...and if that gets solved, it will be solved via cladistics, not arbitrary opinions of inclusion or exclusion within made-up names of made-up categories, such as "Homo Sapiens".
It's that assumption of the original question I was responding to.
"Homo Sapiens" is an arbitrary construct, as is the rest of Linnaean Taxonomy.
Adding the use of Latin to make it sound extra-authoritative doesn't change this. Using the names of Sonic the Hedgehog characters for species names, as one biologist did, is equally scientific and more entertaining, though.
Cladistics might find something resembling an objective differentiator, but I'm betting against it.
Again, since noting it is a paradox is the exact opposite of support for your stance in any rational world, I'll go by the evidence and consider myself both, and you neither.
Feel free to review and respond to what I actually said. I have not asserted it can never happen, rather that there is no evidence that it will. This remains the case. Conjecture is not evidence.
I'm not denying it's possible for humans to eventually do this, but we have no evidence it is. We don't even have a hypothetical means to doing so. That isn't prophecy, that's evidence.
That said, I quite believe it is possible by an entity which does have such a hypothetical means to do so, by virtue of having all the necessary "data", the necessary "engineering" knowledge, and the ability to construct a suitable alternate substrate (or "body", if you prefer). The class of humanity has a much harder constraint here--they with certainty don't have all the necessary "data" regarding an individual's pre-existing consciousness in order to "reconstruct" it. That in itself, and there is no apparent plausible means by which human technology could regarding people who have already died, is a primary distinction here.
If it clarifies, you can take my position as considering the soul as an entity within the category of information.
I'm using "information" broadly and particularly to distinguish personal identity from the substrate on which it resides, that is, the physical body.
It is not sensible to speak of "humanity" continuing to exist in a context where one believes the extent of personhood to be constrained to their body, and none of the referenced bodies will, with certainty, functionally exist. As of now, zero bodies representing that notion of "humanity" will exist for long. As of the hypothetical future, zero of those bodies will exist for long, either. The only thing that persists is the information on how bodies are constructed, from a Naturalist, that is to say, "scientific materialist" perspective. And such people tend not to like to talk about things where there is no particular necessary material implementation, and no material implementation that persists. That there is much -more- to a human being is not something I'm denying, rather I'm noting that this isn't something proponents of Naturalism really get to claim or talk about.
As for AI, yes, I agree that we don't have a clue how to implement actual intelligence. That doesn't mean there is no entity that does, however.
It is very easy for a collection to have properties that its individual elements do not.
Which of the theses are you objecting to here? Your statement here is "trivially true" in that individual parts of, say, an automobile do not have the same properties as the whole, in that you can't drive the engine, but that is definitely not what 1) asserts. It asserts that the properties of the totality of the parts is equivalent to the properties of the whole. 5) asserts that a mental predicate cannot be derived from purely physical descriptions, while simple math is certainly your best shot at this, describing five objects physically does not get you to the particular inference of "five"--there are many other abstractions derivable, regardless of what the objects are--"red" in the case of five apples, for instance. There still remains no direct inference from the physical description to a corresponding abstraction.
So a particular mental state can be assigned to a particular set of neurons firing
Okay, do so. Say, "freedom". The particular set of neurons firing, applicable to all cases, that is, all brains. Say, an EEG where we can know that's the correct corresponding state, and -only- that particular state or abstraction. As the writeup notes, "caused by" is not relevant to the question, -correspondence- is.
As for the question of attempting to save "humanity" being meaningful, I never suggested otherwise. It is methodology and priority that is at hand.
Sure it does. Because in that case the overlap of the set of actual people that is being referred to by the term "humanity" is then almost 100% (excluding those who die today), rather than 0%.
Most ethical considerations work much better when we are referring to actual, existing people.
Well, to slightly modify from "stupid", it's instead absolute fact that a theoretical future possibility is not equivalent to actual present reality and the expenditures we can make toward it with verifiable beneficial results.
Don't try to false dichotomy this. I am not taking the position that the future is valueless or non-existent. I am simply stating when choices affecting "then" are being considered in contrast to choices affecting "now", we should use valid notions of how "then" is related to "now".
I didn't say "humanity" will be dead in 200 years. I said every member of "humanity" will be dead in 200 years.
It's this equivocation that "humanity" is "us", when in fact there is no intersection at all between the future humanity that is being discussed, and us, that is the basis for much of what I have said in this thread.
We can aid a "humanity" that does in fact coincide with "us" (that is, now), or we can make equivalent expenditures for a "humanity" that is theoretical, and definitely not "us". That's an important part of the question here that is being obscured by language and the human psychological tendency to implicitly think as if "we" endure beyond our lifespan. I have no issue with the second notion, but only if it's acknowledged, whereas the context of the proposal indicates a belief this is not true. You can have it one way or the other, logically, but not both.
So... you've got nothing in terms of the difference between the two, to us, then. And when and if those distant-future people exist, you'd similarly have no answer for them relative to the distant future from that point in time.
And yes, the future matters. That's exactly why I'm making my argument.
Okay, so you're moving up to just posting the directly absurd.
I'll give you this, though, if being "pedantic" means posturing as vaguely "above the topic" in knowledge and pretending therefore that simply scoffing at questions in lieu of actually engaging the topic is sufficient, then you are certainly the ideal person to recognize it.
This post made no logical sense at all. If you consider it a paradox, you cannot resolve the question. If you cannot resolve the question, you have no basis by which to dismiss dualism.
Once you've done that, feel free to also note that this isn't even necessary to show that to speak of "us" in a future context where none of "us" will exist in the manner suggested by the statement, is a trick of psychology, having no basis is philosophy or science.
Thanks for the evidence-free assertions, but I'll be happy to hear your personal refutation of 2500 years of western philosophy by simply providing your resolution to the 5 theses presented, rather concisely, here:
The primary purpose of HL7 seemed to be enabling massive consulting hours clarifying the poorly-defined HL7 standard.
HIPAA is like HL7 version 2.0. They've dispensed with "poorly-defined" and moved up to "completely arbitrary". The boon this provides... for lawyers... cannot be underestimated.
Slashdot Mirror
...and if that gets solved, it will be solved via cladistics, not arbitrary opinions of inclusion or exclusion within made-up names of made-up categories, such as "Homo Sapiens".
It's that assumption of the original question I was responding to.
Congratulations, you've made Bishop Ussher feel bad for the 10000'th time on Slashdot.
If you were under the impression you were making a point about theism in general, though, you aren't.
"Homo Sapiens" is an arbitrary construct, as is the rest of Linnaean Taxonomy.
Adding the use of Latin to make it sound extra-authoritative doesn't change this. Using the names of Sonic the Hedgehog characters for species names, as one biologist did, is equally scientific and more entertaining, though.
Cladistics might find something resembling an objective differentiator, but I'm betting against it.
...having a metaphysics that is logically and ethically incoherent.
So, there just remains the issue of you supporting that, or anything you've said so far, with the slightest bit of evidence or reason.
"Scientist".
Again, since noting it is a paradox is the exact opposite of support for your stance in any rational world, I'll go by the evidence and consider myself both, and you neither.
Feel free to review and respond to what I actually said. I have not asserted it can never happen, rather that there is no evidence that it will. This remains the case. Conjecture is not evidence.
I'm not denying it's possible for humans to eventually do this, but we have no evidence it is. We don't even have a hypothetical means to doing so. That isn't prophecy, that's evidence.
That said, I quite believe it is possible by an entity which does have such a hypothetical means to do so, by virtue of having all the necessary "data", the necessary "engineering" knowledge, and the ability to construct a suitable alternate substrate (or "body", if you prefer). The class of humanity has a much harder constraint here--they with certainty don't have all the necessary "data" regarding an individual's pre-existing consciousness in order to "reconstruct" it. That in itself, and there is no apparent plausible means by which human technology could regarding people who have already died, is a primary distinction here.
If it clarifies, you can take my position as considering the soul as an entity within the category of information.
I'm using "information" broadly and particularly to distinguish personal identity from the substrate on which it resides, that is, the physical body.
It is not sensible to speak of "humanity" continuing to exist in a context where one believes the extent of personhood to be constrained to their body, and none of the referenced bodies will, with certainty, functionally exist. As of now, zero bodies representing that notion of "humanity" will exist for long. As of the hypothetical future, zero of those bodies will exist for long, either. The only thing that persists is the information on how bodies are constructed, from a Naturalist, that is to say, "scientific materialist" perspective. And such people tend not to like to talk about things where there is no particular necessary material implementation, and no material implementation that persists. That there is much -more- to a human being is not something I'm denying, rather I'm noting that this isn't something proponents of Naturalism really get to claim or talk about.
As for AI, yes, I agree that we don't have a clue how to implement actual intelligence. That doesn't mean there is no entity that does, however.
It is very easy for a collection to have properties that its individual elements do not.
Which of the theses are you objecting to here? Your statement here is "trivially true" in that individual parts of, say, an automobile do not have the same properties as the whole, in that you can't drive the engine, but that is definitely not what 1) asserts. It asserts that the properties of the totality of the parts is equivalent to the properties of the whole. 5) asserts that a mental predicate cannot be derived from purely physical descriptions, while simple math is certainly your best shot at this, describing five objects physically does not get you to the particular inference of "five"--there are many other abstractions derivable, regardless of what the objects are--"red" in the case of five apples, for instance. There still remains no direct inference from the physical description to a corresponding abstraction.
So a particular mental state can be assigned to a particular set of neurons firing
Okay, do so. Say, "freedom". The particular set of neurons firing, applicable to all cases, that is, all brains. Say, an EEG where we can know that's the correct corresponding state, and -only- that particular state or abstraction. As the writeup notes, "caused by" is not relevant to the question, -correspondence- is.
As for the question of attempting to save "humanity" being meaningful, I never suggested otherwise. It is methodology and priority that is at hand.
Watch how I don't, despite the fact I "need" to.
And then instead I suggest you acquire a sense of humor.
Hmm... but this is a boon -for lawyers-.
I stand by my original statement. There is no limit to how negative this could go.
Sure it does. Because in that case the overlap of the set of actual people that is being referred to by the term "humanity" is then almost 100% (excluding those who die today), rather than 0%.
Most ethical considerations work much better when we are referring to actual, existing people.
Well, to slightly modify from "stupid", it's instead absolute fact that a theoretical future possibility is not equivalent to actual present reality and the expenditures we can make toward it with verifiable beneficial results.
Don't try to false dichotomy this. I am not taking the position that the future is valueless or non-existent. I am simply stating when choices affecting "then" are being considered in contrast to choices affecting "now", we should use valid notions of how "then" is related to "now".
I didn't say "humanity" will be dead in 200 years. I said every member of "humanity" will be dead in 200 years.
It's this equivocation that "humanity" is "us", when in fact there is no intersection at all between the future humanity that is being discussed, and us, that is the basis for much of what I have said in this thread.
We can aid a "humanity" that does in fact coincide with "us" (that is, now), or we can make equivalent expenditures for a "humanity" that is theoretical, and definitely not "us". That's an important part of the question here that is being obscured by language and the human psychological tendency to implicitly think as if "we" endure beyond our lifespan. I have no issue with the second notion, but only if it's acknowledged, whereas the context of the proposal indicates a belief this is not true. You can have it one way or the other, logically, but not both.
So... you've got nothing in terms of the difference between the two, to us, then. And when and if those distant-future people exist, you'd similarly have no answer for them relative to the distant future from that point in time.
And yes, the future matters. That's exactly why I'm making my argument.
Okay, so you're moving up to just posting the directly absurd.
I'll give you this, though, if being "pedantic" means posturing as vaguely "above the topic" in knowledge and pretending therefore that simply scoffing at questions in lieu of actually engaging the topic is sufficient, then you are certainly the ideal person to recognize it.
"Ostentatious"... yes, that's the word I was looking for.
This post made no logical sense at all. If you consider it a paradox, you cannot resolve the question. If you cannot resolve the question, you have no basis by which to dismiss dualism.
Once you've done that, feel free to also note that this isn't even necessary to show that to speak of "us" in a future context where none of "us" will exist in the manner suggested by the statement, is a trick of psychology, having no basis is philosophy or science.
Thanks for the evidence-free assertions, but I'll be happy to hear your personal refutation of 2500 years of western philosophy by simply providing your resolution to the 5 theses presented, rather concisely, here:
http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/...
This is HIPAA we're talking about. If it says it's HL7 2.0, you'd better code accordingly, your presumptions about how numbers should work be damned.
Never hidden.
And no, that term doesn't provide you with the argument you can't make, and therefore aren't.
[*coherence needed]
The primary purpose of HL7 seemed to be enabling massive consulting hours clarifying the poorly-defined HL7 standard.
HIPAA is like HL7 version 2.0. They've dispensed with "poorly-defined" and moved up to "completely arbitrary". The boon this provides... for lawyers... cannot be underestimated.
Good luck learning the latter as you here directly exemplify the former.