I criticized you for jumping to conclusions and fabricating narrative to support them. And apparently you got so offended by the criticism that ⌠you went and did it all over again, targeting me, committing even harder to the bit.
You just wrote a bunch of wild fanfiction about me and then tried to have an argument with that imaginary version of me. Might as well just yell at ghosts in the shower if youâre that desperate to feel like youâve snatched some petty victory from the jaws of self-inflicted defeat that is this thread.
Youâre the problem with your own experience.
This response is hugely excessive for the âprovocationâ and yet Iâm sure youâll storm off imagining that Iâm the big meanie here and you were some completely reasonable and utterly justified saint of good behaviour - for absolutely going off on someone who gently mocked your very serious demands for everyone to be nicer to you and meaner to the people you dislike. And youâve done that to everyone who wasnât fawningly positive towards you in this thread - that you started by being hateful and childish towards a site you just left and the userbase of the site you just joined.
Even with the tiny sample size I can see why you have so many encounters with âtoxicâ people. You antagonize and attack people, then pretend they were the toxic ones if they defend themselves.
Itâs not hard to miss that youâve just happened to call me all of the things that other people have told you about yourself in this thread. Hell, this whole little speech would have been far more appropriate as something someone said to you, if they were trying to hurt your feelings; so given how off the mark it was when directed at me, itâs easy to wonder if maybe youâre projecting a little here.
The idea that Reddit is staging some nefarious conspiracy to âpoisonâ fediverse spaces ⌠is losing the whole plot.
OPâs straight up writing fanfiction trying to cast a site they just left as villains in some swashbuckling coming-of-age story. Itâs a nine-hour-old account, and theyâre already embracing the Us vs Them mentality and trying to sell it with prose.
I donât know how OP managed to pick fights within a couple hours of signing up for their account, but Iâd suggest that if they left Reddit for âtoxicityâ only to immediately find it here too ⌠maybe theyâre carrying it around with them?
If you are in fact a doppelganger you have no way of knowing and neither does the Anomander who died. And that is why I wouldnât risk teleportation.
Which, conversely, is also why I donât care about teleportation. If I have no idea before and I have no idea after and for all intents and purposes I am still me in the new location ⌠all the parts that I can engage with, all the parts I care about - theyâre all coming up fine. I might as well have fallen asleep on a plane, or blacked out after a few too many at the pub. When consciousness returns, I am in a new location.
In that explanation you quoted, I fall firmly into the former camp. I donât think we have special-ness that transcends the meat, but that the consciousness is wholly rooted in it - and so I think that moving the meat from one place to another achieves the result of moving the consciousness from one place to another.
My main difference is that I donât believe a âsoulâ transported or transplanted - or exists to be lost. The consciousness that is my sense of âselfâ is the sum of my meat and my memories, and those are preserved.
But trying to make you understand.
Yeah, thereâs your problem. Youâre trying to make me understand it your way and criticizing me for not doing so, instead of trying to persuasively state your own viewpoints standing on their own.
Itâs an approach that I can imagine would feel frustrating when I already understand your views and am talking about them.
To me it has nothing to do with souls, itâs about continuity of experience. [âŚ] If I donât get to continue to experience life because Iâm dead and some clone with my exact thoughts etc is now me, itâs only the rest of the world who experiences that as me continuing to live. But I donât get to.
I think that distinction is artificial.
My continuity of experience is interrupted every night, among others - and I donât worry that my experience as being me is somehow invalid now, or fear sleeping lest a doppelganger take my body overnight and wake up âas meâ the next morning. The idea that this would be different is resting on the notion that there is something other than mere meat and electricity that would be lost when the teleport interrupts consciousness, and I think that assumption is something that needs direct challenge.
I think you would experience life continuing from the moment consciousness resumes in the new location, the exact same as how you experience life âcontinuingâ when you wake up each day. All the ways that you experience your own consciousness would simply have relocated. Without assuming a soul, there is no subjective distinction between pre/post teleporter any more than thereâs a distinction between pre/post nap.
This presumes that there is something special in this model that doesnât resume when your mind resumes running in itâs new location. Or, in other terms, âa soulâ.
That is ridiculous.
So you do see my point.
People arenât computers, so getting all worked up about how software models instances still isnât a valid modelling for human consciousness.
When you kill a process and you re-run a program, even if you saved the full state of the memory elsewhere, you donât say that itâs the same process. Is another process with identical content. Thereâs no need of a metaphysical entity. Itâs another instance.
But this is so hair-splittingly pedantic itâs almost doubled back to be incorrect. If you ask 99.999% of the world, theyâll be like âyeah I closed outlook and then I opened outlookâ - to them, itâs still the same program. Theyâre launching the same software again. No one is like âoh well once you quit Skyrim itâs all over because even if you reopen it later, itâs a new instance and the old one is deadâ ⌠no. Thatâs ridiculous. Itâs the same program, the same save file, resumed from save at a later date.
Your focus on âProcessâ instead of âProgramâ is making the soul argument. The âprocessâ youâre arguing for is a soul. Something intangible and irrelevant to the end user, that does get terminated on shutdown, that cannot be restored from save. Consciousness is the software, not the process itself. Memories are the save file. There is nothing in OPâs model of teleporting that suggests âprocessâ itself is the sacred portion - when the hardware & software of âDaveâ gets paused and resumed flawlessly.
Youâre deeply, sorely mistaken. Even in a deep, unconscious state, the mind keeps working, even if the degree of consciousness is different. That weâre not 100% certain of what the brain does in those moments doesnât mean that it stops working.
Not at all. Consciousness is interrupted. Unless weâre assuming that the âprocessâ itself is sacred - what happens to consciousness is all that matters in either case. If your ability to perceive yourself as a conscious being stops - it doesnât matter to your experience of your own consciousness if the âprocessâ stopped or went to sleep during the gap.
Thatâs absolutely the issue.
Your body is copied as a file.
Your mind is a process running in a body created from that file.
When the process stops, you are effectively dead. Another copy of your body runs another process with an identical content. He has your body, but heâs not you.
This presumes that there is something special in this model that doesnât resume when your mind resumes running in itâs new location. Or, in other terms, âa soulâ. The idea that an identical consciousness in an identical body is ânot youâ is based wholly on the assumption that âyouâ is something other than the consciousness.
And your mind, or my mind, are both âprocessesâ that stop regularly already - are you claiming that old you dies each night and a completely new but otherwise identical person lives each morning?
or in a real teleport where you are disassembled, youâre gone the moment
I love how this was said completely unironically.
Weâre talking about something that only exists in sci-fi stories and youâre trying to argue about souls as if one outcome of teleports is clearly more real than another.
youâre gone the moment you teleport and the âyouâ that remains is another different person with exactly your thoughts, feelings, motivations, memories, etc
Ship of Thesius, though. If itâs exactly my thoughts, exactly my feelings, exactly my motivations, my memories, my body ⌠Thatâs me. Thereâs no other parts that got left out.
But consciousness was interrupted briefly when the transport happened? That happens to me every night - except in the morning I wake up in the same place instead of a different one. For all worthwhile intents and purposes, everything tangible and real that makes a person a person is relocated and the person remains. Getting lost in whether or not âyouâ âsurviveâ is wasting angst on the existence of a soul.
Youâre repeating what OP said.
Thing is, the idea that an âold youâ has âdiedâ is a modern soul conceit. If âmeâ is just the combination of meat, electricity, and memories - then for all intents and purposes I was simply taken apart in one place and reassembled in another. Continuity of all three is maintained when I am reassembled on Mars with my body and memories intact. There is no âoldâ and ânewâ me - because what you or OP think defines âmeâ isnât something that dies when the meat stops working briefly.
Back as a young fella, striking out in the dating market a bunch âŚ
âJust be yourself!â
No, honestly, that was the problem last time - I was looking for something a little more granular and actionable.
This is one of those helpful and encouraging things that people say without necessarily really thinking it through. Deep down in intent, theyâre right - you canât fake your way to healthy relationships, being insincere or putting on a performance of being someone youâre not isnât going anywhere genuine down the road. Absolutely correct, absolutely great advice - but itâs never given in sufficient complexity and depth to be useful.
None of those grown-ups were like âAh yes, definitely be sincere about who you are - but also donât spend a whole date monologuing about the book you just read or your favourite video game.â
That you can be genuine and sincere about who you are, while still using your social skills and putting your best foot forward socially just ⌠didnât occur. At the time, my understanding was that it was a hard binary - either I was 100% me at 100% volume and whatever came out of my mouth was definitely the best thing I could say, or I was stifling myself and being âfakeâ in order to build an equally-fake relationship.
It took a friendâs brother taking me aside to make it âclickâ - he was holding a can or a bottle and was like âSo the whole object is all âreal youâ yeah? But any time youâre talking to someone is like right now - you can only see the side thatâs facing you. Itâs all you, itâs all honest, but you still want to show them the best side, the best angle, of the whole thing. Donât sprint straight to showing them all of your worst angle just because thatâs whatâs on your mind that day.â
âWeâre getting paid to put paint on the wall.â
I was like 17 or so and had a temp job as a housepainter for a couple weeks, and I was sinking time and energy into doing an excellent job and being really efficient with paint and ⌠kind of missing the forest for the trees. I was putting unnecessary care & excellence into a back wall and the wall was taking longer to prep than the whole-house job could afford. One of the old guys on site pulled me aside me and, in the eloquent terms above, pointed out that ⌠the real goal here is paint on the wall. Weâre doing a good job because we take pride in our work, but the outcome is significantly more important than the journey to everyone else. Doing a âgood jobâ canât wind up as an obstacle to the job itself.
I was always a details person and perfectionist, and that one clear lesson about taking a step back from the details of a task to double-check what the actual goal is ⌠has always stuck with me.
So âtransition treatmentsâ have gone up 4000% ⌠in the time period following the treatment becoming available. If being a gymnast was illegal until 2009, or nobody had invented a trampoline until then, you can certainly bet making it legal or possible to do floor routines would result in a 4000%+ increase in people who were openly and publically gymnasts.
Trans people, trans kids, have always existed - we just didnât have the technology to provide the treatment in that article.
That article is choosing to cite the numbers on the treatment rather than the condition because the treatmentâs very recent launch means it allows the presentation of a scarier number.
Youâre aligning yourself with nazis while engaging in sophistry to pretend that neither you nor they are nazis.
All these wild mental gymnastics to explain how itâs not like that, or the farcical posturing of academic exactitude and ânuanced understandingâ - those are the exact same shit as nazis sending in the quiet well-spoken guy to break the ice and get a foot in the door.
Youâre doing triple overtime to figure out ways to argue compassion for cryptofascists and nazi sympathizers, while going even further out of your way to avoid having the faintest shred of empathy for people who simply want nothing to do with any of that bullshit.
You can call them whatever you want. You donât get to demand that we call them what you want us to. You donât get to demand that we ignore your choice to align yourself with them, to defend them, and to try and make their views sound more palatable and more reasonable than their end goals.
Since everyone is so happy with misusing the term, what are we going to call ACTUAL nazis so that we can differentiate people you disagree with and ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS.
I completely understand that you absolutely refuse to get it and will continue to avoid getting it forevermore - but Iâm going to say it for the rest of the room anyways.
Those guys are the âACTUAL FUCKING NAZISâ.
They just understand that pretending that theyâre not is the only way to get through the door of spaces dominated by the reasonable mainstream theyâd like to sell their ideology to. They know that the reasonable mainstream wants nothing to do with âACTUAL FUCKING NAZISâ so the âACTUAL FUCKING NAZISâ dress up as the people youâre currently defending and trying to make this conversation about. And anyone in that group that youâre trying to defend the nazis by pointing towards, any single person among them who doesnât want to stand with nazis - changes where they stand so that theyâre not with the nazis anymore. Youâre staying still while trying to defend that decision.
The âACTUAL FUCKING NAZISâ donât dress up in SS Uniforms and âheilâ each other in the comments sections - they pretend to be reasonable mainstream people and in order to present their views and their talking points wrapped in rhetoric that masks its nazi roots. They want to win over the mainstream, they want to convince people theyâre âon toâ something, they want to exploit our willingness to engage in discourse to sell their views and advance their ideology. They are not here to engage in debate - the debate is merely a vehicle towards seizing power and then acting out an ideology of violence and hatred.
Iâm not âplaying semanticsâ - Iâm not even engaging with yours.
We are not going to split hairs and massage academic definitions until âACTUAL FUCKING NAZISâ arenât actually nazis anymore. Either youâre a useful idiot and not qualified to try and talk down on folks about the intricate semantics of ânaziâ - or youâre actually on their side.
Exactly this. Like, I have favourites - but Iâd wind up hating them if that was the only thing I could ever engage with from then forward.
Iâve found especially with games, there comes a point where if you get deep enough with a game for long enough - there are issues apparent at those levels of detail that are inevitable, and are going to drive you nuts.
No game is going to survive full-time play for a year, or ten years, and you come out the far side still loving it completely.
What is the cost of free health care? Where is it paid for?
Taxes.
Except that you guys are paying retail + markup + profit for the investors + âwe have a monopolyâ fees + âlol, your other option is dyingâ surcharge.
We just buy healthcare at-cost and wholesale.
I pay like $2K a year in taxes towards healthcare. $2K invested in a socialized healthcare system buys services, service time, and supplies that would cost an American hundreds of thousands of dollars when paying for them as an induvial in a for-profit healthcare system.
Yeah. Sometimes I pay for healthcare I donât use. Sometimes there are inefficiencies in the system. It is not a perfect system. But itâs also not making anyone go bankrupt due to a medical emergency.
Paying $100K just to save $2K is never going to be good math, no matter how creative we get with the accounting.
Yeah, I had to un-quit Whatsapp when my siblings-in-law moved to Argentina - because Whatsapp is the main communication platform for a lot of Argentina and thatâs where all the various family chats moved to once the in-laws no longer had local phone numbers or reliable SMS service.