It’s not really eternal life if there is no “you”.
Maybe you don’t understand what it implies then. There is nothing empowering at all about it.
Maybe *you *should save insulting my intelligence for the Pit? I’ve been thinking about the meaning of life longer than you’ve been alive, I bet.
I disagree.
It’s kind of silly to talk about the mind as “only a machine”, “only a robot”, “only a collection of neurons”.
Everything in the universe is made of ordinary matter. Your brain is not a miracle, it is a collection of atoms temporarily arranged in a particular pattern. The atoms come and go, the pattern changes, and then it eventually gets destroyed totally. Merely a collection of atoms. So sad!
Except what’s that “only”, or “merely” doing there? What information does “only a machine” convey that “a machine” doesn’t convey? That there’s no supernatural pixie dust sprinkled on your brain? I guess in 2017 there are some people who really do still believe in pixie dust, but very few in this conversation.
The human brain is made of ordinary matter that obeys the same everyday laws of physics that governs black holes and jellyfish and rainbows? Yes, that’s true. And?
I haven’t read Metzinger, but what you’re saying here doesn’t make sense on it’s own. And if it’s an accurate representation of what Metzinger says, then he’s confused too.
If humans are robots then, one, they exist, and two, there is “someone there” - the robot. The robot matters because it thinks, feels, and otherwise does every single thing you could possibly imagine to make so-called ‘real’ humans worthwhile.
If humans are puppets dancing to a tune, then your metaphor is unclear and you mean either:
-
They’re a puppet who is being puppeted by somebody else, like a hand puppet with somebody’s hand in it. When you interact with the puppet, you are actually interacting with the hand and the ‘real’ person attached to it. Your perception of them is distorted by the ‘illusion’ that they’re Kermit the Frog, but underlying that illusion is a reality.
-
They’re dancing to a tune - which is to say they’re reacting intelligently and rationally to the musical input you speak of. They are ‘real’; they just have an experience that is based in a reality that you’re not fully experiencing and thus you can’t fully understand them. It’s worth noting this is the complete opposite of solipsism.
Most probably that puppet thing was just confusion and you’re just freaking out about the ‘robot’ thing. (You robophobe.) But there’s no rational reason to be bothered by the idea that people have actual thoughts and reasons for doing things - which is all you mean when you say somebody is a ‘robot’. You’re saying that there is a mechanism, a method to their mind, and that it’s not just gibbering madness that only happens to look like a real mind due to random chance. Honestly, nothing but a ‘robot’ could be a ‘real’ person.
(Unless you meant that people actually are metal-based mechanical beings with laser eyes and buzzsaws concealed beneath their artificial skin. In which case I can see why you’d be depressed: you’re jealous!)
Aah, but it is really you. That’s the point. The self that you think you are (individual) is not actually who you are. It’s certainly part of who you are, but only part and a much smaller part than you’re probably thinking.
No. I mean that a robot is not a person. It’s not someone but something. The trick is that the illusion is created that it is someone.
The same thing with no self. With no self then there isn’t any “one” you are friends with or loving. There is no you separate from others. It’s just a mass of flesh spouting out programming from its unbringing. It’s not a person and it doesn’t matter. There is no “one” to die but there isn’t really anything alive either. It’s just an act, a ruse.
That’s what it means if the self doesn’t exist. It makes life not worth living and undoes all we know about modern life and what it is to be human.
I can freely insult anyone who honestly believes that having no self is empowering.
A self and a true self is the foundation of modern life, without it things fall apart and there is no point in living. We would just see ourselves for what we are, no different from the factories and computers we use.
You have to be deluded to think it’s empowering in any sense.
Except it’s not, there is no you. According to the paper there is no one to fool and no one making it. It’s just an ongoing act we partake in, but it doesn’t exist. It’s like saying a play exists.
Doesn’t the fact that different individuals are interpreting that paper differently than you point to individuality and/or the presence of self?
Oh, I’m not one of the posters who has embraced the Metzinger paper. I’m making my own independent assertions.
[moderating]
-
I’m going to say with certainty that while you may choose to insult other posters in this forum, there would be consequences for doing so as that would be against the rules of this forum.
-
Do not personalize your arguments in this fashion.
[/moderating]
Can you define a ‘person’? No, seriously, can you? What is the defining property of a person that distinguishes them from a ‘robot’?
I suspect you’re going to say something like ‘free will’ - but there is extreme dispute about what that term even means. I’ll shortcut the discussion by stating that the robots might have true random number generators in them; that means you can’t make determinism or predictability arguments against them. Which leaves you with what? Making decisions based on your own opinions and knowledge and preferences and beliefs? Robots can certainly do that. There’s nothing a ‘person’ can do that a robot cannot.
There is no difference between a person and a robot. At all. (Again presuming you’re not talking about laser eyes and buzzsaws.)
Feelings of empowerment or lack thereof are not inherent to any belief. Just as someone can be happy during a rainy day despite many saying they should feel sad, and just how someone can be sad during a sunny day despite many saying they should feel happy, any belief system can be empowering or disempowering TO anyone. “To you” or “to me” is the important phrase that is lacking in the assertions of empowerment you are putting forward.
Who wrote the paper? Who is “we” that are partaking? Who is it that is having what you call an illusion?
And plays definitely exist, I have seen quite a few myself and read others. There are videos online, even.
Ooh, I missed the part where you were saying that it’s like a play. Another kick-off point for interesting discussion!
While watching a play, you see characters seemingly interact with one another. Now, in a play, you know that they’re not actually interacting - each actor is just reciting their own lines, which just happen to appear to be interaction because the actor opposite them is reciting their “responses” at the right time. But neither actor is actually tailoring their responses to what’s around them and, in theory, if you removed one actor entirely the other one wouldn’t change his behavior at all due to having no agency in what he’s doing or saying. (This isn’t actually how it plays out in practice due to improvisation and the actors not wanting to look like idiots, but the idea is sound.)
The thing is, though, that there is the appearance of interaction. That means that somebody is crafting one or both sides of the conversation with an awareness of the other parties in it and what’s being said. There is a mind behind the actor’s words. And that mind both must exist and also is a person with all the powers attributed thereto.
If you happen to believe that everyone you interact with is simply an actor, then that adds another detail - as best you can tell, nobody is dictating your half of the conversation. This means, necessarily, that a person, a real person is noticing what you’re saying and doing and is tailoring your conversation partner’s interactions to seem responsive. I repeat - you really are talking to a real person, necessarily, unavoidably.
It’s true that you can’t be certain that the person you’re speaking to is the person you believe you’re talking to - the person you’re talking to may be in disguise, or a hand puppet, or a roleplaying game avatar. And it’s theoretically possible that all the people you interact with are being controlled by the same, singular intelligence - you can’t be certain that you are interacting with multiple different people; they could all be the same guy’s hand puppets. But you can be certain that you are interacting with a person. At least one.
It does not. It just points to different histories but it doesn’t indicate the existence of a self.
No. Also not where I wasn’t going with that at all. The characters on the stage don’t exist, there are just a process. That’s why they call it acting. When it stops the character disappears. The character doesn’t exist when no acting is done. That’s why they say the self doesn’t exist but is a process. You aren’t talking to anyone, there’s no one there. It’s just an act.
Puppets in this case doesn’t imply a mind behind them either. That’s the mistake people make.
No, they don’t “exist”. They are just an action taking place.
I’m talking about the metzinger one that was linked but no one read.
That isn’t true. There is an inherent sense of power in phrases like “I can” and “I can’t” thy aren’t subjective.
In this sense, he is mistaken to think that knowing there is no self is empowering as there isn’t any sort of evidence that would lead to such a conclusion