Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[jond]

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

The same process would be going on in the duplicate, therefore the duplicate would certainly think it is Jabba.

 

[JayUtah]

- Would I be brought back to life?

Asked and answered. Do not repeat questions that were already answered just minutes ago.

 

[Jabba]

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.

Argumemnon,
- How am I getting H wrong?

 

[Belz...]

- Would I be brought back to life?

I've already answered this a few minutes ago, jabba: the copy is identical to you but it isn't you. NO, you wouldn't be brought back to life because the original is destroyed, and your self is traceable ONLY to it.

 

[JayUtah]

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

Now you're just throwing random words together from the discussion and throwing them into the fray like a fleeing criminal throwing lawn furniture in the path of his pursuer. Stop and think. Read the responses. Compose a cogent response.

 

[Jabba]

The same process would be going on in the duplicate, therefore the duplicate would certainly think it is Jabba.

- But, the duplicate process would not be ME.

 

[Belz...]

Argumemnon,
- How am I getting H wrong?

If you bothered to read the posts that people write just for you, you'd know this already. We've been telling you for years exactly how you're getting it wrong. Stop ignoring us.

 

[JayUtah]

Argumemnon,
- How am I getting H wrong?

You honestly have to ask? Go back and look at everything I've written for the past four or five days. I've typed words to the effect "Not under H" or "That's not part of H" so many times I think I need to bind it to a function key on my computer.

Stop being so rude.

 

[JayUtah]

- But, the duplicate process would not be ME.

Under H there is no part of you that the duplicate would not exhibit. That's what it means to be a duplicate. There is no magical "you" in H that is simply defined as being whatever would be missing from a duplicate.

 

[jond]

- But, the duplicate process would not be ME.

What, exactly, would be different about it?

 

[JayUtah]

What, exactly, would be different about it?

I'd love to see Jabba try to argue his way out of a speeding ticket by saying his "going 90 mph" isn't the one the law was talking about.

 

[jond]

I'd love to see Jabba try to argue his way out of a speeding ticket by saying his "going 90 mph" isn't the one the law was talking about.

Oh, that could be fascinating!

 

[Mojo]

- But, the duplicate process would not be ME.

No, it would be a second process identical to YOU. Does it really need to be pointed out yet again that if you have two identical things there are two of them and they are identical?

 

[godless dave]

- Would I be brought back to life?

Does 1+1=2? Or does 1+1=1?

Answering my question will answer yours.

 

[Belz...]

What, exactly, would be different about it?

Well, it would be a separate sense of self, is what I think he means. And for once he's right. But that, in and of itself, is why he dismisses it: he WANTS his sense of self to be special.

 

[jond]

Well, it would be a separate sense of self, is what I think he means. And for once he's right. But that, in and of itself, is why he dismisses it: he WANTS his sense of self to be special.

Wants and NEEDS.

 

[godless dave]

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.

It would only be different in the way a copy of a Volkswagen is different from the original. The copy is still traceable.

 

[Jabba]

I've already answered this a few minutes ago, jabba: the copy is identical to you but it isn't you. NO, you wouldn't be brought back to life because the original is destroyed, and your self is traceable ONLY to it.

- Consequently, this copy is not perfect, and we cannot specify the physics of ME -- unless we consider time and space...

 

[Jabba]

It would only be different in the way a copy of a Volkswagen is different from the original. The copy is still traceable.

- But YOU and I are not traceable.

 

[jond]

- Consequently, this copy is not perfect, and we cannot specify the physics of ME -- unless we consider time and space...

which is still a physical consideration. And since the duplicate would insist that it too is ME, it's also irrelevant.