With each passing month we are moving rapidly in the direction of developing AI, building digital twins of ourselves and the world around us, and bringing back copies of our dead in various forms.
The argument in antiquity was that even if we were in a naturally occurring world and not one with any gods involved, that as long as the continued development of life one day created the conditions by which what came before could be recreated non-physically, that we might be in that non-physical copy and just not realize it, and thus our confidence in the soul’s dependence on the body and its dying when the body does is misplaced.
At the time, people really didn’t get it.
But in our age that argument has greater plausible context with each passing month.
The document proposing this was literally called “the good news of the twin” as it saw being the copy as far more desirable than being the original whose soul would die with its body.
Okay so what I’m getting from this, is that you took a pseudoscience documentary about digital twins seriously. News Flash: they were lying about AI just like Elon Musk was lying about colonizing Mars. All we have is a glorified chatbot that’s really good at plagiarism.
Also that argument you made about Antiquity was mostly just word salad, but the parts of it I were able to interpret basically claimed that if dualism were real we would already be in the spirit world. Which is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever heard as it makes an assumption. One might call it a form of begging the question really.
Actually that argument is literally Oxford philosophy professor Nick Bostrom’s argument in his simulation hypothesis given the unitary quality to the original and multiplicity potential of copies. If there can only be one original and can be more than one copy, then as long as there can and will be copies the odds are you are in a copy.
Oh nice, keeping it up with the commitment to a patronizing tone even when your little LLM misinfo was shot down with citations.
And it’s not creationism with extra steps, it’s recreationism - the theory is creation agnostic. It doesn’t matter how the original world came to be.
And yes, I am unironically a proponent of the belief that our own universe where at micro scales things behave as if guided by continuous mechanisms until interacted with when they switch to discrete behavior (which can be reversed by erasing persistent information about the interaction) just might have something to do with the continued trajectory of our work in the past decade creating universes with billions of planets using continuous generator functions which then convert to discrete units in order to track state changes from interactions with free agents.
As for what the theory has to do with dualism, if you can’t even wrap your head around how a non-physical recreation of a physical original might pertain to the topic of materialism vs dualism, this back and forth is probably a lost cause.
Wait, now it’s my turn to wonder if you are serious?
You are really going around telling strangers on the Internet that they are mistaken about the capabilities of large language models without even knowing what LLM stands for?
Well, at very least whether serious or trolling, I appreciated the hearty chuckle.
Edit: Just to be clear - there’s never anything wrong with not knowing a thing, including what an acronym stands for. But there is something wrong with spreading BS when you don’t even know the basic things about a topic to tell what’s BS and what’s not.
Except that you now depend on the physical nature of the universe in which you reside, when it fails, the universe fails. And this universe also does not in any way guarantee your survival outside of a physical body.
Not necessarily. You depend on sustained information consistency and resiliency.
But that doesn’t necessarily need to be mass based.
For example, you could exist encoded into gravitational waves or light.
And if the information of that universe is isolated, yes, you’d be dependent on its continuation.
But there’s a number of paradigms in cosmology where that’s not the case, from Penrose or Lee Smolin’s fecund universes to if there was any kind of cross communication between Turok’s CPT symmetric universes. Even more recent work on the black hole information paradox is pointing towards recoverable information being the case were your information to be swallowed into a black hole.
So if your existence is now data based, the question of longevity is very much tied to the longevity of information and not matter, which may be quite long indeed.
Tell me moar
With each passing month we are moving rapidly in the direction of developing AI, building digital twins of ourselves and the world around us, and bringing back copies of our dead in various forms.
The argument in antiquity was that even if we were in a naturally occurring world and not one with any gods involved, that as long as the continued development of life one day created the conditions by which what came before could be recreated non-physically, that we might be in that non-physical copy and just not realize it, and thus our confidence in the soul’s dependence on the body and its dying when the body does is misplaced.
At the time, people really didn’t get it.
But in our age that argument has greater plausible context with each passing month.
The document proposing this was literally called “the good news of the twin” as it saw being the copy as far more desirable than being the original whose soul would die with its body.
Okay so what I’m getting from this, is that you took a pseudoscience documentary about digital twins seriously. News Flash: they were lying about AI just like Elon Musk was lying about colonizing Mars. All we have is a glorified chatbot that’s really good at plagiarism.
Also that argument you made about Antiquity was mostly just word salad, but the parts of it I were able to interpret basically claimed that if dualism were real we would already be in the spirit world. Which is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever heard as it makes an assumption. One might call it a form of begging the question really.
I love when people online try to correct other people about things that they have zero actual clue about.
Go ahead and cite any research supporting your view that it’s just a plagiarizing chatbot and nothing more.
To get the conversation started here’s a few counterpoint studies from Harvard/MIT and Princeton:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13382
https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02207
https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06824
Actually that argument is literally Oxford philosophy professor Nick Bostrom’s argument in his simulation hypothesis given the unitary quality to the original and multiplicity potential of copies. If there can only be one original and can be more than one copy, then as long as there can and will be copies the odds are you are in a copy.
Wait are you unironically arguing for “creationism with extra steps” aka the simulation nonsense?
And fuck what does this have to do with dualism?
Oh nice, keeping it up with the commitment to a patronizing tone even when your little LLM misinfo was shot down with citations.
And it’s not creationism with extra steps, it’s recreationism - the theory is creation agnostic. It doesn’t matter how the original world came to be.
And yes, I am unironically a proponent of the belief that our own universe where at micro scales things behave as if guided by continuous mechanisms until interacted with when they switch to discrete behavior (which can be reversed by erasing persistent information about the interaction) just might have something to do with the continued trajectory of our work in the past decade creating universes with billions of planets using continuous generator functions which then convert to discrete units in order to track state changes from interactions with free agents.
As for what the theory has to do with dualism, if you can’t even wrap your head around how a non-physical recreation of a physical original might pertain to the topic of materialism vs dualism, this back and forth is probably a lost cause.
What the fuck is LLM? And honestly you’re just going in circles at this point, you think the spirit world is real but it’s digital and we’re in it?
Wait, now it’s my turn to wonder if you are serious?
You are really going around telling strangers on the Internet that they are mistaken about the capabilities of large language models without even knowing what LLM stands for?
Well, at very least whether serious or trolling, I appreciated the hearty chuckle.
Edit: Just to be clear - there’s never anything wrong with not knowing a thing, including what an acronym stands for. But there is something wrong with spreading BS when you don’t even know the basic things about a topic to tell what’s BS and what’s not.
I feel like we got way off topic…
Except that you now depend on the physical nature of the universe in which you reside, when it fails, the universe fails. And this universe also does not in any way guarantee your survival outside of a physical body.
Not necessarily. You depend on sustained information consistency and resiliency.
But that doesn’t necessarily need to be mass based.
For example, you could exist encoded into gravitational waves or light.
And if the information of that universe is isolated, yes, you’d be dependent on its continuation.
But there’s a number of paradigms in cosmology where that’s not the case, from Penrose or Lee Smolin’s fecund universes to if there was any kind of cross communication between Turok’s CPT symmetric universes. Even more recent work on the black hole information paradox is pointing towards recoverable information being the case were your information to be swallowed into a black hole.
So if your existence is now data based, the question of longevity is very much tied to the longevity of information and not matter, which may be quite long indeed.
And certainly longer than a human body.