravity. It's more like a holographic image that must be fed constantly with more light in order to give the illusion that it is constant.

Change the input and consciousness changes. You don't have the same consciousness you had even when you started reading this post, or even this sentence or even that last word. There is nothing in the human body or consciousness that remains unchanged over time. When you remember something, you're not having the same memory as the last time you remembered it; it's a brand new memory. 'Self' and/or 'consciousness' or 'mind' are reifications. They are only perceptual illusions brought about the location, connection and interactions of the parts of the nervous system.

There is no entity residing in or presiding over them. This is how the concept of soul is dispensed with, only when it's applied with more rigor, and even selfhood is seen as a mere convention without absolute being of its own. If you get rid of soul, you have to get rid of discrete identity. You're only left with conventional identity.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

never mind...

Wussy.

OK, if you want to hear it...

You're reifying consciousness. It is nothing independent from the sensory signals processed by a central processor and the interaction among them all. It's neither a thing nor a force even vagely resembling gravity. It's more like a holographic image that must be fed constantly with more light in order to give the illusion that it is constant.

Change the input and consciousness changes. You don't have the same consciousness you had even when you started reading this post, or even this sentence or even that last word. There is nothing in the human body or consciousness that remains unchanged over time. When you remember something, you're not having the same memory as the last time you remembered it; it's a brand new memory. 'Self' and/or 'consciousness' or 'mind' are reifications. They are only perceptual illusions brought about the location, connection and interactions of the parts of the nervous system.

There is no entity residing in or presiding over them. This is how the concept of soul is dispensed with, only when it's applied with more rigor, and even selfhood is seen as a mere convention without absolute being of its own. If you get rid of soul, you have to get rid of discrete identity. You're only left with conventional identity.

Okay, okay, just a little bit wussy.

The problem I've seen so far is that the confident answers given to my questions are all SWAGs.

[FBM]

Okay, okay, just a little bit wussy.

The problem I've seen so far is that the confident answers given to my questions are all SWAGs.

Google gave me 122 online definitions for SWAG...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, okay, just a little bit wussy.

The problem I've seen so far is that the confident answers given to my questions are all SWAGs.

Google gave me 122 online definitions for SWAG...

Scientific Wild Ass Guess.

[FBM]

Okay, okay, just a little bit wussy.

The problem I've seen so far is that the confident answers given to my questions are all SWAGs.

Google gave me 122 online definitions for SWAG...

Scientific Wild Ass Guess.

Gotcha. Now if you'd care to address a specific point and demonstrate how it's a SWAG...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, okay, just a little bit wussy.

The problem I've seen so far is that the confident answers given to my questions are all SWAGs.

Google gave me 122 online definitions for SWAG...

Scientific Wild Ass Guess.

Gotcha. Now if you'd care to address a specific point and demonstrate how it's a SWAG...

There is no entity residing in or presiding over them.

You don't know that. OR, please demonstrate how you know that.

[FBM]

There is no entity residing in or presiding over them.

You don't know that. OR, please demonstrate how you know that.

Occam's Razor makes it the better description of what's observed. The minimalist account I described accounts sufficiently for all observable phenomena (if you know of something that doesn't fit, you can submit it as contrary evidence, of course). If you posit something over and above the minimum required, you're multiplying entities unnecesarily. In order to make that float, you need to demonstrate why that posited entity is required or predicted. Otherwise, you can claim an invisible, fire-breathing dragon is in your basement and nobody could call you on it. The onus (or anus) is on you to demonstrate it's existence, not on science to prove that it doesn't. All science has to do is offer a competing explanation that's both sufficient and 'lighter'.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There is no entity residing in or presiding over them.

You don't know that. OR, please demonstrate how you know that.

Occam's Razor makes it the better description of what's observed. The minimalist account I described accounts sufficiently for all observable phenomena (if you know of something that doesn't fit, you can submit it as contrary evidence, of course). If you posit something over and above the minimum required, you're multiplying entities unnecesarily. In order to make that float, you need to demonstrate why that posited entity is required or predicted. Otherwise, you can claim an invisible, fire-breathing dragon is in your basement and nobody could call you on it. The onus (or anus) is on you to demonstrate it's existence, not on science to prove that it doesn't. All science has to do is offer a competing explanation that's both sufficient and 'lighter'.

Sorry, but I don't see the "science" in something that can't be observed or tested (to my satifaction, anyway).

[FBM]

Sorry, but I don't see the "science" in something that can't be observed or tested (to my satifaction, anyway).

That's precisely my point.

To paraphrase Carl Sagan in Demon-Haunted World, what''s the difference between something that has no observable or testable properties and something that doesn't exist?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sorry, but I don't see the "science" in something that can't be observed or tested (to my satifaction, anyway).

That's precisely my point.

To paraphrase Carl Sagan in Demon-Haunted World, what''s the difference between something that has no observable or testable properties and something that doesn't exist?

Yet you confidently state that it positively doesn't exist. When, in fact, at our current state, we don't KNOW whether or not it exists. We need to admit that we just don't know.

[FBM]

Sorry, but I don't see the "science" in something that can't be observed or tested (to my satifaction, anyway).

Edit: Changed my mind, dude. I really don't want to fuck with your worldview. Whatever you like is cool with me.