I see a dark aura around you Ima, its a accumulation of bad karma from all that ganking.
Tabla Rasa, give your soul a fresh start again.
Do something good in Eve.
1 Like
Good.
1 Like
Well it is simple:
If you consider the âconceptâ as the person then it is immortal as whenever materials build up the âconceptâ (brain pattern for example) then the âconceptâ is materialized and even if it is destroyed, if it is recreated it is alive again.
If the material composition is the person then if that mass / atoms that make up the capsuleer are destroyed then the person died and even if somewhere an identical composition of materials is created it is just a copy as they are not the same atoms that are used to create the new clone than the ones were part of the old one.
Which is even the case if one argues that a person constantly has its atoms / cells replaced all the time so individual atoms / cells are irrelevant a still the continuity is broken. The same way it can be argued that any atom in the universe could eventually replace the ones currently in the body, until that occurs the other atoms are foreign and the ones inside are what make up the person, else it could be said that I am both this body and and also the toaster in the kitchen or better example the atoms that make up the vegetables on a farm that I will eventually eat and thus will replace my current atoms with eventually. So until the replacement process is done, continuity is maintained what is not part of the person is considered foreign.
Though technically it is also a valid argument that the atoms that are used at the destination of the capsuleer resurrection process one day could been ones that would be part of such a replacement process, like if they were part of something the capsuleer would have eaten at some point then it would become part of the natural replacement process and become a valid part of the person, thus even if the process of replacement differs, in this case it is artificial and done using remote data transfer then the recreation of the brain, it is a valid argument that the new person can, based on this logic, be considered the same person.
So it all comes down what one considers the person, the âyouâ and whether the process of capsuleer resurrection is accepted as a valid continuation of the original.
It is just a personal opinion / preference but I find the biological method of atom / cell replacement to be valid but not the remote van, though as above demonstrated / explained I can see how it can be argued that the capsuleer resurrection method may be just as legit and aside of personal preference canât really find a flaw in that concept either and strictly technically speaking both are just as valid, they are just different (obviously as one is a naturally developed biological method while the other is artificial so is no surprise).
To be honest I might even change my personal preference over time, though that does not really matter as from a strictly logical standpoint both are just as valid.
Good and bad are a matter of point of view. From her perspective I am quite sure she does a lot of good when performing ganking. 
Iâm not sure why you introduce the word âconceptâ here. The only thing it does is to confuse once more what we are actually talking about. If you mean âbrain patternâ why not just say âbrain patternâ. I also donât see how a âbrain patternâ which is a changing thing can even be described as a concept,
I would argue that there simply isnât a âcorrectâ definition of âpersonâ since it is just a word we give meaning by defining what the hell we are actually talking about. It is also something that completely changes depending on the context, if we talk about capsuleers we donât talk about normal humans and therefor the word has a different meaning.
Just stop being a betamale 
I see as you lost the argument you resort to ad hominems. Glad to see you admitted defeat, though a bit underwhelming to see you give in so easily. 
I didnt even read what you said. tldr. Itâs a video game, we donât need your life story
I see too many words scare you and shake your world view so it triggers some emotional response in you. I hope you can get over it eventually. 
1 Like
Yes exactly thatâs why. Concept describes the person without the individual state of pattern, while the pattern is strictly the current state of mind. So the concept is you yesterday, you a year ago and you now, plus you tomorrow and a year from now and everything in between and beyond. While the pattern is just that the current state.
Technically there is no difference or the word can be used without the difference but I prefer to sue the pattern in reference to the resurrection process thus it has a specific meaning referring to the state of mind that is copied and transferred instead of using it in a general sense thus Iâve used a different word for clarityâs sake instead.
Consciousness came to mind but that also seems more now / current state of patter / current state of mind than the overall thing, though that may be just my interpretation of the word. I am not a native english speaker. Concept was the first that came to mind that seemed fitting so I used that. If any other word there is you think better describes it feel free to suggest one.
So in short âconceptâ refers to the being, the person itself, which differs in any point of time while the pattern is the current iteration, the current state.
That is true but doesnât make a difference whether the different clones are the same person or not. The person or concept or whatever to call it may survive but the individual may not. Whichever one refers to doesnât alter that it just shifts the focus on one aspect of the same thing from another.
It is like when people say they live forward in their offspring and/or in the memory of others. Does that mean they actually live forward or it is just wishful thinking? Same thing with capsuleer resurrection.
I like you Uriel and Iâm not taking the pisss out of you, but I can NEVER tell my 13yr old son to use the âAd Hominemâ argument to use against a bunch of Sudanese thugs in his school.
Completely irrelevant example.
true
horses for courses
Good Morning Capsuleers,
This seems a bit philosophical for my early morning reading.
Think Iâll need a nice cup of strong coffee to get through this.
Ohh⌠Do I or donât I??
âGadget just wants her damned coffee
4 Likes
Risk aversion is a conceptâŚnot a psychological problem (except maybe in the extreme).
Why do women Uber drivers earn less than men on average? Risk aversion. Men, on average, drive faster so they can have more fares in a given time frame. Men, on average, drive more during surge pricing. So men earn more. Yet this outcome is good and desirable. Men and women are doing what the want and think is best for them.
Think of risk aversion as a preference for risk. I might be willing to accept a given level of risk, whereas another person might be willing to take on considerably more. Is this bad? I donât see it anymore bad than preferences over brussel sprouts or bacon. In fact having some people with a greater capacity for risk maybe good. This trait might be common in entrepreneurs who help drive innovation. Innovation is inherently risky. Heck it is most likely uncertain in the sense of Knight. And it is one of key drivers of economic progress.
So some player is risk averse. He stays in HS. Moves his stuff carefully and sensibly. He manufactures and invents stuffâŚstuff those of us with more of an appetite for risk, yet still risk averse, use to blow each other up. There is really no problem with risk aversion. It is the attitude of entitlement that is the problem.
1 Like
The main point of my post was to point out that the ones who point to others and chastise ârisk averse!â are also largely risk averse themselves. Secondarily, I was defining the concept in order to show that it isnât a bad thing, or if it is, everybody is guilty of it.
The âelite PvPâerâ who points to a âcarebearâ and laughs ârisk averse!â but then travels everywhere in a naked pod with no implants is risk averse himself. The nullsec capship pilot who points to a miner and laughs ârisk averse!â but then jumps from tether to tether is risk averse himself. Etc. etc. etc.
I was really pointing out hypocrisy, correcting mis-notions, etc.
1 Like
Well most of us. There are risk seekers but they are rare and their lives are often a mess.
And short
1 Like
TL;DR
Donât avoid risk, just unnecessary risk.
1 Like
Of course that comes back to our individual assessments of what is unnecessary risk.
(I have no doubt that some of the things I do (JC from my learning clone to an empty one, not autopiloting) could be seen as risk averse, while others (operating with non-blues in system, flying down to Delve with a head full of implants) would be seen as risk taking.)
1 Like