If I read the above, I see the illusion that you are the same person as the child your parents raised. You share none of the matter with that child. Of course the parenting affects how you think now, because you are a copy of that child.
@Pineal -- But it is about personality. Our personality is the result of the matter that we "experience" so it is therefore indicative of the matter itself. If my personality has changed then it means that the matter that makes up my brain has changed. And I'm not a copy either, a copy would imply a high fidelity rate. Comparing me to my ten year old self would net you far more differences than similarities, almost by an order of magnitude.
That word 'body' is misleading. It is not the same body you had at 10 - no matter in common - and not the one you will have in 10 years.
Every atom has been replaced. If you are a physicalist, you must believe that you are not the same person that had your name and social security number, etc.
But we are the same person, just like a tornado isn't made of the same matter over it's lifetime, but it still has a persistent existence.
This is not relevent to the topic. Also it is not hairsplitting to say that every atom in your body is replaced in a period much shorter than the average lifetime in the west. You are not the 10 year you were. You share none of the matter - of course there are also other significant changes in mass and neuron patterns etc. But these are trivial compared with the fact that you are a copy. And are slowly being copied right now. I never asserted there was. It is a perfect term if someone thinks that even though all the matter is replaced they are still the same person.
Fair enough. Incorrect. A copy of a computer program can remember all sorts of things. There is no reason to conflate memory with identity. Fine. Sure, though it would be delusion to think you will experience your retirement, unless it starts very soon. It will not be you, it will be a copy. Sure, one can be consistent and some Buddhists are. But most humanists/atheists are not simply using the 'I' as a placeholder for convenience. They believe they will experience this or that during retirement. And this is part of how and why they plan. Yes, from a physicalist point of view this is correct. Sorry if I wrote sloppily. It was not the termination of atheism, but the termination of the self implicit in the physicalist viewpoint - and a termination that does not take place at death but has already happened a number of times. They are not the children they think of as themselves. Yes, but this is not relevent.
Sure, the matter that makes up your body is generally thought to be more than just your personality - your feet for example. All the atoms are replaced, long before death. You will not be you in 7 years, it will be a copy, and not at all an exact one.
No need to extend life. All the matter is replaced. We are talking about copies, in a period of time much shorter than a lifespan.
Sure, yes. I agree. But it is not just about personality. (i used that word in other responses and should have in yours) It is everything you are. All of you is replaced in a fairly short period of time. Much shorter than a lifetime. Yet atheists act and speak as if this is not the case and as far as I can tell they are not merely speaking out of convention. You are only strengthening my position. But to be exact, none of the matter is the same. That ten year old is not you. And the person who retires will not be you. You will shared none of the same matter. Of course there are other changes and of course the copies are not exact or even close. But their not being close makes the lack of persistence only that much stronger. So any atheist thinking they will experience their retirement believes in something like a soul. As far as I can tell, most do.
No you are confusing our labeling it the same thing as it being the same thing. You are not going to experience 'your' retirement - assuming there are some years before this happens. All the matter in you will be replaced, let alone the differences Arioch is pointing out. It will not be you. ' The ten year old child was not you. You share no matter with that child. Unless you believe in some kind of soul.
Well, it means that to a physicalist it was not the same person at 10 - not simply that the person has changed, but that the person has been replaced by a rather different copy - and will not be the person who retires, for example. Most atheists I know speak as if it was the same person and will be the same person and are not merely speaking out of convention. And most, but not all, of those I ask do believe in a persistent self through what we call the lifetime of the body. Also, you could explain the spidergoat about this common knowledge and what it means as far as any delusional persistent self.
A television programme is the same whether viewed from a 21" CRT or through a 42" Plasma. One could replace every part of the television, and gradually upgrade it, but the television programme will still be the same. This is because the programme is the pattern of activity that the material produces, regardless of the material. In the same way I tend to think of consciousness... the "I" as being a pattern of activty that is produced by the physical brain. However, with the "I" I think there is a continual self-referential aspect that compares the "now" to the "then" (from immediate memory) and concludes that it is the same "person"... and hence the feeling of continuity from one moment to the other. If one removes that continuity by removing all memory from a person, then only other people will be able to tell if you are the same person, but they will only be able to from their perspective... if they think you look like the person and act like the person, then to them you will be the same "you" whether you think you are or not. However, a person with no memory can not consider themselves the same person - as every time they wake up they will think it the first time they are conscious - and to them there is no continuance of a personality. It is this comparison to the immediate memory that provides us with a sense of continuance, and whether we truly are or not the same person is really just a matter of perspective... from some views we are not, in others we are... it really depends on what you consider to be "you". Meh, ramblings.
See The Ship of Theseus Paradox. A related one is the one about the ship Argo, of Jason and the Argonauts. Argo was fixed, part by part, slowly on its journey (much like a human body).
yes, thank you. That's a nice version of this issue! I have often used the Temptations as an example. A group of singers who were slowly replaced, one by one, over time, the final group having no members of the original group but share the name. And one can clearly see how the original members will not experience the later concerts.
The problem with this analogy is that there is no external radio station sending the personality/self. Note: I am not saying it is not useful to retain a name or an 'I' as conventions, but a physicalist must necessarily admit that it will not be them in X years and was not them as a child. That some or even much of the pattern is the same is another issue. This only shows we are dealing with copies. One can consider it you, but one will nevertheless not be the (inexact) copy that experiences the retirement. Looking forward to this experience would be confused. Feeling joy for the future copy and wishing him or her well, however, would not be confused.
If they were a physicalist who was a determinist they could say they couldn't help it. Of course this would mean they were doomed to hypocrisy and might compel them to feel sympathy for people whose beliefs they considered irrational.
