Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- Does anyone here agree with me that the new self resulting from a perfect copy would be different than the original self?
Click to expand...
No. Nobody agrees with you. Because in it were possible to create a perfect copy of a person (which of course it isn't), right down to the level of the connections in the brain, then the processes of consciousness would result in two identical consciousnesses. They would not stay identical as the self (being a process and not an entity) is in a state of constant change, but they would at the moment of replication be identical and separate.

If it was Jabba that were copied, there would be two identical Jabbas with no way for anyone (including either Jabba) to tell which was the original and which the copy. Everything about the two Jabbas would be identical but separate.

If it was me that were copied, there would be two identical Agathas and nobody could tell which was me and which the other me. They would both be me, and now there would be two of me.

And both of those mes would still be telling you that you cannot put your idea of an immaterial, static self (a soul) which belongs in ~H into the materialist model. It doesn't belong there.
 
Agatha said:
........ Because in it were possible to create a perfect copy of a person (which of course it isn't), right down to the level of the connections in the brain, then the processes of consciousness would result in two identical consciousnesses. They would not stay identical as the self (being a process and not an entity) is in a state of constant change, but they would at the moment of replication be identical and separate.....
Click to expand...

Perfectly stated. Nothing else need be said.

Of course if you pre-supposed a unique soul, you would not agree with this.
 
Jabba said:
- Does anyone here agree with me that the new self resulting from a perfect copy would be different than the original self?
Click to expand...


I disagree that the word "self" has any meaning because after years of begging you for a definition, you refuse to give one.

I agree that a perfect copy of a person would be different from the person, but both would think and act as though they were the original. They would be identical but distinct - like two Volkswagen Jettas arguing about which was the "real" Jetta.
 
Agatha said:
We all know you mean a soul, Jabba. You just keep trying to use different words to hide the fact that you are looking at a process, and calling it an entity.
You assume wrong. We all experience the process of consciousness. But I don't think you have ever set out what you think "reincarnationists" believe, or why anyone should believe them. Since there are as many ideas about reincarnation as there are people who believe in such a thing, I think it is a mistake to assume we know what you or anyone else believes about it.
No, no, no, no. You can't take the soul and shove it into materialism. It doesn't exist in H, it doesn't exist in OOFLam, it doesn't exist in materialism. It only exists in ~H.
That is true, but only if you don't try to sneak a ~H concept into H, which is what you are doing.
Most of us don't accept that there is a soul, or the type of self that reincarnationists appear to believe in. Under materialism, replicating the brain results in an identical process, leading to an identical-but-separate self. If you think otherwise, you really haven't read the replies.
No, under H, replicating the brain leads to two identical-but-separate selves.
No. Not under H. Not under your original OOFLam which was materialism.

You are trying to put the "reincarnationists" concept of self, which is firmly in ~H, into H or OOFLam. You can't do that.
Click to expand...

Gee, just when you thought Jabba was trying to correspond with Agatha, she goes and fully responds to his entire post. Thus ending his willingness to engage with her. How thoroughly unsurprising.
 
Jabba said:
- Does anyone here agree with me that the new self resulting from a perfect copy would be different than the original self?
Click to expand...

It would be separate but identical at time 0. Why do we keep going over this same ground after 5 years of your lies, failed logic, and equivocation?

:boggled:
 
*Sighs* Oh I'm gonna regret this but...

Jabba you have repeatedly used the metaphor of our minds being "radios" that tune in to a separate, distinct sense of self.

If our minds our radios wouldn't recreating that radio exactly tune in to the same "self?"
 
JoeBentley said:
*Sighs* Oh I'm gonna regret this but...

Jabba you have repeatedly used the metaphor of our minds being "radios" that tune in to a separate, distinct sense of self.

If our minds our radios wouldn't recreating that radio exactly tune in to the same "self?"
Click to expand...

Well, you just raised the prospect of Jabba staring out of two sets of eyes again. Good luck.
 
How many "you are tuned into 95.5 FM, Springfield's home of classic rock" are there?

My mind is more like a slightly off-speed turntable than a radio, with the clicks and pops. Or maybe a cassette deck without Dolby C.
 
- Do you guys think that you experience the same thing/process that religious people call the "soul"?
 
- Do you guys think that you experience the same thing/process that reincarnationists think comes back to life?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom