Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Monza said:
Which makes me wonder, in all seriousness, how long does Effective Debate(TM) actually take?
Click to expand...

Well seeing as how its been half a decade and Jabba has spent the entire time rearranging his chess pieces and attempting to tell his opponent they are only allowed 2 pawns and a Warhammer 40K figure.... I'd say this isn't the last total eclipse that's gonna happen over this debate.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- You think that we would reproduce the particular self, or that aspect of self, to which reincarnationists refer?!
Click to expand...


Jabba -

Please, please stop saying that. If you think the sense of self is a thing, define it. Reincarnationists (of which there are hundreds of flavors) may or may not believe the same thing.

In your own words: What is the self? What are its likes and dislikes? Whom does it love? Is it a specific age? What does it take to the next life? What does it leave with the body? Does a schizophrenic man who hates peaches have a neurotypical self who hates peaches? Add as many examples as you can.
 
Agatha said:
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.
Click to expand...

And then Jabba walks away refusing to acknowledge Agatha's points and pretends they never happened...

Unless Jabba begins to grasp the concept of the sense of self being a process we will be stuck in an infinite loop.
 
jond said:
And then Jabba walks away refusing to acknowledge Agatha's points and pretends they never happened...
Click to expand...

That's what makes this such a sickeningly enjoyable car wreck.
Just when there starts to be some traction and we are getting to the heart of one of Jabba's sub issues, just when he is backed into a corner, he flees to let the thread cool down. Then comes back with a restatement of his entire position, and tries another sub issue. We'll be back to this particular one in a month, don't you worry.
 
The Sparrow said:
That's what makes this such a sickeningly enjoyable car wreck.
Just when there starts to be some traction and we are getting to the heart of one of Jabba's sub issues, just when he is backed into a corner, he flees to let the thread cool down. Then comes back with a restatement of his entire position, and tries another sub issue. We'll be back to this particular one in a month, don't you worry.
Click to expand...

But not back where we left off. Back at the beginning as if this discussion never happened.
 
Peregrinus said:
Ah! This is apparently some new meaning of "enjoyable" of which I wasn't previously aware. With a nod to Douglas Adams. :D
Click to expand...

No he's right the hotter this slow moving dumpster fire of a thread goes the more meta-fascinating it becomes.

Woo Slinging survives on taking an absurd, either provably wrong or unprovably meaningless, claim and couching in enough bad argumentatives to be surface level believable and most debunkings are about chipping away at that protective shell of argumentatives to get at the core claim.

This is... on a whole other level. This is Woo from someone who can't do arguementatives, that is openly admitting that they have ulterior motives.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Above, you said that the selves would be the same.
- Above, Dave says that the selves would not be the same.
- I'm sure that you and Dave agree -- you just don't mean the same thing by the word "same"...

- Anyway, the trouble is that
#1. you both do experience the kind of self, or aspect of self, that reincarnationists think returns -- you know what they're talking about -- you just think they're wrong about it returning. And,
#2. you both believe that if we were able to perfectly reproduce a brain, we would not reproduce the particular self, or that aspect of self, to which reincarnationists refer. There would be an important difference between the old self and the new self.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
How is that a difference?
Is there a difference between the new body and the original body?
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- NO.
- But if two selves are not the same, isn't there a difference between the two selves?
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
No. There are two of them. You can have two identical things.
If you understand why there would be no difference between the two bodies, you should be able to understand why there would be no difference between the two selves.
Click to expand...
- I finally see what you mean... You're right -- two bodies, by definition, cannot be the same body, but they don't have to be "different" in the sense to which I'm referring...
- But then, OOFLam refers to, and I've been referring to, the kind of self to which reincarnationists refer; you know what that kind of self is; and you believe that that kind of self would be different between identical brains.
 
Jabba said:
- But then, OOFLam refers to, and I've been referring to, the kind of self to which reincarnationists refer
Click to expand...

What is it with you and reincarnation?

; you know what that kind of self is; and you believe that that kind of self would be different between identical brains.
Click to expand...

Stop putting words in other people's mouths. We all agree that, under H, the "self" is merely a process of the brain. It's not a thing separate from it. You know this as well.
 
Jabba said:
- I finally see what you mean... You're right -- two bodies, by definition, cannot be the same body, but they don't have to be "different" in the sense to which I'm referring...
- But then, OOFLam refers to, and I've been referring to, the kind of self to which reincarnationists refer; you know what that kind of self is; and you believe that that kind of self would be different between identical brains.
Click to expand...

No, I do not. I believe identical selves would work exactly like identical bodies.
 
Jabba said:
- But then, OOFLam refers to, and I've been referring to, the kind of self to which reincarnationists refer; you know what that kind of self is; and you believe that that kind of self would be different between identical brains.
Click to expand...


Then you are arguing for the existence of an entity for which there is no evidence.

Again, the self is not a thing.

What I believe is that that kind of self does not exist, regardless of who else might have faith in it.
 
Jabba said:
- But then, OOFLam refers to, and I've been referring to, the kind of self to which reincarnationists refer; you know what that kind of self is; and you believe that that kind of self would be different between identical brains.
Click to expand...

This is just another re-statement of the old "First, accept all my conclusions, then based on that I'll demonstrate why my conclusions are correct" line, isn't it?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
This is just another re-statement of the old "First, accept all my conclusions, then based on that I'll demonstrate why my conclusions are correct" line, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes and he seems to be in the process of shifting that to straight up telling us we already agree with is conclusions, therefore we obviously agree with his conclusions.

Jabba "Patented Effective Debate Style" seems to be requiring any actual input form his opponents less and less. What started off as the argumentative equivalent at cheating at poker is rapidly becoming the argumentative equivalent of cheating at solitaire.
 
Jabba said:
- Would I be brought back to life?
Click to expand...

An exact copy of you would be brought to life. If the original you had died, the copy would think he had been brought back to life. If the original you was still alive, each one would think he was the original.

Identical selves would work exactly like identical bodies.

When you make a copy of something, you end up with two things.

There are no situations where making a copy of something results in one thing.
 
Jabba said:
- Would I be brought back to life?
Click to expand...

You've asked this questions dozens of times and have gotten the same answer every time. Why would the answer change now?

An identical copy of you would be brought back to life. The process of "self" would be identical but separate.
 
godless dave said:
An exact copy of you would be brought to life. If the original you had died, the copy would think he had been brought back to life. If the original you was still alive, each one would think he was the original.

Identical selves would work exactly like identical bodies.

When you make a copy of something, you end up with two things.

There are no situations where making a copy of something results in one thing.
Click to expand...
- But, the "I" that reincarnationists talk about would not be brought back to life. In that sense, the two selves would be different.
 
Jabba said:
- But, the "I" that reincarnationists talk about would not be brought back to life. In that sense, the two selves would be different.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand what sense that is. They are "different" in the same way the bodies are "different". There are two of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom