Talk:Personal identity

Human, what makes this garbage? It comes from this book which I've read. Think what you will of it, it is serious academic philosophy. -- 11:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And why have you linked a non-existent template? ? -- 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that much of the content of this article is now more "essay" than article. As far as actual RW article content is concerned I think there might be a link to some transhumanism ideas about the possibility of moving consciousness into machines. For example, unless we have a very clear idea of what the "self" is then moving it into a machine consciousness is obviously difficult. --BobSpring is sprung! 17:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is expressing a particular viewpoint, it is just discussing some of the possible views. In fact, my personal viewpoint isn't represented on this page at all (the closest would be the dualist viewpoint, but I am actually an idealist.)
 * I don't know why Human is labelling the 'psychological continuity' theory as bullshit - maybe he thinks it is somehow non-materialistic? But actually, both physical and psychological continuity are different materialist theories of personal identity.
 * You are right, it is very relevant to transhumanism. For example, many transhumanists hope to upload themselves into computers. If the pscyhological continuity criterion is correct, then you can do that (provided you develop the necessary technology, of course.) But if the physical continuity criterion is correct, then you can't, because the computer isn't going to be physically continuous with your brain - you are actually committing suicide, even though an AI clone of you will live on.
 * But it isn't just relevant to transhumanism - these topics are of philosophical interest, regardless of whether you think the kind of technologies transhumanists look forward to are likely to ever be developed. -- 02:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, we aren't a "philosophy" wiki. So random philosophical wankings, which most of this is, don't fit in the mainspace.  Perhaps we should move this to "essay" and let M. have his way with it.  Oh, and if you couldn't figure out what  means...  06:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there are philosophy articles when relating to rationalism and theology, for example. The thought experiment added also isn't that bad, a little verbose maybe, but has been an important thought experiment in philosophy for some time. It is legitimate at least. ADK ...I'll pander your earlobe! 06:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And Human, if you don't know who Parfit is, may I suggest a quick trip over to Wikipedia could be very informative... He is not well known outside philosophy circles, but he is arguably one of the most important people in the contemporary philosophical scene... Armondikov is right - as weird as this might sound to you, it is real (and yes, if I am verbose, you should know by now I am a verbose person, and maybe the solution is to edit my wafflings a bit to make them a bit briefer, since I'm not always so capable of doing so myself, rather than just deleting my contributions entirely) -- 06:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A "little" verbose? 09:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Missionality
To address Human's concerns about missionality, let me state that I think that general information on the fields of philosophy, religion, science, etc., is mission-relevant, since even if it isn't in itself mission-relevant, it can be important background information in many debates which are. Assuming the article on transhumanism is mission-relevant, then surely this article is, because a lot of transhumanist scenarios (teleportation, mind uploading, brain transplantation, etc.) depend on particular assumptions regarding the philosophy of mind, which this article explores (or would explore, if Human stopped deleting the section which discusses it) - so, attempts at refuting or defending transhumanism are going to draw on material in this area. Furthermore, this site seems to generally argue for a materialist worldview, as opposed to a dualist or idealist one, and seems to see doing so as part of its mission - and, the theory of personal identity has a major role to play in deciding between materialism and dualism and idealism, since each of those theories has its own challenges in this area, as the teleportation thought experiments indicate. Also, very relevant to materialism has to be Parfit's own position, that if reductionist materialism is true, then the questions of "Who am I?" and "Am I the same person today as yesterday or tomorrow?", have no single correct answer in every circumstance, but are ultimately unanswerable, or can be given only arbitrary/conventional answers - a situation which is contrary to most people's intuitions. That isn't necessarily fatal to materialism - maybe we should just expect that counter-intuitive hypothetical situations will produce counter-intuitive conclusions - but it is worth talking about. -- 07:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. 08:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is hardly a constructive response. How about trying to address my points, rather than giving a three word answer? -- 08:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, Maratrean, I (I can't speak for anyone else here ,of course) think that you are the proverbial sandwich short of a picnic. If you were to announce that 2 + 2 = 4, then I would begin to doubt it.
 * You've got a website of your own, why do you need to splatter your stuff all over ours? --Scream!! (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And what does the discussion at hand have to do with my website? This page, and the discussion over it, has very little to do with my personal religious beliefs.
 * I do have some views many people find odd, but if you look at the history of my contributions here, you will find I am perfectly capable of contributing on topics which have little or nothing to do with my religion. -- 08:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I never mentioned your religion. --Scream!! (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "general information on the fields of philosophy, religion, science, etc., is mission-relevant, since even if it isn't in itself mission-relevant" No it isn't. Certainly this one isn't. Useful, anyway.  It's just standalone junk, as far as I can see.  09:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Scream, you said you think I am the proverbial sandwich short of a picnic. If you aren't referring to my religion by that statement, what then are you referring to? You also refer to my website, which is mostly about my religion. Again, if it is true that I never mentioned your religion, what were you actually mentioning when you refered to my website?
 * And Human, what about my argument based on transhumanism? This is an important topic relevant to many proposed transhumanist schemes (e.g. physical immortality through mind uploading). So, as I said, if the transhumanism article is mission-relevant, arguably this one is too. Of course, if you are arguing the transhumanism article isn't mission-relevant either, that is different... (in which case, to be consistent you should propose doing something about that one too). -- 09:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never looked at your website, I merely recall someone mentioning it, or perhaps it was on your user page? I can't be bothered to look now.
 * Everything that I've noticed you write here has been pseudo guff reminding me of the new ager stuff I grew out of 40+ years ago. (and you're so bloody verbose!) --Scream!! (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Tq me again and I shall pursue you with lightning and earthquakes: verily you shall feel my wrath. --Scream!! (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All of which is simply sidestepping the actual question, of whether this is on-mission or not. I have made three basic points (1) philosophy, etc., is background information which will be relevant to many on-mission debates; (2) relevance to transhumanism, which is potentially on-mission; (3) relevance to the foundations of a materialist worldview. So far, Human has barely responded to point (1) - well, he has denied it, but hasn't really said much more than that; he has not addressed points at all (2) or (3); you haven't really addressed any of them; and no one else has so far spoken on the issue.
 * Tq me again and I shall pursue you with lightning and earthquakes: verily you shall feel my wrath. Bring it on. -- 09:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't. And the "other stuff exists" argument fails here as well as at WP. First, it's crap.  Second, it's a bunch of crap.  Third, this says nothing about tranhumanism, so give up that straw.  Fourth, it's shite. Fifth, it has nothing to do with the "materialist worldview", it's just... Sixth, a steaming pile of empty crap that adds nothing to this site or its mission.  10:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've explained in detail how I think it is relevant to transhumanism. Rather than responding to my arguments, you just assert that they are wrong: "Third, this says nothing about tranhumanism, so give up that straw." That is nothing other than argument by assertion. -- 10:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete
Putting aside the fact that Maratrean wrote it, this article is, as I said on the template, off-mission philosophy cruft. 20:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it is important to the question of the mind-body problem (what is the relationship between mind and matter, is mind purely explained by matter, or can it exist independent of it), which in turn is important to the question of whether there could be an afterlife, which is the linchpin on which much of religion stands or falls. Seeing the missionality now? 09:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Burn it with fire.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This page just confirms my view that Maratrean is some guy who took a few papers in philosophy at uni and wants to share it with the world. Having said that its not too bad, and the points raised were actually considered interesting some 300 years ago.  I say we keep.  --DamoHi 10:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)