/jp/ - Otaku Culture

thanks anon. my facebook status could use an update.

There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that you are sucking my cock right now, dude.

http://fuuka.warosu.org/jp/image/gFP8pPfj5EuD6S6Ts42m_w

What's with this blue girl?

>>8794680
It's Rei Ayanami from Digimon

Nobody actually gives a fuck about proof, though.

We can't disprove it, but it seems like an overly complex hypothesis to jump to without some kind of evidence pointing towards it. Why would the universe come into being in such a form, that seems almost custom-made to deceive its inhabitants? Did some intelligent creator will it so? Is it based upon a previous universe that had those parameters? Either way, it seems a hell of an intellectual leap of faith to just assume this over the more simple explanation that the world has been existing for quite some time now.

>>8794684

but at some point it did begin. Who can say precisely what occurred at the beginning of time and the universe?

carbon dating

that's so christian!

god can't be disproved, therefore you must consider him a viable option!

>>8794706

If the universe was created last thursday, everything in the universe sprang into being in precisely the state of being so as to appear much older than it is. Including you.

>>8794714
why?

>>8794697
Well, it can't be disproven, but I still think it's not the most elegant explanation given current understanding.

Though even if it were true I don't see it mattering a whole lot. Whether the "me" of the past really existed or not, that consciousness no longer exists now either way. Logically, it seems to me that the "continuity" of consciousness is most likely an illusion anyway.

To demonstrate with a simple thought experiment, imagine that you pull out your brain and place it into another body, and then put a synthetic copy that functions in exactly the same way into your body. In which body would your consciousness continue? I think it is only logical that it would be in the body your brain was moved into.

But then, what if we replaced only one cell of your brain with a synthetic cell that did functions exactly the same as the original, and integrates with the rest of your brain? And then we place the cell from your real brain into the synthetic copy brain, to replace the cell we have taken. Surely removing one cell is not enough to end the continuity of your own consciousness. And let's say we continue doing this at regular intervals, say once a day, until every cell in your brain was replaced with a synthetic one, and every cell in the synthetic brain has been replaced with one of your original ones, effectively reassembling your old brain into the body that once held the synthetic brain. Where does your consciousness exist now? If it moved, at what point did it do so?

I thought about this a lot, a while back, and the only conclusion I could come to was that most likely this continuity of consciousness is in itself a faulty assumption, and we have know way of knowing that the consciousness that wakes up tomorrow is the same one that will go to sleep tonight.

I'm disappointed that I need to point this out, but this is /jp/ so I shouldn't be too surprised.

Last Thursdayism is proposed in order to show the absurdity of the creationist theory that at some point God created the universe already having the appearance of age.

The thought that the universe was created five minutes ago, or a day ago, or last thursday with the appearance of age and all of our memories simply given to us is not disprovable, but seems inherently absurd.

Now that you know it actually doesn't support theism like you all thought, you can go ahead and incorporate this into your pseudo-intellectual defenses of atheism you give to convince yourself you're not just doing it to be edgy and cool.

Not that it will matter as the universe will be wiped out this coming Wednesday.

>>8794732
I think in this scenario the fact of the cells being replaced one at a time makes all the difference in the world.

Cells in the body are always dying and being replaced, they're simply normally doing so with further organic cells.

If the same could be done with synthetic cells, those synthetic cells would have to be so similar to the organic ones (in terms of DNA, function, molecular make-up) so as to make the difference between organic and synthetic meaningless.

>>8794680
What are you doing? Let me fix that for you.
http://archive.foolz.us/jp/image/gFP8pPfj5EuD6S6Ts42m_w/

>>8794752
Yes, but why is that so? Why would replacing one cell be any different from, say, cutting out half of the brain and replacing it? Is there some kind of process of integration whereby the brain transfers a bit of its consciousness into the new cells, sort of like a RAID rebuilding itself if you replace a drive in it? What mechanic drives such a transfer, and how much can we afford to change at once before it is too much to successfully integrate? It just started to seem to me that continuity was becoming a less and less elegant solution as more and more questions started to pop up like this.

>>8794762

I think it could be done while replacing half a brain, at the right age. There are cases of children who have lost half of their brain for one reason or another and the other half picks up the slack and they live a relatively normal life. At this age, they also won't have fully developed a consciousness as an adult would have. To do it all at once in a fully-grown human would probably be traumatic enough to mess with someone's consciousness.

Not that I necessarily think that one's consciousness continues unabated. Honestly I kind of think the only thing continuous about one's consciousness is that it will change.

>>8794758
Don't ruin foolz by linking it to /jp/

>>8794676

Using your same argument, there is no logical impossibility in asserting that the world came into being just after the utterance of your consequent, at which point the antecedent simply came into being. Devoid of being able to make such logical inferences, then, your utterance is but a meaningless stuttering. It defeats itself.

Consider this argument against solipsism (or any variants of presentism thereof): One's senses do not err, because they do not judge at all. The senses are simply a given. Truth and falsity (as well as illusion) belong to the realm of judgement, belonging to the realm of relating objects to our understanding.

It is senseless to speak of a world springing into being five minutes ago that has all the trappings of a world that began several billions of years ago since the fact of a world beginning in time is supervenient within that world. If a world in this sense came into "being" five minutes ago, then there is no time beforehand to speak of, the concept of years-ago applying only to the current world.

>>8794758
That one looks weird, so I just use the other one that's in the older style.

>>8794680
Congrats on the marriage

>>8794789

Check out this fucking nerd

So much better than the tryhard threads on page 0