My personal response to a specific marketing pitch isn’t anything to do with the conversation
I am definitely going to write that one down.
What I mean is: I like sausages. But I would probably eat them less often if they were labelled ‘extruded processed hog muscle and connective tissue cylinders’, even though that’s arguably a more precise term than ‘sausage’, and reflects a reality I already understand, when I buy sausages.
My visceral reaction to the thing does not necessarily say anything useful, or exact about the thing.
The spiritual math is quite straightforward.
- a few billion of years ago, chemical processes on Earth gave rise to self-replicating structures, which developed into stuff we call “living things”
- some (possibly not all) of those living things acquired a strong inclination to persist (not die), which is what we call a “survival instinct”
- the survival instinct is the origin of self-awareness, and self-awareness is the basis for “spirit” or “soul”
- as critters of abstract reason, we have looked at this “spirit” thing and, in our fundamental desire to not die, have imputed non-transience to it beause, well, that is what makes us feel good
There is no logical reason for the survival instinct and its affect to have any extra-corporeal existence. It forms when the physical entity is established (when, exactly, is unclear) and dissipates when the entity dies. The idea of it functioning beyond the bounds of the body is founded entirely on phantasy, and even whether the “spirit” has any kind of agency is doubtful.
Taking it more literally I’d say the same. It’s not like each of us has standard hardware at the beginning of the process. It’s a unique combination, that has plenty of local data to maintain. My spirit does affect the material world as long as it’s functioning in my body. However, in the current world in which we live there is no way to replicate it or start it up again if it stops entirely. Maybe in theory my spirit can be duplicated in some other physical form. It’s a pretty good spirit, but not the most practical kind, which are probably worth more and more likely to be re-used.
Belatedly: me, at least. My consciousness is essentially part of this body/brain.
What the transporter reassembles is a different body and a different brain. The mass-produced cup in my cupboard isn’t the same one as each of the others from the same production line, either.
I do think that “imposter” is the wrong word. That to me implies deliberate misbehavior on the part of the replacement.
Considering the number of misinterpretations I see by believers about what non-believers, or at least this non-believer, think, I suspect that this isn’t true at all.
The fact that something can feel right to me doesn’t make it so in fact. And many unbelievers can understand religious faith just fine, because we’ve had it; and, whether or not it feels right to us now, we remember how it felt to have it.
Why?
If a machine is constructed from a blueprint, possibly a hundred years after the last one was built, do you think that it requires continuity of processes for the new machine to function?
There doesn’t have to be anything that “goes away”.
For one: quite a lot of unbelievers do no such thing.
For two: many of those who do so are doing so in response to being reviled, insulted, mocked, and despised by believers; if not necessarily the particular believer they’re interacting with at the moment. If the particular believer they’re interacting with hasn’t behaved like this, then it’s unfair; but it’s still pretty common human behavior.
For three: where did you get the idea that understanding something means one’s unable to mock it? Sometimes that makes it easier.
And I have a very strong sense that there is Something, or possibly a number of Somethings, imbued in particular places; and also that there is Something different between a living creature and a mechanism.
My brain is built so that I feel that. And it’s built in a fashion that causes me (and humans in general) to sense patterns, whether they exist or not. And it is not build to comprehend the entire universe; though human brains are nevertheless built to keep trying.
Because I want to believe that there is Something imbued in this hillside that is in some fashion looking out for me (and that thinks humans are very funny, in the affectionate-laughter sense) doesn’t make it true. Doesn’t make it false, either, of course; which is why I say I’m agnostic about the Small Gods. But my sense of it, no matter how strong it is, doesn’t make it true.
The life-sausage-gap issue having been addressed, there is another aspect of the transporter thought experiment. The transporter is described as doing:
- record snapshot of subject in this instant
- disassemble this instance of subject
- reconstitute pattern of subject based on snapshot
Note the second step. The description of the transporter has not, TBMK, ever established that step 2 is an absolute requirement for the transport operation. And more recent canon has declared that the transporter, food synthesizers and holodeck all use the same underlying mechanism.
Thus, the flaw in the thought experiment is the cut-and-paste paradigm, when copy-and-paste has not been strictly excluded. If the transporter generates a copy of me without destroying the original me, I am finding it difficult to imagine how both instances of me would have my awareness (spirit, soul, whatever).
Note the other Ryker.
Yes, and Yes. I don’t believe you can be conscious without a functional brain, but breaking the continuity of the organic brain matter, and reassembling/reanimating it elsewhere causes consciousness to “reboot” into someone with a different personal identity (PI). The continuity is broken in a way different from sleeping, general anesthesia, etc. in that it is a complete severance, even if it’s instantaneous and the reassembly is exact.
I think a proof for this (assuming teleporters are possible) is to consider: if you can have 1 set of particles assembled in a particular configuration (that of the pre-teleported brain), then you can have more than one (there are no privileged sub-atomic particles). Having 2 or more beings with the same PI is illogical.
Spiritual beliefs are promoted by folks outside of major Western religions. Dunno if this makes a difference to you.
Nope. It’s bunk regardless of which cultural trappings they wrap it in.
I feel the general usage is that you are your soul while a spirit is some form of separate entity that may co-exist with you in your body.
The only problem with the “Other Ryker” scenario is that the original Ryker did not die. This problem can easily be solved by having him killed off.
I’ve seen this thread for a while, but never dove in until now, for some random reason. All this actually bring up a long-standing question of mine: do atheists/materialists/(whatever term you want to use) think of or treat folks like Buddhists, Hindus, culturally traditional Native Americans, and anyone else who believes in the non-physical aspects of self for any reason the same way they think of Christians? Like, there’s (justified) thought that fundamentalist Christians are inherently suspect in terms of intelligence and judgment. Sometimes this attitude is extended to any Christian. Do people who think that way also extend it to anyone who believes in any aspect of the supernatural or spiritual to the same extent as they do for the major organized religions?
I’ve always wondered this because Christianity is the dominant religion in this country and possibly the world, and whenever these kinds of issues are brought up, a lot of it is couched in terms of reacting to Christianity in particular. That leaves me, who has more agnostic sympathies, curious whether they think of the sincere beliefs of that Buddhist or Native American in the same was as that of a Christian, and whether and how rooted any difference is in Christianity’s power and role in politics.
Hope I’m making sense here, but as I said, atheism and materialism tend to be discussed relating to specific religions as far as I can see, but there’s a lot more out there than that. The closest I can think of is certain spiritual beliefs associated with New Age types, which definitely are treated with that same kind of attitude.
(Oh, and it’s RIKER. His name is Riker.)
You’re right.
And he should die, too.
Which one?
There is no standard catechism that all atheists/materialists/whatevers follow.
Me in particular?
I can respect members of any religion as long as they’re not trying to use it to screw somebody over. A wide variety of religious beliefs have been used to do so, though generally not by all of their practitioners.
Everybody is different.
My very good friend observed that these “Christian” folk look just like us – we might not even be able to tell that they are that.
So, in the end, the unbeliever-types generally regard/treat people of faith as people. If the person in question goes about making the belief thing an unavoidable major issue, then that person will receive appropriate treatment, but up to that point, the believer is a person, and they will be to us whatever they want to be to us. The biggest difference, generally speaking, is that unbelievers are not in the habit of inspecting everyone else’s meta-cred.
yes, there are exceptions, but the vast majority of the irreligious are indifferent to non-pertinent religious matters
No, we do not belong to a secret club or church with written rules handed down by The Great Nobody In Particular…although some of us do believe that Nothing is sacred.
I’m not hostile to religious people unless they try to impose their religious beliefs or practices on me. And I try to be polite to people who have different beliefs than my own.
That said, I don’t respect other religious beliefs any more than I respect Christianity. I don’t believe in any supernatural system that lacks evidence to support it. The only difference I find between Christianity and other religions is that Christians, due to being a majority in America, are more likely to annoy me by the aforementioned attempts to impose their beliefs and practices on me.
What I don’t understand is how religious people can somehow compartmentalize their own religion from other religions. There are hundreds of religions and people discount most of them. So if people can believe so many religions are false, how are they able to believe one religion is true?
I think that’s largely because we never have to confront the notion in everyday reality; there is no precedent where one conscious human goes to sleep and two humans wake up running identical copies of the same consciousness, thus (paraphrasing @LSLGuy from another thread on that topic), we have always equated ‘person’ with ‘instance of person’, even though there may be no non-metaphysical reason to do that.