5억 년 버튼에 대한 철학적 고려 사항

### 5억 년의 버튼: 철학적 및 윤리적 딜레마
* 🔘 가상 시나리오에서는 버튼을 눌러 **천만 원을 받는 대신, 보상을 받으러 돌아오기 전에 5억 년 동안 다른 차원으로 의식이 이동**하지만 경험에 대한 모든 기억이 지워진다는 조건이 붙습니다.
* 🧠 철학자들은 이 시나리오의 윤리적 함의에 대해 논의하며, 일부에서는 **5억 년 동안 홀로 지내야 하는 극도의 외로움과 실존적 의문** 때문에 비도덕적인 선택이라고 주장하기도 합니다.
* 이 논의는 인간과 동물의 상체와 하체 구분의 개념으로 확장되어, 단순한 신체적 특성을 넘어 **이러한 범주를 정의하는 것이 얼마나 복잡한지**를 강조합니다.
* 🎲 행동 경제학은 **최후통첩 게임**과 함께 인간이 합리적인 경제적 이기심에 반하는 경우에도 **불공정한 제안을 거부하는 이유**를 설명하는 데 사용됩니다.
* 🤔 버튼을 누르는 '나'와 보상을 받는 '나'가 과연 같은 사람인지 의문을 제기하며 **자아와 정체성의 개념**을 탐구합니다.
* 신경과학적 관점에서 기억은 정체성의 핵심 요소로 논의되지만, **정체성은 더 복잡하며 기억, 신체 및 기타 요인의 조합**을 포함한다는 논의가 있습니다.
* 몸과 마음의 상호 연결성, 정체성 형성에 있어 기억을 넘어선 **'흔적'의 중요성**을 강조하는 동양 철학이 간략하게 언급됩니다.
* 🧑 토론은 **가상의 시나리오가 인간의 본성과 정체성을 지나치게 단순화**하고, 인간의 의사 결정과 경험의 복잡성을 충분히 담아내지 못할 수 있다는 한계에 대한 성찰로 마무리됩니다.

5억 년 버튼은 보상을 위해 버튼을 누르고, 기억을 지우고, 진정한 자아의 정체성을 지우는 윤리적 딜레마를 안고 있습니다.

There is a button that gives you ten million won if you press it once. If you were to live for fifty thousand years, that would be five hundred million years. Five hundred million years is when animals first began to emerge. I wonder if people would press it even for just one hundred thousand won. That’s like a chimpanzee. If anyone is thinking of pressing it, please don’t. Professor Kim Beom-jun says that while there may be people who don’t press it, there won’t be anyone who only presses it once. It’s a very immoral act. A philosopher has come out to discuss this. This is not acceptable. The question is, who is the real me: the me that has lived for five hundred million years or the me that exists in reality? Nice to meet you. This is Philosophy Today, and I’m here with you all. I’m Kim Man-hee. Yes, I’m Jeon Ho-gun. Nice to meet you. I’m Kim Seok-ki, and I work in the Department of Philosophy at the National University. Hello, I’m Jang Dae-hee, a philosopher of science. Nice to meet you. When philosophers look at something, they...

I started to think that we wouldn't just see this from our perspective with a simple question. It's a professional disease. So, if I momentarily feel like I had a conversation for an hour with three philosophers, I wonder how philosophers live. What are the professional diseases? One is always questioning, like we discussed earlier. If something happens, they keep asking questions that go beyond the premise. When reading a book, if a sentence comes up, I really take notes next to it. The good thing is that I feel like I'm less likely to fall for smishing scams. They really give it away for free. It’s hard to believe. For novice scholars, voice phishing must not be easy. In the case of marital disputes, are all three of you managing well? I don't do that at home.

But if you keep asking, will it remain? Right? There are many cases where you ask again and again later. If I cannot agree, even if they are people I really like, I think they shouldn't assume that it is the correct answer. I approach it with this attitude. Do I directly tell them not to think of it as the correct answer? I say that to my wife, but it varies depending on the level of intimacy. I can't say that to the elders in my family. I would express it more gently, like, I don't really agree with that. Oh, truly a philosopher. Yes, I am a philosopher of science. When someone makes a claim, I always wonder what the basis is. Ultimately, philosophers verify things, and I can assert that confidently. Everyone has to make that call. In some situations, you absolutely should not do that. For example, if someone is seeking advice and you start questioning them, that is...

It can't be a consultation, right? In such cases, there are people who struggle to transition well. That becomes a kind of occupational hazard. If everyone transitions well, they become experts. You two are experts, and I am the one who is struggling; no one is transitioning well. If I were to find a term that contradicts philosophy, it would probably be dogma. It's a dangerous type that claims to be absolute. Philosophy, on the other hand, intentionally asks questions and doubts whether something is truly correct. Ah, intentional questioning. That's philosophy. Just doubting is more akin to a psychological disorder, while intentionally posing questions is an action aimed at finding answers. So, when we look at philosophy, we often discuss the questions that have been raised. We are people who keep questioning the questions, so it seems like we all have different approaches to accepting things. That aspect is really interesting. If we were to divide a dog into upper and lower body, how would we do that?

Should we divide this? This has been one of the topics that many people have debated extensively. How should we distinguish between the upper and lower body of a dog? Looking at this picture, I suddenly think that we might need to change the criteria for dividing the human upper and lower body as well. It's really philosophical. Humans are currently upright, so we consider the upper body to be above the waist and the lower body to be below it. But if we think about it, we weren't always upright. Originally, we would have been on all fours like dogs. So, the skull, spine, and tail are all part of the same system, and below that are the organs and the midsection, and then the legs. I’ve changed my perspective. Scientifically, from a human standpoint, it seems that the skull, spine, and tail are all connected and belong to the same category. I would also like to ask veterinarians about this.

I would like to ask veterinarians where they divide the upper and lower body. Should I answer this philosophically or scientifically? Please let me know; I'm curious. 

When we think about when we became upright, it was about six million years ago when we diverged from chimpanzees. Then, considering our ancestors like Homo habilis, it was about 2.5 million years ago. From that time, we started to walk upright. Homo erectus is the upright human, so in terms of uprightness, the upper and lower body of humans are essentially the same. If you stand them up, they become the upper and lower body, right? 

Now, distinguishing the upper and lower body based on height is meaningless. Biologically, from the ground's perspective, it’s just the upper and lower body. If we want to find biological significance, we would cut off the head; everything below that would be the lower body, but that doesn't hold much meaning.

You see, because this controls, we can divide it into upper and lower parts. What I want to say is that cutting the head and separating the rest has a biological meaning. Ultimately, we need to consider what it means to cut something. Is there a natural distinction? For example, in classification, we don't just arbitrarily cut something based on a concept; rather, this is a very natural classification. The head, chest, abdomen, lower body, and feet all belong to meaningful natural classifications. This is because they each perform a special function as a unit. Think about it: if we cut it this way, it makes sense because it shows a structure that is symmetrical. This is also one of the natural distinctions. However, cutting it in this way is also a natural distinction.

One of the reasons is that it operates like a single unit. Cutting something that functions as a meaningful unit is a very natural distinction. However, compared to that, it is not the same. You can cut it as much as you want; for example, you can cut the ear that is mentioned here. Dividing it arbitrarily into upper and lower parts is free, but whether this is a natural division is a different matter. There are two types of squid, right? Yes, yes, in this way, it cannot be divided. If we say there are two types, then the legs are attached to the head, so where is the brain located? If we consider the brain as a single unit, cutting the brain—I'm sorry—means that the brain is one unit, and then the arms or legs that perform movement would be another unit. In this way, functional divisions can be considered natural. I think this is what Descartes was criticized for.

I see it as the same reason. When you look at everything mathematically like this, what you are doing is essentially dividing it based on coordinates. However, animals and humans do not divide in that way. If you consider it from an organic and biological perspective, hands and feet would probably serve as the basis. In that sense, humans are classified into upper and lower bodies based on the function of arms rather than causing injury. But in the case of animals, that’s not the case; we don’t refer to an animal's paw as a hand. The act of artificially cutting and classifying what is superior and what is inferior seems quite geometric in nature. Descartes was criticized for this because objects or entities cannot be explained solely through geometry; we also need to consider their functions and inner qualities. This is the kind of criticism that was directed at him regarding the concept of being.

I said that it's a natural thing, but I actually think there are aspects that aren't necessarily so. Because having the upper body and the lower body in a certain way has its meaning. But now that we've talked about this, it could be a very cultural aspect. For example, when we look at a person, we might think, Wow, their lower body is really long. That is one of our standards of beauty. There is a somewhat cultural aspect to it, right? If it's a mix of both, what's the problem? But we think that long legs look pretty and have good proportions. I don't think that's something inherent in our brains. However, we've set those standards, and they are embedded in our interests and preferences. So, when we talk about classification, it's a natural classification, and in that context, we have classifications based on appearance.

눈에 대한 인식은 생존에 매우 중요합니다. 어떤 눈이 내리는지가 사람들의 생존에 큰 영향을 미치기 때문입니다. 그러나 우리는 베트남처럼 눈에 대한 인식이 단순히 '눈'으로 한정될 수 있습니다. 이러한 구분 자체가 문화적이며 환경과 밀접하게 연관되어 있다는 점을 강조할 수 있습니다. 사실, 자연적인 구분보다는 문화적인 구분이 더 많을 수 있습니다. A와 B 모두 도형적 사고를 보여주며, 삼각형과 사각형으로 나누어 공간을 설정하는 방식입니다. 사람에게 상체와 하체를 질문할 때는 기능적인 측면을 고려하여 이야기를 나누는 것이죠. 그림이 적절하지 않다는 점도 언급하셨고, 철학은 비에서 시작된다고 생각합니다. 결국, 상체가 아니라는 의미입니다.

So, is it left as upper, middle, and lower? In fact, the upper and middle are now human concepts, and they are quite geometric concepts. This cannot explain life or everything else. If you cut a dog and ask where the upper body is, it doesn't quite fit. The reason Descartes was criticized, as I mentioned earlier, is that he claimed absolute truth, but in reality, various explanations are possible from different angles. This relates to what Foucault referred to as episteme, which consists of invisible orders in specific disciplines of a certain era, and classifications are made according to that. Today's classifications could change tomorrow. For example, the concept of animal rights or the idea that animals should be treated as pets is not that old. Previously, it was just about food, like livestock. When we look at these things, we see that we have a natural order.

It seems like academic disciplines are classified in this way, but when we arrange the natural order according to academic standards, we can misunderstand the world if we're not careful. I don't completely agree with the classification relativism because, in the process of development, individual organisms have specific sets of genes that create arms, then brains, and separate cells that form organs like the liver. This indicates that there are indeed natural classifications. I find it hard to accept the idea that everything is completely relative to culture. There are also natural classifications, and the levels of these classifications are very diverse. Some things change completely over time, while others, like temperament and character, may not change as much. However, while listening to Professor Jang earlier, I kept thinking about something a bit off-topic.

When scientists conduct experiments, they might cut and attach the lower body of one organism to an entirely different one. This may sound like science fiction, but it reflects extreme scientific thinking. In reality, we should not treat life in such a manner. However, the perspective of imagination already contains a geometric, anthropocentric, and instrumental viewpoint. I, too, have attempted to break away from the anthropocentric perspective by reclassifying based on dogs. When we categorize based on human-centered criteria, our viewpoint determines what is above and below. The lower part becomes the lower body, while the upper part becomes the upper body. However, if we use dogs as the standard, this can change. This means that the criteria of up and down are not based on humans but can also be based on dogs. Therefore, neither dogs nor humans can be the definitive answer.

If we classify all animals on Earth solely by the criterion of being edible, and if the brain is considered the most delicious part, then everything else has no meaning. No matter how we classify it, it becomes meaningless. The classification changes depending on what interests we have. This really small question can lead to a lot of deep thinking, which I believe reflects our philosophy. However, the main topic hasn't even been introduced yet. You might already know about this; it became a huge topic on the internet. There was something called the 500 Million Year Button. When you press it, you receive 10 million won, but your consciousness instantly shifts to another dimension. You spend a billion years there, and after that time, you return to the real world and can claim your 10 million won. However, the memories from that time...

Everything disappears completely. So, from the perspective of the person who pressed the button, it feels like they immediately receive ten million won as soon as they press it. They can't die there, they don't feel hungry, and there's nothing at all. They just live for five hundred million years. When they press the button, they return to that moment, but everything they experienced during those five hundred million years is completely erased. When they come back, only the memory of pressing the button and receiving ten million won remains. However, this is a post-payment situation. If it were a pre-payment, it would be quite a theft, wouldn't it? It's very serious. What about the consciousness that existed in that five hundred million years, whether it was my mind or my body? It could be that this is not another version of me, but a completely different person. The 'me' that exists there sacrifices itself for another 'me' that will receive the prize, which raises ethical concerns about its justification.

The story begins with a character who is lost and wandering around, trying to find an exit after about three days. As time passes, around six months in, the protagonist starts to feel foolish for being alone and begins to develop various games. After about forty years, they deeply regret pressing the button that started it all, realizing it's too late for regrets. Then, in the 506th year, philosophical questions start to arise: Is this reality? What is the universe? Who am I? These existential questions continue for five million years. Eventually, after twenty million years, the character is deeply immersed in thought when suddenly, at five hundred million years, they return to the moment and find that they are simply given ten million. The character then wonders how to press the button again. At the end of this comic, the character repeatedly presses the button, and I feel like I might end up the same way.

If that's the case, I think I would keep pressing it. Because this person has gone and come back, and I am given a reward. If I go again, I will receive another reward. This is completely like the G experiment, where if you provide electrical stimulation to the brain's pleasure center, they keep pressing it. They either keep pressing it or die. Why do they die? Because they die of hunger. They keep pressing it because it feels better, so I think that might be the arrangement. The professor says, I don't press it. Because what we think about is very important: what thoughts this person had before pressing the button. Now, they are going to make a decision. If I press the button, I will completely reset, so I am just pressing it to receive something. This would be beneficial for me, but I have some fears.

If you go 50,000 years into the future, it would be 500 million years. 500 million years, 500 million years, 500 million years. In fact, 500 million years is a time that is unimaginable for humans. At 500 million years, animals are just beginning to emerge. That fear would be overwhelming. Even if you were given sunlight, you would have to live alone for 500 million years. We humans are said to be social animals. But this is not just a slogan; Aristotle also said that we are political animals, or social animals. This social nature is at the very core of what it means to be human. If aliens came and observed human behavior, they would probably conclude that we are a species that suffers terribly from being alone. Just like in the movie Cast Away, even if you have many things, in the end, you are still alone.

Because of loneliness, people often talk about how they feel like they are being excluded. This is human nature. The most painful moment for a person is when they feel excluded or when they are alone. They cannot endure loneliness. From the perspective of the person who posed the question, let’s rephrase it: Regardless, those feelings fade from memory, so when making a choice, one can reflect on those concerns. The person making the choice can anticipate that pain without having experienced it. For example, we do not experience death, but we have a fear of it. I think it’s similar to that; it’s incredibly painful. Spending millions of years alone is a daunting thought. There are various aspects to this, but the constant stimulation, the changes, the events, and meeting others are significant. The idea of spending five hundred million years alone is, in fact, a terrifying prospect.

At that time, could you endure it? If you imagined it lasting for 500 million years, you would probably keep cursing, wondering why you pressed the button or if someone sent you here. We are very rational beings, yet we often ponder a lot beyond that. For example, let's say I take out money from my wallet and I have 100,000 won. I could give 10,000 won to MC and distribute the rest as I wish. However, if Professor Jung agrees and accepts it, then the two of you would share it. If Professor Jung refuses, then you would have to return the money to me. This is what we call a final ultimatum game. So, how much would you give, Mr. Kim? I think I would give 50,000 won. Would you accept that? You should accept it. How much would you be willing to accept? What is your bottom line? Well, since you offered that, we could split it evenly.

It seems that the best line is that, even if you give me half, how much would you give me? Even if you give me eternity, I’ve seen that. Then what do I become? What do I become? If I experiment with this, there are numerous experiments, but the conclusion is this: humans do not accept 20,000 won. It feels unpleasant. You know John Nash's game theory, right? It concludes that when considering not only individual benefits but also the benefits of the entire group, the maximum benefit increases. So, if you offer a very low amount, from our professor's perspective, whether it's 100 won or 1,000 won, it feels like 0 won. Logically, you should accept 1,000 won or 100 won, but if you received it for free, you might think, Why are you only giving me this much? It's unfair, and then you might refuse to accept it altogether. This is how humans behave. There is a difference between this and life, as discussed in the context of invasion.

Generally, if the amount is low, like 50,000 won, of course, I would accept it. However, as I go down, at some point, statistically, I might say, I don't want to accept it. But if you think about it rationally, accepting it is better, right? I see it similarly. Because if you think rationally, you should press the button. If you're receiving 10 million won, why would you keep pressing it? I think the nature of rationality depends on what kind of character it has. Logically, if one can receive more money as compensation, humans tend to think about economic rewards as a central consideration in any situation. This is a premise that needs to be verified. It's not always the case. There are countless instances where people work even if they incur losses. For example, if someone is smoking in a no-smoking area, many people just walk by. But then someone might say, Hey, this is a no-smoking area.

You shouldn't smoke. Even though you might feel threatened, there are people who still engage in such behavior. We call this altruistic punishment; it's when someone expends their energy to punish others. We are somewhat like those people. Here, if it benefits us, we will certainly press the button. However, we also think, Am I really okay with this? Even if we consider the benefits, we might choose not to press it. I personally choose not to press it. So, there might be someone who eventually presses it, but I won't. Please don't press it either. Because if we compare pressing the button to labor, it's really just a simple, repetitive task. And the point you mentioned earlier is very important. There may be people who choose not to press it, but there won't be anyone who presses it just once. Once you press it, there’s no reason not to press it again. That first press...

The reason is sufficient to press the button twice, three times, or infinitely. If I think about it, I might die while pressing it. Even if I think that the gain is small, when looking at the entirety of life, it is an enormous tragedy. There is no reason to bring that upon myself. However, since all memories fade away, regardless of the pain, I will ultimately die while pressing the button. This is similar to a situation where there is a guarantee of significant profit from gambling, leaving no reason to do anything else. In the end, there is no greater alienation than that repetitive labor, as Marx would say. It’s like dying while doing that. But there could be someone who enjoys doing just that. So, I simply choose not to press it.

If someone says they would press the button, I would try to stop them. It should not be pressed. The professor seems to be talking about the irrationality of the action from a behavioral perspective, and both the professor and I recognize the consequences it brings. It could lead to profound loneliness, and even if resetting the experience of spending 500 million years is possible, I believe that the premise of resetting does not mean it won't cause problems for me. Therefore, I maintain that it should not be pressed. This can be viewed from a moral standpoint. Labor itself can become unethical and alienate life, binding me to that great benefit. From a subjective perspective, I wonder whether the person who has lived for 500 million years is truly me, or if the person who pressed the button in reality is the real me. I am very curious about that because the reason for not pressing it ultimately relates to human nature.

Graduation achievements also raise moral issues. On the one hand, I think that taking a million won can be justified in the game. However, that cannot be justified. The act of pressing a button does not create a new product in manufacturing, nor does it generate growth or innovation. It is meaningless. In economics, this is referred to as rent-seeking. Holding a license and continuously trying to profit from it is a very immoral act. This is not acceptable. We should not live like that. Suddenly, Laozi seems to appear; it’s all about money, with no meaningful symbols. This is a very important point. If I discuss it from a neurological perspective, you mentioned dopamine excess and self-alienation, but the brain...

From a psychological perspective, we are addicted to the meaning of dopamine. It doesn't lead to any productive actions, but it keeps us engaged in those behaviors. This is one of the significant characteristics of modern individuals. What I want to convey is that we are not that simple. The giver can continuously press the pleasure button, but at some point, we start thinking about the future. I mean, even if I get reset in the end, I have to live alone for 500 million years. I don't think I can do that. This thought occurs at the moment of decision-making. I feel that one of the somewhat simplistic premises of this question is that it views us merely as a kind of reward system. However, humans are products of evolution, and one of the truly important aspects of being human is how we relate to others and what our goals are.

These things are really important. However, those aspects are completely overlooked, and the questions are structured like a dopamine machine. We need to look at humans from a slightly different perspective. Still, this seems to be a position different from scientific reductionism. If we conducted experiments on animals and found such results, we might assume that humans would be similar. I think scientific reductionism needs to be approached in a more sophisticated way; it's not that simple. The act of choice encompasses many possibilities. When humans make a choice, it includes the ability to predict outcomes. In fact, when it comes to gambling, the stakes are too high, like five hundred million years. The cost is too great, and, well, we tend to forget that. Even if we forget, we still have to make a choice. When we say there should be a time frame of a billion years, it does make sense. The point at which we receive a reward may be the same, but still...

When you press it, you go through a million years. That fact doesn't change. Then you experience that pain. It doesn't matter if you forget it later. What really sets us humans apart from other animals is our foresight. We plan for the future and prospect. That's right. What our human brain does is predict. The moment we predict the future, there is horror, and then there is a reward. The horror is that I have to live alone. But what is the reward? After that, everything resets, and you receive ten million won. So, you weigh those two things. At least, even if you offer one trillion won, I find this a very difficult choice to change. Therefore, even if you offer one trillion won, I wouldn't press it. On the other hand, I think if you offer just one million won, I might press it. That's the chimpanzee's perspective. If anyone is considering pressing it, please don't.

There were quite a few people who pressed the button. To put it somewhat harshly, it's about aligning animal behavioral studies with human behavior. However, humans are beings that ponder their choices. I slightly glanced at the science side of things. Professor Kim Beom-jun mentioned that the person who presses the button and the person who receives the money are different, so it doesn't matter. The choosing self and the rewarded self are thought to be different. The concept of identity is actually a very difficult topic. The me that has lived for 5 billion years and the me that exists in reality—who is the real me? I feel like neither is the true self. According to brain research, the concept of self is tied to memory, and it's not about retrieving memories to construct who I am, but rather about my awareness of who I am.

Recognition is a kind of narrative that connects the past, present, and future. It is a story, a narrative. When we talk about memory, research shows that memory is originally about objectively retrieving genuine experiences. However, people often think of it differently; in reality, there is a tremendous amount of reconstruction involved. It creates numerous stories added to a single fact. What shapes me is the fact that these stories have been created. Right now, I feel that these stories are different. The story of me when I make a choice and the story of me when I return are not the same. Which one is the real me? In fact, neither is the real me. We can also consider the case where, for example, we live and then die. When we die, memories naturally disappear. So, does that mean we can live carelessly? That’s not the case, right?

That's right, that's not the case. Whether you lived as a thief or as a great person, when you die, it all becomes the same. We know that when we die, memories disappear, and even the shameful parts of ourselves vanish; everything disappears. But does that mean we can just live our lives recklessly? I don't think anyone would say that we should live carelessly. This is a serious matter. In Eastern philosophy, this is something that needs to be reconsidered. In Eastern philosophy, this is a philosophical anthropology that needs to be addressed. If you look at it, especially from the French perspective, the body and mind are not separate. They always interact in a complex way. That's why I often talk about traces. These traces include memories, but in fact, memories are not everything. What gives a person their identity is also the aspect of memory.

It has a significant impact, but even though it's my body, there are many things piled up that I don't know about. These can be seen as ignorance or habits. The fact that a period of 500 million years is reset is quite problematic. The idea that it can completely become this way doesn't make sense; it leaves traces in some form. As Professor Jeon mentioned earlier, death is not the end. In fact, it is not the end for us because there are those traces, and they are very important for our sense of identity. Even if I lose many parts of myself, they still have an effect. For example, if I suffer from amnesia, it doesn't mean that my past self is completely gone. It’s not like that. Therefore, explaining whether this is simply a reset based on memory is insufficient.

It's difficult because the person who went and the one who is here now are different, so that doesn't affect me at all. This is not the case. Ah, we return to a very interesting story. I think we are thinking about memory in a very simplistic way; the question itself is quite simplistic, right? It seems like we are thinking about humans in a very basic way, almost like data. Yes, data deletion. Continuing to talk about this with such a mindset feels like a waste of time. Ah, but I can't ask this question to philosophers. Next time, we might raise the stakes and continue from there. Anyway, I think it was enjoyable to share such interesting stories today. We will come back with even richer content next time. Thank you.

5억 년 버티고 "천만 원 받기 VS 그냥 살기" 철학자들의 답변은? | 철학을 보다 EP.2

누구나, 쉽게, 재밌게 볼 수 있는 영상

유튜브 채널 운영에 어려움을 겪고 있는 기업, 브랜드를 위해 BODA 팀이 
유튜브 컨텐츠 제작대행 사업을 진행합니다:)

뉴미디어 콘텐츠 기획부터 효율적인 제작 운영까지 BODA 제작팀과 함께하세요.

광고 및 비즈니스 문의 : boooda.kr@gmail.com


보다 BODA

버튼 누름의 윤리적 딜레마: 철학적 토론

거액의 돈을 위해 버튼을 누르는 행위는 인간의 행동에 대한 윤리적 의문을 제기합니다.

철학자들은 이 행위가 본질적으로 부도덕하며 사람들은 버튼을 한 번 이상 누르는 경향이 있다고 주장합니다.

이 대화에서는 철학자들이 일상 생활에서 직면하는 직업적 습관과 윤리적 도전에 대해 자세히 살펴봅니다.

상체와 하체를 나누는 철학적, 생물학적 관점

인간의 직립 자세는 상체와 하체의 구분을 생물학적으로 자연스럽게 구분합니다.

이 구분은 아름다움과 외모의 기준에 따른 문화적이고 주관적인 분류로 볼 수도 있습니다.

데카르트의 기하학적 구분 방식은 신체 구성 요소의 기능적, 질적 측면을 고려하지 않았다는 비판을 받았습니다.

시지각의 문화적, 환경적 중요성

눈에 대한 인식은 생존에 매우 중요하며, 사람들이 세상을 인식하는 방식에 영향을 미칩니다.

눈의 인식은 문화적으로 다양하며 환경과 밀접한 관련이 있습니다.

상반신과 하반신의 문화적 구분은 자연적이라기보다는 기하학적이라고 볼 수 있으며, 절대적인 진리에 대한 생각에 도전합니다.

분류 상대주의의 개념은 자연적, 문화적 분류와 관련하여 지각과 철학에 대한 복잡한 질문을 제기하며 논의되고 있습니다.

버튼을 누르면 5억 년 동안 살 수 있지만, 그 기억은 지워져 윤리적 문제가 제기됩니다.

주인공은 이 이해할 수 없는 시간 동안 후회와 철학적 질문, 깊은 사색에 잠기는 경험을 하게 됩니다.

이 이야기는 현실, 우주, 자아에 대한 실존적 질문을 제기하며 궁극적으로 버튼을 계속 누를 것인지에 대한 도덕적 딜레마로 이어집니다.

배제의 고통과 인간 행동의 합리성

외로움과 배제에 대한 두려움은 인간에게 깊은 고통을 줍니다.

수백만 년 동안 외로움을 견뎌야 한다는 생각은 끔찍하며, 인간은 게임 이론에서 볼 수 있듯이 공정성과 합리성이라는 개념에 종종 어려움을 겪습니다.

그럼에도 불구하고 경제적 보상이 인간의 의사결정을 좌우하는 경우가 많지만, 이러한 전제에는 예외가 있습니다.

배제에 대한 두려움과 인간 행동의 합리성은 인간 경험의 복잡하고 다면적인 측면입니다.

어떤 사람들은 다른 사람을 처벌하기 위해 에너지를 소비함으로써 이타적 처벌에 참여하지만, 화자는 스스로 버튼을 누르지 않기로 선택합니다.

버튼을 반복적으로 누르는 것은 반복적이고 비윤리적인 노동의 한 형태로 간주되며, 이는 깊은 외로움과 소외감으로 이어집니다.

이 행위는 무의미하고 지대추구의 한 형태로 간주되며 정당화되지 않아 도덕적 딜레마와 인간 본성에 대한 의문으로 이어집니다.

도파민과 인간 행동에 대한 심리적 관점

도파민은 생산성 향상으로 이어지지 않더라도 특정 행동에 계속 참여하게 합니다.

의사 결정에서 도파민의 역할은 인간 관계와 목표의 중요성을 간과한 채 다소 단순하게 여겨집니다.

인간의 선택에는 결과를 예측하고 미래를 고려하는 능력이 포함되며, 이는 인간을 다른 동물과 차별화합니다.

정체성과 자아의 개념은 뇌 연구에서 탐구된 바와 같이 기억과 자기 인식과 관련된 복잡한 주제입니다.

기억은 단순히 실제 경험을 되찾는 것뿐만 아니라 재구성을 통해 우리의 정체성을 형성하는 데도 중요한 역할을 합니다.

동양 철학에서는 흔적이라는 개념과 함께 몸과 마음의 상호 작용이 개인의 정체성을 유지하는 데 중요한 역할을 합니다.

우리가 남긴 흔적은 계속해서 자아에 영향을 미치기 때문에 기억에 기반한 완전한 리셋이라는 개념은 불충분하며, 죽음은 끝이 아닙니다.