[ExI] Fwd: Open Individualism

[William Flynn Wallace]

Science depends not only on observation, but also logic and reasoning.
But reasoning alone can never provide proof. I don't need to read about
your defense of your ideas, but your epistemology is wrong.   billw

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 9:19 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024, 9:48 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> thought experiments I've
>> provided which demonstrate it's truth, however, if that makes you feel
>> better. jason
>>
>> SCientific proof is not provided by thought 'experiments'.  No value of 'true'.  billw
>>
>>
> Science depends not only on observation, but also logic and reasoning.
>
> When there are three possibilities and two are logically ruled out, what
> do you call that? Is such reasoning not a necessary part of science?
>
> There are only two opinions for the question of whether or not you survive
> the teleportation machine: either you survive, or you don't.
>
> Answering that you don't requires making a bunch of unfounded assumptions
> regarding dualistic souls metaphysically attached to bodies, etc.
>
> Is discarding such unnecessary assumptions not also what science does?
>
> When we perform the experiment personally and find that our consciousness
> survives the procedure, is that also not an experimental confirmation?
> Again, science.
>
> Jason
>
>
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 7:30 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024, 6:01 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/01/2024 16:06, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ben Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     From what I can see, none of what you claim about Open Individualism
>>>>>     is based on scientific principles,
>>>>>
>>>> It  corresponds to thought experiments (i.e., logic and rationality better
>>>> than the alternatives). It corresponds to Occam's razor better than the
>>>> alternatives, as it makes fewer assumptions, it corresponds to laws of
>>>> probability better than the alternatives, which are exceedingly
>>>> improbable compared to it. You can keep repeating to yourself that it's
>>>> not scientific, and continue to ignore the thought experiments I've
>>>> provided which demonstrate it's truth, however, if that makes you feel
>>>> better.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That might be the best course. Your thought experiments don't make any
>>>> sense to me, and apart from making some people feel better about their
>>>> lives, I still see no practical use of the idea, or any way to prove or
>>>> disprove it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If they make no sense you should ask clarifying questions. I said I
>>> would explain/answer anything I could.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> P.S.
>>>
>>> Why do you create a new thread with every reply?
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240119/0c680748/attachment.htm>