Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Waterman said:
So we are in agreement that:
1: A perfect clone would have no awareness of its status as copy
2: Those that knew the original would be unable to detect any change
3: There is no nonphysical connection between the original and clone each would have its independent existence.

I am merely restating if I have made any error please let me know.

The root of our disagreement seems to be:

that a physically perfect copy would not be a totally perfect copy
So please explain to me what this missing non-physical difference is and how are you aware of its existance?

Please recall you stated above:
Click to expand...
Waterman,
- I'm simply claiming that if I am not brought back to life by this copy (whatever this "I" is that you agree would not be brought back to life), the copy is missing something from the original -- it's missing that ME that was not brought back to life (and, will never exist again) according to H.
 
JesseCuster said:
Yes it would.

Remember, it's a copy. That means that all its properties, emergent or otherwise, are copies of your properties.

The fact that a perfect copy of you would have a perfect copy of your sense of self instead of some weird situation where your sense of self can see through 2 sets of eyes does not mean that its not a perfect copy.

Of course a perfect copy of you is going to have perfect copies of all your properties, including your sense of self. How could it possibly work any other way? The fact that that's not what you wish to happen if you were duplicated or the fact that you've imagined up some weird scenario involving duplicate people seeing out through multiple sets of eyes does not make a perfect copy of you any less than perfect.
Click to expand...
Jesse,
- I'm just saying that if the copy doesn't bring me back to life, there's an obvious and significant difference between the original and the copy...
 
Jabba said:
Waterman,
- I'm simply claiming that if I am not brought back to life by this copy (whatever this "I" is that you agree would not be brought back to life), the copy is missing something from the original -- it's missing that ME that was not brought back to life (and, will never exist again) according to H.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep saying that a copy of you is missing something? To say that it's missing something is to say that something that should be there, isn't there.

But according to H, a copy of you would have a copy of your sense of self, your copy wouldn't be have a continuation of your sense of self (assuming the original is dead) and it wouldn't be sharing a sense of self with you (assuming the original you is still alive), so nothing is missing in the copy.

A copy of you is no more missing your sense of self than a copy of a Volkswagen is missing any of its properties because it doesn't share them with the original, it has its own copies of those properties.

And before you start special pleading, under H, there's nothing mystical, magical or special about your sense of self such that it has its own special rules apart from other properties. As much as you (and everyone else) hold your sense of self to be special and unique, you don't get to make up rules for how it should work because of how special you feel it to be.
 
- How about, if the copy doesn't bring me back to life, there's an obvious and significant distinction between the original and the copy...
 
Jabba said:
Jesse,
- I'm just saying that if the copy doesn't bring me back to life, there's an obvious and significant difference between the original and the copy...
Click to expand...

Yes, we know that this is what you're saying, since you've been saying that for weeks now.

However, you're wrong. There is no difference; it's just two distinct but identical objects.

What part of that last sentence causes you confusion?

Jabba said:
- How about, if the copy doesn't bring me back to life, there's an obvious and significant distinction between the original and the copy...
Click to expand...

That's better. It's two separate objects. Nothing's missing in either of them. They're just not the same object.
 
Jabba said:
- You're getting too harsh. If you really want me to read your stuff and respond, you need to pretend some respect ... and, it won't work if it looks too much like sarcasm...
Click to expand...

Do not attempt to moderate the discussion as an excuse not to read posts. The forum has a mechanism for testing whether posts are too harsh. Avail yourself of that and report posts for moderation. Those that survive are civil enough for you to answer. You are not entitled to be coddled.
 
Jabba said:
- But, H recognizes what I'm experiencing and agrees that this particular experience would not return.
Click to expand...

Under H an identical consciousness would come into being, indistinguishable from the first in all respects.

IOW, H recognizes a difference between the original and the copy.
Click to expand...

No.

H recognizes a distinction, not a difference. You were told several times how those concepts differ. Kindly respect it.
 
JayUtah said:
Do not attempt to moderate the discussion as an excuse not to read posts. The forum has a mechanism for testing whether posts are too harsh. Avail yourself of that and report posts for moderation. Those that survive are civil enough for you to answer. You are not entitled to be coddled.
Click to expand...

I love how he practically demands my respect in order to read and respond to my posts, as if being polite elicits reading and responding by him to anyone in the last five years.
 
JayUtah said:
H recognizes a distinction, not a difference. You were told several times how those concepts differ. Kindly respect it.
Click to expand...

Yes, jabba. You're being rude. If you want Jay to read and respond to your posts, you need to pretend some respect ... and, it won't work if it looks too much like evasion...
 
Jabba said:
- How about, if the copy doesn't bring me back to life, there's an obvious and significant distinction between the original and the copy...
Click to expand...

There's a distinction between the original and the copy no matter what, because that's what it means to make a copy of something.
 
Jabba said:
- How about, if the copy doesn't bring me back to life, there's an obvious and significant distinction between the original and the copy...
Click to expand...

"Bring back to life" is not a concept you have defined in any terms other than to insinuate it has something to do with whatever you claim won't be reproduced. Such circular definitions don't produce viable proofs.

And now you're trying to redefine "distinction" to mean something else. The new organism would be distinct from the first only by virtue of being, cardinally, another entity. Each would exhibit the property of the sense of self, just as two cars going the same speed would each exhibit that property. The property would be identically observed in each organism. You would not be able to tell which is which. Neither instance of the organism would be able to tell which is which. That's what it means to be a property. There is no difference between the exhibitions of this property that has any value to what you're trying to misuse it for.
 
Argumemnon said:
I love how he practically demands my respect in order to read and respond to my posts, as if being polite elicits reading and responding by him to anyone in the last five years.
Click to expand...

Agreed; there is no correlation between Jabba's decision to respond and any of the criteria he says he uses to select favored interlocutors. He ignores carefully reasoned dispassionate posts but responds to outright mockery.

His bluff is called. He can report posts he believes are too uncivil to stand. The moderators can and will (and have) taken action. Posts that survive are civil. He is responsible for what they say, regardless of whether he has a cogent answer for them. Scrambling for lame excuses not to have to listen to criticism is a hallmark of the fringe.
 
Jabba said:
- How about, if the copy doesn't bring me back to life, there's an obvious and significant distinction between the original and the copy...
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly what you've been continually told by multiple posters for quite some time now.

If it wasn't distinct from the original, it wouldn't be a copy, would it?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
...and, will never exist again according to H.
Click to expand...

No, H attributes no such magic to mere cardinality, serialization, or distinction. You've gone down this path before. Every time you try to read into mere cardinality the "magical" properties you say enliven your argument, you realize it must also be applied to everything else that also exhibits cardinality and serialization. Which is literally every entity. And you try every time to escape that reduction by begging the question that "selves" are just somehow magically different.

Don't abuse your critics by attempting the same failed arguments over and over. We know what you claim. What you claim is wrong, and you've been told several times why.
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
Yes, that's exactly what you've been continually told by multiple posters for quite some time now.
Click to expand...

Except he's equivocating "disctinction" to mean "difference." This is all any Jabba argument ever does. Once the concepts and words are nailed down by his critics, he abuses the language and simply foists his old concepts on top of them.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Jesse,
- I'm just saying that if the copy doesn't bring me back to life, there's an obvious and significant difference between the original and the copy...
Click to expand...
Under H, the only 'you' is the sense of self that emerges from the physical processes of your brain. The copy would have this, identical to the original.
 
Pixel42 said:
The only distinction is their spacetime coordinates. We've been over this before, Jabba.
Click to expand...

If jabba wants to remove that distinction, he'll have to admit that jabba right now isn't the same jabba from two seconds ago. He's missing something from his earlier "self", and thus is no longer alive. Jabba from two seconds ago is dead, replaced by a new instance.

Jabba can't have it both ways.
 
JayUtah said:
Except he's equivocating "disctinction" to mean "difference." This is all any Jabba argument ever does. Once the concepts and words are nailed down by his critics, he abuses the language and simply foists his old concepts on top of them.
Click to expand...
He's been corrected so many times on his usage of the words 'same' and 'different' and how he equivocates between different meanings of them, that it's really starting to look like he's being quite deliberate when he uses them in a way that's vague and allows for misunderstanding.

There's simply no excuse at this stage for using him using the word 'different' when he really should be using the word 'distinct' to avoid any misunderstanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom