(3) certainly is impossible if identity matters, since identity is a one-one relation. Parfit though, in Reasons and Persons, has argued really convincingly for the claim that it is survival rather than identity that matters. If he is correct (I haven't offered a synopsis of his argument but, for that, you owe him a read!), then (3) would involve p2 and p3 being psychologically continuous with p1. In other words, p1 would think themselves 'inside' p2 and p3 but wouldn't be identical to either.
To clarify, in cutting a string in half, there is no substance called String that gets destroyed and two news Strings beings created, you just get two halves of a string, each made up of a number of atoms.
As for the thought experiment, there is no one central "I", just look at Ramachandran's split brain experiments. There are a lot of different meanings of the word "I" but one that is relevant is a collection of multiple different processes, some in one hemisphere, some in the other, some in both. Separating them is like cutting a string in half. Wondering how the "string-ness" gets divided is silly,you just get two different parts with different properties but there's nothing non-physical in it.
This is such a lame argument. First off I don't think that thoughts and feelings are privileged information but that, possibly within the next 10-20 years, neuroscience will be able to extract such content from the brain by examining it, it already has limited access to certain mental constructs.
(3) certainly is impossible if identity matters, since identity is a one-one relation. Parfit though, in Reasons and Persons, has argued really convincingly for the claim that it is survival rather than identity that matters. If he is correct (I haven't offered a synopsis of his argument but, for that, you owe him a read!), then (3) would involve p2 and p3 being psychologically continuous with p1. In other words, p1 would think themselves 'inside' p2 and p3 but wouldn't be identical to either.
Pfeifenmacher 1 week ago
To clarify, in cutting a string in half, there is no substance called String that gets destroyed and two news Strings beings created, you just get two halves of a string, each made up of a number of atoms.
LaserBlowFish 3 weeks ago
As for the thought experiment, there is no one central "I", just look at Ramachandran's split brain experiments. There are a lot of different meanings of the word "I" but one that is relevant is a collection of multiple different processes, some in one hemisphere, some in the other, some in both. Separating them is like cutting a string in half. Wondering how the "string-ness" gets divided is silly,you just get two different parts with different properties but there's nothing non-physical in it.
LaserBlowFish 3 weeks ago
This is such a lame argument. First off I don't think that thoughts and feelings are privileged information but that, possibly within the next 10-20 years, neuroscience will be able to extract such content from the brain by examining it, it already has limited access to certain mental constructs.
LaserBlowFish 3 weeks ago
GREAT vid, thanks!
colquest 3 weeks ago