Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
If B is missing something that A has, are A and B different?
Click to expand...

Not possible under H. Materialism says A and B, being materially identical, would therefore be identical in all respects. There is no getting around this, Jabba. You're disputing the core concept of materialism and still trying to call it materialism.
 
zooterkin said:
They're both wearing clothes, which are identical. (You think a machine that can perfectly copy a human would have trouble with clothes?)

So you agree there is no difference.
Click to expand...

No no, Jabba has to go into the replicator naked. Then two naked Jabbas emerge.
And stand there. In front of us. And we have to look at them.

Oh god.
 
godless dave said:
Yes. But in this case the copy is not missing anything the original has.
Click to expand...
- So your perception here is that the fact that I would not be brought back to life in the copy would not constitute an imperfection in the copy -- the copy would not be missing anything that the original had.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- So your perception here is that the fact that I would not be brought back to life in the copy would not constitute an imperfection in the copy -- the copy would not be missing anything from the original.
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
Jabba said:
- So your perception here is that the fact that I would not be brought back to life in the copy would not constitute an imperfection in the copy -- the copy would not be missing anything from the original.
Click to expand...
The copy would believe it had been bought back to life.

Again, how do you know you are not already a copy?
 
Jabba said:
So your perception here is that the fact that I would not be brought back to life in the copy...
Click to expand...

It is not a fact that you wouldn't be brought back to life in the copy. As materialism defines life, you would be brought back to life. Or brought to life separately, should the original still exist. "Life" is not magical under H.

...would not constitute an imperfection in the copy.
Click to expand...

Under H, materialism, perfectly reproducing the matter of you would necessarily perfectly reproduce all that derives from that matter, including anything you might want to define as life.

...the copy would not be missing anything that the original had.
Click to expand...

By definition a perfect copy is not missing anything the original had. Why is this a difficult concept?
 
Jabba said:
- So your perception here is that the fact that I would not be brought back to life in the copy would not constitute an imperfection in the copy -- the copy would not be missing anything that the original had.
Click to expand...

Riiight! It would just not BE the original.

Hans
 
Jabba said:
- So your perception here is that the fact that I would not be brought back to life in the copy would not constitute an imperfection in the copy -- the copy would not be missing anything that the original had.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
Correct.
Click to expand...
- This is why I say that words fail us. To me, the copy is obviously missing something -- and , I can't understand why you and the others would think otherwise...
 
Jabba said:
- This is why I say that words fail us. To me, the copy is obviously missing something -- and , I can't understand why you and the others would think otherwise...
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with words. The problem is that you are unable or unwilling to grasp the idea of a brain-generated self.

Hans
 
Jabba said:
- This is why I say that words fail us.
Click to expand...

Words aren't failing us. Your critics' words are precise, and accurately describe the predictions of materialism under this scenario.

To me, the copy is obviously missing something -- and , I can't understand why you and the others would think otherwise...
Click to expand...

We think otherwise because we don't apply a preconceived notion of a soul where it doesn't belong. A perfect copy, by definition, isn't missing anything and I can't understand why you would think otherwise.
 
Jabba said:
- This is why I say that words fail us. To me, the copy is obviously missing something -- and , I can't understand why you and the others would think otherwise...
Click to expand...

Try reading all the responses you've received. For the umpteenth time: The copy would think it is the original, and would have no way of knowing it wasn't the original. Which means the only difference is that there are now two (2) identical physical bodies in two (2) separate space time coordinates. You have demonstrated that you cannot come up with a single difference apart from that which means there isn't any reason to consider that anything is missing.
 
Jabba said:
- This is why I say that words fail us. To me, the copy is obviously missing something -- and , I can't understand why you and the others would think otherwise...
Click to expand...
The earth is obviously flat, I can't understand why anyone would think otherwise ...

The sun obviously goes round the earth, I can't understand why anyone would think otherwise ...

Time and space are obviously the same for everyone, I can't understand why Einstein thought otherwise ...

This is why common sense is not a reliable guide to the true nature of the universe.
 
Jabba said:
- This is why I say that words fail us. To me, the copy is obviously missing something -- and , I can't understand why you and the others would think otherwise...
Click to expand...

A soul. There, I've said it for you. You didn't want to say it because you have no evidence for such a ridiculous notion; instead, you want us to nod and return your knowing wink. Now magic is on the table anything is possible, including immorality
 
Filippo Lippi said:
A soul. There, I've said it for you. You didn't want to say it because you have no evidence for such a ridiculous notion; instead, you want us to nod and return your knowing wink. Now magic is on the table anything is possible, including immorality
Click to expand...

I don't think immorality was ever in question.
 
Jabba said:
- This is why I say that words fail us.
Click to expand...

Actually, the problem here is the opposite: Words serve us all too well. It is your argument that fails.

Presented with the unwanted task of driving a nail, you've reduced yourself to waving around the claw of the hammer, and insisting that you lack the tool for the job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom