These videos have quickly become one of the most centering, intellectually stimulating, and calming parts of my day. Thank you so, so much for giving us the gift of these lectures and the fascinating discussions!!
@@jacksanders2611 I'm glad to hear that you're doing well. I'm Kavi from Nepal. I'm glad to have discovered your lectures. Since then, I've been watching, rewatching, and taking notes.
I'm inclined to the idea that it's the external relationship that actually identifies a person (or thing), rather than the internal state / structure (mental, physical, energy, pattern, etc). Putting it here as I found it not covered by this lecture. My car is still my car even if all the parts are replaced, because it's still the same subsystem that have continuously functioned as my car. (And of course its VIN didn't change, but VIN is more of an external relationship rather than an internal state) In the same way, I am the subsystem of the society that functions as me. I'm still me if I'm disintegrated somewhere and reconstructed elsewhere, or even if I upload my mind to a computer system / robot. And of course the "original" needs to be destroyed, because otherwise there will be two subsystems that attempt to function as me. Then neither of them is me, and I'm no longer there. It's also quite funny that in the cartoon, the scientist tries to prove he's not a copy but the original person by presenting his personal documents (i.e., social relationships), while the lady thinks she's just a copy so all her bills are gone. I also see that this is not the usual (reductionist) way we define things, where any complex concept is defined on top of some simpler concepts and so on, all the way until we reach a few basic / irreducible symbols and axioms. To make the idea work, we identify the whole first, and then identify its parts and so on. I'm not sure if it's as rigorous as the reductionist way, but people are using this method a lot everyday so there should be some rigorous ground. Just my personal thoughts on this topic.
@@jacksanders2611 Btw, if we ever get the technology to precisely copy a person, we probably can also mass produce blank bodies (human, robot, ...) and transfer minds in between. Then the machine will be considered just transferring mind from one body to another. Disposing an old body probably won't sound as creepy to those future people as to us.
These videos have quickly become one of the most centering, intellectually stimulating, and calming parts of my day. Thank you so, so much for giving us the gift of these lectures and the fascinating discussions!!
This was recorded in 1997? Wow
The 3d printing today, is already not so far from what you described back then lol
How are you doing professor Jack?
Just fine! Who's asking?
@@jacksanders2611 I'm glad to hear that you're doing well. I'm Kavi from Nepal. I'm glad to have discovered your lectures. Since then, I've been watching, rewatching, and taking notes.
I'm inclined to the idea that it's the external relationship that actually identifies a person (or thing), rather than the internal state / structure (mental, physical, energy, pattern, etc). Putting it here as I found it not covered by this lecture.
My car is still my car even if all the parts are replaced, because it's still the same subsystem that have continuously functioned as my car. (And of course its VIN didn't change, but VIN is more of an external relationship rather than an internal state)
In the same way, I am the subsystem of the society that functions as me. I'm still me if I'm disintegrated somewhere and reconstructed elsewhere, or even if I upload my mind to a computer system / robot. And of course the "original" needs to be destroyed, because otherwise there will be two subsystems that attempt to function as me. Then neither of them is me, and I'm no longer there. It's also quite funny that in the cartoon, the scientist tries to prove he's not a copy but the original person by presenting his personal documents (i.e., social relationships), while the lady thinks she's just a copy so all her bills are gone.
I also see that this is not the usual (reductionist) way we define things, where any complex concept is defined on top of some simpler concepts and so on, all the way until we reach a few basic / irreducible symbols and axioms. To make the idea work, we identify the whole first, and then identify its parts and so on. I'm not sure if it's as rigorous as the reductionist way, but people are using this method a lot everyday so there should be some rigorous ground.
Just my personal thoughts on this topic.
Gotcha - All sounds plausible.
Are you gonna get in the machine?
Cheers,
Jack
@@jacksanders2611 I will :)
@@jacksanders2611 Btw, if we ever get the technology to precisely copy a person, we probably can also mass produce blank bodies (human, robot, ...) and transfer minds in between. Then the machine will be considered just transferring mind from one body to another. Disposing an old body probably won't sound as creepy to those future people as to us.
That video made me really crave for pancakes
Ingredients:
1 egg
1 cup milk
2 Tablesp vegetable oil
1 cup flour
3 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp salt
1 Tablesp sugar
Instructions:
Mix ingredients well, fry on well-oiled medium-hot pan.
@@jacksanders2611Thank you! Love your lectures! Thanks for sharing them with us.
What can you do with a philosophy degree ?
Shawn Afshar Hi Shawn - You can sell it for kindling; or you can enjoy the process - Jack
You might also make a TV show... 1:09:00 it's the Stargate network
Again, a sneezing coughing student
Animals have a spirit. Animals will be in heaven. I had a near death experience and saw animals in heaven like in the garden of Eden. Jesus is Lord.