Cloning

[a completely inoffensive name]

So there's still 1/16th of it left.

Assuming good preservation conditions for that entire time. Also see my very serious addendum to that sentence.

[Papewaio]

Have no idea what this game is and I won't read the spoiler, but non-essential identity is a philosophical point-of-view and doesn't spring out of any particular observation on its own. As for "selves", a "self" has no coherent metaphysical identity other than the fact of reference from others, which is just to say that selves are socially-constructed. But be careful, this has nothing to do with "dynamical" self or process philosophy; selves are still nothing at all. I am merely pointing out that "self" is one of our many (not-so-)useful fictions, like "memory", "social", "intelligence", "emotion", etc. that greases the wheels of our lives.

But of course I agree that it is a biological and developmental reality which brings us to commit such "selves" in all our thousands of years.

Interesting most of these probably are social constructs including metaphysical. Isn't metaphysical just a fancy way of saying we don't currently understand the physical world around us? Kind of a learned persons way of saying miracle or deity.

You can't prove metaphysical exists and if you could it would no longer be beyond the physical.

[Montmorency]

The problem with that sort of positivism is that you have to take metaphysical stances to make any physical ones, and you don't avoid the issue by simply ignoring it. In other words, it's impossible to do away with metaphysics because it falls out of our biology. You would have to end the human to end metaphysics.

[Montmorency]

Oh, is this Soma game mentioned earlier by the developers of Penumbra ? I liked the demo back in 2008 or whatever for the first Penumbra game, and later got the full trilogy on Steam, but the gameplay was so bland and the controls so clunky that I gave up pretty soon.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting most of these probably are social constructs including metaphysical. Isn't metaphysical just a fancy way of saying we don't currently understand the physical world around us? Kind of a learned persons way of saying miracle or deity.

You can't prove metaphysical exists and if you could it would no longer be beyond the physical.

"Metaphysics" means "Before Physics" and the name comes from the fact that Aristotle's editor placed the booked before the books on "Physics". Metaphysics is not a religion, it's the study of "First Principles", what do we know, how do we know what we know?

Essentially, Metaphysics is the theorising of the immeasurable. For example, we assume that the universe is ordered but we can't prove it because we can't step outside the universe to test it - all we can do is observe and theorise.

[Husar]

"Metaphysics" means "Before Physics" and the name comes from the fact that Aristotle's editor placed the booked before the books on "Physics".

Before?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

Meta (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-) meaning "after", or "beyond") is a prefix used in English to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.

Before = After/beyond?

I think "Beyond Physics" is the meaning you are looking for.

[Montmorency]

From the wiki:

In epistemology, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category).

In origin Metaphysics was just the title of one of the principal works of Aristotle; it was so named (by Andronicus of Rhodes) simply because in the customary ordering of the works of Aristotle it was the book following Physics; it thus meant nothing more than "[the book that comes] after [the book entitled] Physics". However, even Latin writers misinterpreted this as entailing that metaphysics constituted "the science of what is beyond the physical".[4] Nonetheless, Aristotle's Metaphysics enunciates considerations of natures above physical realities, which can be examined through this particular part of philosophy, e.g., the existence of God. The use of the prefix was later extended to other contexts based on the understanding of metaphysics to mean "the science of what is beyond the physical".

[Greyblades]

Oh, is this Soma game mentioned earlier by the developers of Penumbra ? I liked the demo back in 2008 or whatever for the first Penumbra game, and later got the full trilogy on Steam, but the gameplay was so bland and the controls so clunky that I gave up pretty soon.

It's by the guys who made Amnesia: A Dark Descent and I can confirm it is a good game.

[Fragony]

It's by the guys who made Amnesia: A Dark Descent and I can confirm it is a good game.

Oh yes It is. It's SCARY. I get scared really easily so I probably got ten times of the actual length because I was too afraid to move on.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Before?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta



Before = After/beyond?

I think "Beyond Physics" is the meaning you are looking for.

Beg pardon, I was miss-remembering, probably because in the "hierarchy of knowledge" Metaphysics comes first.

My point remains the same though, the subject is not some flaky excuse to indulge in a pseudo religion, although many questions about God are metaphysical, it is an important (and neglected) field concerning the origin of knowledge. Metaphysics asks difficult questions that are impossible to definitively answer, which is why most modern scientists refuse to study it at all.

[Papewaio]

So is mathematics and logic then considered metaphysical?

Concepts, symbols, statistics and thought experiments don't require a physical analogue but they do help us understand the world around us. For instance Schrödinger's cat?

[Montmorency]

So is mathematics and logic then considered metaphysical?

A rather imprecise question. But do remember that if it isn't physical, it isn't real.

[Veho Nex]

Satan most surely exists, and precedes man in creation. And is more powerful, likely smarter since he is at least 6000 years old, and has one heck of an espionage ring. The lake of fire was prepared for Lucifer and his angels. If you wish to mock God, that is fine. Anyone who rejects the grace freely given by the Lord Jesus Christ may join Satan there come judgment day.

You really can't expect the dude who gave us free will to do as we please to punish us because we aren't doing as he pleases? If what people say about the guy he's got thinner skin than a 13yo prep school girl. OMG Becky, did you hear what that VehoNex called me? I just, like, am totally going to condemn him to burn for all time. Yeah, that will, like, show his unfashionable butt who's boss.

[Papewaio]

A rather imprecise question. But do remember that if it isn't physical, it isn't real.

If there isn't a physical aspect how precise can something be?

1 is a concept and doesn't itself exist. By numbering an object 1 you do not change any of its physical properties. So is 1 not real?

[Montmorency]

The imprecision comes from looking for a non-physical aspect.

[Papewaio]

The imprecision comes from looking for a non-physical aspect.

Hence metaphysics is imprecise as it is looking at a non-physical aspect.

[Montmorency]

What I am pointing out is that it is inescapable insofar as we are human, as you demonstrate by defending it from your own criticism.

Humans cannot help but struggle to associate everything in their "experience" with just one "nature".

They create categories...

[a completely inoffensive name]

A rather imprecise question. But do remember that if it isn't physical, it isn't real.

I don't care what you say, Harry Potter is real dang it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So is mathematics and logic then considered metaphysical?

Concepts, symbols, statistics and thought experiments don't require a physical analogue but they do help us understand the world around us. For instance Schrödinger's cat?

No, Metaphysics comes before Mathematics, I believe mathematics comes before Logic. Today people would prefer to dispense with metaphysics because it makes the concept of "scientific fact" difficult.

A rather imprecise question. But do remember that if it isn't physical, it isn't real.

This is not a fact, it is a metaphysical proposition - the contention that there is nothing beyond our five senses.

If there isn't a physical aspect how precise can something be?

1 is a concept and doesn't itself exist. By numbering an object 1 you do not change any of its physical properties. So is 1 not real?

The imprecision comes from looking for a non-physical aspect.

What I am pointing out is that it is inescapable insofar as we are human, as you demonstrate by defending it from your own criticism.

Humans cannot help but struggle to associate everything in their "experience" with just one "nature".

They create categories...

This is an excellent example of a metaphysical argument.

I don't care what you say, Harry Potter is real dang it.

Don't worry, he's wrong.

[Papewaio]

Sidebar we have more then five senses.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sidebar we have more then five senses.

Apparently so - remember I learned my anatomy from Hippocrates and Galen - did you know there are TWO bones in the human jaw?

Seriously though, if one wanted one could argue that most of additional senses are aspects of the sense of touch in one for or another.

[Papewaio]

Balance?

[Papewaio]

Balance?

[Husar]

Aren't all our senses related to touch?

Light touches the eye, particles touch the skin in the nose, something touches the tongue, waves of condensed air touch the skin in our ear whereupon fluid touches the hairs within our ear. Isn't balance also based on that same fluid and perhaps the pressure (amount of touch ) on our toes when we stand on our feet? If there is no "touch" between particles of some kind or energy-interaction between waves or whatever actually happens, then we can't sense anything.

Just like every computer has a touch interface, you just don't always touch the screen but a key or a button.

[Papewaio]

I didn't realize cloning was such a touchy subject

[Montmorency]

This is not a fact, it is a metaphysical proposition

This is an excellent example of a metaphysical argument.

Er, yes, that's exactly what I was pointing out.

the contention that there is nothing beyond our five senses.

It's naive to think that if 'all things are of one nature', then it must follow that they necessarily can be perceived by senses.

Don't worry, he's wrong.

So you're not a Christian but a wizard? So those who detracted Rowling for her Satanic influence on children were right all along...

[Montmorency]

Although you wizards have it kind of bad, no? In fiction we have imagined all sorts of intriguing and robust frameworks for Magic, but for "real-life" Wizards all you have is coordinated wand-twirling. LAME

[Papewaio]

Wizards are to Scientists what Metaphysics is to Physics...

[Montmorency]

Physics is to Metaphysics as Physics is to Analogy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Er, yes, that's exactly what I was pointing out.

It's naive to think that if 'all things are of one nature', then it must follow that they necessarily can be perceived by senses.

The "physical is composed exclusively of what we can sense with our sense organs, therefore to propose that there is nothing beyond the "physical" is to propose there is nothing beyond our senses.

Since we can only test with out senses it's impossible to argue one way or another.

So you're not a Christian but a wizard? So those who detracted Rowling for her Satanic influence on children were right all along...

If ACIN wants to believe there are wizards in the world he is entitled to believe that because you can't devise a test to prove him wrong and people believe many more outlandish things.

You have hard atheists who are also philosophers - the amount of cognitive dissonance required for that is staggering.

Rowling's books are terrible though - I got 30 pages into the first one and had to give up.

Wizards are to Scientists what Metaphysics is to Physics...

Not really.