Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- But, the point is that I would not be brought back to life -- the old self was me, the new self would not be me. That is a difference -- a critical difference.
Click to expand...

Jabba,
The first-person pronouns as you are using them have no meaning. The point is that Jabba would be brought [back] to life. The old self was Jabba. The new self would be Jabba. There is no difference.
 
Jabba, are you thinking of each self as having some kind of identity property that indicates which one it is?

If so, why?
 
Jabba said:
- But, the point is that I would not be brought back to life -- the old self was me, the new self would not be me. That is a difference -- a critical difference.
Click to expand...

WHAT IS THE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE!? EXPLAIN IT!
 
Jabba said:
- But, the point is that I would not be brought back to life -- the old self was me, the new self would not be me. That is a difference -- a critical difference.
Click to expand...


it would be another distinct second you. It would think its the real Jabba, just like the original did.

You cannot and will not accept this, because you believe the 'you' is a one of a kind unique soul that keeps getting recycled into different bodies. you have no evidence, proof, or even argument supporting why you think this.
 
Jabba said:
- But, the point is that I would not be brought back to life -- the old self was me, the new self would not be me. That is a difference -- a critical difference.
Click to expand...

I Jesus hope you wouldn't come back. Ooflam* is enough and then some.

* And what in hell is "at most" supposed to mean? "At least" means pretty much the same thing in this context. Or am I just talking to the wall?
 
Last edited:
Agatha said:
What do you mean by back to life, Jabba. In this scenario, have you died? Was the copying process done before or after death? If you have not died, how does "bringing you back to life" apply?...
Click to expand...

(1071)... According to the materialist model, if someone reproduced my DNA after my death, the new life would*look*like me, but it wouldn't actually*be*me. I would not be brought back to life.
- The materialist model accepts that*that*"self" did exist, but would not return. Another self would take its place.
 
Jabba said:
(1071)... According to the materialist model, if someone reproduced my DNA after my death, the new life would*look*like me, but it wouldn't actually*be*me. I would not be brought back to life.
- The materialist model accepts that*that*"self" did exist, but would not return. Another self would take its place.
Click to expand...


Here's post 1071, which for some reason Jabba quoted in such a way that it wasn't linked:

Jabba said:
jond,
- Yes it does. According to the materialist model, if someone reproduced my DNA after my death, the new life would look like me, but it wouldn't actually be me. I would not be brought back to life.
- The materialist model accepts that that "self" did exist, but would not return. Another self would take its place. Those two selves are not the same -- they are separate entities.
Click to expand...


It is, of course, one of Jabba's posts, so is merely his claim of what "the materialist model accepts" rather than a reliable statement of materialism.

No, Jabba, such entities are not part of the materialist model.
 
Jabba said:
(1071)... According to the materialist model, if someone reproduced my DNA after my death, the new life would*look*like me, but it wouldn't actually*be*me. I would not be brought back to life.
- The materialist model accepts that*that*"self" did exist, but would not return. Another self would take its place.
Click to expand...

And?

Are you ever going to move on from that?
 
Jabba said:
(1071)... According to the materialist model, if someone reproduced my DNA after my death, the new life would*look*like me, but it wouldn't actually*be*me. I would not be brought back to life.
- The materialist model accepts that*that*"self" did exist, but would not return. Another self would take its place.
Click to expand...
Yes, but reproducing DNA is not what we were discussing when we were discussing copying. You are equivocating two different things - reproducing the body and brain, and reproducing DNA. Reproducing your DNA alone would result in a self that may not even look much like you - think of Dolly the sheep who had different markings from the sheep from which she was cloned.

Reproducing your DNA is not sufficient. We were talking about reproducing your brain and body, identical right down to neural connections in the brain. If this were possible, then the process of consciousness in the copy would result in a second, identical you. It would be another self in the sense that it is an identical-and separate self, but it would not be different in the sense of having any identifiable differences from the original. In every sense, it would be the original self, the original "you" - it's just that now there are two of you. Identical in every respect, but separate. Nobody, including the two "yous" would be able to identify which was the original and which the copy.

Please could you address my question about whether OOFLam is the materialist model (ie H) or whether it is something from ~H?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
(1071)... According to the materialist model, if someone reproduced my DNA after my death, the new life would*look*like me, but it wouldn't actually*be*me. I would not be brought back to life.
- The materialist model accepts that*that*"self" did exist, but would not return. Another self would take its place.
Click to expand...

No. This is false. It is an incorrect statement. It is non-factual. It is erroneous. It is non-indicative of reality. It is incorrect. It is not true.
 
Jabba said:
(1071)... According to the materialist model, if someone reproduced my DNA after my death, the new life would*look*like me, but it wouldn't actually*be*me. I would not be brought back to life.
- The materialist model accepts that*that*"self" did exist, but would not return. Another self would take its place.
Click to expand...

Is this the "self" that rationalists refer to as a process of the living organism?
 
Jabba said:
(1071)... According to the materialist model, if someone reproduced my DNA after my death, the new life would*look*like me, but it wouldn't actually*be*me. I would not be brought back to life.
- The materialist model accepts that*that*"self" did exist, but would not return. Another self would take its place.
Click to expand...

It does not accept that the self existed as some separate entity.
The new self would be identical, but not the same instance.

This doesn't get you anywhere, Jabba. It does not get you out of the sharp-shooter fallacy, it does not allow you to sneak in a separate self entity.

Hans

ETA; I am here ignoring the fact that a DNA copy would not be enough, since I assume Jabba means the, putative, complete copy process.
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
...
ETA; I am here ignoring the fact that a DNA copy would not be enough, since I assume Jabba means the, putative, complete copy process.
Click to expand...

Isn't it hilarious that we are reduced to arguing a hypothetical as yet impossible scenario, and somehow this relates to Proof of immortality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom