zweiterversuch wrote:Normal people usually doesn't give up on it but we, forum members do.
Message wrote:zweiterversuch wrote:Normal people usually doesn't give up on it but we, forum members do.
I most certainly do not give up my body when I'm just talking online... Seriously man, lighten up.
Zensunni wrote:Besides there's ockham's razor -
1st question- no..we cant give up our body..its the freedom in forums to use any name you want..changing your name, your facade, doesnt change who you really are inside.
2nd question- somehow, same explaination with question 1..you can change your looks and bodies but personality stays..whats inside that matters.
3rd question- uhh...net is not reality?this is very general i guess..what is the boundary of reality?for me, i define reality as something which have importance in our daily life..online games=not reality..the net can be a reality depending on how you interpret it to be..this question is too 'open' for me.. Rolling Eyes
4th question- hmm..different people treat their created facades differently..some can just cast it away, while some cling to it..not all see their virtual character as something that can just be eliminated.
that one guy wrote:Ockhams Razor, if I spelled that correctly, is the idea that if two ideas are very similar, the simpler one is correct/best.
if somebody really near to you happened to kill his body and somehow save his councious self by putting it in a computer or whatever. Would that dearest person still be the same person for you?
yeah...I suppose it is really to open...but hey! that is what is nice about it! I die to know what a computer maniac answers to this question!
so acutally we can do it because we know that "we" in a way won't lose our real bodies...
heee... it sounds a little bit cruel don't you think?
by the way I believe human race needs a body.
If I were to die and lose my body and be transfered into a robotic one or be turned into data I think I would refer myself as the "leftovers of Zwtrvrsch" or a copy of him.
I am just trying to initiate a conversation...since I learn a lot more from it than from other things.
nobaka wrote:tl;dr zweiterversuch has begun to discover dualism.
This is a fairly major concept in philosophy, namely the dualism (or lack thereof) of the mind and body. I suggest reading about it first. You still have epiphenomenalism to wade through.
wikipedia wrote:In philosophy of mind, epiphenomenalism, also known as 'Type-E Dualism' is a view according to which some or all mental states are mere epiphenomena (side-effects or by-products) of physical states of the world. Thus, epiphenomenalism denies that the mind (as in its states, not its processing) has any causal influence on the body or any other part of the physical world: while mental states are caused by physical states, mental states do not have any causal influence on physical states. Some versions of epiphenomenalism claim that all mental states are causally inert, while others claim that only some mental states are causally inert. The latter version often claims that only those types of mental states that are especially difficult to account for scientifically are epiphenomenal, such as qualitative mental states (e.g., the sensation of pain).
wikipedia wrote:Dualism denotes a state of two parts. The word's origin is the Latin duo, "two" . The term 'dualism' was originally coined to denote co-eternal binary opposition, a meaning that is preserved in metaphysical and philosophical duality discourse but has been diluted in general usage.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest