Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
That's a matter of opinion.
No. Since it is impossible, any discussion on it is just speculation. You are saying it is a high tech suicide booth based on how it is portrayed in Trek...Which is fiction.
Same with time travel.
What if physicists find a way to bend space such that you'd be able to move instantly (through some sort of portal) between two extremely far places while staying at a normal speed?
Just because quantum teleportation has "teleoprtation" in its name, doesn't mean it's the only possible form of it.
Don't blame others for arguing without thinking if you haven't given it proper thought yourself.
You have really strong opinions on this considering most of this is purely theoretical.
AFAIK no wormholes were ever observed or created, and there are many theories on how they maybe created (artificially or naturally) and/or traversed.
Also, any I think any reasonable person would say you teleported if he saw you going through a portal.
We also don't understand consciousness, so no one really knows what happens when you use a 'suicide booth' like you imagine. Maybe it's even possible to just teleport your consciousness too.
Neither do you.
See, that's the problem with modern science reporting. People are so easily confused.
No. We have never teleported atoms.
We did the equivalent of a fax machine.
We took an atoms current state, sent that information down traditional communication lines, and copied it's state perfectly to another atom.
They call it Quantum Teleportation, but it has nothing to do with Sci-Fi teleportation as most people think of it.
Ok I have come to realize that lemmy is literally no better than reddit when it comes to people who are so arrogant in their ignorance.
Or the common denominator is you're clueless.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/645/713/888.jpg
Don't be mad, it's gonna be ok.
No, philosophy.
Your arrogance is staggering. Is science not also a form of philosophy? And anyway, it's not a scientific 'fact' that your consciousness will do anything at all, the hard problem of consciousness is not yet solved.
No science is not a form of philosophy. One is based on logic from priors or argument over Ordinary Language and the other is based empirical data. They have vastly different approaches and achieve vastly different goals. I am not going to ask a scientist the proper way to live and I am not going to ask a philosophy department head to explain momentum.
They might help each other, on occasion, but healing each other does not mean one is a subset of the other.
I hate to break it to you, but philosophy is both the rational (a priori) approach, and the empirical (a posteriori) approach.
The scientific method, whilst very useful, is still the empirical method with certain postulates.
It really isn't. The presumption argument requires that you are a mind reader and can be 100% certain that you know what unstated priors a person is operating under. If they deny them, you mere reassert it. It is a non-falisifable claim. Thus the attempt to disprove science required a return to faith.
Fish do fine and know nothing about water. Birds fly and don't understand aerodynamics. The vast majority of life in existence conducts energy production via ATP and only a small fraction of the human race has understood that. Fireflies don't know that they are doing the most efficient form of light production from chemicals ever found.
The whole presumption apologetics argument is a garbage heap only advocated for by people who value faith over experimental methods. A false attempt to sub in a bad contextualization from the things itself. You don't need to have a fully worked out from first principles understanding of the universe to conduct a basic experiment. It might be helpful, maybe, but it isn't required.
I don't understand how what you've said refutes my claim, sorry.
Very well. Try it a different way. You claim that scientists have priors that you have discovered. Please provide evidence of your claim. Use the scientific method and try to disprove it and fail.
Very nice. But now it's not an empirical debate, it's a linguistics debate. How do you define the scientific method?
Yeah I'm with you on this. Even from a pure science fiction perspective there's just no way the experience of consciousness "transfers" by any currently understood science.
Just like when you move a computer's file across the Internet the result would be a copy, and that wouldn't really be noticable or impactful to the copy or the people who know you and the copy would interact with, but it would make a hell of a lot of difference for the person going in. Great if you're dying and want to do what you can (The Culture book series covers this possibility quite well) but otherwise small comfort.
Best case scenario is "The Prestige", but with a much quicker and cleaner death.
And if someone slaps "quantum entanglement" on the table like that is a real answer for anything, imma not even bother.
That's okay, you won't understand it.
If there is a distinction there should be a difference. Given that a teleported human is indistinguishable from the prior non teleported human there is no difference and thus no distinction.
Yeah you repeatedly have stated that. Could you maybe respond to what people say instead of endlessly reasserting your position?
No.
Consciousness can be thought as software running on hardware (your brain). You do not destroy software by destroying hardware.
Whether you agree with this or not is not relevant to this discussion, since my point is that whether the above statement is true belongs to philosophy, not to science.
Again, what we engaging is a philosophical discussion. And it is not a metaphor, it is analogy.
And while the map is not the territory, the question is what consciousness is. Is it the territory (brain) or the map (software)? It is very easy to argue that AI gives us a good indication that consciousness might appear somehow in AI systems too at some time, and there, there would be no question that it is a software.
Once again, ANALOGY, not metaphor. It is not just a figure of speech, but direct comparison.
Of course, analogy does not prove a thing, however, all we are discussing here with you is not science, but philosophy. Is consciousness a structure which is upon substrate, or is it the substrate itself? Are you information or a physical body? These are not scientific questions, science can only answer how exactly the processes in the brain go, but it cannot explain the subjective feeling of “me”. Nearly by definition, - science deals with objective reality, not subjective perception.
This is why it is important to discuss definitions. But in this particular case (whether consciousness includes matter or not) the discussion belongs to philosophy.
However, what you have mention, is quite often happens in philosophy itself. Take for example discussion of whether free will exists. The actual discussion is what free will is. But not everyone admits this.