Teleporter

Nope, I'm not convinced. When you step into the teleporter, you die. Someone else steps out. Don't know how you convinced me otherwise.

Re: Remnants

I think you hit on two things of which we can pretend we have a cursory understanding. In your eariler section, I think you're calling up Heidegger's da-sein, the being that is concerned with its own being. As much as I'm enjoying "languification," we may not need that yet. I think da-sein is code for the human condition you describe, whereby we ask "what am I?" And of course, "what are you?" In that sense, I think we're not so much in the realm of phenomenology, but in basic existentialism.

We've already played something like that identity game in ethics, when Nietzsche suggests that any promise ("I will shovel the snow tomorrow") hides the unenforceable promise that my identity will not change ("I will be the same person tomorrow"). So really, if we accept this premise, then the teleporter and Spontaneously Occuring Lincoln arguments are an attempt to extend that promise paradigm (identity in some mental space) to question physical identity.

Remnants.

Reading back over our teleporter, Lincoln and society discussion I have had a thought. Mostly to do with socially constructed personal narratives. Your favorite.

We've addressed that identity is just another way in which people classify observed similarities; yet another symptom of the human condition (which just means human intellectualization in order to try and understand the universe. Or languagification (?)). Something like identity doesn't exists as much as something like morality doesn't exists, etc. (Which, by the way, is what I think I highjacked our teleporter conversation and turned it into. Which is probably a pretty academically dishonest thing to do. Sorry, bro.)

In any case, in regards to Spontaneously Occurring Lincoln, (yes, I do think it is a concept that deserves noun-ification) I kept shoving down your throat (fellatiating?) the idea that Lincoln for historical purposes and Lincoln for 'real' were essentially different people. Which is false. At least, from as biologically real a position as we can speak from (this caveat is probably the single thing that I wanted to justify by having most of that entire social identity discussion).

What I think part of our previous discussion elucidates, and the thing which I think is interesting, is just how flawed the term identity or even character really is. It fails to capture the changing nature of life as we understand it. Historical Lincoln being a prime example of the conceptualization of a person simultaneously creating human history and removing all distinguishing features of life.

What I want to address from examining this flaw in terminology is how it affects our personal understanding of ourselves. You may recognize, for example, that I have a tendency to self-depreciate, often choosing terms like narcissism to characterize myself. I would argue that this is a stagnant historical view of a person and not at all an appropriate view for discussing a life. There are periods of my life where I feel particularly self-involved and then I characterize myself as being a narcissist. This is certainly not a constant feeling yet we are trained to understand ourselves as being something rather than that we are beings (did I just now get phenomenology?).

So what does this mean? We as a species create categories to try and make sense and organize our universe. Unfortunately, we do not know everything and thus some categories are lacking. When you and I begin to recognize that the traditional norms from which we understand the world are arbitrary, inconsistent, imposing and limiting our faith in "categories" begins to deteriorate. We face and understand differently the idea that we are "beings" who "be" and not things which are.

Does this make sense? Is this what I was supposed to understand in Daniella's class(es) ("Understand").

Re: Testament- remnants of religion

Rather than argue, as I am wont to do, I'll just concur.

But it's not just a post-theistic problem. The concepts of good, evil, justice, and morality aren't just monotheistic fragments. They're part of an overall social mythology. You can explain those terms with a genealogy ("good" really means "good for me," "justice" means "fairness," etc.), which reveals that the problem is really the use of the words, which is as arguments unto themselves, like "murder is evil." Though you can break that sentence into a definition that makes a lot of sense, it is unfortunate that the people saying it wouldn't be able to do that.

What would be better?

I think policy reasoning in legal theory is a good way to sidestep those sketchy terms. Maybe we should replace mens rea with whatever is Latin for "you should have known you were gonna get prosecuted for this."



As for lawmakers making allusions to scripture, some examples:

"Just like David facing Goliath, we must stay the course in the Middle East against all odds."

"Just like Sisyphus' insurmountable task, we must stay the course in the Middle East against all odds."

"Just like the old man reeling in that giant marlin, we must stay the course in the Middle East against all odds."


Why would a politician go with the first one? Besides the fact that it's the most positive analogy, followed by #3 and #2, respectively, the Old Testament is simply better known than Greek mythology or Hemingway. If the intent of the speech is to make an easy analogy, the Bible is a legit way to get it done. But when you're suspicious that it's mostly to inspire Christian rightiousness in the public, you're definitely right.

Testament

The kindling:

"The contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when inflicted by intention is no provincial or transient notion. It is as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil." -Justice Clarence Thomas on mens rea requirements in Criminal Law

"Mankind might still be in Eden, but for Adam's biting an apple." Welch v. State, (1970) in regards to causation of death requirements. e.g., The deceased would not be so "but-for" the actions of the defendant.

We live with a legal system built on lingering traditions of a religious past which now, outdated, requires amending by those who claim a secular living. As though we have built a square mold but are trying to create circles from them, we are constantly having to cut away pieces that no longer fit our desired design instead of choosing to rebuild the mold. though, could we have a legal system with which people approved of if it were devoid of 'morality'?

Today while eating lunch at the local cafe I witnessed two probable law students bickering. One over whether he thought intelligence necessitates 'goodness' the other arguing that even 'evil doers' can be intelligent. The 'conversation' inevitably broke down into a primitive assault on the first student's belief in God. I couldn't help but feel defensive for the first student whom, despite religious belief inherently with which I disagree, at least, his belief was consistent. The other student spouting nonsense about other religions and trying to catch the first student in a fallacy by conflicting definitions of commonly misunderstood words was, to me, a sophist practicing his trade and not someone who legitimately seeks understanding.

When we recognize the inevitable irrationality of God as truth do we not give up the right to claim 'morality', 'goodness' and 'evilness'?

The blaze:

What do people like you and me do with the fact that we may find a concept like morality, 'vacant'. We are setting ourselves up to work in a profession that depends to a certain degree on concepts like morality and justice and depends further on a common understanding of the meaning of those concepts. Sure, we can intellectualize and rationalize the terms to make them seem more realistic to ourselves but what did our law-makers intend? As it is so often discussed in court opinions, the law-makers intent is the end all for discussion when it comes to legality. Are words like this chosen precisely because they can be misconstrued and redefined as our society evolves (as we have discussed before). Or do we think the majority of legislators have a fairly nihilistic disposition and they choose words like this to placate to the mindless majority? Or are they (legislators) a part of the religious majority (not the same as the mindless majority)? Is it incredible foresight that grounds our legal system or religious tenacity?

Does it matter?

Settled? Or pointed differently? Identity, Morality and Society

Okay, we need to distinguish some thoughts here because I'm pretty sure I don't have a problem with using the teleporter, anymore (did I ever, really?). So first things first,

1. If the teleporter works 100% of the time, all the time, then I have no problem using it.
2. We are in agreement that a concept like identity is exactly that, a concept (a way of organizing and augmenting 'information' received via sensory organs) , which human beings have created and utilized to perpetuate their own continued conglomeration of particles.

___________________________________________________

Now, I have a deep desire to address the things you bring up in the last post beyond the scope of whether or not we use teleporter technology and this may be an unfair analysis on my part. In the event that this is true I'm stating this as my caveat: What you have written previously may not have been meant for the scope of what I want to address with it, never the less, I think it provides interesting discussion...

My problem with the whole shebang is if we take this description of the world and try utilize it in other contexts. The way in which we are trying to characterize 'the world', in my mind, excludes the human endeavor of trying to 'make sense' of 'the world'. Restated: Because of the facilities a human possesses there is a very specific way in which we interact with our surroundings which allows us anything we might call 'intellect'. For instance; the fact that we use language to characterize almost everything delimits what we are discussing to the realm of logic and reason (as defined by man, for man), which under the Play-doh* metaphor, has no place in the 'real world' and in fact doesn't exist in it. Whether we like it or not we have to talk in language and to a certain extent about things like 'identity' or 'morality' because these are key concepts and facilities with which humans have to do (even if we are talking about them just to denounce them). Essentially, I'm assuming that by:

"I am trying to circumvent the necessary culture bias inherent in our thought. Except I'm claiming it's UNNECESSARY, because the cultural bias that's keeping you out of the teleporter doesn't hold me back. "

You meant that the 'necessity of our cultural biases' is actually unnecessary for you to determine that you would enter the telporter and that your resistance of cultural biases does not continue unto things like: having this discussion, enjoying the company of your family and friends over the company of others, studying law or choosing to partake in any part of society at all. Because any of those things necessitate that you interact within the cultural bias whether you are aware of it or not. Because we are situated within our cultural biases.

Hence why Spontaneously Occurring Lincoln, the question of his identity, memory and all that "paperwork" are relevant to a discussion involving human beings. And why social identity is relevant for human beings to survive, because as much as the 'real world' may be devoid of concepts, 'our world' is not (and by our world I mean a world in which human created endeavors matter, not the world in which everything is Play-doh). Our world is one where if you don't recognize yourself as a U.S. citizen and don't pay taxes then other people change your circumstances. And while this may, from the 'greater perspective', just be the adjusting of particles from one place to another, to you it matters deeply that you are at home and not in a Federal prison.

Lastly, I think a major argument against what I say here is that I'm trying to handicap any discussion about the 'truth' of existence by claiming that we only know 'truth' through our human filter. And I think we would both agree that it is a pretty lame position to claim "well, everything ever is only ever a human endeavor" as though it discounts what we do here (by having discussion), but the primary reason I choose this argument is not to put a stop to our discussion but to augment it. It seems to me that by understanding the necessity of human bias we can address concepts in a more humanly meaningful way. Which I think is a fair position to strive for in a discussion because it brings a certain amount of relevance and pragmatism. I.e. If we want to discuss something like morality it may require that we acknowledge it is a just human phenomenon but also that we don't discredit it solely because it is just a human phenomenon. Surely we still reserve the right to be choosy (Modern legal theory and Utilitarianism vs. scripture for a basis of morality) but none the less it requires a sort of acceptance of the 'human endeavor'.


Now as I have stated it may be deeply unfair of me to even have this discussion at all because I'm changing the context of which we are speaking but to address some pertinent things you brought up last time; and in an attempt to elucidate what it was we were discussing with this line of thought originally here is an excerpt from my last post followed by what I took as your response:

Surviving effectively means being part of social orders. If identity did not also include a historical understanding of oneself then memories would serve no purpose. Personal history is as much a evolutionary trick for survival as feeling hunger or a fear of heights. But it is extended to others as well. You remember who is the king of your village because it behooves you to know who's shoes not to shit on... for survival. I think also it creates the kings identity for himself when he knows that others don't shit on his shoes out of fear.

"Here's why I resist social identity. Social identity is the paperwork. You don't give justification to your claim that surviving effectively requires being a part of social orders. I submit that memories are not essential. I like them, but if I can't form memories about pain (thinking of Memento and the shock test), though I would probably die in a hazardous environment, that doesn't mean I couldn't have a rewarding life of thought[**] if I resided in a safe place."

If memories weren't essential for the survival of the human race why do we have them? We evolved with memories, why wouldn't they be necessary? Also, you and I both know people have lived in tribes for a long time, as Anthropologists can estimate--what makes you think that this isn't a necessary human behavior? I don't need to make justification for the necessity of human social orders as much as you need to justify us not needing them.

And further I propose that social memory is a composite part of social order. Social identity is wrapped up in it too. Essentially human beings seem defined socially by their social relations. I assume that if there were only one human we wouldn't have identity but that is not the case. I don't see where you mean to go with these points...

"Regarding your modifications to my earlier statements, is identity so difficult to reduce? We're already supposing the reducibility of the mind. Isn't anything we acknowledge as true reducible? (i.e. we can reduce that which we call the mind, but we don't bother reducing God because we don't acknowledge it as existent. Instead, we reduce the concept of God to logical (and illogical) conclusions of the workings of the brain.)"

Yes, identity is incredibly difficult to reduce. Because it is so socially ingrained. Something like morality (which I would argue is a composite part of personal and social identity) is not reducible to 1's and 0's. It changes daily because people's opinions on the matter change daily. And some peoples opinions on the matter--matter more. Like judges. A concept like morality is similar to a concept like God****--illogical. Yet it defines our society and is a sort of societal 'truth'*&%*. In that it is deeply important and relevant. I agree this isn't pretty or neat but I submit that it is the world in which we exist and necessarily defines our relationship to anything and everything.




*Play-doh's allegory of the cave would get all hard and flaky if you left it out...

**I call B.S. on your claim that you could live a "rewarding life of thought" If you had no memories. First, I doubt you can even begin to understand what a life like that might be like. Second, the word 'thought' is meant in a human context with memories and for that matter so is rewarding to compare a life without a facility so ingrained in (yes I'm going to say it again) human identity is just nonsense***.

***It may indeed not be nonsense at all... I'd just need convincing. Sorry heat-of-the-moment-emotion showing through in that sentence.

****If someone doesn't give me crap because of this then we know for sure that no one reads this blog.

*&%*I'm getting a lot of ambiguity from my CrimLaw class and its sneaking into my discussion of social identity.

Re: Teleporter Resolved (?)/Spontaneous Lincoln

Addressing the sidebar: We are doing philosophy, not studying philosophy. I don't remember textual reference in Zarathustra. Let's just write.

"Artificial" definitely should be dropped from the vocabulary. Logic and order don't pertain to "the world," they just describe the life of man. The point is exactly that once science provides an "artificial intelligence," man no longer corners the market on logic and order. This also does relate directly to my Antichrist essay. The man/nature dichotomy implies man's power over nature. When that power is exerted over women (the theology of the Antichrist film), we notice the problem.

Regarding the possibility of arriving in Japan and Singapore simultaneously: Reconsider in these terms- My existence is a phenomenon. In 40 seconds, my existence is a phenomenon. By my existence, I mean that my constituent elements are so arranged. Hell, I don't even really mean my existence. I don't mean existence either.

Since the substance of the Earth came from space in eons past, and we physically come from the same material by the rules of consumption and feeding, and return to that material because of decay, all of existence is one substance (like water. Oh, there's some H over here and some O over there and some dusty minerals in this area... shut up; it's water.) So I imagine all of existence as one substance, like Play-doh flattened on a table. You can pinch some of that doh up into a raised form, and you can name it something special, like "mountain," "Jackson," or "lamp." But that distinction doesn't change the fact that when the mountain erodes, or the lamp rust away, or Jackson dies and decomposes, it's analogous to smashing that lump back into the rest of the Play-doh and starting over. It's not that it's gone; it's that it was never separate.

This gives us a means to dissociate the things we want to say about identity from actual descriptions of the world. If it occurs that the phenomenon designated as "Jackson" is smashed back into the putty at the moment that in the zones designated "Japan" and "Singapore" there appear two phenomena that perfectly resemble the previously designated "Jackson," there is no burden of identifying "me." At least, not in any existential way.

The notion that identity is fluid across teleported bodies applies only in third-person, legal-style situations. If the teleporter creates a clone, does a prior standing warrant for arrest apply to both bodies? Our court system would say yes, though I would argue that it raises questions about the motivation of our justice system, which sees fit to execute people who are, very arguably, not the "same person" they were when they committed the crime.

Suppose you step into the teleporter, and two clones come out. Both will have their own first-person identities. Which one was Dan before stepping into the teleporter? Both. Which one is Dan after the teleporter. Neither.

Moral of the story: don't get cloned. It screws up the paperwork. That's the only reason not to get cloned.


Here's why I resist social identity. Social identity is the paperwork. You don't give justification to your claim that surviving effectively requires being a part of social orders. I submit that memories are not essential. I like them, but if I can't form memories about pain (thinking of Memento and the shock test), though I would probably die in a hazardous environment, that doesn't mean I couldn't have a rewarding life of thought if I resided in a safe place.

I guess I'm saying that talking about Lincoln's identity at all is folly, but if we were forced to decide...

Spontaneous Lincoln goes to court to decide whether or not he may collect the pension given to ex-presidents. I think Spontaneous Lincoln could demonstrate enough presidential characteristics in his testimony to have his right to the pension upheld. Likewise, if Spontaneous Lincoln manifested as having suffered the gunshot wound to the head inflicted by Booth, and was summarily treated in a modern hospital, where he made a full recovery except for the loss of his memory, the courts would likely not uphold the pension, not because he's not Lincoln, but because convincing evidence could not be produced.

Regarding your modifications to my earlier statements, is identity so difficult to reduce? We're already supposing the reducibility of the mind. Isn't anything we acknowledge as true reducible? (i.e. we can reduce that which we call the mind, but we don't bother reducing God because we don't acknowledge it as existent. Instead, we reduce the concept of God to logical (and illogical) conclusions of the workings of the brain.)

Your concluding analysis is spot-on. I am trying to circumvent the necessary culture bias inherent in our thought. Except I'm claiming it's UNNECESSARY, because the cultural bias that's keeping you out of the teleporter doesn't hold me back.