What’s the worst thing about being an atheist?

[k9bfriender]

@Tibby

Yes, they are all me to everyone except me.

But they are you, and to you you would seem to be you.

@Tibby

It would make no difference to me whether I commit suicide with or without exact copies of myself in existence.

People are afraid of dying, they aren’t usually afraid of being dead.

If I am put in a position to see my death coming, whether by my hand or other, that’s terrifying. If I get hit by a meteor right now, then I won’t care.

@Tibby

They will all lead happy lives being me, but I’ll be dead.

What is being dead? It is a state of no longer being. If you are still being, then you aren’t dead.

Being dead isn’t something you can experience, only the living are able to do that.

So, what you know of what you are leaving behind should matter to you.

@Tibby

My wife (if I still had one) wouldn’t mind, she’d have 10 versions of me to nag.

Do you not think that each of those 10 will experience being you nagged by your wife?

@Tibby

I posed a similar question on these boards 18 years ago here. It doesn’t get interesting until about mid-way through the thread. My beliefs remain essentially the same now as then.

But now we have something to compare it to. AI is getting better, and soon I believe it will have attained some form of consciousness. If I shut down the computer, copy the disk, and boot up two new instances, which is the original?

Now, where things get a little weird is when you lose that continuity. Say you back yourself up every night before you go to bed, and in the evening, you get hit by a meteor. You are restored from backup, but you lost that day. You may know that it happened, you may have video to peruse to see everything that happened, but it didn’t happen to you, it happened to someone that died.

But you are the same person that person was the previous day.

[Tibby]

@k9bfriender

But they are you, and to you you would seem to be you.

If you had an exact copy of yourself in front of you, would you really take comfort in having yourself killed believing you will live on in the person you’re looking at? Sweeten the deal and say your copy gets a million dollars upon your death. Would that make a difference?

[RickJay]

@Sam_Stone

Pascal’s wager never made sense logically or theologically, and I have no idea how it has endured so long.

There is a fairly substantial gap between the atheist and theist in their epistemological understanding of reality, and it’s very apparent here; the theist believes the atheist has chosen to be an atheist. The assumption of Pascal’s wager is that you choose what to believe.

Well, now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t choose what to believe. I might be choosing what conclusions to draw at a hiogh level from the individual things I perceive, but I don’t really choose what to believe at all. At a simple level, I believe I’m wearing a blue T-shirt right now that says “Victoria Steel Corporation” on the left breast. I cannot choose to not believe that; I am just not able to believe that this shirt is blue or that I’m not wearing a shirt at all. It’s not an option until my perceptions change.

Similarly, I can honestly say I cannot change my mind about atheism until my perceptions change. This isn’t a choice at all. I don’t believe in God because my brain has not been presented with evidence that such a thing exists, so I don’t. I can;t choose otherwise, even if I really wanted to - I mean, if I could just choose to believe things because it would be desirable for them to be true, I in effect would will things into existence. If I could choose to believe I’m a billionaire and that Selena Gomez is in love with me, in effect those things would be true to me, so I would choose to believe them. But I can’t.

The theist is taught FAITH, though. If you’re taught the concept of faith - choosing to believe something only because you want to in the absence of real evidence - you can come to the conclusion that people who don’t believe in God literally choose to do so.

Of course, I acknowledge human brains are complex and people can gain or lose faith for a number of psychological reasons. However, this is one big factor.

The other reason this has persisted is that it’s just a way to state the threat “you’ll burn in hell if you don’t agree with my religion.”

[k9bfriender]

Like I said, we are afraid of dying, not of being dead.

So, no matter how many backups I have, I will personally fear the stroke of death, with little to comfort me in that.

But that doesn’t mean that my copy isn’t me, it would have the same desire to avoid death even with me living on with a million dollars.

In any case, having inexact copies in front of someone does in fact comfort many as they approach death. It’s called family, children and grandchildren. That they are leaving some part of themselves behind does give them comfort.

Let me ask you, if you were faced with certain death, you are on an exploding planet or leaking spaceship, and the only way off is by teleporter, would you take the option? Or would you deny yourself the opportunity to live on because you don’t think it would be you?

[scabpicker]

@Sam_Stone

Look, you might as well believe in the winged alligator. After all, if it doesn’t exist, no harm.

But Marge, what if we choose the wrong winged alligator? Each week, we’re just making the real winged alligator madder and madder.

[Tibby]

@k9bfriender

Let me ask you, if you were faced with certain death, you are on an exploding planet or leaking spaceship, and the only way off is by teleporter, would you take the option? Or would you deny yourself the opportunity to live on because you don’t think it would be you?

Sure, I would take the transporter, because a world without a Tibby would be a bleak world indeed.

But, I’d make sure I ate a good meal before I transported because it will be the last meal I’ll ever experience.

[Miller]

@Tibby

Again, in all those scenarios, the brain remains intact.

What about people with traumatic brain injuries?

[Tibby]

Same difference. Your consciousness may become altered (everyone’s does over time), but you are still the same self-aware being.

In fact, I believe your brain matter could be slowly replaced bit by bit, neuron by neuron, like the Ship of Theseus with the original consciousness remaining intact. I’ll go so far as to say your organic neurons could be slowly replaced by inorganic synthetic neurons without losing your sense of self if you want to become a cyborg, or the next version of ChatGPT. But, you can’t become self-aware in 2 cyborgs, just one per customer.

I believe the name of the game with regard to being self-aware is continuity. The moment you break the continuity is the moment your mind splits into an equal, but different consciousness. You can’t split into more than one mind without breaking continuity.

[Miller]

@Tibby

I believe the name of the game with regard to being self-aware is continuity.

Except that’s maintained by the teleporter, which you insist will kill you. And it’s not maintained in a number of other real-world situations, which you say don’t count, because the original hardware is intact. But you’re also okay with replacing all the original hardware… just so long as its done slowly enough?

It’s sort of hard to pin down your logic on this subject, tbh.

[Tibby]

@Miller

Except that’s maintained by the teleporter, which you insist will kill you.

Unless your transporter is just a tube, like they use in Futurama, how can you transport particles without breaking the matrix?

[Czarcasm]

@Sam_Stone

Really? How about people who have all bodily functions stopped for surgery? No heart or brain activity at all.

The brain stops during some surgeries?

[Miller]

@Tibby

Unless your transporter is just a tube, like they use in Futurama, how can you transport particles without breaking the matrix?

Because continuity of consciousness isn’t the same thing as continuity of intact brain mass.

And you’ve already indicated that you’re okay with replacing the brain mass, with either biological or mechanical replacements, so I’m not sure why replacing them via teleporter is a problem.

[Czarcasm]

This isn’t the first time this scenario has popped up on this message board, and this isn’t the first time I’ve asked the following question:
Let’s say that the process was that your body was scanned, the info was sent to wherever the target was, and that as that body was being assembled your current body was…disassembled. However, this one time while the new bod is being put together the process that is supposed to eliminate the old body malfunctions, and someone comes into the Deathinator and says, “Please follow me to the back up killing machine.”
Do you quietly walk towards your certain death?

[Tibby]

You can have intact brain mass without consciousness, but you can’t have consciousness without intact brain mass.

Also, I differentiate between mere consciousness (even insects have that) and self awareness, which is a higher-order brain process that emerges from a conscious state.

Both pre and post transported brains will be conscious and the consciousnesses will be identical. They will also both be self-aware, but they will not be identical. They will have separate personal identities (PI).

I seem to be the only one here who won’t take a trip in a transporter and expect to live. But, nevertheless, that’s my personal Theory of Mind. My copy-twin may feel otherwise.

[Larry_Borgia]

@Tibby

I seem to be the only one here who won’t take a trip in a transporter and expect to live.

You are not. But it’s not something anyone can prove one way or another, since a transporter is impossible.

[Tibby]

@Larry_Borgia

You are not. But it’s not something anyone can prove one way or another, since a transporter is impossible.

Mr. Spock begs to differ.

[Miller]

@Tibby

You can have intact brain mass without consciousness, but you can’t have consciousness without intact brain mass.

Not with real-world technology, sure, but we’re talking fantasy Star Trek tech.

Anyway, in a teleporter scenario, you have intact brain mass with consciousness on both ends, so I’m not sure why this is relevant.

@Tibby

They will also both be self-aware, but they will not be identical. They will have separate personal identities (PI).

In what way will they be different?

[Tibby]

They will be different in the same way an exact copy of you (who may be in front of you) is different from you. You each have your own PI. Your PI emerged when you were ~5 months old. Your copy’s PI emerged when he was assembled.

[Miller]

@Tibby

They will be different in the same way an exact copy of you (who may be in front of you) is different from you.

We’re arguing if an exact copy of you is “you,” so saying, “It’s different the way an exact copy of you would be different,” isn’t really a useful answer.

[eschereal]

@Sam_Stone

Perhaps a more enlightened view would be that since religion is a key part of human civilization pretty much everywhere, perhaps it serves a purpose you don’t understand. Perhaps belief is not stupidity, but a reflection of some deep need in humans that is not served well in modern society.

This looks all post hoc ergo propter hoc to me. I envision the analogy of the function that smoke provides with respect to a fire. Religion, as I see it, is an effect of some other aspect of human behavior/tendencies rather than a utility that, in and of itself, serves a purpose. I think it would be more valuable to explore the genesis of religion than religion in situ.