Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
godless dave said:
The fact that there are two of them. The exact same cause for there being two brains. Each is made of different raw material. They are in different locations, were produced at different times, or both.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- But, the chemistry is the same, so the difference in raw material shouldn't matter.
Click to expand...

Agatha said:
Didn't we spend pages before explaining that two identical things cannot occupy the same point in space, thus they are not one thing but two distinct, yet identical things? And haven't we explained ad nauseam that if it were possible to create an identical copy of a person, the "who" of each one would diverge the moment that they occupied different points in space and time? Why yes, yes we did.
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- Still not sure we're talking about the same "self."
- The characteristics of the self I'm talking about do change over time, but the self, itself, doesn't. I do change over time, but it's still me.
.- You change over time, but it's still you. It's the same awareness.
- Does the self you're talking about at least appear to stay the same over time?
 
godless dave said:
There are still two of them. They are identical, but there are two of them.

If you exactly duplicated the events that led to the existence of Mount Rainier, you would have two identical mountains, not one mountain.
Click to expand...
- So, nothing could make the self become re-aware?
 
Jabba said:
I do change over time, but it's still me.
Click to expand...

Show us proof that any aspect of "me" or "awareness" is not a process of your physical organism. Mutability over time is a red herring. Provide an argument that your concept of "me" or "awareness" is based on something other than what you need to be true in order for your preconceived belief to hold.
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
There are still two of them. They are identical, but there are two of them.

If you exactly duplicated the events that led to the existence of Mount Rainier, you would have two identical mountains, not one mountain.
Click to expand...
- So, nothing could make the self become re-aware?
 
JayUtah said:
Define "self" and "re-aware." Second time asking. It sounds as if you're contriving new things out of whole cloth just so you can argue that the new thing prevents the universal laws of nature from holding.
Click to expand...

This is a recurring theme in this subforum.
 
JayUtah said:
Show us proof that any aspect of "me" or "awareness" is not a process of your physical organism. Provide an argument that your concept of "me" or "awareness" is based on something other than what you need to be true in order for your preconceived belief to hold.
Click to expand...
- Trying to make sure that we're talking about the same "self" -- after your characteristics change, is it still you? Is it the same "self"?
 
JayUtah said:
Define "self" and "re-aware." Second time asking. It sounds as if you're contriving new things out of whole cloth just so you can argue that the new thing prevents the universal laws of nature from holding.
Click to expand...
- "Self" is a particular consciousness, My "self" is my particular consciousness. Your "self" is your particular consciousness.
- To be "re-aware" would be for a particular consciousness (like me, or like you) to become conscious again after death (not after sleep).
 
Jabba said:
- "Self" is a particular consciousness, My "self" is my particular consciousness. Your "self" is your particular consciousness.
- To be "re-aware" would be for a particular consciousness (like me, or like you) to become conscious again after death (not after sleep).
Click to expand...

Then the answer to your question is "no". There is no survival of consciousness after death.

That's rather the whole point of this thread. If we knew that there was, you wouldn't have to sit here going through the most incredible fits of mental gymnastics to try and convince yourself that it was so.
 
Jabba said:
- Trying to make sure that we're talking about the same "self" -- after your characteristics change, is it still you? Is it the same "self"?
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with my question. You did not

1. show the required proof.
2. give a non-circular argument.

Since you have started reading and responding to my posts again, please address the points I raised.
 
Jabba said:
- "Self" is a particular consciousness, My "self" is my particular consciousness. Your "self" is your particular consciousness.
Click to expand...

You have shown no evidence that consciousness is anything other than a process of the organism. Hence the answers to your questions should be straightforward. Consciousness is not shown to persist after the death of the organism. Separate organisms would therefore have separate consciousnesses no matter how closely the natural forces react to duplicate their physical form.

If you have evidence for any other formulation of the consciousness, now would be the time to produce it.

To be "re-aware" would be for a particular consciousness (like me, or like you) to become conscious again after death (not after sleep).
Click to expand...

You have shown no evidence that consciousness persists after the death of the organism. Hence to cause to arise a second organism, either concurrently or subsequently to a first, having the same physical characteristics, does not cause them magically to share some consciousness. Once again you're trying to cast "consciousness," "self," and/or "me" circularly in terms that somehow create this magical property.
 
I'm working on uploading my consciousness to the cloud as a viral, distributed AI. Would that count as immortality?
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Still not sure we're talking about the same "self."
- The characteristics of the self I'm talking about do change over time, but the self, itself, doesn't. I do change over time, but it's still me.
.- You change over time, but it's still you. It's the same awareness.
- Does the self you're talking about at least appear to stay the same over time?
Click to expand...

You're not talking about the same self because you're talking about a soul. Agatha is talking about the sum of our knowledge based in evidence - personhood is an illusion created by disparate parts of the brain integrating and interpreting sensation. If the brain can change, the person changes. If the brain dies, the person dies.

If we assume there is a soul, as you would have us do, then we assume the conclusion of your argument. Instead, present evidence of a soul. Then your argument will stop being circular.
 
Last edited:
Good evening. Tonight on It's The Mind we're going to examine deja bu, that strange feeling that you've been through something before.

Good evening. Tonight on It's The Mind we're going to examine deja bu, that strange feeling that you've been through something before.

/Python
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom