Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- H implies that YOU are determined totally by the physical. Consequently, if you are totally, physically reproduced, YOU should return to life.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion
- Thread starter Dancing David
- Start date
- Status
Mojo
Mostly harmless
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Correct.
Incorrect. This doesn't follow at all. If I am totally, physically reproduced, I should be totally, physically reproduced. The copy will be a copy in exactly the same way a copy of a Volkswagen is a copy.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- But, it won't be YOU. Your particular sense of self would be missing -- and, untraceable.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
YOU = sense of self. "Return to life" isn't a meaningful concept for "sense of self".
The process of replication would create something that would be alive. It would have a sense of self, and that sense of self would be YOU just as much as the original has a sense of self that would be YOU.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- NO -- the VW won't be missing anything.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You're still begging the question. Under H the consciousnesses are caused entirely by their brains, and therefore if the brains are identical so are the consciousnesses. There is nothing in the original that is missing from the copy.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
But the engine in the duplicate Volkswagen is not the same engine as in the original Volkswagen. So the duplicate Volkswagen is missing the original engine. So the two Volkswagens are different.
Right?
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Nor will the copy of you, if H is true. Unless you are specifying H as a hypothesis that includes souls, in which case ~H includes all hypotheses that don't include immortal souls.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
What, specifically, will be missing from the duplicate? He will think he's ME, just as you do. The only difference will be his physical body which will be a duplicate and not the original. You keep insisting there is something else, but it is no different than two identical VWs.
You are wrong, and H is correct. H states that there is nothing non-physical about us, and your thought experiment about impossible duplication only shows us further that H is correct.
Belz...
Fiend God
I've explained to you why that's not true. You are using two definitions of "different" at the same time.
It's a different person, but it is identical, hence not different.
So why not just be more careful with the wording?
It's a separate person, but it is identical. There is nothing missing, just like your "self" is not missing from my chair or car.
No, that does not follow. I have explained to you why earlier today. Did you read it? Here it is again:
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!
Then you are treating "the self" as something supernatural even under H, which is contradictory.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Rampant equivocation. You've asked this question repeatedly with your fingers stuck in your ears.
The thought experiment is to duplicate the physical organism exactly, not rescuscitate a dead one. "Bring back to life" simply has no relevant meaning in H, and no relevant meaning in the thought experiment. A duplicate is necessary a second entity. You can't make a duplicate without 1+1=2, but you're trying to say that one of those 1's is magically different than the other 1. Under H, the organism is not, just as in arithmetic any 1 is indistinguishable from any other 1.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And under H, the duplicate person won't be missing anything. When we say something is a property of an entity, that means the property necessary appears when the entity appears. The sense of self necessarily appears when the entity does because that's what it means to be a property. You have a longstanding difficulty understanding this.
What you seem to fail to grasp is that there is no applied sense of nobility in the human organism under H. You seem completely unable to grasp the notion that there is no special difference between a human organism and a Volkswagen under H. There is no magical ineffable "something" that inhabits humans that is in any way less scrutable than the properties of inanimate objects. Sorry, but that's H. Be as noble as you want with ~H, but you simply can't foist your own private caricature of materialism onto your critics and demand they accept it.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
None of this has anything to do with H. Do try to pay attention from time to time.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Jabba, here's where I think you are going wrong with your thought experiment. If H is correct, your duplicate will think he's Jabba. His ME would be indentical your your ME. If H is incorrect, your duplicate will think he is someone else. Your ME would be different from his ME. But since you agree that he would think he is Jabba, H is correct.
JesseCuster
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 4, 2016
- Messages
- 2,413
No, it isn't "missing" something. To say it's "missing" something implies that there's something that it should have, that it doesn't have.
You have a sense of self that is an emergent property of you.
A perfect replica of you would have a perfect replica of your sense of self that would be an emergent property of your replica. A sense of self that would be as 100% cause and effect traceable as your current sense of self is.
The fact that the sense of self would be a replica of yours as opposed to a continuation of yours does not make it
1. Missing
or
2. Cause and effect untraceable.
Merely repeating this ad nauseum will not make it true. Can you actually argue that a replica of you would have something "missing" and that what's missing is "cause and effect untraceable"?
JesseCuster
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 4, 2016
- Messages
- 2,413
Where on earth did you get that idea from?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Note that Jabba can talk about this alleged secret ingredient only by going in circles. You can distinguish the duplicate from the original because the duplicate wouldn't have "ME" in it. Jabba knows full well he can't define this "ME," and we know it because he has to resort to language such as "whatever it is..." to talk about it. When pressed to define it, he defines it simply as whatever is missing from the copy.
Arguments rarely get as discernibly circular as this. Jabba seems to want to think his argument fails for only esoteric reasons that don't matter, or because his critics are unfair and unfriendly. It fails because it's blatantly illogical.
No, but it will make it seem like he won the debate. The stubborn stonewalling that characterizes his argument on nearly every point tells his critics he's simply not interested in an actual debate. They lose interest and go away after offering the obvious rebuttals Jabba ignores. After they go away Jabba declares himself the winner, having thwarted those pesky skeptics by sticking to his guns and not compromising on The Truth.
Dollars to donuts his "map" will not have a link back to this forum.
- Status