*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>
[snip{
>
>> Nope. Is that relevant? if so, please explain the relevance
>> to the original question..
>>
> A Ship of Theseus deconstruction of the self concept? There are multiple
> selves and ideal selves as perceived.

That should read as “multiple possible selves” not D.I.D.

On 2024-02-11 9:36 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>> "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted
>>>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand
>>>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model",
>>>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to
>>>>>>>>>> believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do
>>>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
>>>>>>>>>> earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or
>>>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of
>>>>>>>>>> "self"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell
>>>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>>>>>>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>>>>>>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>>>>>>
>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
>>> with not > >existing.
>>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
>>> and that you are yourself.
>>>
>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
>>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for
>>> a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
>>> whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
>>> all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
>>> about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
>>> familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
>>> tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
>>> articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
>>> memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
>>> not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
>>> reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a
>>> rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
>>> the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal
>>> monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
>>> illusion.
>>>
>>
>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>> death.
>>
>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
>> of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
>> body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality
>> nor not.
>>
>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
>> and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
>> transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
>> one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
>> ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
>> are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
>> going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
>> you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
>>
> A yes Davidson’s swampman. Kinda calls transhumanist immortality projects
> into question.
>
They are both 'real' Rikers. Any questions concerning it (what is 'it'
you ask?: an extended middle finger) could be settled by a vote. A tie
would be settled by calling up a third Riker from the buffers.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 10:03:07 AM UTC-5, Richmond wrote:
> "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
> >>
> >> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
> >> >> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >>>"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> erik simpson wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
> >> >>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted
> >> >>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
> >> >>>>> >
> >> >>>>> > >
> >> >>>>> > > The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
> >> >>>>> > > replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
> >> >>>>> > >
> >> >>>>> > Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand
> >> >>>>> > on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model",
> >> >>>>> > and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to
> >> >>>>> > believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do
> >> >>>>> > that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
> >> >>>>> > earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or
> >> >>>>> > is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of
> >> >>>>> > "self"?
> >> >>>>> > >
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell
> >> >>>>> of nuts coming from it.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
> >> >>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
> >> >>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
> >> >>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
> >> >>>
> >> >> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
> >> >>>
> > ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
> >with not > >existing.
> >> >
> >> Nope.
> >
> > I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
> > body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
> > and that you are yourself.
> >
> > I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
> > is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
> > internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
> > the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for
> > a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
> > whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
> > all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
> > about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
> > familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
> > tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
> > articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
> > memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
> > not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
> > reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a
> > rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
> > the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal
> > monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
> > illusion.
> >
> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
> death.
>
> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
> of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
> body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality
> nor not.
>
> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
> and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
> transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
> one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
> ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
> are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
> going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
> you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?

"The question is 'which is the real Riker?'" Such questions sound philosophically complex, but I think that is an artifact of our language. Our language, obviously, developed in a situation in which such transplantings of the "self" do not occur, so we understandably lack words to cover all the possible cases. It therefore seems perplexing to figure out which is the *real* Riker. But if such technologies existed in the non-fictional world, we would doubtless develop a vocabulary to cover such events. There'd be no deep mystery in the "philosophy of identity" because we'd have separate words for the separate cases.

DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2024-02-11 9:36 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted
>>>>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand
>>>>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model",
>>>>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to
>>>>>>>>>>> believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do
>>>>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
>>>>>>>>>>> earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or
>>>>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of
>>>>>>>>>>> "self"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell
>>>>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>>>>>>>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>>>>>>>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>>>>>>>
>>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
>>>> with not > >existing.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
>>>> and that you are yourself.
>>>>
>>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
>>>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
>>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for
>>>> a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
>>>> whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
>>>> all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
>>>> about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
>>>> familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
>>>> tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
>>>> articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
>>>> memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
>>>> not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
>>>> reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a
>>>> rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
>>>> the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal
>>>> monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
>>>> illusion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>>> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>>> death.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
>>> of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
>>> body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality
>>> nor not.
>>>
>>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
>>> and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
>>> transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
>>> one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
>>> ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
>>> are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
>>> going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
>>> you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
>>>
>> A yes Davidson’s swampman. Kinda calls transhumanist immortality projects
>> into question.
>>
> They are both 'real' Rikers. Any questions concerning it (what is 'it'
> you ask?: an extended middle finger) could be settled by a vote. A tie
> would be settled by calling up a third Riker from the buffers.
>
Does Riker 1 (or ur-Riker) have continuity of experience or cease to exist?

broger...@gmail.com <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 10:03:07 AM UTC-5, Richmond wrote:
>> "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted
>>>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand
>>>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model",
>>>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to
>>>>>>>>>> believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do
>>>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
>>>>>>>>>> earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or
>>>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of
>>>>>>>>>> "self"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell
>>>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>>>>>>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>>>>>>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>>>>>>
>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
>>> with not > >existing.
>>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
>>> and that you are yourself.
>>>
>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
>>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for
>>> a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
>>> whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
>>> all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
>>> about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
>>> familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
>>> tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
>>> articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
>>> memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
>>> not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
>>> reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a
>>> rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
>>> the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal
>>> monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
>>> illusion.
>>>
>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>> death.
>>
>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
>> of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
>> body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality
>> nor not.
>>
>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
>> and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
>> transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
>> one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
>> ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
>> are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
>> going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
>> you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
>
> "The question is 'which is the real Riker?'" Such questions sound
> philosophically complex, but I think that is an artifact of our language.
> Our language, obviously, developed in a situation in which such
> transplantings of the "self" do not occur, so we understandably lack
> words to cover all the possible cases. It therefore seems perplexing to
> figure out which is the *real* Riker. But if such technologies existed in
> the non-fictional world, we would doubtless develop a vocabulary to cover
> such events. There'd be no deep mystery in the "philosophy of identity"
> because we'd have separate words for the separate cases.
>
I think the salient angle is along the lines of qualia or the je ne sais
quoi of “lived experience”. The current controversy over “lived experience”
attaches to identity groups and intersectionality, but in the deeply
individualized aspect of it the “lived experience” of ur-you may cease to
be once the transporter process starts and places a copy of you somewhere.
Oblivion or the void. Take your pick. About the same as death.

"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 10:03:07 AM UTC-5, Richmond wrote:
>> "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova
>> >wrote: > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared
>> >in > talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>> >> >> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> erik simpson wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>> >> >>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins,
>> >> >>>>> posted by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > >
>> >> >>>>> > > The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>> >> >>>>> > > replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>> >> >>>>> > >
>> >> >>>>> > Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
>> >> >>>>> > expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the
>> >> >>>>> > "Self model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with
>> >> >>>>> > the idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly
>> >> >>>>> > how does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
>> >> >>>>> > planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have
>> >> >>>>> > Self models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with
>> >> >>>>> > some sense of "self"?
>> >> >>>>> > >
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong
>> >> >>>>> smell of nuts coming from it.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>> >> >>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>> >> >>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>> >> >>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>> >> >>>
>> > ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
>> >self with not > >existing.
>> >> >
>> >> Nope.
>> >
>> > I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>> > body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self
>> > exists and that you are yourself.
>> >
>> > I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory
>> > self is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of
>> > one's internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there
>> > "running the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of
>> > the time for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people
>> > who get by their whole lives without an internal monologue). But it
>> > is possible to do all sorts of fairly complex things without the
>> > "narrator" talking about them or even seeming to notice them -
>> > driving home along a familiar route while thinking about something
>> > unrelated, making tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than
>> > the narrator can articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of
>> > music you know from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in
>> > charge of a decision, it's not necessarily clear whether the
>> > decision is being made for the reasons the "narrator" articulates
>> > or whether he is simply providing a rationale for decision already
>> > made in the dark, so to speak. And yet the feeling that one's self
>> > simply *is* the narrator of one's internal monologue is not easy to
>> > shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful illusion.
>> >
>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>> death.
>>
>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing
>> 'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored into
>> a different body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind
>> of immortality nor not.
>>
>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
>> planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with
>> the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so
>> there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and
>> another on the ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker?
>> perhaps they both are. But if you were him and you got a phone call
>> telling you this was going to happen, would you go through with it?
>> Would you wonder whether you would be the one left on the planet, or
>> the one back on the ship?
>
> "The question is 'which is the real Riker?'" Such questions sound
> philosophically complex, but I think that is an artifact of our
> language. Our language, obviously, developed in a situation in which
> such transplantings of the "self" do not occur, so we understandably
> lack words to cover all the possible cases. It therefore seems
> perplexing to figure out which is the *real* Riker. But if such
> technologies existed in the non-fictional world, we would doubtless
> develop a vocabulary to cover such events. There'd be no deep mystery
> in the "philosophy of identity" because we'd have separate words for
> the separate cases.

Subjectively (for Riker before transportation) the question is not which
is the real Riker, but "Which Riker will I be?" because he can only be
one of them, he can only look out from one pair of eyes. It's an
important question for him because one ends up marooned for four
years. I think the answer is neither of them, because they are both
future Rikers, not present Rikers, and it shows that the self is not
continuous.

On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 2:28:07 PM UTC-5, Richmond wrote:
> "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 10:03:07 AM UTC-5, Richmond wrote:
> >> "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova
> >> >wrote: > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared
> >> >in > talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
> >> >> >> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> erik simpson wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
> >> >> >>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins,
> >> >> >>>>> posted by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
> >> >> >>>>> >
> >> >> >>>>> > >
> >> >> >>>>> > > The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
> >> >> >>>>> > > replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
> >> >> >>>>> > >
> >> >> >>>>> > Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
> >> >> >>>>> > expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the
> >> >> >>>>> > "Self model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with
> >> >> >>>>> > the idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly
> >> >> >>>>> > how does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
> >> >> >>>>> > planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have
> >> >> >>>>> > Self models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with
> >> >> >>>>> > some sense of "self"?
> >> >> >>>>> > >
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong
> >> >> >>>>> smell of nuts coming from it.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
> >> >> >>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
> >> >> >>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
> >> >> >>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
> >> >> >>>
> >> > ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
> >> >self with not > >existing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Nope.
> >> >
> >> > I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
> >> > body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self
> >> > exists and that you are yourself.
> >> >
> >> > I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory
> >> > self is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of
> >> > one's internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there
> >> > "running the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of
> >> > the time for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people
> >> > who get by their whole lives without an internal monologue). But it
> >> > is possible to do all sorts of fairly complex things without the
> >> > "narrator" talking about them or even seeming to notice them -
> >> > driving home along a familiar route while thinking about something
> >> > unrelated, making tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than
> >> > the narrator can articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of
> >> > music you know from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in
> >> > charge of a decision, it's not necessarily clear whether the
> >> > decision is being made for the reasons the "narrator" articulates
> >> > or whether he is simply providing a rationale for decision already
> >> > made in the dark, so to speak. And yet the feeling that one's self
> >> > simply *is* the narrator of one's internal monologue is not easy to
> >> > shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful illusion.
> >> >
> >> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
> >> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
> >> death.
> >>
> >> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing
> >> 'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored into
> >> a different body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind
> >> of immortality nor not.
> >>
> >> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
> >> planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with
> >> the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so
> >> there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and
> >> another on the ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker?
> >> perhaps they both are. But if you were him and you got a phone call
> >> telling you this was going to happen, would you go through with it?
> >> Would you wonder whether you would be the one left on the planet, or
> >> the one back on the ship?
> >
> > "The question is 'which is the real Riker?'" Such questions sound
> > philosophically complex, but I think that is an artifact of our
> > language. Our language, obviously, developed in a situation in which
> > such transplantings of the "self" do not occur, so we understandably
> > lack words to cover all the possible cases. It therefore seems
> > perplexing to figure out which is the *real* Riker. But if such
> > technologies existed in the non-fictional world, we would doubtless
> > develop a vocabulary to cover such events. There'd be no deep mystery
> > in the "philosophy of identity" because we'd have separate words for
> > the separate cases.
> Subjectively (for Riker before transportation) the question is not which
> is the real Riker, but "Which Riker will I be?" because he can only be
> one of them, he can only look out from one pair of eyes. It's an
> important question for him because one ends up marooned for four
> years. I think the answer is neither of them, because they are both
> future Rikers, not present Rikers, and it shows that the self is not
> continuous.
I still think it is a linguistic question which seems more perplexing than it really is because our language developed in a world in which such things do not occur. Even the way you choose to use the word continuous is, in part, a result of the fact that in the non-fictional world, Riker's situation does not arise.

On 2024-02-11 12:35 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-02-11 9:36 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>> "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>>>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted
>>>>>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand
>>>>>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model",
>>>>>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to
>>>>>>>>>>>> believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do
>>>>>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
>>>>>>>>>>>> earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or
>>>>>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of
>>>>>>>>>>>> "self"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell
>>>>>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>>>>>>>>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>>>>>>>>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
>>>>> with not > >existing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>>>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
>>>>> and that you are yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
>>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
>>>>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
>>>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for
>>>>> a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
>>>>> whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
>>>>> all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
>>>>> about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
>>>>> familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
>>>>> tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
>>>>> articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
>>>>> memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
>>>>> not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
>>>>> reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a
>>>>> rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
>>>>> the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal
>>>>> monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
>>>>> illusion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>>>> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>>>> death.
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
>>>> of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
>>>> body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality
>>>> nor not.
>>>>
>>>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
>>>> and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
>>>> transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
>>>> one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
>>>> ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
>>>> are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
>>>> going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
>>>> you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
>>>>
>>> A yes Davidson’s swampman. Kinda calls transhumanist immortality projects
>>> into question.
>>>
>> They are both 'real' Rikers. Any questions concerning it (what is 'it'
>> you ask?: an extended middle finger) could be settled by a vote. A tie
>> would be settled by calling up a third Riker from the buffers.
>>
> Does Riker 1 (or ur-Riker) have continuity of experience or cease to exist?
>
>
There's an 'it' they can vote on!
Why would either of them *not* experience a continuity of experience?
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

Richmond wrote:

> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot> writes:
>
> > erik simpson wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
> >> > talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
> >> > <hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate,
> >> > > and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
> >> > >
> >> > Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
> >> > expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
> >> > model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
> >> > idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
> >> > does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
> >> > planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
> >> > models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
> >> > sense of "self"?
> >> > >
> >
> >> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell of
> >> nuts coming from it.
> >
> >
> > LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an illusion. And
> > I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite : Evolution
> > and the Modular Mind" by Robert Kurzban. He too mentions the
> > illusion of self.
>

> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>
> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559

Thanks so much, Richmond.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:00:03 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:

>"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>
>>> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>>> >
>>> >> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>> >> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>> >>
>>> >>>"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>>> >>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted
>>> >>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>> > >
>>> >>>>> > > The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>>> >>>>> > > replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>> >>>>> > >
>>> >>>>> > Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand
>>> >>>>> > on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model",
>>> >>>>> > and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to
>>> >>>>> > believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do
>>> >>>>> > that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
>>> >>>>> > earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or
>>> >>>>> > is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of
>>> >>>>> > "self"?
>>> >>>>> > >
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell
>>> >>>>> of nuts coming from it.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>>> >>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>>> >>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>>> >>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>> >>>
>>> >> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>> >>>
>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
>>with not > >existing.
>>> >
>>> Nope.
>>
>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
>> and that you are yourself.
>>
>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for
>> a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
>> whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
>> all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
>> about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
>> familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
>> tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
>> articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
>> memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
>> not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
>> reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a
>> rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
>> the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal
>> monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
>> illusion.
>>
>
>In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>death.
>
I can't imagine anyone over the (mental) age of twelve who
actually holds that view. Strawman?
>
>There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
>of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
>body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality
>nor not.
>
>In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
>and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
>transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
>one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
>ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
>are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
>going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
>you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
>
All interesting questions, and as a F&SF aficionado I enjoy
them. But I don't make the mistake of imagining that they
constitute any sort of evidence of anything other than a
fertile imagination; certainly nothing in physical reality.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:28:28 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:

>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>
>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
>>>>>>>> <hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate,
>>>>>>>>> and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand on
>>>>>>>> it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model", and
>>>>>>>> what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to believe it
>>>>>>>> "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do that? Does it
>>>>>>>> help all DNA to replicate - planaria, earthworms, sequoias -
>>>>>>>> implying they all have Self models? Or is it restricted to humans
>>>>>>>> and others with some sense of "self"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell of
>>>>>>> nuts coming from it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an illusion. And
>>>>>> I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite : Evolution
>>>>>> and the Modular Mind" by Robert Kurzban. He too mentions the
>>>>>> illusion of self.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>>>>
>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I think what you've done there is equated not being a self with not
>>> existing.
>>>
>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Are you the same person now as you were when you were five?
>>>
>> Nope. Is that relevant? if so, please explain the relevance
>> to the original question..
>>
>A Ship of Theseus deconstruction of the self concept? There are multiple
>selves and ideal selves as perceived. What one wants to become gets off
>track. What one was may induce sense of loss or regret .Gaps between ideal
>and actual can be depressive per derailment literature.
>
>Yet is there a truly coherent self beyond the perception of it? Skepticism
>is warranted no? We do not see the processes outside awareness.
>>
If the premise is that the self *must* be continuous and
unchanging from birth to death, I can't disagree. But I've
never met anyone, or read any serious proposition that such
is the case, nor do I see it as a requirement for the
existence of the self. Maybe as a point of philosophical
discussion, like the number of angels dancing on the point
of a pin, but not otherwise.
>>>
>>> Google Bard used to have opinions, but denies it now.
>>>
>> And that is relevant...how?
>>
>Not sure either.
>
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 10:37:45 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>:

>On 2024-02-11 9:36 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted
>>>>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand
>>>>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model",
>>>>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to
>>>>>>>>>>> believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do
>>>>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
>>>>>>>>>>> earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or
>>>>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of
>>>>>>>>>>> "self"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell
>>>>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>>>>>>>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>>>>>>>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>>>>>>>
>>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
>>>> with not > >existing.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
>>>> and that you are yourself.
>>>>
>>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
>>>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
>>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for
>>>> a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
>>>> whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
>>>> all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
>>>> about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
>>>> familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
>>>> tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
>>>> articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
>>>> memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
>>>> not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
>>>> reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a
>>>> rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
>>>> the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal
>>>> monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
>>>> illusion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>>> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>>> death.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
>>> of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
>>> body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality
>>> nor not.
>>>
>>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
>>> and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
>>> transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
>>> one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
>>> ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
>>> are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
>>> going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
>>> you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
>>>
>> A yes Davidson’s swampman. Kinda calls transhumanist immortality projects
>> into question.
>>
>They are both 'real' Rikers. Any questions concerning it (what is 'it'
>you ask?: an extended middle finger) could be settled by a vote. A tie
>would be settled by calling up a third Riker from the buffers.
>
Larry Niven wrote an interesting essay on the subject, "The
Theory and Practice of Teleportation", in which many of
these ideas were discussed. He liked to play with concepts;
"Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" was also quite good, as
were others.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:35:21 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:

>DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-02-11 9:36 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>> "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>>>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted
>>>>>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand
>>>>>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model",
>>>>>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to
>>>>>>>>>>>> believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do
>>>>>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
>>>>>>>>>>>> earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or
>>>>>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of
>>>>>>>>>>>> "self"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell
>>>>>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>>>>>>>>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>>>>>>>>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
>>>>> with not > >existing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>>>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
>>>>> and that you are yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
>>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
>>>>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
>>>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for
>>>>> a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
>>>>> whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
>>>>> all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
>>>>> about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
>>>>> familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
>>>>> tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
>>>>> articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
>>>>> memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
>>>>> not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
>>>>> reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a
>>>>> rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
>>>>> the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal
>>>>> monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
>>>>> illusion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>>>> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>>>> death.
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
>>>> of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
>>>> body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality
>>>> nor not.
>>>>
>>>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
>>>> and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
>>>> transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
>>>> one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
>>>> ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
>>>> are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
>>>> going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
>>>> you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
>>>>
>>> A yes Davidson’s swampman. Kinda calls transhumanist immortality projects
>>> into question.
>>>
>> They are both 'real' Rikers. Any questions concerning it (what is 'it'
>> you ask?: an extended middle finger) could be settled by a vote. A tie
>> would be settled by calling up a third Riker from the buffers.
>>
>Does Riker 1 (or ur-Riker) have continuity of experience or cease to exist?
>
"Would you like to buy us another round, Descartes?"

"No, I think not."

And we all know what happens next...
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On 2/12/24 8:55 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:35:21 +0000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
> <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
>
>> DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-11 9:36 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>> "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted
>>>>>>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "self"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell
>>>>>>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>>>>>>>>>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>>>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>>>>>>>>>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
>>>>>> with not > >existing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>>>>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
>>>>>> and that you are yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
>>>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
>>>>>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
>>>>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for
>>>>>> a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
>>>>>> whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
>>>>>> all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
>>>>>> about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
>>>>>> familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
>>>>>> tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
>>>>>> articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
>>>>>> memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
>>>>>> not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
>>>>>> reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a
>>>>>> rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
>>>>>> the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal
>>>>>> monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
>>>>>> illusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>>>>> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>>>>> death.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
>>>>> of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
>>>>> body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality
>>>>> nor not.
>>>>>
>>>>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
>>>>> and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
>>>>> transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
>>>>> one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
>>>>> ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
>>>>> are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
>>>>> going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
>>>>> you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
>>>>>
>>>> A yes Davidson’s swampman. Kinda calls transhumanist immortality projects
>>>> into question.
>>>>
>>> They are both 'real' Rikers. Any questions concerning it (what is 'it'
>>> you ask?: an extended middle finger) could be settled by a vote. A tie
>>> would be settled by calling up a third Riker from the buffers.
>>>
>> Does Riker 1 (or ur-Riker) have continuity of experience or cease to exist?
>>
> "Would you like to buy us another round, Descartes?"
>
> "No, I think not."
>
> And we all know what happens next...
>>
I drink, therefore I am?

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 09:56:25 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:

>On 2/12/24 8:55 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:35:21 +0000, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
>>
>>> DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-11 9:36 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "self"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>>>>>>>>>>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
>>>>>>> with not > >existing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>>>>>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
>>>>>>> and that you are yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
>>>>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
>>>>>>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
>>>>>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for
>>>>>>> a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
>>>>>>> whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
>>>>>>> all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
>>>>>>> about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
>>>>>>> familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
>>>>>>> tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
>>>>>>> articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
>>>>>>> memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
>>>>>>> not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
>>>>>>> reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a
>>>>>>> rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
>>>>>>> the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal
>>>>>>> monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
>>>>>>> illusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>>>>>> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>>>>>> death.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
>>>>>> of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
>>>>>> body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality
>>>>>> nor not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
>>>>>> and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
>>>>>> transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
>>>>>> one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
>>>>>> ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
>>>>>> are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
>>>>>> going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
>>>>>> you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
>>>>>>
>>>>> A yes Davidson’s swampman. Kinda calls transhumanist immortality projects
>>>>> into question.
>>>>>
>>>> They are both 'real' Rikers. Any questions concerning it (what is 'it'
>>>> you ask?: an extended middle finger) could be settled by a vote. A tie
>>>> would be settled by calling up a third Riker from the buffers.
>>>>
>>> Does Riker 1 (or ur-Riker) have continuity of experience or cease to exist?
>>>
>> "Would you like to buy us another round, Descartes?"
>>
>> "No, I think not."
>>
>> And we all know what happens next...
>>>
>I drink, therefore I am?
>
Yep, the inverse works too. :-)
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:

> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:00:03 +0000, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>
>>"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>
>>>> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>> >> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>>>> >>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins,
>>>> >>>>> posted by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>>>> >>>>> >
>>>> >>>>> > >
>>>> >>>>> > > The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>>>> >>>>> > > replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>>> >>>>> > >
>>>> >>>>> > Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
>>>> >>>>> > expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
>>>> >>>>> > model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
>>>> >>>>> > idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
>>>> >>>>> > does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
>>>> >>>>> > planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have
>>>> >>>>> > Self models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with
>>>> >>>>> > some sense of "self"?
>>>> >>>>> > >
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong
>>>> >>>>> smell of nuts coming from it.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>>>> >>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>>>> >>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>>>> >>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>>> >>>
>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
>>>self with not > >existing.
>>>> >
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self
>>> exists and that you are yourself.
>>>
>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
>>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time
>>> for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by
>>> their whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible
>>> to do all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator"
>>> talking about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home
>>> along a familiar route while thinking about something unrelated,
>>> making tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator
>>> can articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know
>>> from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision,
>>> it's not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for
>>> the reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply
>>> providing a rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to
>>> speak. And yet the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator
>>> of one's internal monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is
>>> a fairly powerful illusion.
>>>
>>
>>In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>>continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>>death.
>>
> I can't imagine anyone over the (mental) age of twelve who actually
> holds that view. Strawman?
>>
>>There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing
>>'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a
>>different body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of
>>immortality nor not.
>>
>>In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
>>planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with
>>the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so
>>there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and
>>another on the ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker?
>>perhaps they both are. But if you were him and you got a phone call
>>telling you this was going to happen, would you go through with it?
>>Would you wonder whether you would be the one left on the planet, or
>>the one back on the ship?
>>
> All interesting questions, and as a F&SF aficionado I enjoy them. But
> I don't make the mistake of imagining that they constitute any sort of
> evidence of anything other than a fertile imagination; certainly
> nothing in physical reality.

They are not presented as evidence, they are a thought experiment. But
how can you be so certain? What about the multi-universe quantum
theories? If the universe splits every time there is some quantum
diversion then there ought to be multiple slightly different selves.

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-many-worlds-theory/

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:41:10 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:

>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:00:03 +0000, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>
>>>"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>> >> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>>>>> >>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins,
>>>>> >>>>> posted by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>>>>> >>>>> >
>>>>> >>>>> > >
>>>>> >>>>> > > The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>>>>> >>>>> > > replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>>>> >>>>> > >
>>>>> >>>>> > Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
>>>>> >>>>> > expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
>>>>> >>>>> > model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
>>>>> >>>>> > idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
>>>>> >>>>> > does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
>>>>> >>>>> > planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have
>>>>> >>>>> > Self models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with
>>>>> >>>>> > some sense of "self"?
>>>>> >>>>> > >
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong
>>>>> >>>>> smell of nuts coming from it.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>>>>> >>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>>>>> >>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>>>>> >>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>>>> >>>
>>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
>>>>self with not > >existing.
>>>>> >
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self
>>>> exists and that you are yourself.
>>>>
>>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
>>>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
>>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time
>>>> for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by
>>>> their whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible
>>>> to do all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator"
>>>> talking about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home
>>>> along a familiar route while thinking about something unrelated,
>>>> making tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator
>>>> can articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know
>>>> from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision,
>>>> it's not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for
>>>> the reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply
>>>> providing a rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to
>>>> speak. And yet the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator
>>>> of one's internal monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is
>>>> a fairly powerful illusion.
>>>>
>>>
>>>In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>>>continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>>>death.
>>>
>> I can't imagine anyone over the (mental) age of twelve who actually
>> holds that view. Strawman?
>>>
Do you know of any educated, sane adult who actually holds
that as a serious proposition?
>
>>>There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing
>>>'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a
>>>different body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of
>>>immortality nor not.
>>>
>>>In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
>>>planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with
>>>the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so
>>>there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and
>>>another on the ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker?
>>>perhaps they both are. But if you were him and you got a phone call
>>>telling you this was going to happen, would you go through with it?
>>>Would you wonder whether you would be the one left on the planet, or
>>>the one back on the ship?
>>>
>> All interesting questions, and as a F&SF aficionado I enjoy them. But
>> I don't make the mistake of imagining that they constitute any sort of
>> evidence of anything other than a fertile imagination; certainly
>> nothing in physical reality.
>
>They are not presented as evidence, they are a thought experiment. But
>how can you be so certain?
>
For "nothing in physical reality" read "that for which we
lack objective evidence"; I thought that was obvious in
context. Mea culpa.
>
>What about the multi-universe quantum
>theories? If the universe splits every time there is some quantum
>diversion then there ought to be multiple slightly different selves.
>
>https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-many-worlds-theory/
>
More interesting speculations, also well-covered in SF for
several decades.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On 2/13/24 1:41 AM, Richmond wrote:
> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:00:03 +0000, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>
>>> "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins,
>>>>>>>>>> posted by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
>>>>>>>>>>> expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
>>>>>>>>>>> model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
>>>>>>>>>>> idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
>>>>>>>>>>> does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
>>>>>>>>>>> planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have
>>>>>>>>>>> Self models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with
>>>>>>>>>>> some sense of "self"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong
>>>>>>>>>> smell of nuts coming from it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>>>>>>>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>>>>>>>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>>>>>>>
>>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
>>>> self with not > >existing.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self
>>>> exists and that you are yourself.
>>>>
>>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
>>>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
>>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time
>>>> for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by
>>>> their whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible
>>>> to do all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator"
>>>> talking about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home
>>>> along a familiar route while thinking about something unrelated,
>>>> making tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator
>>>> can articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know
>>>> from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision,
>>>> it's not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for
>>>> the reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply
>>>> providing a rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to
>>>> speak. And yet the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator
>>>> of one's internal monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is
>>>> a fairly powerful illusion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>>> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>>> death.
>>>
>> I can't imagine anyone over the (mental) age of twelve who actually
>> holds that view. Strawman?
>>>
>>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing
>>> 'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a
>>> different body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of
>>> immortality nor not.
>>>
>>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
>>> planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with
>>> the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so
>>> there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and
>>> another on the ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker?
>>> perhaps they both are. But if you were him and you got a phone call
>>> telling you this was going to happen, would you go through with it?
>>> Would you wonder whether you would be the one left on the planet, or
>>> the one back on the ship?
>>>
>> All interesting questions, and as a F&SF aficionado I enjoy them. But
>> I don't make the mistake of imagining that they constitute any sort of
>> evidence of anything other than a fertile imagination; certainly
>> nothing in physical reality.
>
> They are not presented as evidence, they are a thought experiment. But
> how can you be so certain? What about the multi-universe quantum
> theories? If the universe splits every time there is some quantum
> diversion then there ought to be multiple slightly different selves.
>
> https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-many-worlds-theory/
>
The "many worlds" idea associated with Hugh Everett is not a theory.
It's an "interpretation" of what QM "means", no different that many such
interpretations. It's been suggested there are as many interpretations
as there are quantum mechanicians.

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2/13/24 1:41 AM, Richmond wrote:
>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:00:03 +0000, the following appeared in
>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>
>>>> "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>>>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins,
>>>>>>>>>>> posted by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
>>>>>>>>>>>> expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
>>>>>>>>>>>> model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
>>>>>>>>>>>> does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
>>>>>>>>>>>> planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have
>>>>>>>>>>>> Self models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with
>>>>>>>>>>>> some sense of "self"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong
>>>>>>>>>>> smell of nuts coming from it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>>>>>>>>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>>>>>>>>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
>>>>> self with not > >existing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>>>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self
>>>>> exists and that you are yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
>>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
>>>>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
>>>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time
>>>>> for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by
>>>>> their whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible
>>>>> to do all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator"
>>>>> talking about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home
>>>>> along a familiar route while thinking about something unrelated,
>>>>> making tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator
>>>>> can articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know
>>>>> from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision,
>>>>> it's not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for
>>>>> the reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply
>>>>> providing a rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to
>>>>> speak. And yet the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator
>>>>> of one's internal monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is
>>>>> a fairly powerful illusion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>>>> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>>>> death.
>>>>
>>> I can't imagine anyone over the (mental) age of twelve who actually
>>> holds that view. Strawman?
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing
>>>> 'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a
>>>> different body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of
>>>> immortality nor not.
>>>>
>>>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
>>>> planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with
>>>> the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so
>>>> there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and
>>>> another on the ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker?
>>>> perhaps they both are. But if you were him and you got a phone call
>>>> telling you this was going to happen, would you go through with it?
>>>> Would you wonder whether you would be the one left on the planet, or
>>>> the one back on the ship?
>>>>
>>> All interesting questions, and as a F&SF aficionado I enjoy them. But
>>> I don't make the mistake of imagining that they constitute any sort of
>>> evidence of anything other than a fertile imagination; certainly
>>> nothing in physical reality.
>> They are not presented as evidence, they are a thought
>> experiment. But
>> how can you be so certain? What about the multi-universe quantum
>> theories? If the universe splits every time there is some quantum
>> diversion then there ought to be multiple slightly different selves.
>> https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-many-worlds-theory/
>>
> The "many worlds" idea associated with Hugh Everett is not a
> theory. It's an "interpretation" of what QM "means", no different that
> many such interpretations. It's been suggested there are as many
> interpretations as there are quantum mechanicians.

Why is it not a theory? It is called a theory in Nature.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02602-8

On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 11:53:09 AM UTC-5, Richmond wrote:
> erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On 2/13/24 1:41 AM, Richmond wrote:
> >> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:00:03 +0000, the following appeared in
> >>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
> >>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
> >>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
> >>>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins,
> >>>>>>>>>>> posted by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
> >>>>>>>>>>>> model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
> >>>>>>>>>>>> does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Self models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> some sense of "self"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong
> >>>>>>>>>>> smell of nuts coming from it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
> >>>>>>>>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
> >>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
> >>>>>>>>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
> >>>>> self with not > >existing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nope.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
> >>>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self
> >>>>> exists and that you are yourself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
> >>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
> >>>>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
> >>>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time
> >>>>> for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by
> >>>>> their whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible
> >>>>> to do all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator"
> >>>>> talking about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home
> >>>>> along a familiar route while thinking about something unrelated,
> >>>>> making tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator
> >>>>> can articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know
> >>>>> from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision,
> >>>>> it's not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for
> >>>>> the reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply
> >>>>> providing a rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to
> >>>>> speak. And yet the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator
> >>>>> of one's internal monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is
> >>>>> a fairly powerful illusion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
> >>>> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
> >>>> death.
> >>>>
> >>> I can't imagine anyone over the (mental) age of twelve who actually
> >>> holds that view. Strawman?
> >>>>
> >>>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing
> >>>> 'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a
> >>>> different body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of
> >>>> immortality nor not.
> >>>>
> >>>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
> >>>> planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with
> >>>> the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so
> >>>> there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and
> >>>> another on the ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker?
> >>>> perhaps they both are. But if you were him and you got a phone call
> >>>> telling you this was going to happen, would you go through with it?
> >>>> Would you wonder whether you would be the one left on the planet, or
> >>>> the one back on the ship?
> >>>>
> >>> All interesting questions, and as a F&SF aficionado I enjoy them. But
> >>> I don't make the mistake of imagining that they constitute any sort of
> >>> evidence of anything other than a fertile imagination; certainly
> >>> nothing in physical reality.
> >> They are not presented as evidence, they are a thought
> >> experiment. But
> >> how can you be so certain? What about the multi-universe quantum
> >> theories? If the universe splits every time there is some quantum
> >> diversion then there ought to be multiple slightly different selves.
> >> https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-many-worlds-theory/
> >>
> > The "many worlds" idea associated with Hugh Everett is not a
> > theory. It's an "interpretation" of what QM "means", no different that
> > many such interpretations. It's been suggested there are as many
> > interpretations as there are quantum mechanicians.
> Why is it not a theory? It is called a theory in Nature.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02602-8
Don't focus on the word "theory" in that article; it's pretty clear if you read it, that they are treating "many worlds" as one of several possible interpretations of quantum mechanics, rather than as a theory that makes different predictions than those of, say, the Copenhagen interpretation.

"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 11:53:09 AM UTC-5, Richmond wrote:
>> erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On 2/13/24 1:41 AM, Richmond wrote: > Bob Casanova
>> ><nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:00:03 +0000, the following appeared in
>> >>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>> >>>
>> >>>> "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob
>> >>>>>Casanova wrote: > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the
>> >>>>>following appeared in > talk.origins, posted by Richmond
>> >>>>><dnom...@gmx.com>:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared
>> >>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb
>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in >
>> >>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot" >
>> >>>>>>>>>>> <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Self model", and what leads you (or whoever came up
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> with the idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly how does it do that? Does it help all DNA to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> replicate - planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> they all have Self models? Or is it restricted to humans
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and others with some sense of "self"?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong
>> >>>>>>>>>>> smell of nuts coming from it.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>> >>>>>>>>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>> >>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>> >>>>>>>>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish
>> >>>>>>>> books...
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
>> >>>>> self with not > >existing.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Nope.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the
>> >>>>> whole body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the
>> >>>>> self exists and that you are yourself.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory
>> >>>>> self is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of
>> >>>>> one's internal monologue, and that that narrator is always
>> >>>>> there "running the show." It certainly feels that way, at least
>> >>>>> a lot of the time for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15%
>> >>>>> of people who get by their whole lives without an internal
>> >>>>> monologue). But it is possible to do all sorts of fairly
>> >>>>> complex things without the "narrator" talking about them or
>> >>>>> even seeming to notice them - driving home along a familiar
>> >>>>> route while thinking about something unrelated, making tactical
>> >>>>> decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
>> >>>>> articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know
>> >>>>> from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a
>> >>>>> decision, it's not necessarily clear whether the decision is
>> >>>>> being made for the reasons the "narrator" articulates or
>> >>>>> whether he is simply providing a rationale for decision already
>> >>>>> made in the dark, so to speak. And yet the feeling that one's
>> >>>>> self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal monologue is
>> >>>>> not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
>> >>>>> illusion.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is
>> >>>> a continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from
>> >>>> birth to death.
>> >>>>
>> >>> I can't imagine anyone over the (mental) age of twelve who
>> >>> actually holds that view. Strawman?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing
>> >>>> 'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored
>> >>>> into a different body, which raises the question of whether that
>> >>>> is a kind of immortality nor not.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
>> >>>> planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault
>> >>>> with the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies
>> >>>> him, so there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the
>> >>>> ground, and another on the ship. So the question is, which is
>> >>>> the real Riker? perhaps they both are. But if you were him and
>> >>>> you got a phone call telling you this was going to happen, would
>> >>>> you go through with it? Would you wonder whether you would be
>> >>>> the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
>> >>>>
>> >>> All interesting questions, and as a F&SF aficionado I enjoy
>> >>> them. But I don't make the mistake of imagining that they
>> >>> constitute any sort of evidence of anything other than a fertile
>> >>> imagination; certainly nothing in physical reality. >> >> They
>> >>> are not presented as evidence, they are a thought >> >>
>> >>> experiment. But >> >> how can you be so certain? What about the
>> >>> multi-universe quantum >> >> theories? If the universe splits
>> >>> every time there is some quantum >> >> diversion then there ought
>> >>> to be multiple slightly different selves. >> >>
>> >>> https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-many-worlds-theory/
>> >>
>> > The "many worlds" idea associated with Hugh Everett is not a
>> > theory. It's an "interpretation" of what QM "means", no different
>> > that many such interpretations. It's been suggested there are as
>> > many interpretations as there are quantum mechanicians. >> Why is
>> > it not a theory? It is called a theory in Nature.
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02602-8 Don't focus on the
> word "theory" in that article; it's pretty clear if you read it, that
> they are treating "many worlds" as one of several possible
> interpretations of quantum mechanics, rather than as a theory that
> makes different predictions than those of, say, the Copenhagen
> interpretation.

On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-5, Richmond wrote:
> "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 11:53:09 AM UTC-5, Richmond wrote:
> >> erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On 2/13/24 1:41 AM, Richmond wrote: > Bob Casanova
> >> ><nos...@buzz.off> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:00:03 +0000, the following appeared in
> >> >>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob
> >> >>>>>Casanova wrote: > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the
> >> >>>>>following appeared in > talk.origins, posted by Richmond
> >> >>>>><dnom...@gmx.com>:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared
> >> >>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in >
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot" >
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Self model", and what leads you (or whoever came up
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> with the idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly how does it do that? Does it help all DNA to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> replicate - planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> they all have Self models? Or is it restricted to humans
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> and others with some sense of "self"?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> smell of nuts coming from it.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
> >> >>>>>>>>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish
> >> >>>>>>>> books...
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
> >> >>>>> self with not > >existing.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Nope.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the
> >> >>>>> whole body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the
> >> >>>>> self exists and that you are yourself.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory
> >> >>>>> self is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of
> >> >>>>> one's internal monologue, and that that narrator is always
> >> >>>>> there "running the show." It certainly feels that way, at least
> >> >>>>> a lot of the time for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15%
> >> >>>>> of people who get by their whole lives without an internal
> >> >>>>> monologue). But it is possible to do all sorts of fairly
> >> >>>>> complex things without the "narrator" talking about them or
> >> >>>>> even seeming to notice them - driving home along a familiar
> >> >>>>> route while thinking about something unrelated, making tactical
> >> >>>>> decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
> >> >>>>> articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know
> >> >>>>> from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a
> >> >>>>> decision, it's not necessarily clear whether the decision is
> >> >>>>> being made for the reasons the "narrator" articulates or
> >> >>>>> whether he is simply providing a rationale for decision already
> >> >>>>> made in the dark, so to speak. And yet the feeling that one's
> >> >>>>> self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal monologue is
> >> >>>>> not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
> >> >>>>> illusion.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is
> >> >>>> a continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from
> >> >>>> birth to death.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> I can't imagine anyone over the (mental) age of twelve who
> >> >>> actually holds that view. Strawman?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing
> >> >>>> 'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored
> >> >>>> into a different body, which raises the question of whether that
> >> >>>> is a kind of immortality nor not.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
> >> >>>> planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault
> >> >>>> with the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies
> >> >>>> him, so there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the
> >> >>>> ground, and another on the ship. So the question is, which is
> >> >>>> the real Riker? perhaps they both are. But if you were him and
> >> >>>> you got a phone call telling you this was going to happen, would
> >> >>>> you go through with it? Would you wonder whether you would be
> >> >>>> the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> All interesting questions, and as a F&SF aficionado I enjoy
> >> >>> them. But I don't make the mistake of imagining that they
> >> >>> constitute any sort of evidence of anything other than a fertile
> >> >>> imagination; certainly nothing in physical reality. >> >> They
> >> >>> are not presented as evidence, they are a thought >> >>
> >> >>> experiment. But >> >> how can you be so certain? What about the
> >> >>> multi-universe quantum >> >> theories? If the universe splits
> >> >>> every time there is some quantum >> >> diversion then there ought
> >> >>> to be multiple slightly different selves. >> >>
> >> >>> https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-many-worlds-theory/
> >> >>
> >> > The "many worlds" idea associated with Hugh Everett is not a
> >> > theory. It's an "interpretation" of what QM "means", no different
> >> > that many such interpretations. It's been suggested there are as
> >> > many interpretations as there are quantum mechanicians. >> Why is
> >> > it not a theory? It is called a theory in Nature.
> >>
> >> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02602-8 Don't focus on the
> > word "theory" in that article; it's pretty clear if you read it, that
> > they are treating "many worlds" as one of several possible
> > interpretations of quantum mechanics, rather than as a theory that
> > makes different predictions than those of, say, the Copenhagen
> > interpretation.
> Whether it is a theory or not, if it hasn't been proven false, then one
> cannot say with certainty that the situations are not in physical
> reality (whatever that is).

On 2/13/24 8:50 AM, Richmond wrote:
> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 2/13/24 1:41 AM, Richmond wrote:
>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:00:03 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins,
>>>>>>>>>>>> posted by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
>>>>>>>>>>>>> model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Self models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some sense of "self"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong
>>>>>>>>>>>> smell of nuts coming from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>>>>>>>>>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>>>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>>>>>>>>>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
>>>>>> self with not > >existing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>>>>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self
>>>>>> exists and that you are yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
>>>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
>>>>>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
>>>>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time
>>>>>> for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by
>>>>>> their whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible
>>>>>> to do all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator"
>>>>>> talking about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home
>>>>>> along a familiar route while thinking about something unrelated,
>>>>>> making tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator
>>>>>> can articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know
>>>>>> from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision,
>>>>>> it's not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for
>>>>>> the reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply
>>>>>> providing a rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to
>>>>>> speak. And yet the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator
>>>>>> of one's internal monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is
>>>>>> a fairly powerful illusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>>>>> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>>>>> death.
>>>>>
>>>> I can't imagine anyone over the (mental) age of twelve who actually
>>>> holds that view. Strawman?
>>>>>
>>>>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing
>>>>> 'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a
>>>>> different body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of
>>>>> immortality nor not.
>>>>>
>>>>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
>>>>> planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with
>>>>> the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so
>>>>> there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and
>>>>> another on the ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker?
>>>>> perhaps they both are. But if you were him and you got a phone call
>>>>> telling you this was going to happen, would you go through with it?
>>>>> Would you wonder whether you would be the one left on the planet, or
>>>>> the one back on the ship?
>>>>>
>>>> All interesting questions, and as a F&SF aficionado I enjoy them. But
>>>> I don't make the mistake of imagining that they constitute any sort of
>>>> evidence of anything other than a fertile imagination; certainly
>>>> nothing in physical reality.
>>> They are not presented as evidence, they are a thought
>>> experiment. But
>>> how can you be so certain? What about the multi-universe quantum
>>> theories? If the universe splits every time there is some quantum
>>> diversion then there ought to be multiple slightly different selves.
>>> https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-many-worlds-theory/
>>>
>> The "many worlds" idea associated with Hugh Everett is not a
>> theory. It's an "interpretation" of what QM "means", no different that
>> many such interpretations. It's been suggested there are as many
>> interpretations as there are quantum mechanicians.
>
> Why is it not a theory? It is called a theory in Nature.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02602-8
>
To some extent, it's quibbling over the meaning of words. As a
practical matter, if you want to calculate a probability of something
using quantum mechanics, there is no difference between the "many
worlds" theory and the "Copenhagen" theory.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:20:50 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/13/24 8:50 AM, Richmond wrote:
>> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2/13/24 1:41 AM, Richmond wrote:
>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:00:03 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Self models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some sense of "self"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> smell of nuts coming from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
>>>>>>>>>>>> illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
>>>>>>> self with not > >existing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
>>>>>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self
>>>>>>> exists and that you are yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
>>>>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
>>>>>>> internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
>>>>>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time
>>>>>>> for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by
>>>>>>> their whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible
>>>>>>> to do all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator"
>>>>>>> talking about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home
>>>>>>> along a familiar route while thinking about something unrelated,
>>>>>>> making tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator
>>>>>>> can articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know
>>>>>>> from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision,
>>>>>>> it's not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for
>>>>>>> the reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply
>>>>>>> providing a rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to
>>>>>>> speak. And yet the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator
>>>>>>> of one's internal monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is
>>>>>>> a fairly powerful illusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
>>>>>> continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
>>>>>> death.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I can't imagine anyone over the (mental) age of twelve who actually
>>>>> holds that view. Strawman?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing
>>>>>> 'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a
>>>>>> different body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of
>>>>>> immortality nor not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
>>>>>> planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with
>>>>>> the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so
>>>>>> there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and
>>>>>> another on the ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker?
>>>>>> perhaps they both are. But if you were him and you got a phone call
>>>>>> telling you this was going to happen, would you go through with it?
>>>>>> Would you wonder whether you would be the one left on the planet, or
>>>>>> the one back on the ship?
>>>>>>
>>>>> All interesting questions, and as a F&SF aficionado I enjoy them. But
>>>>> I don't make the mistake of imagining that they constitute any sort of
>>>>> evidence of anything other than a fertile imagination; certainly
>>>>> nothing in physical reality.
>>>> They are not presented as evidence, they are a thought
>>>> experiment. But
>>>> how can you be so certain? What about the multi-universe quantum
>>>> theories? If the universe splits every time there is some quantum
>>>> diversion then there ought to be multiple slightly different selves.
>>>> https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-many-worlds-theory/
>>>>
>>> The "many worlds" idea associated with Hugh Everett is not a
>>> theory. It's an "interpretation" of what QM "means", no different that
>>> many such interpretations. It's been suggested there are as many
>>> interpretations as there are quantum mechanicians.
>>
>> Why is it not a theory? It is called a theory in Nature.
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02602-8
>>
>To some extent, it's quibbling over the meaning of words. As a
>practical matter, if you want to calculate a probability of something
>using quantum mechanics, there is no difference between the "many
>worlds" theory and the "Copenhagen" theory.