I'm curious to see what others think, but would anyone consider tele-transportation?

I'm a bit confused on how someone can be half you? Is he referring to the memories/experiences up until we pass and that's all the replica has?

This issue seems to always repeat itself in Philosophy. Unfortunately not all can come to a clear conclusion with topics discussed in this course

Existence is endless because individuals are reincarnated over and over again

This reminded me of the fact many people perceive colors differently. Awhile back a dress became very popular where some saw black and blue and others saw white and gold. It's amazing to see how our brain interprets something so simple such as colors in numerous ways.

Can we punish a man for a crime he can't remember even though all evidence points to him?

Some people say, you are your brain. The cells of your brain is what you are madeof. Its cells may not change often, but it's constantly changing its own structure. So, if you are your brain, then you are changing at an even faster rate

I agree I feel that we tend to not worry about the future and as some people like to say "let's not live in the past or future, let's live now"

one little decision can eventually eat up and change your life for the better or worse

torn decisions predominately make up our lives

I agree, I feel that if we don't we're living (in a sense) with no adrenaline and/or rush

I find this statement to be nerve wracking, it's crazy to me that it's possible the things I do are technically already pre-determined. Like I said earlier in one of my annotations, I sometimes tend to be those who shun away this idea

like in the study with the physicist we watched for pre-crime where he was able to determine another persons choice six seconds before the person actually decided

To me I believe there are many people out there who are in some way afraid to agree or even listen to the idea of us not having free will. However, I can't judge for it is a hard enough topic to begin with

The way we understand or think of certain terms can depend solely on the definition we heard first

This definitely is a scary thing to think about and I believe as time and research goes on this could potentially be an argument used in courts when justifying murder for say.

It's possible that our brain just convinces itself that it made a free choice from the available options after the decision is made

Others find satisfaction in knowing that the criminal will be sitting in a jail cell for years miserable. But, others may say that doing so will just help them remember and relive the experience over and over again. Some who kill, kill for pleasure and adrenaline so they would be reliving the pleasure once again. All in all, this debate will never seem to come to a conclusion, today.

There will always be others who feel this idea won't sit right with them and feel that justice needs to be served and be fair. But what is fair is not always just.

I can definitely see where he is coming from with this. But I believe we can't know why others have such hatred towards someone instead of helping and understanding unless we are put in a similar situation.

I think this is a great way of putting the idea of the death penalty in perspective. In a sense, it shows the other side of the story that involves what was going on with the rapists' or murderers brain during the tragic event.

Most of the ideas that were discussed in this article had many flaws and/or problems. Which is not a bad thing, it just goes to show the level of work that needs to be done to try and perfect something in philosophy.

This made me think about Alicia in the short film the Twilight Zone!

It's crazy to think that everyone's color preferences are different due to the influences we had in our life. Such as, age and gender, types of colors we wear to describe how we're feeling, etc.

since infants cant talk can scientist actually test whether or not they're conscious? Other than testing brain activity?

isn't it also possible these things can happen when you aren't conscious?

This makes me think that yes, we all see colors. But, are we all seeing it the same way in a sense? The way I see the color purple may look completely different than the way someone else does.

it's great to see consciousness is now something that is being talked more about, and a bit more accepting than before

View issues from multiple perspectives and to arrive at the most reasonable decision

Although in some parts of the article Armstrong is bashing the idea of Behaviorism, he is still able to point things out that he thinks seems reasonable. A sign of true wisdom.

These scientists are afraid of the truth and the realization of the physico-chemical account of men. They're afraid that in some cases this can be correct and go against all their religious beliefs and what they thought was once right.

Someone can be in a certain mental state while behaving in some other ways that suggests otherwise. Meaning, Behaviorism is not reliable.

Behavior may only act as a possible disposition. That's the possible potential for the certain state of the mind to be expressed through behavior, but not necessarily.

How does the mind interact with the body if the mind is not physical?

Believing that human consciousness and mind are very dependent on the human brain

Is thinking about self-reflection rather than thinking exactly about some topic?

Referring to the idea that the body could not exist without the mind.

we must lead the brain away from the senses

Can you ever be sure your senses are not deceiving you?

Referring to anything marked by awareness or consciousness

I feel like to a certain extent this is a good way to explain philosophy or to describe it. Philosophy in some ways criticizes or tears down other sciences however at the same time it is still able to tie all the sciences together.

I feel like this is why some people would say philosophy has a bad reputation. People are afraid to answer or question things that haven't been thought about but philosophy mentions. In a way it scares people away.

This shows how different from the studies of other subjects are, philosophy, does not have a specialized or cut out subject matter like other subjects. Which is why I think philosophy stays to be so interesting.

Philosophy may be called the "science of sciences" probably in the sense that it is, the self-awareness of the sciences and the source from which all the sciences draw their world-view principles

The study of mind was once considered to be a part of philosophy but now is part of psychology, shows how philosophy gave birth to science and allowed other aspects of science to later develop ideas and facts that we study and use today.

It helps us solve our problems -mundane or abstract, and it helps us make better decisions by developing our critical thinking which is very important in the age of disinformation.

This plays a playful exercise of the mind, all things we thought we had definite answers on changes once we look at the new ideas philosophers brought up.

However, Philosophy is able to take on big questions, instead of hiding behind splitting hairs in linguistics like others would on such sensitive topics.

But philosophy in a way shows that there's no definite correct answer. It allows someone to speculate on their views. And due to this I think philosophers are successful in a way. It gets readers, philosophers, and many others to think in a way they haven't before.

I also found this paragraph quite compelling. The idea of those who suffer from anencephaly wouldn't be considered a persons under the definition of higher-brain gets me confused. I wouldn't consider them not persons just based solely on that they lack the capacity of consciousness. If they aren't persons then what are they...?

Higher-brain standard of death has many advantages, yet many disadvantages. An advantage includes money now spent on futile treatment can be used to support those living persons. However, a disadvantage is it is harder to diagnose than whole-brain dead.

Based off the higher-brain death, if consciousness defines dead persons then someone could be declared dead even if they aren't whole-brain dead. Thus, those who are in permanent comas would be considered dead persons.

I agree with Perry on behalf of not continuing treatment after the patient is diagnosed as brain dead. Although as Perry mentioned this does distress people on religious ground I think it's best to rather educate the families on their reasoning behind not continuing.

Here we are looking at determining the death of persons to see if another human capacity besides rationality would qualify personhood a necessary or sufficient condition. In this case, whole-brain dead incorporates two common-sense aspects of a person.

According to Mary Anne Warren some characteristics of what we mean by a person is based on things such as consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the capacity to communicate, and self-awareness

Based on Perry's view it is unnecessary to continue treatment on a patient if they're in a permanent coma or PVS. Unless, the life-sustaining treatment was used to preserve the organ for harvesting. Then continuing treatment on the patients wouldn't all be pointless.

This small paragraph definitely caught my eye, it's a great way to see another look at what qualifies someone as a person. In this case if we do go based off of what Warren is saying then those who are mentally ill wouldn't qualify, which is a very troubling idea to me.

Should we qualify dolphins as persons? If so, aren't we taking away their use in entertainment or whaling? But, dolphins are able to have a sense of themselves. So shouldn't they also have the same rights as persons? I find this topic quite interesting because many can argue from both sides.