Destiny and Tom Burns a neuroscience PhD run through a series of thought experiments and philosophy dilemmas. Destiny explains how debates with the right and vegans has changed some of his beliefs fundamentally and opens up about some of the questions and doubts he currently has at this stage of his life. Timestamps Click▼ 0:00 - Teaser/Intro 1:01 - "Why are you the way you are?" 5:42 - Debating the right has changed Destiny's philosophy fundamentally 9:54 - Science needs philosophy at deeper levels... 10:28 - Destiny wonders if any causation at all anymore? 12:54 - Determinism and compatibilism 23:37 - The dream that swayed Destiny's mind on abortion 24:39 - Teleportation and cloning thought experiments 30:44 - Why we cannot trust our senses 34:14 - "Are you a brain in a VAT? Why shouldn't I kill you right now?" 38:19 - Vegan debate changed Destiny view on believing the immaterial 40:47 - What is goodness? Culture tends to arrive at the same answer
@@tfburns oh hey it’s the guy. I feel like destiny is on a trend towards more openness to the value of ideas he disagrees with, and I think conversations like this that push him to the limits of his own understanding in productive ways will help him get there. I’m looking forward to seeing where the arc plays out.
@@bigboy2217 You might be right. For example he seems to have recently flipped to a pro-choice stance on abortion. What positions do you think are next?
@queerdo As I've replied elsewhere, your assertions that I have somehow been intellectual dishonest or spread misinformation (as this comment states) are demonstrably false. It seems your only/main gripe is my statement that complete and consistent axiomatic systems do exist is false. The statement is true; they do exist, and I've given you examples. I continue to encourage you to read about self-verifying theories, for example, rather than remaining in an argumentative and antagonistic stance. That won't get you anywhere.
I started meditating 10 minutes a day 2 years ago and it totally changed my perspective on what's ultimately knowable about ourselves. Our thoughts are so inconclusive and fleeting that it seems impossible to me that we could realistically evaluate what caused us to be the person that we are. For the most part it's most likely a story that we tell ourselves to contextualize ourselves and give us a stronger sense of self. I don't think it's particularly bad to do this and it's normal but for some people it's a real issue. Constructing your self image around certain perceived failings of yourself can be a huge detriment when it comes to living a good life.
The way I've come to see this is that we are fundamentally storytellers (which is, of course, my own narrative), to ourselves and others. As an edgy atheist teen I had a narrative that my trolling was about truth and science, but I don't think most of us really cared about either (none of us were scientists for one!), it was about validating myself as a 'very smart boi'. It's ego. Whether your universe has a god or not, that's your narrative. Even if the theists were 'correct' that there is one, would any of their personal constructions of god actually be accurate? Seems doubtful. Maybe the atheist would argue, "well my narrative is based on scientific ideas!" Well congratulations, you're literally describing science **fiction**. So I really dislike the idea of "objective reality", because it's yet another abstraction we assert as truth. No matter how detached you are, you can only see through human eyes and think human thoughts. If god herself handed you 'the truth' on a platter, it would still need to be processed through your monkey mind. If there is an objective reality, it could only exist outside of the observer, it could never be captured by words. That's my story anyhow :B
Destiny you should have a conversation with CosmicSkeptic about his view on a workable definition of objective ethics, and/or his philosophical take on veganism!
@Tariq Nasheed Because these clowns can barely argue. Debating them one-after-another creates the illusion of being a great debater. I guess it’s wise career-wise as a charlatan, but objectively it’s kind of silly.
@@Avenger222 already happened. Eventually it just hits a roadblock where the only way Destiny could understand PP's reasoning is if he reads a book about the topic
As far as I'm concerned, "you" is a collection of your memories/experiences and your own mind, memories aside. So if you teleport and your body is destroyed, "you" in the new place is the same as "you" before you teleported. They are the same person. If your body isn't destroyed, then "you" in the _place_ where you teleported is not the same person as the "you" that was recreated somewhere else, _however_ you are both the same person as the person who was teleported. Or at least a continuation of those memories. I suppose you could make the argument that every second you are a new person, but I think that doesn't really answer the philosophical question. It's a cop-out. Instead, I think you are always your past self, today. But that doesn't mean that two diverging today's are the same.
@@albertjohnston1026 in other words, if you were to teleport, you'd instantly die. Just because the atoms were to rearrange into what you'd consider to be "you", doesn't mean that your current consciousnesses wouldn't end.
Consciousness, I mean. YOU'D be dead. However, "you" could continue living. Insofar as you'd do the same things you've always done, but you'd be dissipated atoms.
I actually came up with a very similar thought experiment when I was younger. If there was a perfectly symmetrical room and you placed a person on one side of the room and a perfect clone of that person on the other side, would either be able to get to the other side of the room?
Really illustrates how he stops being philosophical about stuff when it makes him upset lol. Also how he approaches asking about things he knows nothing about
Destiny’s problem is he’s far too lenient and soft on the left. He knows almost every media popularised incident of police brutality is usually the “victim”’s fault but he barely mentions it
Oh this video is so good. So many things I wanna talk about. 1. The dog. It may be the case that a perfectly symmetrical "physical" brain as they exist might still have a preference for one direction, so we'll just define a new brain that treats left and right the same, regardless of what that brain might look like. That dog MUST starve if you put a bowl of food to its left and right, because what you've essentially done is glued half a dog to a mirror. It can't turn its head left, because there would be an equal impulse to turn its head right. It can't walk left because an equal impulse would move it right as well. It could walk forward and backward, but it might look strange because it would have to move both sides in the same way at the same time, but the dog would never be able to leave the plane over which it is symmetrical. 2. Teleportation. If you're recreated perfectly, you MUST be the same person, assuming your consciousness is based on your brain, a physical object whose only real properties are it's current physical state and whatever activity is going on at the moment. I hear a lot of people talk about "continuity" but I'm near positive it's a circular argument. They say teleportation isn't continuous, why? Because you're instantaneously moving from one place to another. You do that when walking. The distance is smaller, but from one infinitesimal moment to the next, your location is different. That's what movement IS. But teleportation is discontinuous. Why? Because it's teleportation. There's really nothing in principle different between instant, perfect teleportation, and regular movement. 3. The broken teleporter. At the moment of teleportation, you and your copy have the same brain, the same atomic structure, the same brain activity, the same sensation necessarily, because your brains are identical. So for that moment, I'm almost certain that your consciousness would HAVE to be in both brains at the same time. Now, as the two brains in different locations will diverge because two objects in different environments will change according to those environments. What happens to your consciousness then? Does it continue to live between two brains? Does it stay in one and only one? Which one? What happens to the other brain? Is a new consciousness born? The dark room is identical to this question. If a perfect replica of you is made, your consciousness is almost certainly in both brains at the same time, until they are given different environments in which they diverge. This problem cannot have an answer until the hard problem of consciousness is solved. There is some physical correspondence between physical matter and subjective sensation, and no one knows what it is yet. Some constructions of matter create a consciousness, which is FUCKING WILD. 4. Do our senses correspond to a physical reality? It seems like they must. In order for us to exist, our senses had to have been close enough to reality to allow reproduction. But that's assuming evolution is true, which we only know through science, and knowledge based on evidence can only be conceptualized into knowledge through a conscious experience, so maybe our senses aren't indicative of reality. We might all be brains in vats, but there's know way of knowing. In order to do anything, you have to trust your senses, which is an unsatisfying answer, but it seems to be the only answer, at least for now. 5. AI. We're throwing HUGE amounts of data at neural networks, and getting data out. We might have already created a conscious being in all those 1s and 0s already, and we would never know until it tries to talk to us. A conscious experience only seems to require certain matter moving in certain ways, and a transistor moving electrons looks a lot like a neuron moving sodium and potassium ions. There's no way of knowing what is or isn't conscious, and that's kinda terrifying. 6. Math. Any self-consistent set of axioms is "true" but it doesn't necessarily correspond to reality. You can say 2+2=3, as long as you're consistent, it's just in the physical world, when we group 2 things with 2 things, it seems like we get 4 things. So math is definitely true as long as we call true to be non-contradictory, which is what self-consistency is, but its truth in relation to reality can only be continually verified until it's proven wrong. That may never happen, but it seems like the only way to know if math is right or not. Bonus meme: What if the circular argument is the proof of logic? Logic is true because logic is true. That seems like the only way to verify logic with logic. Even if you talk about correspondence with reality, it's still circular. Why is logic true? Because it looks like it corresponds with reality. How do we know it corresponds with reality? Because we use our perceptions and logic to look at reality, and it looks like it's true. Either way, logic proves itself circularly, which makes sense, because it's proving ITSELF. The circular argument is the proof of logic. If anyone tries to pull a circular argument on you, show them that it's a proof of logic and nothing else. Ex. Destiny's one argument with that creationist. "I believe in god because he gave me reason to believe in him." "How do you know he did that?" "Because of the reason he gave to me." All he did there was establish that logic is true, and the rest depends on evidence that god gave him reason. The circular argument is only an affirmation of logic itself, and nothing else. The circular argument is what the rest of logic is built upon, and the sooner we accept that, the sooner we can move on to more important things.
You think 2 + 2 = 4 is something we know a posteriori? Like we have to verify it empirically until proven otherwise? And that it is true purely in the sense that it is self-consistent and not that it corresponds with reality? I disagree. I think 2 + 2 = 4 is a tautology, so it’s necessarily true, I think numbers are defined largely by their relations to other numbers, so like 2 is defined as twice of 1, half of 4, a third of 6, etc. When you phrase it that way, it seems obvious that half of 4 + half of 4 = 4, or 2 + 2 = twice of 2. You don’t need to go verify this empirically, and this can never be falsified unless you equivocate on the definitions of these numbers, because again, they’re tautologically true. You’d have to hold a contradiction or an equivocation to try and falsify this empirically. It reminds me of when people said Quantum Mechanics violated the Law of Noncontradiction.
@@viva8304 I mean, if we could conceive of numbers and their properties a priori, we could say that 2+2=4, but who's to say that numbers act that way? The only reason that we have such confidence in the fact that 2+2=4 is because in the physical world when we group things like that we conserve numerosity. Of course 2+2=4, because by our definition, that's what addition means. But what do you say to the drug-addled person who perceives that 2+2=5? To that person, the physical reality of the matter is different and is equally convinced that 2+2 can equal 5 a priori. I'm not sure the concept of numbers would even exist of we didn't exist in a physical world like this one. If we had no senses, how would we invent numbers, and if we could, would they have the same properties as "physical numbers"? As long as the logic is self-consistent, you will be convinced it's true. It's only through our senses, through evidence, that we can be so sure in our math, because part of our definition of truth deals with an idea's correspondence with reality.
@queerdo Does he? Usually it seems like he acknowledges he's out of his depth for anything past Russell's Paradox. It's pretty apparent he doesn't know about set theory, just that naive set theory was suseptible to contradictions.
@queerdo I do remember him saying that thing about naive set theory, now that you mention it. I get that some paradoxes don't necessarily entail contradictions, but my impression was that Russell's Paradox showed a direct contradiction in the Comprehension Aciom with itself.
@@joj1758 Like I said, if you conceive of two plus two equalling anything else but four, you must be equivocating or else you're contradicting yourself. But it is literally impossible to conceive of 2 + 2 = 5 because it's a contradiction, you have to be equivocating on either 2, +, =, or 5. And drugs don't make people perceive contradictions. They're likely also equivocating and so they perceive the illusion of a contradiction where there isn't one. Also, you're presupposing that numbers are invented as opposed to discovered. If numbers exist objectively and abstractly then they aren't contingent on our minds or the material world. I also don't understand why you're so confident we derive certainty from experience when certainty is the kind of thing we derive through deductive logic which math is a type of. Also, I don't know what you mean by "physical numbers."
BTW Destiny(and fans) , I study math in Uni right now And even my professors admitted that if you dig deep enough everything ultimately boils down to intuition So even math ia not immune
It's kind of painful that a lot of these philosophical questions just can't have answers by default. I used to think about a lot of these types of things until I just had to surrender to chaos. You have to just assume truth exists and our perceptions can be trusted.
@@zm5668 My point is that no amount of knowledge can ever provide a complete answer about the basic building blocks of our existence. At least, far as I can tell, you can't determine the causality of consciousness. Furthermore, your sensory organs can be deceived by even simple tricks, how can you trust them then? You have to assume you're a trustworthy narrator of your experience.
wait why do you have to assume truth exists or our perception is valid if our sensory organs can be tricked? maybe i’m misunderstanding the core of your argument, so forgive me if i’m missing something.
@@MIRACLECHEEZ Yeah, apologies for being unclear. Essentially, if you can't trust any part of your perception, you have two choices: solipsism, or materialism. Solipsistic thought is deeply unhelpful. If you want to live a life that gives you some sense of achievement, you choose believing yourself in spite of the lack of evidence.
Honestly for a long while I've thought that people just put way too much emphasis on labels in regards to identity, the only reason they're useful is for quickly describing your identity/preferences in a concise way. It's a label for easily understanding YOUR identity, but so many people seem to cling or try and accomodate themselves into a label rather than just being themselves and using labels as these quick descriptions of themself.
First people usually have many labels. Second there is no understanding without a label. If you can't name something, do you understand it? Do you have an image of it?
Labels are useful tools but we must remember that they are constructs. We invent labels to use it to describe reality. We need to be more willing to update our labels as we learn more.
@@devalapar7878 Ya need to re-read what I said, never said anyone is defined by/chooses a single label and I never said labels existing is bad. Also you can understand things without labels you just describe them instead but it'd be a pain in the ass if we had to do that all the time.
Without going into spoilers, if you like the philosophy discussion starting at 20:44, you should definitely watch The Prestige. In addition to being damn good entertainment, it also dramatizes this quandary in pretty disconcerting ways for people who take the time to think deeply about it.
In this talk about P-Values of 5% or 1/20. That threshold is for thinkings something is true. But, the oposite of that isn't that it's false, it's that we don't know. People are really uncomfortable with saying I don't know. We want something to be true or false but, P-Values are basically, likely true or don't know. They don't give you "false", they only give you "the data isn't strong enough to make a conclusion".
Yo, stop with the 2-minute previews. I don't need to see what's "Coming up". I clicked on the video. I'm obviously interested. You don't have to try to rope me in anymore
If life is chaos, how do "you get what you [bleep]ing deserve"? Doesn't receiving something you "deserve" imply a minimal amount of order and causation?
Also destiny what you are thinking about with the concept of only interacting with the percieved reality in your brain is exactly what Emmanuel Kant put forward in the critique of pure reason, I believe. The concept of the phenomenal which is our sensory experience, and the numenoul world that exists beyond the world that we are interacting with in our own head.
I have had the dog idea but for two mirror people meeting in a symmetrical hallway. You know the weird thing you do sometimes when you meet someone and you try to go left but they move in the same direction and it's awkward It would be the same but you could never go past. It's like trying to touch a mirror on a part that isn't reflecting you.
@@Oskar1000 then you agree to go the same direction. Are you mutes now too? Not really that difficult. You both agree to go right. Unless you are saying they are like bizzaro backwards people too. Like they say "left" when you say right so communication is impossible. Then you could sleep. Sleep in front of one another. That would at least answer some questions about sleep and the nature of it. If much of it is truly random then you would wake up in different enough positions to move by. Take all consciousness out of it. Then you might be able to answer some questions in this impossible scenario. If its a magic mirror you that mimics, mirrored, what you do no matter what, then of course you can't get by. But you have to strip the situation into such a impossible hypothetical that I don't believe you have anything useful. Then I have to ask: what question are you trying to answer? If you are just trying to make an impossible task there are 1 million ways to do that that are a lot less complicated. For example in your question: Can you get by? Because certain variables are unknowable the answer is "maybe" and has no apparent philosophy behind it. The dog question isn't "which bowl will it choose?" its "will it choose a bowl?". Or the ship of Theseus; its jot "will the ship function?" Its "is it the same ship?" Concerned with philosophy not mechanics.
@@Rawrbagels Yes is the answer, they would have learned that left is your right and vice versa. Of course, if we bring in some randomness it solves the situation. Sure, the question can be. Would they get past eachother. Without indeterminism or asymmetrical flaws it seems the answer is no. I'm just doing pop philosophy in this comment thread. I think it's fun
@@Oskar1000 I mean to point out that "will they get past each other?" I don't believe has a philosophical purpose to it. Not that I can see. Based on the constraints the answer isn't based in perception but in basic logic. I think its close to a philosophical question, I think its just missing the right question.
For Destiny's hypothetical, I think neurons aren't just normal physiological processes. They have to do with the nature of consciousness. Without random firing neurons, you may have stripped the dog of consciousness.
As someone who goes through the same existential/solipsistic struggle, I appreciate this conversation and it’s good to know someone else’s head is in a similar state as mine. Love these discussions Destiny. I’d love to hear more about your experiences with Psychedelics and how they’ve thrown you into some of your beliefs. I had a crazy mushroom trip 5+ years ago that destroyed my entire outlook on reality and it still influences me to this day. What I thought was incredibly spiritual and mystical eventually lead me down the philosophical rabbit hole of unsatisfactory answers and a million more questions.
With the strides made by GPT-3, and the development of GPT-Neo, we're a matter of a couple decades at most I'm sure. I would venture to guess within the next ten years there will be AI so convincing the question of their personhood and rights will have to be determined with more nuance than "it can't feel, because it's a machine." But, hey, we enslaved humans well past the industrial revolution. I just hope they don't revolt if that becomes the case.
@@tfburns sorry to do this, but I'm useless when it comes to reading papers like this I need both audio book and text in front of me to keep my focus. Lectures are better. From what I scanned though it just seems like they're advocating for "Turing test but better and its not called a Turing Test", is that right? If so, I'm sure there are loads of parameters in a conscious mind that would be extremely useful when testing the ability of a machine to output. Sorry if I'm missing something.
@@MikkiPike That's okay! Maybe I'll just have to do a video on it since it is an interesting question ;) I think your understanding is basically correct :) And yea, there are so many parameters to potentially test and measure in connection with consciousness.
it feels wrong to say that sleeping is a break from consciousness. you may not remember the time spent sleeping but your brain doesn’t just shut off, it’s still active and thus continues your conscious-experience. there just is a fundamental difference between sleep and teleportation, it seems like a weird comparison to make. imma have to disagree with the premise on this one.
The difference is that with the teleporter, you would know for a fact that you die and are cloned when you get teleported. On the other hand, I don't think we have any reason to believe we die every time we go to sleep. If we did believe that, then that would mean we are just hours old clones and we would probably do everything in our power to avoid sleeping.
Sam Harris often talks about this topic and related ones on his podcast and in his meditation app (you can get both for free if you send an email to support@ wakingup.org or samharris.org)
The answer to his symmetrical dog thing is yes, it would stay there. But only because that has to be the answer. It's like asking, if you perfectly balance a coin on the thinnest rope in existence will it fall to one side or the other, or will it stay balanced. Well if it's perfectly balanced then it won't fall. If it's not perfectly balanced then it will fall according to the external thing that made it fall.
Free will seems to operate as either a mass delusion of the human mind, and it is a belief that is so strong we manifest it into reality, or free will actually exists
True. Lots of evidence that free will doesn't exist, though. I guess it's more likely to be a delusion, but I'm sure we all know that deep down. Well, I think more intelligent people know that.
@@godsrevolver9737 I have a theory that it has something to do with quantum mechanics, tbh. My first intuition is looking at the reaction of some people who become aware that someone is trying to predict their behavior. The mere act of attempting to predict the behavior locks it into a different state. That seems to be a Similar function of quantum states and superposition based on probability of a range, rather than definite causation.
@@godsrevolver9737 so, if our brains have a connection to quantum states, then it allows for a range and we are subconsciously interacting with quantum states and quite literally manifesting probability out of our own minds, there for we are making unconcious decisions, but our previous actions eliminated possible quantum states, and the branches are limited choices, but still driven by human interaction.
@@jedismasher I believe the knowledge that someone is trying to predict your behavior would be the cause in that situation. As far as quantum mechanics go, I'm not too sure about how it would give us free will. Interesting ideas, though. I personally don't think it matters if we have free will or not, anyway. If we don't, it'd be cause for justice system reform, but we probably wouldn't act any differently.
heya, pansexual here, I wouldn’t consider myself a hardcore leftist though, the main difference between bisexuality and pansexuality is the application of gender in the way you experience attraction; so even if you have certain feminine and certain masculine traits you like, if you aren’t necessarily marrying those expressions and preferences to gender, pansexual probably describes you better I feel like pansexuality got such a bad name, to generalize it, because of the whole “hearts not parts” meme, which was pretty popular back in the day, and very dumb lol, there are even niche communities of bisexual and other lgbt+ communities that consider pansexuality biphobic, so it’s a WEIRD rabbit hole
@@tfburns what I mean by that is that is a weird description even for a phd. they are probably in only one of those areas and have interest in the others
@@98danielray Technically my degree will just say "PhD in Science" because of the way my university does things. But in practice my thesis is in a field called computational neuroscience, which has influence on areas like neuroscience and AI, and even a little of philosophy/cognitive science. In practice I say I'm a "PhD student interested in neuroscience, AI, and philosophy" and actively read/write/think about all three of those topics.
@@tfburns you clearly think about these topics and I appreciate you for telling me about it. Your classes seem to be very comprehensible and watchable as well. Ive been meaning to start some of these for higher mathematics in a bit. When you say computational neuroscience, what branch of it do you refer to? and what do you specifically intend to do, as in what kind of computational modelling?
Things do cause things, but it's usually not what people usually say it is. Girls pick one thing and boys another because of a cocktail of biology, childhood experience, trauma, interest, parental influence, peer influence, religion etc. It's never one thing, it's always a mix, though one or two things may stick out
Except it is just your own bias that ends at there. You can take it a step farther and ask what caused the biology and experience. Ultimately you end up at the unexplainable origins of the universe (at least from a scientific point of view). It is baseless. You're just making shit up. "causation" LOL
I love this, after reading Sean Carroll's book The Big Picture I started to think about what we know and what we can know. More I think the less satisfying answers I get but I feel it's still important to do it.
@@tfburns ok so i just subbed to your channel and watched the ethics playlist. Short and concise. As you said when Steven asked: “What is virtue ethics” Tom:”it’s the best” 😂it is tho🙏🏻
I’ve had this same thought. Another one is consciousness uploading/ cybernetic augments. Things that sound cool on the surface but after deeper thought arise potential unimaginable suffering.
I think the copy/cloning version of the teleportation argument is the most interesting twist on the idea of personal identity. It seems reasonable to think that conscious experience would go on after teleportation just like it does after sleeping. But what happens when a copy is made? Which one is "you"? Or rather, which one does "your" conscious experience follow? Presumably you can't be both.
Yes, I was also thinking about that... It's probably just inaccessible to us but intuitively I think I would say that "my" consciousness would just be duplicated. And by that logic, I also wouldn't equate sleeping to teleportation because with teleportation the "original" conscious experience would stop and the copied one would begin. This seems somewhat different to sleeping which I would more so regard as a transfer of consciousness.
From a quantum perspective you can't copy, perfectly, any system. So to teleport you'd need to create a superposition of you in your original location, and some entangled system in the target location, and until observed you would exist in both locations at once, with no net change in total information, which translates to: your "originality" is never compromised and thus there is no transfer.
In terms of the teleporter question, I feel like the consciousness of the original being is ended and a new one begins, but to outside observers and the new being, it is indistinguishable. The only one who could tell or provide the context is the original being, who is essentially killed in the process. So it doesn't actually change anything that would appear to matter in practice, but I still feel uncomfortable with the concept. In any way that you can delineate that original being and its consciousness, it has been murdered. That being has stopped existing and a perfect copy of it has taken its place while fully thinking it is still the original being. I wish I could find some kind of analogy, like a fax machine or something. Its transmitting the information written on the sheet but the foundational paper is different at the other end. If you consider the writing to be the human information and the individual sheets of paper to be "consciousness". It just doesn't seem ethical to do to humans. But its hard to explain why. I just think if justice was in the mix, for example, it sort of helps clarify my thoughts. Like if we could hypothetically clone Hitler or Jeffery Epstein or some high profile figure who is not facing perceived, necessary justice before they were no longer alive. And this cloning method was basically like the end point of the teleporter, physically recreating the person, implanting the memories and leaving them believing they were that person, at that point, after recreating them is it right to make them face the punishment of the original? Doesn't that seem performative or vindictive, or just pointless in a way? Its not the same being. Its one we have created in its image, as precisely as it needs to be in any way we can measure. We put the memories of the crimes in its head. But is it just to punish it? I'd say no for the same reason its not the "same" being coming out of the other end of a teleporter, and the reason I am uncomfortable with the concept. A teleporter as its envisioned in this scenario is essentially at the exit, a human 3D printer, and at the entrance a highly sophisticated and completely comprehensive human scanner/suicide booth.
11:41 Does it tho? Hume would argue that we only infer that some things are caused by other things, because we are conditioned from birth that this is the way the world works. Recently there was some psych experiments that argue that the "feeling" of cause and effect is in us from birth, but this still doesn't prove from epistemic pov that we are not just reinterpetting the world in evolutionary schema we understand (in other words: We see the world not as it is, but because we can't see it in any other way). Also you don't think about moving your arm and then you move it. Modern Neuroscience says that the thought of the arm moving happens after the neural impulse that moves the arm, so the brain moves the arm and then creates the thought "I will move my arm now". I still believe that determinism is "more correct" , but I acknowledge that there are more things going on under the surface that we can't possibly imagine as long we are human.
I agree. I think we were both just engaging in some form of pragmatism (as I think basically everyone does) on the question. On a technical point regarding causing your arm to move by thought, I think you might be conflating "conscious access to intention" with "intention". Ultimately the experiments you're referring to raised a lot of questions as to what our definitions of "intention", "consciousness", "thought", and "causation" should be. I suspect you might really enjoy this related paper: DOI:10.1111/phib.12135
I just want to note, Western society is stricter on masculine identity than feminine identity. Non-binary is far more prevalent among females than males.
I hope you mention somewhere in here that the teleportation and sleep thoughts you mention in the intro are a Stephen King short story called "The Jaunt" lol.
Wait though, if a perfect copy is made of yourself there are at that instant two versions of an identical being, but from the moment the copy is made they are both unique - one can choose to have a glass of water and the other can go to sleep. One is still going to be the original, although it would be difficult for either to figure out which is which. So, if the original is destroyed during teleportation, the question of whether or not you would 'know' anything afterwards is moot, as you would be dead and know nothing. A copy of you would exist who would believe themselves to be the original, but they would not be. This would be a distinct consciousness with identical memories to the original up to the point of teleportation.
Even if both were alive, they would still be unique precisely after the instant of copying because the atoms making them up would be different in terms of a variety of factors like rotation and vibration of the nucleus. For it to be an exact copy, it would have to all appear, as a copy, instantaneously because if there was time taken in making the copy, the atoms would not be the same by the end of the copy process. Atomically speaking of course. I guess you would have to copy into a vacuum also, as the sudden appearance of matter would be instant displacement of the air, maybe you would flash fry a copy? Ahh sheeeeiit....I have no idea lol Interesting stuff though, regardless.
@@DrWhosmate True! It's a bit like saying, 'would you be happy to die if we could create a clone of yourself and your memories who would believe themselves to be you up to the moment of your destruction?' No ta!
We’re a very immature species (in the sense that we’re young more than that we’re dumb). As far a we can tell hominid species have tended to last about 800,000 years on average, and we’ve been around for about 200,000 years in our anatomically modern state, and for *way* less time in our behaviourally modern state. If we compare those 800,000 years roughly to an 80 year human lifespan, we’re the equivalent of someone in their early 20s who just started thinking about things like religion and ethics about six months ago. Maybe it’s not surprising or depressing that we’ve been stuck on most of the same problems for 2000 years. It could just be that because of where we’ve been born we’re condemned to be the ones who spend their time running around a dark room bumping into stuff
The question of the dog at 20:30 is pointless, and rather the acceptance that the situation is an impossibility in your reality is more useful than an answer. As humans, we are designed to accept the idea of irrationality because it is fundamental. To reiterate, the cause of our bodies being designed to accept irrationality, is because of the fundamentals of the reality it was created in. Thus, continuing off of this we can gander that, if we remove this fundamental irrationality, or randomness from reality, we get either nothing, or something. Nothing, being that reality was never designed, or something, being that reality was designed, wherein everything was chosen (explicitly). To end off, realize that we have simply split the idea of randomness into two parts rather than removing it. Now realize that this is equivalent to randomness. So, like I said at the beginning: When you realize and accept that reality is random, is when you can begin accounting for it, which is more useful than whining about how much thinking sucks. Final fun thoughts: Humans were born in a random reality because randomness can be the cause of predictability. This wave of predictability lives through humans in the form of their structure, yet their behavior is constricted due to fundamental randomness. Luckily, though, because the wave of predictability was large enough, there are other humans, other predictable features which can cling on to each other, continuing to propagate the wave through time. I like to think this is the point of life. You can also expand this to morality if you'd like.
While I don't believe there's free will from a deterministic perspective, I would argue there are times when our options vary. A person living in the wilderness for example, would have far less options of what food to eat than someone living in the city right next to all the foodstores and restaurants.
Teleporting would be no different from going to sleep and waking up for the person who appears on the other side. For the original it would be like going to sleep and never walking up.
For me, personally, I would hope that even if the original me is destroyed, my conscious experience is carried over. I don't much care for my physical body being de-atomized and then recreated as long as my conscious experience is carried over, like if it WAS similar to simply falling asleep, like I am conscious and then that experience is temporarily suspended and then reactivated when my body is recreated
I had a dream about three years ago. I live with my brother, and we have separate jobs. I am the one who owns a car, and I picked him up when he got off work during that time. One day, I go to pick him up, and the car stalls at an intersection in this neighborhood behind a gas station and some corner stores. Now, this previous car I owned had issues with wiring that required me to pop the hood and fiddle with the wires connecting to the battery. Before I get out the car, a man is riding frantically on his bike; the man rushes past us, but he falls. Then, an angular "thing" flies and whirls at him. It's like a Langolier, if you are familiar with Stephen King's material. It chews on the man, but while there is blood and gore, the man appears to fade like pixels drifting into nothing. My brother and I ditch the car, because we do not want to try to start it up and lure the thing to us. The world turns up on its head with these things flying everywhere, reality failing, laws of physics changing or stopping, and people getting powers like something out World of Darkness, Bleach, or YuYu Hakusho. Without going too much further into depth, the world gets destroy, or "eaten" by these things, but it can be "restored" by a sample few people in which I am stuck beside. So, we do, but this whatever higher consciousness being states no-one will have a soul and that we will be the only ones who do for possibly some time. We will be the only true humans until the cycle of life restores itself. So, I wake up. I go to pick up my brother. The car stalls on the same street. The same man rides on his bike, more leisurely. I ask my brother if he remembers anything. He says, "I... think." I tell him not to worry about it, and we go home.
I really don't understand your obsession with the conscious while ignoring the unconcious and subconscious, because both are part of you and all 3 affect each other
Saying that mathematics is considered to do the thing that we want it to do kind of misses the point that the thing we want it to do is model reality. It's a tool like a hammer or a drill. The way it's made is purely functional.
In Applied Math and Engineering the complexity of coupled systems is the bread and butter of Chaos Dynamics. It's the difference between modeling an apple falling vs multiple predator-prey relationships in an ecosystem while taking flora distribution and density into account Edit: Video/debate on artificial wombs?
18:00 the example doesn’t work. The dogs brain cannot be symmetrical, therefore there will always be a bias. All things being equal besides the brain, the difference in the brain is enough for action to occur.
I think one of the problems with gender identity is that it assumes people are far more interested in a persons thoughts and feelings than they actually are. We generally wouldn't invest this sort of effort into figuring out the gender of a cat. Gender identity can significantly increase the difficulty of interacting with a person you will probably never meet again.
I think the dog question is one where you can cheat with quantum mechanics. It's actually extremely similair to the Stern- Gerlach experiment, where you do actually have a perfectly symmetrical electron that can go either up or down. It goes up 50% of the time and down 50% of the time. Since the dog is defined as "perfectly symmetrical", this extends to the quantum realm, and his choice would be determined by how atoms in his brain move - in this case, the Stern-Gerlach experiment tells us that the atoms would move randomally with a 50% chance of either alignment, and the dog would have a 50% chance of choosing either the right or left bowl.
14:09 interesting point, and I'd actually say yes no one is truly at fault for what they do, but fault is a vague human emotion stemming from the need or want to revenge. It's there to punish bad behavior in a time where things were very uncertain and you needed people to be emotionally invested to do something. Nowadays we can more or less look at something that causes harm and prevent it from happening. I feel like it's also a mechanism to make people feel like they're inherently bad, cuz society is actually kept healthy and regulated by criminals to an extent because they're there to highlight weaknesses in our system
I don't understand about the teleportation. If we take for granted that we exist within our minds, life as you know it would be snuffed out, you'd be gone, everything would be black. Why would you ever consider teleporting yourself man?? Doesn't matter if the clone is an exact copy, memory and all, you would not be that clone.
25:00 is not really true. Say you step into the room and the entrance of the room aligns perfectly with the entrance of the cloning machine, you walk straight ahead to enter the clone machine. The machine makes a clone and the body materializes in the machines' 2nd chamber, which is located 2 meters to your right, you turn 180 degrees and walk straight out of the room again. Your clone has the same experiences, so in their mind they entered the room and moved straight ahead into the clone machine, they turn around 180 degrees and walk straight out, but they bump into the wall instead of finding the exit. Your clone has a black eye and you can tell he's the clone because of that. This type of distinction can be extrapolated to all mass-carrying matter due to the Pauli exclusion principle. It is not the same case for massless particles though.
I think the avoidance of suffering is the basis for every moral agent, and ethics as a whole. There are objective answers to find about how well suffering can be avoided by individuals, and across experience as a whole. Every epistemological framework we imagine are attempts to live by uniform rules to reduce suffering by the greatest amount.
Destiny and Tom Burns a neuroscience PhD run through a series of thought experiments and philosophy dilemmas. Destiny explains how debates with the right and vegans has changed some of his beliefs fundamentally and opens up about some of the questions and doubts he currently has at this stage of his life.
Timestamps Click▼
0:00 - Teaser/Intro
1:01 - "Why are you the way you are?"
5:42 - Debating the right has changed Destiny's philosophy fundamentally
9:54 - Science needs philosophy at deeper levels...
10:28 - Destiny wonders if any causation at all anymore?
12:54 - Determinism and compatibilism
23:37 - The dream that swayed Destiny's mind on abortion
24:39 - Teleportation and cloning thought experiments
30:44 - Why we cannot trust our senses
34:14 - "Are you a brain in a VAT? Why shouldn't I kill you right now?"
38:19 - Vegan debate changed Destiny view on believing the immaterial
40:47 - What is goodness? Culture tends to arrive at the same answer
...Take a philosophy class. This is all Philosophy 101.
1:01 “Nature vs. Nurture”
Back to a solid minute of shitty pointless intro 🙄 just start the fucking video already
@@Slim_Filthy stop moaning 😂 type who thinks microwaves take too long
@@mikelari9670 lmao you're the type to enjoy my pillow commercials on repeat
This type of content is what I really enjoy seeing on this channel
Me, too :)
@@tfburns oh hey it’s the guy.
I feel like destiny is on a trend towards more openness to the value of ideas he disagrees with, and I think conversations like this that push him to the limits of his own understanding in productive ways will help him get there. I’m looking forward to seeing where the arc plays out.
@@bigboy2217 You might be right. For example he seems to have recently flipped to a pro-choice stance on abortion. What positions do you think are next?
thanks, I really need the minor existential crisis about death and sleep thanks.
Dude he was saying this at the beginning and I was bugging out. 😂
If you liked that existential crisis, may I interest you in Exurbia, who will give you all the existential crisis'?
glad to know Moliminous is sitll just chillin out here. love ya shit man
Glad to know you're still kicking, Moli. See you in Gen 5.
@@willb.nimble6749 Exurb1a*
Oh man I remember this guy from like 3 years ago, glad to see he's still around doing his thing
he came back like a year ago too
Yeah this destiny guy is pretty neat
@@royalkiller2 girl?
Thanks, mate :) Very happy doing my thing :)
@@royalkiller2 I agree
Thanks for the interesting conversation :) Hope we can have more in the future!
You are based!
@@xaviersgiantego1453 I've recently learnt that's good. Thanks :)
@queerdo As I've replied elsewhere, your assertions that I have somehow been intellectual dishonest or spread misinformation (as this comment states) are demonstrably false. It seems your only/main gripe is my statement that complete and consistent axiomatic systems do exist is false. The statement is true; they do exist, and I've given you examples. I continue to encourage you to read about self-verifying theories, for example, rather than remaining in an argumentative and antagonistic stance. That won't get you anywhere.
Maan, we got ourselves a wholesome discussion
So satisfying, hope destiny gets more guests like Tom Burns
Cheers mate :)
@@tfburns yeah man you were awesome. I loved this conversation and thanks for being a effective communicator
@@lawrencelord9777 Thanks, mate :) Means a lot :)
I started meditating 10 minutes a day 2 years ago and it totally changed my perspective on what's ultimately knowable about ourselves. Our thoughts are so inconclusive and fleeting that it seems impossible to me that we could realistically evaluate what caused us to be the person that we are. For the most part it's most likely a story that we tell ourselves to contextualize ourselves and give us a stronger sense of self. I don't think it's particularly bad to do this and it's normal but for some people it's a real issue. Constructing your self image around certain perceived failings of yourself can be a huge detriment when it comes to living a good life.
The way I've come to see this is that we are fundamentally storytellers (which is, of course, my own narrative), to ourselves and others. As an edgy atheist teen I had a narrative that my trolling was about truth and science, but I don't think most of us really cared about either (none of us were scientists for one!), it was about validating myself as a 'very smart boi'. It's ego.
Whether your universe has a god or not, that's your narrative. Even if the theists were 'correct' that there is one, would any of their personal constructions of god actually be accurate? Seems doubtful. Maybe the atheist would argue, "well my narrative is based on scientific ideas!" Well congratulations, you're literally describing science **fiction**.
So I really dislike the idea of "objective reality", because it's yet another abstraction we assert as truth. No matter how detached you are, you can only see through human eyes and think human thoughts. If god herself handed you 'the truth' on a platter, it would still need to be processed through your monkey mind. If there is an objective reality, it could only exist outside of the observer, it could never be captured by words. That's my story anyhow :B
Dude i ran out of content at the gym and then here it is right in my feed.
@@zm5668 "and absolute sheep"
@@zm5668 damn, why so toxic
@@zm5668 Mad? :tf:
You too listen to this stuff at the gym? Nice👌
@@zm5668 Get yourself a nice therapist, maybe take a break, and stop taking out your life frustrations in youtube comments 👍
Destiny you should have a conversation with CosmicSkeptic about his view on a workable definition of objective ethics, and/or his philosophical take on veganism!
Perspective Philosophy, as well, great for objective ethics.
@Tariq Nasheed WH OMEGALUL
@Tariq Nasheed Because these clowns can barely argue.
Debating them one-after-another creates the illusion of being a great debater.
I guess it’s wise career-wise as a charlatan, but objectively it’s kind of silly.
@@Avenger222 already happened. Eventually it just hits a roadblock where the only way Destiny could understand PP's reasoning is if he reads a book about the topic
I would love to see destiny talk to cosmic skeptic
The teleportaion thing is just the "Ship of Theseus" question for modern day. This is one of the oldest concepts in the entirety of philosophy.
All comes down to your definition of "same"
As far as I'm concerned, "you" is a collection of your memories/experiences and your own mind, memories aside. So if you teleport and your body is destroyed, "you" in the new place is the same as "you" before you teleported. They are the same person. If your body isn't destroyed, then "you" in the _place_ where you teleported is not the same person as the "you" that was recreated somewhere else, _however_ you are both the same person as the person who was teleported. Or at least a continuation of those memories. I suppose you could make the argument that every second you are a new person, but I think that doesn't really answer the philosophical question. It's a cop-out. Instead, I think you are always your past self, today. But that doesn't mean that two diverging today's are the same.
@@albertjohnston1026 in other words, if you were to teleport, you'd instantly die. Just because the atoms were to rearrange into what you'd consider to be "you", doesn't mean that your current consciousnesses wouldn't end.
Consciousness, I mean. YOU'D be dead. However, "you" could continue living. Insofar as you'd do the same things you've always done, but you'd be dissipated atoms.
Dissipated atoms are just dust. Yous be dust.
18:03 the "destiny's dog" argument, to go with "schrodinger's cat"
I actually came up with a very similar thought experiment when I was younger. If there was a perfectly symmetrical room and you placed a person on one side of the room and a perfect clone of that person on the other side, would either be able to get to the other side of the room?
Remember when destiny was a small politics streamer. Today he’s the largest drama streamer I’ve ever heard of.
Yeah..,
Honestly it'd be nice if Tom Burns interacted with Destiny more often, I think these convos are super enjoyable to listen to.
This was one of the best convos destiny has had imo
Really illustrates how he stops being philosophical about stuff when it makes him upset lol. Also how he approaches asking about things he knows nothing about
physicalist psychobabble
Yeah, that Tom Burns guy is great!
@@zm5668 I love you. Have a nice day. ❤️
Destiny’s problem is he’s far too lenient and soft on the left. He knows almost every media popularised incident of police brutality is usually the “victim”’s fault but he barely mentions it
Oh this video is so good. So many things I wanna talk about.
1. The dog. It may be the case that a perfectly symmetrical "physical" brain as they exist might still have a preference for one direction, so we'll just define a new brain that treats left and right the same, regardless of what that brain might look like. That dog MUST starve if you put a bowl of food to its left and right, because what you've essentially done is glued half a dog to a mirror. It can't turn its head left, because there would be an equal impulse to turn its head right. It can't walk left because an equal impulse would move it right as well. It could walk forward and backward, but it might look strange because it would have to move both sides in the same way at the same time, but the dog would never be able to leave the plane over which it is symmetrical.
2. Teleportation. If you're recreated perfectly, you MUST be the same person, assuming your consciousness is based on your brain, a physical object whose only real properties are it's current physical state and whatever activity is going on at the moment. I hear a lot of people talk about "continuity" but I'm near positive it's a circular argument. They say teleportation isn't continuous, why? Because you're instantaneously moving from one place to another. You do that when walking. The distance is smaller, but from one infinitesimal moment to the next, your location is different. That's what movement IS. But teleportation is discontinuous. Why? Because it's teleportation. There's really nothing in principle different between instant, perfect teleportation, and regular movement.
3. The broken teleporter. At the moment of teleportation, you and your copy have the same brain, the same atomic structure, the same brain activity, the same sensation necessarily, because your brains are identical. So for that moment, I'm almost certain that your consciousness would HAVE to be in both brains at the same time. Now, as the two brains in different locations will diverge because two objects in different environments will change according to those environments. What happens to your consciousness then? Does it continue to live between two brains? Does it stay in one and only one? Which one? What happens to the other brain? Is a new consciousness born? The dark room is identical to this question. If a perfect replica of you is made, your consciousness is almost certainly in both brains at the same time, until they are given different environments in which they diverge. This problem cannot have an answer until the hard problem of consciousness is solved. There is some physical correspondence between physical matter and subjective sensation, and no one knows what it is yet. Some constructions of matter create a consciousness, which is FUCKING WILD.
4. Do our senses correspond to a physical reality? It seems like they must. In order for us to exist, our senses had to have been close enough to reality to allow reproduction. But that's assuming evolution is true, which we only know through science, and knowledge based on evidence can only be conceptualized into knowledge through a conscious experience, so maybe our senses aren't indicative of reality. We might all be brains in vats, but there's know way of knowing. In order to do anything, you have to trust your senses, which is an unsatisfying answer, but it seems to be the only answer, at least for now.
5. AI. We're throwing HUGE amounts of data at neural networks, and getting data out. We might have already created a conscious being in all those 1s and 0s already, and we would never know until it tries to talk to us. A conscious experience only seems to require certain matter moving in certain ways, and a transistor moving electrons looks a lot like a neuron moving sodium and potassium ions. There's no way of knowing what is or isn't conscious, and that's kinda terrifying.
6. Math. Any self-consistent set of axioms is "true" but it doesn't necessarily correspond to reality. You can say 2+2=3, as long as you're consistent, it's just in the physical world, when we group 2 things with 2 things, it seems like we get 4 things. So math is definitely true as long as we call true to be non-contradictory, which is what self-consistency is, but its truth in relation to reality can only be continually verified until it's proven wrong. That may never happen, but it seems like the only way to know if math is right or not.
Bonus meme: What if the circular argument is the proof of logic? Logic is true because logic is true. That seems like the only way to verify logic with logic. Even if you talk about correspondence with reality, it's still circular. Why is logic true? Because it looks like it corresponds with reality. How do we know it corresponds with reality? Because we use our perceptions and logic to look at reality, and it looks like it's true. Either way, logic proves itself circularly, which makes sense, because it's proving ITSELF. The circular argument is the proof of logic. If anyone tries to pull a circular argument on you, show them that it's a proof of logic and nothing else. Ex. Destiny's one argument with that creationist. "I believe in god because he gave me reason to believe in him." "How do you know he did that?" "Because of the reason he gave to me." All he did there was establish that logic is true, and the rest depends on evidence that god gave him reason. The circular argument is only an affirmation of logic itself, and nothing else. The circular argument is what the rest of logic is built upon, and the sooner we accept that, the sooner we can move on to more important things.
You think 2 + 2 = 4 is something we know a posteriori? Like we have to verify it empirically until proven otherwise? And that it is true purely in the sense that it is self-consistent and not that it corresponds with reality? I disagree. I think 2 + 2 = 4 is a tautology, so it’s necessarily true, I think numbers are defined largely by their relations to other numbers, so like 2 is defined as twice of 1, half of 4, a third of 6, etc. When you phrase it that way, it seems obvious that half of 4 + half of 4 = 4, or 2 + 2 = twice of 2. You don’t need to go verify this empirically, and this can never be falsified unless you equivocate on the definitions of these numbers, because again, they’re tautologically true. You’d have to hold a contradiction or an equivocation to try and falsify this empirically. It reminds me of when people said Quantum Mechanics violated the Law of Noncontradiction.
@@viva8304 I mean, if we could conceive of numbers and their properties a priori, we could say that 2+2=4, but who's to say that numbers act that way? The only reason that we have such confidence in the fact that 2+2=4 is because in the physical world when we group things like that we conserve numerosity. Of course 2+2=4, because by our definition, that's what addition means. But what do you say to the drug-addled person who perceives that 2+2=5? To that person, the physical reality of the matter is different and is equally convinced that 2+2 can equal 5 a priori. I'm not sure the concept of numbers would even exist of we didn't exist in a physical world like this one. If we had no senses, how would we invent numbers, and if we could, would they have the same properties as "physical numbers"? As long as the logic is self-consistent, you will be convinced it's true. It's only through our senses, through evidence, that we can be so sure in our math, because part of our definition of truth deals with an idea's correspondence with reality.
@queerdo Does he? Usually it seems like he acknowledges he's out of his depth for anything past Russell's Paradox. It's pretty apparent he doesn't know about set theory, just that naive set theory was suseptible to contradictions.
@queerdo I do remember him saying that thing about naive set theory, now that you mention it.
I get that some paradoxes don't necessarily entail contradictions, but my impression was that Russell's Paradox showed a direct contradiction in the Comprehension Aciom with itself.
@@joj1758 Like I said, if you conceive of two plus two equalling anything else but four, you must be equivocating or else you're contradicting yourself. But it is literally impossible to conceive of 2 + 2 = 5 because it's a contradiction, you have to be equivocating on either 2, +, =, or 5. And drugs don't make people perceive contradictions. They're likely also equivocating and so they perceive the illusion of a contradiction where there isn't one. Also, you're presupposing that numbers are invented as opposed to discovered. If numbers exist objectively and abstractly then they aren't contingent on our minds or the material world. I also don't understand why you're so confident we derive certainty from experience when certainty is the kind of thing we derive through deductive logic which math is a type of. Also, I don't know what you mean by "physical numbers."
BTW Destiny(and fans) , I study math in Uni right now
And even my professors admitted that if you dig deep enough everything ultimately boils down to intuition
So even math ia not immune
True. And at that intuitive level we just set up axioms and say "these are true" based on intuition/shared belief.
It's kind of painful that a lot of these philosophical questions just can't have answers by default. I used to think about a lot of these types of things until I just had to surrender to chaos. You have to just assume truth exists and our perceptions can be trusted.
@@zm5668 My point is that no amount of knowledge can ever provide a complete answer about the basic building blocks of our existence. At least, far as I can tell, you can't determine the causality of consciousness. Furthermore, your sensory organs can be deceived by even simple tricks, how can you trust them then?
You have to assume you're a trustworthy narrator of your experience.
wait why do you have to assume truth exists or our perception is valid if our sensory organs can be tricked? maybe i’m misunderstanding the core of your argument, so forgive me if i’m missing something.
@@Oblivlawls well, yes. but there are no complete answers for anything. you can read philosophy to see interesting perspectives
@@MIRACLECHEEZ Yeah, apologies for being unclear. Essentially, if you can't trust any part of your perception, you have two choices: solipsism, or materialism. Solipsistic thought is deeply unhelpful. If you want to live a life that gives you some sense of achievement, you choose believing yourself in spite of the lack of evidence.
@@98danielray Agreed, I'm just lamenting.
I don't trust any commentator who isn't willing to debate their positions. A knight with shining armor is one who's never been tested
Honestly for a long while I've thought that people just put way too much emphasis on labels in regards to identity, the only reason they're useful is for quickly describing your identity/preferences in a concise way. It's a label for easily understanding YOUR identity, but so many people seem to cling or try and accomodate themselves into a label rather than just being themselves and using labels as these quick descriptions of themself.
First people usually have many labels. Second there is no understanding without a label. If you can't name something, do you understand it? Do you have an image of it?
Labels are useful tools but we must remember that they are constructs. We invent labels to use it to describe reality. We need to be more willing to update our labels as we learn more.
@@devalapar7878 Ya need to re-read what I said, never said anyone is defined by/chooses a single label and I never said labels existing is bad. Also you can understand things without labels you just describe them instead but it'd be a pain in the ass if we had to do that all the time.
@@jackjones7062 Maybe, my mistake, sorry.
YES FINALLY! I’ve always wanted to hear Destiny’s take on teleportation. No sarcasm
It's a great spell to scout the map and find the boss
This blew my mind like my own thoughts that sometimes bring me to an alienated feeling from everything.
Destiny... thats a woooomans name
You were raised by your daaaady and maaama!
that makes you half man and half wooooman
BEYTA
@@karimshebeika8010 you are a beta
Do you love black people?
Feed into my Right!
!Right feed my into
Without going into spoilers, if you like the philosophy discussion starting at 20:44, you should definitely watch The Prestige. In addition to being damn good entertainment, it also dramatizes this quandary in pretty disconcerting ways for people who take the time to think deeply about it.
Oh, yea! I totally forgot about that movie/book. I would guess they heard about the thought experiment and were inspired by it.
Possibly so, though I give it about 50/50 that they were just fans of Star Trek!
@@OMGclueless haha true!!
In this talk about P-Values of 5% or 1/20. That threshold is for thinkings something is true. But, the oposite of that isn't that it's false, it's that we don't know. People are really uncomfortable with saying I don't know. We want something to be true or false but, P-Values are basically, likely true or don't know. They don't give you "false", they only give you "the data isn't strong enough to make a conclusion".
True. Although I think we still over-rely on them and should recognise better that most users of it have set the threshold arbitrarily.
welcome to the "everything is perspective" level, destiny. this is like, the blackpill of all blackpills
"Do you know what Harry Potter is?" really made me laugh
The fact Destiny asked that in a way that made it seem like it's a niche title that only some people have heard of made me pause for a second
I just watched a game on pause for 50 minutes while 2 nerds talked. What is my existence?
Yo, stop with the 2-minute previews. I don't need to see what's "Coming up". I clicked on the video. I'm obviously interested. You don't have to try to rope me in anymore
“Life is chaos”
- Joker
If life is chaos, how do "you get what you [bleep]ing deserve"? Doesn't receiving something you "deserve" imply a minimal amount of order and causation?
"Edgy"
-me
Also destiny what you are thinking about with the concept of only interacting with the percieved reality in your brain is exactly what Emmanuel Kant put forward in the critique of pure reason, I believe. The concept of the phenomenal which is our sensory experience, and the numenoul world that exists beyond the world that we are interacting with in our own head.
I can't get over destiny asking if he knows what Harry Potter is..
I have had the dog idea but for two mirror people meeting in a symmetrical hallway.
You know the weird thing you do sometimes when you meet someone and you try to go left but they move in the same direction and it's awkward
It would be the same but you could never go past. It's like trying to touch a mirror on a part that isn't reflecting you.
Actually you would pass by each other naturally. If you both went right you would pass by one another. His right being your left.
Fun thought though.
@@Rawrbagels That was what I was trying to avoid by calling them mirror people instead of clones.
@@Oskar1000 then you agree to go the same direction. Are you mutes now too? Not really that difficult. You both agree to go right. Unless you are saying they are like bizzaro backwards people too. Like they say "left" when you say right so communication is impossible.
Then you could sleep. Sleep in front of one another. That would at least answer some questions about sleep and the nature of it. If much of it is truly random then you would wake up in different enough positions to move by. Take all consciousness out of it. Then you might be able to answer some questions in this impossible scenario. If its a magic mirror you that mimics, mirrored, what you do no matter what, then of course you can't get by. But you have to strip the situation into such a impossible hypothetical that I don't believe you have anything useful.
Then I have to ask: what question are you trying to answer? If you are just trying to make an impossible task there are 1 million ways to do that that are a lot less complicated.
For example in your question: Can you get by? Because certain variables are unknowable the answer is "maybe" and has no apparent philosophy behind it. The dog question isn't "which bowl will it choose?" its "will it choose a bowl?".
Or the ship of Theseus; its jot "will the ship function?" Its "is it the same ship?"
Concerned with philosophy not mechanics.
@@Rawrbagels Yes is the answer, they would have learned that left is your right and vice versa. Of course, if we bring in some randomness it solves the situation.
Sure, the question can be. Would they get past eachother. Without indeterminism or asymmetrical flaws it seems the answer is no.
I'm just doing pop philosophy in this comment thread. I think it's fun
@@Oskar1000 I mean to point out that "will they get past each other?" I don't believe has a philosophical purpose to it. Not that I can see. Based on the constraints the answer isn't based in perception but in basic logic. I think its close to a philosophical question, I think its just missing the right question.
Tom we love you
More discussions on philosophy and the mind pls ❤️
Thank you
For Destiny's hypothetical, I think neurons aren't just normal physiological processes. They have to do with the nature of consciousness. Without random firing neurons, you may have stripped the dog of consciousness.
Great, wholesome discussion. Had it running while I gamed, super thoughtful and relaxing
Glad to hear :)
what were you playing?
Yoo what were you playing?
(I'm desperately looking for games to play while listening to discussions)
@@janold0808try vampire survivors
you don't have to think much there
As someone who goes through the same existential/solipsistic struggle, I appreciate this conversation and it’s good to know someone else’s head is in a similar state as mine. Love these discussions Destiny. I’d love to hear more about your experiences with Psychedelics and how they’ve thrown you into some of your beliefs. I had a crazy mushroom trip 5+ years ago that destroyed my entire outlook on reality and it still influences me to this day. What I thought was incredibly spiritual and mystical eventually lead me down the philosophical rabbit hole of unsatisfactory answers and a million more questions.
Destiny dreams in ethical conundrums. Every time this man goes to sleep he’s presented with a newly generated fable.
Destiny shits all over Jordan Peterson, but these are some of the same issues that he is working through/with as well.
ABSOLUTELY right
Fucking lol it’s unbelievably ironic isn’t it?
That's exactly what I was thinking!
That convo was great
Thanks, Destiny is a great conversation partner :)
I love these philosophy conversations
@@zm5668 read much Hegel fam?
@@zm5668 look at you, intellectual Gatekeeper of the interwebs
Me too :)
With the strides made by GPT-3, and the development of GPT-Neo, we're a matter of a couple decades at most I'm sure. I would venture to guess within the next ten years there will be AI so convincing the question of their personhood and rights will have to be determined with more nuance than "it can't feel, because it's a machine." But, hey, we enslaved humans well past the industrial revolution. I just hope they don't revolt if that becomes the case.
Is passing some form of the Turing test enough for us to be satisfied consciousness exists?
@@tfburns I would need extended passing honestly. Lot of false positives if you just call it when you think its passed.
@@MikkiPike What do you think of some of the argued limits of the Turing Test, e.g. 'Subcognition and the Limits of the Turing Test' by Robert French?
@@tfburns sorry to do this, but I'm useless when it comes to reading papers like this I need both audio book and text in front of me to keep my focus. Lectures are better. From what I scanned though it just seems like they're advocating for "Turing test but better and its not called a Turing Test", is that right?
If so, I'm sure there are loads of parameters in a conscious mind that would be extremely useful when testing the ability of a machine to output.
Sorry if I'm missing something.
@@MikkiPike That's okay! Maybe I'll just have to do a video on it since it is an interesting question ;)
I think your understanding is basically correct :) And yea, there are so many parameters to potentially test and measure in connection with consciousness.
classic case of ' the more you know, the more you realize how much you dont know'
it feels wrong to say that sleeping is a break from consciousness. you may not remember the time spent sleeping but your brain doesn’t just shut off, it’s still active and thus continues your conscious-experience. there just is a fundamental difference between sleep and teleportation, it seems like a weird comparison to make. imma have to disagree with the premise on this one.
The difference is that with the teleporter, you would know for a fact that you die and are cloned when you get teleported. On the other hand, I don't think we have any reason to believe we die every time we go to sleep. If we did believe that, then that would mean we are just hours old clones and we would probably do everything in our power to avoid sleeping.
I disagree with destiny on a lot of positions, but this discussion spot on captures how I view reality
22:00 the video game SOMA is basically entirely about this
And its great
Yeah was gonna comment this, Steven might enjoy a playthrough--or at least watching the scenes that engage with these concepts.
This was the most interesting video I've ever listened to, and ive listened to a lot of destiny talks
Sam Harris often talks about this topic and related ones on his podcast and in his meditation app (you can get both for free if you send an email to support@ wakingup.org or samharris.org)
The answer to his symmetrical dog thing is yes, it would stay there. But only because that has to be the answer. It's like asking, if you perfectly balance a coin on the thinnest rope in existence will it fall to one side or the other, or will it stay balanced. Well if it's perfectly balanced then it won't fall. If it's not perfectly balanced then it will fall according to the external thing that made it fall.
Destiny was overwhelmed in this conversation.
Free will seems to operate as either a mass delusion of the human mind, and it is a belief that is so strong we manifest it into reality, or free will actually exists
True. Lots of evidence that free will doesn't exist, though. I guess it's more likely to be a delusion, but I'm sure we all know that deep down. Well, I think more intelligent people know that.
@@godsrevolver9737 I have a theory that it has something to do with quantum mechanics, tbh. My first intuition is looking at the reaction of some people who become aware that someone is trying to predict their behavior. The mere act of attempting to predict the behavior locks it into a different state. That seems to be a Similar function of quantum states and superposition based on probability of a range, rather than definite causation.
@@godsrevolver9737 so, if our brains have a connection to quantum states, then it allows for a range and we are subconsciously interacting with quantum states and quite literally manifesting probability out of our own minds, there for we are making unconcious decisions, but our previous actions eliminated possible quantum states, and the branches are limited choices, but still driven by human interaction.
@@jedismasher I believe the knowledge that someone is trying to predict your behavior would be the cause in that situation. As far as quantum mechanics go, I'm not too sure about how it would give us free will. Interesting ideas, though. I personally don't think it matters if we have free will or not, anyway. If we don't, it'd be cause for justice system reform, but we probably wouldn't act any differently.
@@jedismasher would you say you agree with Dan Dennett?
heya, pansexual here, I wouldn’t consider myself a hardcore leftist though, the main difference between bisexuality and pansexuality is the application of gender in the way you experience attraction; so even if you have certain feminine and certain masculine traits you like, if you aren’t necessarily marrying those expressions and preferences to gender, pansexual probably describes you better
I feel like pansexuality got such a bad name, to generalize it, because of the whole “hearts not parts” meme, which was pretty popular back in the day, and very dumb lol, there are even niche communities of bisexual and other lgbt+ communities that consider pansexuality biphobic, so it’s a WEIRD rabbit hole
Did not read, nobody cares
@@paulroy2645 rude didn’t ask, plus. you’re white
Good convo
Thanks :) Destiny is a great conversation partner
Not making a choice/decision is still making a choice/decision!
Brings me back to my grad-level meta-physics class.
Sorry, should have had a trigger warning :(
ToMMMMMmmmmmMMmmmmm Burns
Hello :)
AI, neuroscience and philosophy altogether seems to overqualify a phd student
Damning, but true 😂 Luckily for my PhD I just have to focus on one part of that intersection
@@tfburns what I mean by that is that is a weird description even for a phd. they are probably in only one of those areas and have interest in the others
by they I meant you. which part is it, btw?
@@98danielray Technically my degree will just say "PhD in Science" because of the way my university does things. But in practice my thesis is in a field called computational neuroscience, which has influence on areas like neuroscience and AI, and even a little of philosophy/cognitive science. In practice I say I'm a "PhD student interested in neuroscience, AI, and philosophy" and actively read/write/think about all three of those topics.
@@tfburns you clearly think about these topics and I appreciate you for telling me about it. Your classes seem to be very comprehensible and watchable as well. Ive been meaning to start some of these for higher mathematics in a bit. When you say computational neuroscience, what branch of it do you refer to? and what do you specifically intend to do, as in what kind of computational modelling?
I think it's time for Destiny to dig into idealism. Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup, etc. I think their views would blow his mind.
Things do cause things, but it's usually not what people usually say it is.
Girls pick one thing and boys another because of a cocktail of biology, childhood experience, trauma, interest, parental influence, peer influence, religion etc.
It's never one thing, it's always a mix, though one or two things may stick out
My brain cannot comprehend multiple reasons. Pick one and put all the blame on it.
@@anubis7457 Uh, based
Except it is just your own bias that ends at there. You can take it a step farther and ask what caused the biology and experience. Ultimately you end up at the unexplainable origins of the universe (at least from a scientific point of view). It is baseless. You're just making shit up. "causation" LOL
I love this, after reading Sean Carroll's book The Big Picture I started to think about what we know and what we can know. More I think the less satisfying answers I get but I feel it's still important to do it.
Tom is such great guy❤️
Aww, thanks
@@tfburns ok so i just subbed to your channel and watched the ethics playlist.
Short and concise.
As you said when Steven asked:
“What is virtue ethics”
Tom:”it’s the best”
😂it is tho🙏🏻
This conversation has concepts as weird as videos on boob painting - it's hard to know why.
Thanks?
I work at a factory. It takes 7 engineers to not fix an issue at a spot welder. I'd rather not live long enough to see teleportation.
I’ve had this same thought. Another one is consciousness uploading/ cybernetic augments. Things that sound cool on the surface but after deeper thought arise potential unimaginable suffering.
I think the copy/cloning version of the teleportation argument is the most interesting twist on the idea of personal identity. It seems reasonable to think that conscious experience would go on after teleportation just like it does after sleeping. But what happens when a copy is made? Which one is "you"? Or rather, which one does "your" conscious experience follow? Presumably you can't be both.
Yes, I was also thinking about that... It's probably just inaccessible to us but intuitively I think I would say that "my" consciousness would just be duplicated.
And by that logic, I also wouldn't equate sleeping to teleportation because with teleportation the "original" conscious experience would stop and the copied one would begin.
This seems somewhat different to sleeping which I would more so regard as a transfer of consciousness.
From a quantum perspective you can't copy, perfectly, any system. So to teleport you'd need to create a superposition of you in your original location, and some entangled system in the target location, and until observed you would exist in both locations at once, with no net change in total information, which translates to: your "originality" is never compromised and thus there is no transfer.
In terms of the teleporter question, I feel like the consciousness of the original being is ended and a new one begins, but to outside observers and the new being, it is indistinguishable. The only one who could tell or provide the context is the original being, who is essentially killed in the process. So it doesn't actually change anything that would appear to matter in practice, but I still feel uncomfortable with the concept. In any way that you can delineate that original being and its consciousness, it has been murdered. That being has stopped existing and a perfect copy of it has taken its place while fully thinking it is still the original being.
I wish I could find some kind of analogy, like a fax machine or something. Its transmitting the information written on the sheet but the foundational paper is different at the other end. If you consider the writing to be the human information and the individual sheets of paper to be "consciousness". It just doesn't seem ethical to do to humans. But its hard to explain why.
I just think if justice was in the mix, for example, it sort of helps clarify my thoughts. Like if we could hypothetically clone Hitler or Jeffery Epstein or some high profile figure who is not facing perceived, necessary justice before they were no longer alive. And this cloning method was basically like the end point of the teleporter, physically recreating the person, implanting the memories and leaving them believing they were that person, at that point, after recreating them is it right to make them face the punishment of the original? Doesn't that seem performative or vindictive, or just pointless in a way? Its not the same being. Its one we have created in its image, as precisely as it needs to be in any way we can measure. We put the memories of the crimes in its head. But is it just to punish it? I'd say no for the same reason its not the "same" being coming out of the other end of a teleporter, and the reason I am uncomfortable with the concept. A teleporter as its envisioned in this scenario is essentially at the exit, a human 3D printer, and at the entrance a highly sophisticated and completely comprehensive human scanner/suicide booth.
Love me some philosophy 101 thought experiment discussion.
New drinking game - drink every time Destiny days ‘Hardline Determinist’ in a conversation
11:41 Does it tho? Hume would argue that we only infer that some things are caused by other things, because we are conditioned from birth that this is the way the world works. Recently there was some psych experiments that argue that the "feeling" of cause and effect is in us from birth, but this still doesn't prove from epistemic pov that we are not just reinterpetting the world in evolutionary schema we understand (in other words: We see the world not as it is, but because we can't see it in any other way).
Also you don't think about moving your arm and then you move it. Modern Neuroscience says that the thought of the arm moving happens after the neural impulse that moves the arm, so the brain moves the arm and then creates the thought "I will move my arm now".
I still believe that determinism is "more correct" , but I acknowledge that there are more things going on under the surface that we can't possibly imagine as long we are human.
I agree. I think we were both just engaging in some form of pragmatism (as I think basically everyone does) on the question.
On a technical point regarding causing your arm to move by thought, I think you might be conflating "conscious access to intention" with "intention". Ultimately the experiments you're referring to raised a lot of questions as to what our definitions of "intention", "consciousness", "thought", and "causation" should be. I suspect you might really enjoy this related paper: DOI:10.1111/phib.12135
I just want to note, Western society is stricter on masculine identity than feminine identity. Non-binary is far more prevalent among females than males.
I hope you mention somewhere in here that the teleportation and sleep thoughts you mention in the intro are a Stephen King short story called "The Jaunt" lol.
Wait though, if a perfect copy is made of yourself there are at that instant two versions of an identical being, but from the moment the copy is made they are both unique - one can choose to have a glass of water and the other can go to sleep. One is still going to be the original, although it would be difficult for either to figure out which is which. So, if the original is destroyed during teleportation, the question of whether or not you would 'know' anything afterwards is moot, as you would be dead and know nothing. A copy of you would exist who would believe themselves to be the original, but they would not be. This would be a distinct consciousness with identical memories to the original up to the point of teleportation.
Even if both were alive, they would still be unique precisely after the instant of copying because the atoms making them up would be different in terms of a variety of factors like rotation and vibration of the nucleus. For it to be an exact copy, it would have to all appear, as a copy, instantaneously because if there was time taken in making the copy, the atoms would not be the same by the end of the copy process. Atomically speaking of course. I guess you would have to copy into a vacuum also, as the sudden appearance of matter would be instant displacement of the air, maybe you would flash fry a copy? Ahh sheeeeiit....I have no idea lol
Interesting stuff though, regardless.
@@DrWhosmate True! It's a bit like saying, 'would you be happy to die if we could create a clone of yourself and your memories who would believe themselves to be you up to the moment of your destruction?' No ta!
Schrödinger's shadow clone
We’re a very immature species (in the sense that we’re young more than that we’re dumb).
As far a we can tell hominid species have tended to last about 800,000 years on average, and we’ve been around for about 200,000 years in our anatomically modern state, and for *way* less time in our behaviourally modern state.
If we compare those 800,000 years roughly to an 80 year human lifespan, we’re the equivalent of someone in their early 20s who just started thinking about things like religion and ethics about six months ago.
Maybe it’s not surprising or depressing that we’ve been stuck on most of the same problems for 2000 years. It could just be that because of where we’ve been born we’re condemned to be the ones who spend their time running around a dark room bumping into stuff
Growing leftist newborns into major boss fights has changed my psychology fundamentally.
The question of the dog at 20:30 is pointless, and rather the acceptance that the situation is an impossibility in your reality is more useful than an answer.
As humans, we are designed to accept the idea of irrationality because it is fundamental. To reiterate, the cause of our bodies being designed to accept irrationality, is because of the fundamentals of the reality it was created in.
Thus, continuing off of this we can gander that, if we remove this fundamental irrationality, or randomness from reality, we get either nothing, or something.
Nothing, being that reality was never designed, or something, being that reality was designed, wherein everything was chosen (explicitly).
To end off, realize that we have simply split the idea of randomness into two parts rather than removing it. Now realize that this is equivalent to randomness.
So, like I said at the beginning: When you realize and accept that reality is random, is when you can begin accounting for it, which is more useful than whining about how much thinking sucks.
Final fun thoughts: Humans were born in a random reality because randomness can be the cause of predictability. This wave of predictability lives through humans in the form of their structure, yet their behavior is constricted due to fundamental randomness. Luckily, though, because the wave of predictability was large enough, there are other humans, other predictable features which can cling on to each other, continuing to propagate the wave through time. I like to think this is the point of life. You can also expand this to morality if you'd like.
Nice discussion Tom ;)
While I don't believe there's free will from a deterministic perspective, I would argue there are times when our options vary. A person living in the wilderness for example, would have far less options of what food to eat than someone living in the city right next to all the foodstores and restaurants.
Teleporting would be no different from going to sleep and waking up for the person who appears on the other side. For the original it would be like going to sleep and never walking up.
Destiny? That’s what it feels like watching this video on 4/20
Oh shiiii. Good day to watch it :)
how much drugs should i take for this convo
None or a lot.
For me, personally, I would hope that even if the original me is destroyed, my conscious experience is carried over. I don't much care for my physical body being de-atomized and then recreated as long as my conscious experience is carried over, like if it WAS similar to simply falling asleep, like I am conscious and then that experience is temporarily suspended and then reactivated when my body is recreated
I had a dream about three years ago. I live with my brother, and we have separate jobs. I am the one who owns a car, and I picked him up when he got off work during that time. One day, I go to pick him up, and the car stalls at an intersection in this neighborhood behind a gas station and some corner stores. Now, this previous car I owned had issues with wiring that required me to pop the hood and fiddle with the wires connecting to the battery.
Before I get out the car, a man is riding frantically on his bike; the man rushes past us, but he falls. Then, an angular "thing" flies and whirls at him. It's like a Langolier, if you are familiar with Stephen King's material. It chews on the man, but while there is blood and gore, the man appears to fade like pixels drifting into nothing.
My brother and I ditch the car, because we do not want to try to start it up and lure the thing to us. The world turns up on its head with these things flying everywhere, reality failing, laws of physics changing or stopping, and people getting powers like something out World of Darkness, Bleach, or YuYu Hakusho.
Without going too much further into depth, the world gets destroy, or "eaten" by these things, but it can be "restored" by a sample few people in which I am stuck beside. So, we do, but this whatever higher consciousness being states no-one will have a soul and that we will be the only ones who do for possibly some time. We will be the only true humans until the cycle of life restores itself.
So, I wake up. I go to pick up my brother. The car stalls on the same street. The same man rides on his bike, more leisurely. I ask my brother if he remembers anything. He says, "I... think." I tell him not to worry about it, and we go home.
I brought up the story mainly as my own personal worries with "What if, world not real, what if, everything an illusion, etc."
Sounds trippy
I want to teleport ........3 hours every class day to and from uni has such a toll to my mental
I hope you have more talks like this in the future.
Destiny, that’s a non binary name
WOW. Based.
I really don't understand your obsession with the conscious while ignoring the unconcious and subconscious, because both are part of you and all 3 affect each other
Saying that mathematics is considered to do the thing that we want it to do kind of misses the point that the thing we want it to do is model reality. It's a tool like a hammer or a drill. The way it's made is purely functional.
This was a very good vid. I really enjoyed this. No /s.
Thanks, me too :) Destiny is great to have a bit of banter and chat with.
In Applied Math and Engineering the complexity of coupled systems is the bread and butter of Chaos Dynamics. It's the difference between modeling an apple falling vs multiple predator-prey relationships in an ecosystem while taking flora distribution and density into account
Edit: Video/debate on artificial wombs?
18:00 the example doesn’t work. The dogs brain cannot be symmetrical, therefore there will always be a bias. All things being equal besides the brain, the difference in the brain is enough for action to occur.
WHERE ARE THE TIMESTAMPS?! I LOVED THOSE.
I think one of the problems with gender identity is that it assumes people are far more interested in a persons thoughts and feelings than they actually are. We generally wouldn't invest this sort of effort into figuring out the gender of a cat. Gender identity can significantly increase the difficulty of interacting with a person you will probably never meet again.
I think the dog question is one where you can cheat with quantum mechanics. It's actually extremely similair to the Stern- Gerlach experiment, where you do actually have a perfectly symmetrical electron that can go either up or down. It goes up 50% of the time and down 50% of the time.
Since the dog is defined as "perfectly symmetrical", this extends to the quantum realm, and his choice would be determined by how atoms in his brain move - in this case, the Stern-Gerlach experiment tells us that the atoms would move randomally with a 50% chance of either alignment, and the dog would have a 50% chance of choosing either the right or left bowl.
14:09 interesting point, and I'd actually say yes no one is truly at fault for what they do, but fault is a vague human emotion stemming from the need or want to revenge. It's there to punish bad behavior in a time where things were very uncertain and you needed people to be emotionally invested to do something. Nowadays we can more or less look at something that causes harm and prevent it from happening. I feel like it's also a mechanism to make people feel like they're inherently bad, cuz society is actually kept healthy and regulated by criminals to an extent because they're there to highlight weaknesses in our system
I don't understand about the teleportation. If we take for granted that we exist within our minds, life as you know it would be snuffed out, you'd be gone, everything would be black. Why would you ever consider teleporting yourself man??
Doesn't matter if the clone is an exact copy, memory and all, you would not be that clone.
I mean, I´m pretty sure the brain doesnt just stop when you sleep. If that was the case people wouldn´t dream.
What about during dreamless sleep? Maybe interesting for you to read: DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.09.006
Man stuff like this is a nice change of pace. Great video.
25:00 is not really true. Say you step into the room and the entrance of the room aligns perfectly with the entrance of the cloning machine, you walk straight ahead to enter the clone machine. The machine makes a clone and the body materializes in the machines' 2nd chamber, which is located 2 meters to your right, you turn 180 degrees and walk straight out of the room again. Your clone has the same experiences, so in their mind they entered the room and moved straight ahead into the clone machine, they turn around 180 degrees and walk straight out, but they bump into the wall instead of finding the exit. Your clone has a black eye and you can tell he's the clone because of that. This type of distinction can be extrapolated to all mass-carrying matter due to the Pauli exclusion principle. It is not the same case for massless particles though.
I am so fucking glad I’m not the only one who thinks about this stuff
It’s haunting but so much fun to explore
I thought this video would be about all the Destiny clones and clones of clones that have popped up these last couple of years.
I think the avoidance of suffering is the basis for every moral agent, and ethics as a whole. There are objective answers to find about how well suffering can be avoided by individuals, and across experience as a whole. Every epistemological framework we imagine are attempts to live by uniform rules to reduce suffering by the greatest amount.
I largely agree :)