There's no "I" in "Star Trek transporters"....

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Baldeee, Jan 15, 2017.

?

Would you willingly step into a Star Trek transporter and allow yourself to be "beamed" somewhere?

  1. Yes

    60.0%
  2. No

    20.0%
  3. Undecided

    20.0%
  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,944
    All of them. With MW comes the implicit premise that all worlds are as real as any other, that there is no "one" you.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    385
    Well on a side know we must be native to Earth because we do not yet have the capability for "spaceships." Should we have traveled to Earth, we would have the technology. We do not.

    "There is no I in Star-Trek transporter."
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,780
    There are many developing "versions" of one's self in even a "single world" situation (stretching from birth to death). Similarly, what's subjectively real is the version that a particular interval of cognition is about. Each division of consciousness or each conscious state (of milliseconds duration) deems its own corresponding brain-state, the latter's applicable body-state, and the particular environmental-state or world-state it simulates to be all that exists. Thus why "nowism" is usually the commonsense view in philosophy of time, uncritically accepted at face value by the public.

    A belated welcome.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    385
    Hello equinox, and welcome (come well)!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I believe we are native to this planet because if we had traveled TO this planet the technology would already exist. It does not (on Earth.)
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,944
    THAT's what tips the scales for you?

    Not, say, that we share 99.99% of our DNA with every other living thing on the planet, showing a common origin?
     
  9. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    385
    "Oh you WANT p*ki Steptoe now?!"-Four Lions

    Why it that evolutionists claim we have a common origin i.e. a singularity, yet cannot conceive of two worms on an ark??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And how old is the Earth DaveC??
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,944
    I have no idea what this means.

    Rational people can conceive of two worms on an ark. What does that have to do with history?
    I don't know what singularities have to do with anything.

    I'm not sure you would accept the answer.
     
    Equinox likes this.
  11. Equinox Registered Member

    Messages:
    54
    I thought genetic testing on a wide variety of species has confirmed that there was more than two breeding pairs (at least in regard to the 'unclean' animals) at the point in time and following 'the great flood'. (when god decided to randomly punish perfectly innocent animals and insects because of something humans had done - good logic there god.)

    http://paleo.cc/ce/ark-gene.htm
     
  12. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    385
    I love my mum more than I love my wife.
     

Share This Page