buddypalamigo19

buddypalamigo19 t1_j0chlvf wrote

Reply to comment by Transsensory_Boy in A society with intelligent, autonomous machines just ain’t the same society no more by Current_Side_4024

The notion that one should link their purpose or sense of self worth to a number in a bank account going up has always been repugnant to me, and I've never gotten along well with people who see life through that lense. There’s always mutual scorn and lack of respect going on. I suspect there's some kind of fundamental incompatibility at the first principles layer of our respective worldviews.

15

buddypalamigo19 t1_izaojuc wrote

Reply to comment by Dindonmasker in The end of ageing? The scientists behind the race to turn back time by cata890

My grandmother died a few months ago at 89. I tried to delicately open the subject with her a handful of times over the last 10 years or so, and she immediately shut me down each time. She wanted to die and go see my grandpa. No amount of talk from me would have changed her mind. And it hurts, knowing that I'll never see her again. But sometimes, there's nothing we can do. People will do what they want.

7

buddypalamigo19 t1_iwt55xb wrote

Reply to comment by Bakoro in When does an individual's death occur if the biological brain is gradually replaced by synthetic neurons? by NefariousNaz

It is pedantry. From my point of view, the thought experiment is silly and unnecessary. It is trying to explain something which is completely obvious, and which does not require an explanation.

I am aware that a process is a thing. I am also aware that there is only so much one can do with language. You are getting hung up on individual words and their literal, narrow definitions.

But whatever. I'm not going to try and convince you of anything, because I suspect we're coming at this from two incompatible paradigms. Peace.

0

buddypalamigo19 t1_iwsfvml wrote

Reply to comment by Bakoro in When does an individual's death occur if the biological brain is gradually replaced by synthetic neurons? by NefariousNaz

It's not silly if you insist on breaking up the world into neatly defined and demarcated "things." If, on the other hand, you see the world as one giant process, and all things within it as nothing but flexible concepts which are loosely attached to subsets of that process, then it is very silly.

Saying that the ship is no longer the same after a single plank changes is... I mean, you're technically correct, yes. But it really smacks of pedantry to me.

5

buddypalamigo19 t1_iwrf35h wrote

Reply to When does an individual's death occur if the biological brain is gradually replaced by synthetic neurons? by NefariousNaz

I don't think you would ever die in that scenario. "I" am not my body or my brain. "I" am the dynamic, self-sustaining pattern which is currently circulating through my neurons. If that pattern is maintained on different hardware, then I have not died.

If I build a lego set of a castle, and then replace each plastic brick one at a time with a stone brick, then the castle is still there. In fact, it never went anywhere. The Ship of Theseus paradox always felt kind of silly to me, because the answer always felt so obvious. The pattern of the planks is what makes the ship. If you replace each plank one at a time, the overall pattern is never compromised by more than a single board, so the ship is still there.

26

buddypalamigo19 t1_iwq8ylr wrote

Reply to comment by many-such-cases in A typical thought process by Kaarssteun

I'm not going to touch the problems of verifiable authenticity or governmental surveillance, because those are legitimate issues, but as far as purpose and fulfillment goes, how does a machine doing something better than you take away your ability to find purpose or fulfillment in that thing? I will never be the best knife thrower in the world, but I still enjoy going out back every once in a while and chucking my throwing knives at a target. It's fun.

1