What i want to say is that all the properties of concept A are not the same as all the properties as concept B

@Charlie The whole mathematics is fascinating. As I previously said, I'm mainly attracted to limits, series, integrals. :D

= is presently being used to represent 'includes' 'is the very same thing as' and 'is an element of'

@Hal ≠

There's nothing else to represent that idea?

@Hal are you saying that they have nothing in common?

@Hal as far as I know, no

@Chris'ssis :D

They have a lot in common, but not everything.

maybe there's an intersection, no?

If I use ≠, it's going to be understood as saying 'you've all been wrong all along'

because the theory now is

a=b

What I'm trying to say is that

a and b have a heck of a lot in common, let me show you the difference

$A∩B≠Ø$

and that difference, if it can be shown, will be the source of the confusion when we represent these things as a=b

Great, that makes sense

Thanks Charlie

@Hal :D

May I ask for your thoughts about a few more?

@Hal sure

Actually, the problem is really straight forward. I'll just put it out there.

The idea is this:

1. Identity in philosophy is defined as a non-arbitrary 1:1 relation between two things at any two points in time

2. Some guy once came a long and said, 'well what happens when some technology allows for something to be duplicated' Which of the two is identical with the past thing then

@Charlie apart from what I said above, if you believe in you enough, then you can get anywhere you want to.

@Hal yes, yes

@Chris'ssis exactly :)

3. Well now we have a 1:2 relation - so let's talk about how weird it is that this 1:2 relation does not seem to be a 1:1 relation

and that's been happening for ~20 years

@Hal like the definition of function

@Hal well, Hal, I think first you need suppose that is possiblew to perfectly duplicate something

... but it's never been said explicitly like that. I would have thought someone would have thought of it, but when I pitched it to my prof as "so we're saying that for something to be the same thing there can only be one of it at two points in time, then we're going to make up a technology so that's not the case, and then we're going to be confused about why two things aren't one anymore?"

She laughed, and -rarely will say anyone might have something worth writing about- but said as much

@Charlie the thing about philosophy that drives non-philosophers nuts, is that you can make up whatever the heck you want

As it was pitched to me: "It's about what's logically possible"

@Charlie what's the definition of a function?

I know what they are, but I'm not seeing the connection here.

@Hal that 1:1 relation

Right

one thing in - one thing out

Some stuff happens in between

yes

Is that the 1:1 relation in that context?

Okay

one x relates to one y

(there are more stuff to explain, but i don't think that's in the scope of your problem, proceed)

Gotcha. I was trying to pitch to her that you can't ask the question forward in time. And if you had a god's-eye view of time (all of it) - to ask about the identity of a person at a certain time - you still have to put yourself in the shoes of that person at that time

In which case, you can only refer backward

Because you have no memory of who you will be

I'm following it

(when we talk about personal identity, the links are based on memories - but it doesn't really matter. We could talk about stones and define some other continuous relation over time)

(talking about either will suffice here)

So she's says that you cant do that because identity is 1:1

is a 1:1 relation

so the concept of identitiy is quite complex

No

Simple

If I'm making it complex, I'm doing a terrible job

well, i see it as a function over time, right?

but this functions doesn't have to be a constant

Hmm. I can't picture it as one. But I haven't done functions since grade 9

it can have a bizarre behaviour

Could you give me an example

Well, let's not talk about people, because that adds unnecessary complexity

Say we're talking about stones

One stone is duplicated. We don't know which one was the 'original' we hold one in our left and one in our right hand.

@hal

I mean, I know what functions are

But, how were you imagining them here.

You mean as a graph of the thing overtime?

@Hal yes

Gotcha.

Yeah actually

each thing is a function

Yeah, you got it

and has a singular behaviour

Yep, that's how we do identity for objects

Not expressed that way - but it amounts to the same thing

So you independently arrived at locke's conception of identity for objects

:)

Okay, so here's the thought experiment that will illustrate the difference for people.

Would you rather have a brain transplant (your brain destroyed, and you given a new one - keep your body) or a body transplant (body destroyed, and given a new one - keep your brain)

(it's pretty much a rhetorical question)

yes

Usually people say they want to keep their brain, because it 'houses' their thoughts, personality, etc. There was some debate around that, but it was established that a "person"'s identity is his mental content

pretty much

So most people would keep their brain. Then you ask - what if it were a synthetic brain, or your mental content were uploaded on to some other persons brain (and that brain was wiped clean before the upload). In effect, you excperience life no different than you do now

Most people see that as being about 'just as good' as continuing in their same brain.

So then, it's not the brain - the organic thing - that matters, it's the mental content

there are some conditions,a part of brain that "controls" our behavioue, our morals decisions, so if it is somehow damaged, a person may appear to have a different behaviour

Yeah, that's why math is so useful

:D

Because thought experiments are really trying to abstract away life

yes

So it's much much easier in notation. So we don't just have to keep saying 'just ignore that for now'

exactly

But to make it applicable however it's desired to be, the notation has to map on to real life in some plausible way

I read somewhere that when twins are apart from each other they seem to have the same personality

Presumably, for people, that's psychological continuity - that is that their state-of-mind at this moment is caused by the state-of-mind a moment earlier... and that continuous until they come into existence

if you can draw that chain, then you have a chain of personal-identity.

fascinating

Yeah personality is hugely biological (my first degree was in psych)

Mostly. You can be who you want - but like anything, it's really hard, and most people don't change in the long term (a few people go to the gym for life, but how many really do it -for life? Most just regress back to their baseline weight)

Re. Fascinating - it's neat stuff right.

So here's the thing - you get duplicated.

But there's a mistake

The whole thing came about when you went to be transported to mars (yes this is an academic discipline). You stepped on the transporter - it powered up - beamed you, you opened your eyes and your earth

You see someone just like you on a nearby monitor of the teleportation pad on mars

ok

The transporter operator comes up to you and asks you to come into his office, and tells you that there's been a mistake. That you were created there as you were supposed to be

but also recreated here

Sometimes that happens -but when it does, usually there's a problem assembling the cardio-vascular system

and you should expect to die shortly

- panic ensues

or at least, end of life rituals

calling people, telling them you love them, etc

So the paradox asks - how is that any worse than what happened originally?

There's one of you on mars. Who cares.

but it's not you

It isn't

In my opinion

So here's the question.

"You" is the person who has the mental content as the "you" over time

your experiences, memories, feelings, sensations

If the two have the same mental-content continuousness (as described) overtime - how are they different?

The guy on mars you mean?

yes

Hm. The discussion is secular, so there's no soul. (If we believe there's a soul - and I don't disbelieve that, then discussion of personal identity is over. We just say - personal identity is your soul. That's it. So then we investigate the possibility that we don't have one, and what identity would consist in)

So that means all your mental content is a product of the arrangement of the matter in your brain

And the clone has the exact same arrangement of matter in his brain

So he should have the same memories, feelings, etc - up to the point of duplication

after that, he has his own.

Aside from the sci-fi, anything non-sensical in that?

or otherwise disagreeable?

no, it's valid

Okay.

So the question is now 'which one is 'identical' (1:1 with) with the guy in the past?'

Now 20 years of fun, but fruitless thought experiments ensue. No progress is made.

I'm saying - it's sort of silly to presuppose a 1:2 relation and ask how it is a 1:1 relation.

the concept of soul, spirit, that animates a body is what solves the problem

Okay, how do you mean?

there was a guy, in france

i want to buy some candy

gummy bears

@Hal and he discovered, something like that, that exists the spirit

an energy that inhabits a body

and cola zero

Ah. Yeah. I believe that there is. There's lots of ways to show that there plausibly is.

@Danny buy for me too. I love gummy bears

For instance - think about how you see red.

@Charlie what do u need charles

or perceive anything.

ok

i will

Where the heck is 'red' as its represented to you, so to speak.

We can look at brain scans and see what the brain does when you see red

before the store close i need to go

but that's just a correlation of the experience of seeing red.

@Chris'ssis: was yours a closed form or a summation of zeta functions?

@Danny go, but normal coke for me

It's not the experience itself.

study math and eat gummy bears , what better to do on friday evening

If you think about a computer processing data - say from a camera - and identifying the 'red parts'

and drink soda

:)

@Danny sure! :D

no charlie you will get cola light!

he he

noo

i don't like

:)

We can point to the actual parts of the hard-drive that are arranged in a particular way, that the computer responds to as we've programmed it to respond. And that is how red is represented to it.

yes

Similarly, we have a physical manifestation of red being 'processed' in us.

But we also have the experience of red.

indeed

How does that come about, from plain physical processing of data.

If a computer produces the colour red - it what, puts it on a monitor? Another physical representation that represents the wavelength of light that causes our experience of red.

precisely

But outside from our non-physical experience of red. There's no 'red'

not that you can perceive

and a computer can't have that experience - even if it can behave in a way that shows it recognizes red in a picture just as well as we can.

I meant there's no 'red' independent of perception.

And 'red' isn't a physical thing.

So there is something non-physical.

That is some evidence for a soul or soul like thing, or non-physical thing at least.

@Charlie re. "Not that you can perceive" what did you mean?

@Hal just because you can' see, experience of ''red'' doesn' mean it does not exist

Exist in philosophy means exist outside of your head.

So 'red' as the experience of red doesnt exist outside our head

hmm

weird

Yeah, we distinguish between what's real (what we percieve) what's ideal (what we imagine) and what exists - what we hope causes our perceptions out in the world (instead of say, some matrix like illusion)

So 'is' is used for 'real'

It doesn't matter here.

Forget the jargon, I know what you mean.

:)

But what I mean is that if there were no humans, there would be no experience of red as humans experience it.

yes, yes, I understand that idea

But there would still be wavelengths of light that once produced physical reactions in human brains that corresponded with a non-physical experience of red

But we could all experience red differently. Some people experience it as a sound

It wouldn't really matter.