Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Agatha,
- You think that we would reproduce the particular self, or that aspect of self, to which reincarnationists refer?!
Proof of Immortality, VI
- Thread starter jond
- Start date
- Status
- You think that we would reproduce the particular self, or that aspect of self, to which reincarnationists refer?!
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Do you experience a sense of self that rationalists refer to as a process?
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Jabba, to reproduce something is to copy it. Agatha and I both believe that if you reproduced a brain you would reproduce its self.
In fact, here's what Agatha herself said:
What was unclear about that?
In fact, here's what Agatha herself said:
Agatha said:
What was unclear about that?
Belz...
Fiend God
Stop mentioning reincarnationists. They're irrelevant to questions about H.
We would reproduce the process of self; that is, it would be an identical but separate process of self.
Which part of that causes your problems?
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Do you even realise the consequences of your question?
If you have relations with your wife, the clone must do likewise. If you have dinner, the clone must do likewise. If you drive to the mall, the clone must do likewise.
Do you not see how daft this idea is?
I'm sure Jabba will dutifully put the 8,345th time he's had to have the concept of "distinct but otherwise identical" explained to him in his "Roadmap of a Patented Effective Debate."
The Neutrals will be wowed.
The Neutrals will be wowed.
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
There would be two separate and identical brains, with separate and identical minds, and with separate and identical lack of evidence for whatever reincarnationists believe in.
And so it goes.
If we copied some dude, would that be the same dude to which soipsists refer?
If we copied some dude, would that be the same dude to which nihilists refer?
If we copied some dude, would that be the same dude to which buddhists refer?
If we copied some dude, would that be the same dude to which psychotics refer?
Truly Effective DebateTM - Asking stupid questions since 2012.
If we copied some dude, would that be the same dude to which nihilists refer?
If we copied some dude, would that be the same dude to which buddhists refer?
If we copied some dude, would that be the same dude to which psychotics refer?
Truly Effective DebateTM - Asking stupid questions since 2012.
Last edited:
No. Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts with a modicum of attention.
I said that I believe that if we were able to reproduce a functioning brain with a functioning body, then that reproduction would have an identical-but-separate process occurring within that brain, which would mean that the two brains (the original and the copy) would have identical-but-separate senses of selves (with the caveat that they would diverge later and become non-identical).
The self or the sense of self, is a process, not a discrete entity.
I have no clue as to what reincarnationists as a group believe about the sense of self; I suspect that there is very little agreement between the various flavours of reincarnation ideas held by them. But what they believe has no bearing on H, no bearing on materialism, and certainly has nothing to do with what I am trying to convey to you.
Last edited:
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
We don't need to refer to what re-incarnationists believe.
Jabba is clearly referring to that 'observer' part of our minds. The thing that says 'this is me' and I am seeing this or tasting this etc.
Jabba, both the original and the copy would each have their own observers. Identical in composition but distinct, separate, and independant. Like when you photocopy a document.
Jabba is clearly referring to that 'observer' part of our minds. The thing that says 'this is me' and I am seeing this or tasting this etc.
Jabba, both the original and the copy would each have their own observers. Identical in composition but distinct, separate, and independant. Like when you photocopy a document.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Jabba,
- If two things are identical, how many of them are there?
Seriously, Jabba, if you can figure out the answer to this question you should be able to get over the misunderstanding that you are currently struggling with.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The thing is, Argumemnon, you're too stupid to understand the concept of a soul. But hopefully, after five years of having it explained to you, the idea of reincarnation is finally starting to penetrate your thick skull. This time, when Jabba explains it to you, it might actually begin to make sense, and you might actually begin to appreciate Jabba's rare insight into this difficult subject.
I mean, it's been half a decade. By now, you could have gotten a PhD in reincarnation and souls, if you were really serious about learning this stuff.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Certainly not! The self to which reincarnationists refer is an immaterial self that can exist independently of the body. H or materialism most certainly refers to nothing of the kind.
Hans
Belz...
Fiend God
I'm sorry, I'm too biased and closed-minded for that to happen. Jabba'll just have to seek a more neutral audience.
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
Jabba and his wife walk in to a bar...
Bartender: Welcome! What can I get you?
Wife: I'll have a pale ale.
Jabba: I'll have the same.
.
.
.
.
Jabba: Huh? Why did you pour us each a glass?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Different glasses, but was it the same pouring?
This signature is intended to irradiate people.
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
It was one bottle pouring into 2 glasses simultaneously.
Jabba, how many 'pourings' are there?
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
It's getting to the point where Jabba switches to one of his 'sub-issues', pursues it a bit, finds out it ain't going so well, then backs off, switches to another, repeats the same, etc etc. There are about 3 or 4 of these tributaries and they are just getting continually recycled. Instead of responding now, we should just link back to the time it was last responded to.
like:
see post 1645.
see post 3629.
See post 1101
like:
see post 1645.
see post 3629.
See post 1101
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
It's actually been this way all along. After five years, Jabba has a PhD in fringe reset.
This signature is intended to irradiate people.
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
Which makes me wonder, in all seriousness, how long does Effective Debate(TM) actually take? I would think that the point of debating is to come to a consensus, or perhaps to understand opposing views. I don't think E.D. has an end goal in mind if it literally takes years to state your premise and then continually announce what you plan to do.
This is what is happening here, and it is this way when being lead by the "better man" in this debating technique. Image if others less versed in E.D. were to attempt it. Seriously, how long is a debate using E.D. supposed to take?
- Status