Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[JesseCuster]

1. - Whatever it is, it is continuing and it's meaningful. And, according to OOFLam, it never existed before and will never exist again. And, whatever it is, it will be missing from the perfect replica of my brain.
2. - That's why it's cause and effect untraceable.

2. does not follow at all from 1.

A perfect replica of you would have a perfect replica of your self that would be 100% cause and effect traceable.

This has been explain to you many times by many people, but you keep insisting otherwise.

Instead of just asserting that it's cause and effect untraceable, can you step by step explain logically why you think it's so?

 

[godless dave]

- Whatever it is, it is continuing and it's meaningful. And, according to OOFLam, it never existed before and will never exist again. And, whatever it is, it will be missing from the perfect replica of my brain.

It wouldn't be missing, it would be perfectly replicated.

 

[Belz...]

- Whatever it is, it is continuing

No, as I've explained it's different every moment.

and it's meaningful.

That's a value judgment, not a fact.

And, according to OOFLam, it never existed before and will never exist again.

And?

And, whatever it is, it will be missing from the perfect replica of my brain.

And yet another identical one will be there, exactly like the perfect replica of your brain has another, identical frontal lobe.

That's why it's cause and effect untraceable.

What? How does that follow? One has nothing to do with the other.

It's absolutely traceable: you have a brain, brain function, brain generates sense of self.

 

[Jabba]

- Whatever it is, it is continuing and it's meaningful. And, according to OOFLam, it never existed before and will never exist again. And, whatever it is, it will be missing from the perfect replica of my brain.
- That's why it's cause and effect untraceable.

2. does not follow at all from 1.

A perfect replica of you would have a perfect replica of your self that would be 100% cause and effect traceable.

This has been explain to you many times by many people, but you keep insisting otherwise.

Instead of just asserting that it's cause and effect untraceable, can you step by step explain logically why you think it's so?

Jesse,
- If I'm not brought back to life by this "perfect copy," this perfect copy is missing something -- something that is cause and effect untraceable --my particular sense of self.

 

[Jabba]

It wouldn't be missing, it would be perfectly replicated.

- Would I be brought back to life?

 

[Belz...]

Jesse,
- If I'm not brought back to life by this "perfect copy," this perfect copy is missing something -- something that is cause and effect untraceable --my particular sense of self.

Jabba, this does not follow.

If I create a perfect replica of a chair, everything that made the original what it was is replicated, but it's a copy, not the original. It's the same thing with your "self": the copy has an identical self but it's a copy, not the original. In fact, that shows that it's cause and effect traceable!

 

[Belz...]

- Would I be brought back to life?

It's a replica, not the original, so no.

This is where you're wrong when you say you would see through both sets of eyes.

 

[jond]

- Would I be brought back to life?

The duplicate would certainly think so. And no one would have any way of knowing whether it was the original or the duplicate. The "thing" you're trying to insist exists does not exist under H.

 

[JayUtah]

- Whatever it is, it is continuing and it's meaningful.

No, you can't admit you can't define it but then go on to tell us what it must be like. Meaningfulness is not part of H.

And, according to OOFLam, it never existed before and will never exist again.

OOFLAM is not a thing.

Under the materialist hypothesis, it's a property. The manifestation of the property naturally comes and goes with the entity it belongs to. That's what it means to be a property. It doesn't exist in any other way, such as the soul you're implying here.

And, whatever it is, it will be missing from the perfect replica of my brain.

No, you can't admit you can't define it but then go on to tell us how it would behave. Under H an identical sense of self would most certainly be in a perfect replica.

That's why it's cause and effect untraceable.

No.

You're just telling us what you need this sense of self to be in order to claim that H is falsified because of it. Consummate question begging.

And as usual, you've started out today with exactly the same argument you made yesterday, and for the past large number of days, paying zero attention to anything that is said to you in response. Why should a thinking person take you seriously?

 

[Jabba]

It would not be missing. The perfect physical replica would have also have a sense of self in exactly the same way the original did.

Yes, this exactly.

Too bad it will be ignored.

Dave and Sparrow,
- But, if I wouldn't be brought back to life by this "perfect" replica -- this perfect replica wouldn't be ME. It would be different in that sense, and
consequently untraceable. I am untraceable.

 

[JayUtah]

Jesse,
- If I'm not brought back to life by this "perfect copy," this perfect copy is missing something -- something that is cause and effect untraceable --my particular sense of self.

There is no "particular sense of self." There is the property exhibited by living conscious beings. If you reproduce the organism, you reproduce the sense of self that is the property we're talking about in H. You are unable to define or describe, except in vague pseudo-philosophical handwaving, what would be missing from any copy.

We've been through all this before, several times. Why are you just mindlessly repeating your desired outcome and calling it an argument?

 

[jond]

Dave and Sparrow,
- But, if I wouldn't be brought back to life by this "perfect" replica -- this perfect replica wouldn't be ME. It would be different in that sense, and
consequently untraceable. I am untraceable.

Again, the perfect replica would disagree with you because it would think it is Jabba, and no one would be able to tell the difference.

 

[Jabba]

The duplicate would certainly think so. And no one would have any way of knowing whether it was the original or the duplicate. The "thing" you're trying to insist exists does not exist under H.

jond,
- So, If what I say is true, H is wrong!

 

[Belz...]

Dave and Sparrow,
- But, if I wouldn't be brought back to life by this "perfect" replica -- this perfect replica wouldn't be ME. It would be different in that sense, and
consequently untraceable. I am untraceable.

I don't think you're clear on what the word "replica" means, jabba. A replica is a separate but identical item. Your exact copy would have an identical but separate sense of self because it's cause and effect traceable to the replica brain.

 

[JayUtah]

if I wouldn't be brought back to life by this "perfect" replica

There is no magical quality "brought back to life" under H. You're deliberately equivocating the concept of a replica.

...this perfect replica wouldn't be ME.

There is no such magical identity under H. A replica would be just as much you as the original.

It would be different in that sense, and consequently untraceable. I am untraceable.

Under H your sense of self is cause-and-effect traceable to your physical organism. That sense of self would arise any time the physical organism is present. That's what it means to be a property.

 

[Belz...]

jond,
- So, If what I say is true, H is wrong!

Yeah but you keep saying things that aren't true.

Especially, you keep getting H wrong. That's not a flaw with H but with your understanding of it.

 

[jond]

jond,
- So, If what I say is true, H is wrong!

And what you say is wrong: the self is a process, not a thing. You've been shown this in many different ways and you have ignored it every single time. Therefore, we can conclude that H is true.

 

[JayUtah]

jond,
- So, If what I say is true, H is wrong!

No.

You're redefining H to be something it isn't solely so you can say materialism doesn't explain all the nonsense you're trying to attach to it.

 

[Jabba]

I don't think you're clear on what the word "replica" means, jabba. A replica is a separate but identical item. Your exact copy would have an identical but separate sense of self because it's cause and effect traceable to the replica brain.

- Would I be brought back to life?

 

[Jabba]

And what you say is wrong: the self is a process, not a thing. You've been shown this in many different ways and you have ignored it every single time. Therefore, we can conclude that H is true.

- But, would my process be brought back to life?