Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Proof of Immortality, VI
- Thread starter jond
- Start date
- Status
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,363
You have say that was top trolling by Jabba
Belz...
Fiend God
No they are not. It's only because too many laypeople think they get QM that they think so. QM isn't strange, just counter-intuitive.
Belz...
Fiend God
What are you talking about?
No, no. You don't get to just claim that some people agree with you, after you've so utterly failed to get ANYONE to agree with you anywhere. You have to name these "a lot" of credible people.
Belz...
Fiend God
"According to my claims, I'm right!"
You should be reading an introduction booklet on statistics and probabilities instead.
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
Basic logic might be a good choice too.
Perhaps a proper book on biology and evolution.
Then he might answer at what stage of primate to human evolution did we evolve the ability to be a radio receiver for a soul.
Belz...
Fiend God
One sub-issue at a time, please.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- Yes. Those unifying emergent properties link the pieces together and give the combination a singular identity. That is not the case with Mt Rainier and other rocks.
- Besides, again, while we may theoretically be able to reproduce an exact copy of a specific sense of self, we can't even theoretically reproduce the same sense of self. I wouldn't be brought back to life, nor seeing out two sets of eyes. There would be a difference between the original and the copy.
Again, I think we're at loggerheads -- and also, I'm ready to leave this sub-issue to the theoretical mixed jury.
There would be a difference *IF* you were right. So you're assuming that your argument is correct in order to prove it correct. That's not how these things are supposed to work.
If you have to assume you're right in order to disprove the alternative then your argument boils down to "If I'm right then I'm right" which is useless.
If you can't even establish your premise there's no point in moving on.
Belz...
Fiend God
Why not? What is it about the "self" that's so different, in your view?
Why not? If it's an emergent property, and everything else is the same, why wouldn't the self be identical?
Neither of those are necessary conditions for the self to be identical.
No.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, they don't. That's not what it means to be an emergent property. You're simply trying to recast "emergent property" using words that sound -- as usual -- like you're describing a soul.
Asked and answered. Self-awareness is not an individualized property, any more than there are dozens of separate "going 60 mph" on the freeway.
Asked and answered. These hackneyed phrases of yours are meaningless twaddle that do not refine any idea, describe any argument, or relate in any way to anything in materialism -- the auspice under which you're trying to compute P(E|H).
Not under materialism -- by the very definition of materialism.
More specifically, you're umpteenth attempt to foist a straw man onto your critics has failed, as it always has failed and as it always will fail. This is not "loggerheads." This is your critics properly rejecting a blatantly illogical attempt at argumentation. They have won and you have lost.
There is no "jury." There is only the vast number of people who have refuted you, both here and elsewhere. This appeal to a non-existent jury is simply yet another ploy to avoid having concede and hopefully prolong the argument until your critics grow weary of your stubborn ignorance and wander away. You have failed to foist your point via repeated assertion and gaslighting, therefore you have lost the point.
You have lost the point, and therefore the argument, since that point was your major premise.
Have the courtesy to give your critics their due.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Here we go again. This is the fallacy of equivocation, with the equivocated word being "same". In the sense that an exact copy is a physically different object, then we can't even theoretically reproduce the same Volkswagen - in one sense of the word - even though the reproduction is exactly identical to the original and is - in the other sense of the word - exactly the same. If one removes the equivocation, then your statement is tautological.
Dave
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Time for another fringe reset.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Belz...
Fiend God
No, no. I mean now he'll probably just start back with his premises and definitions again.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
And while we may theoretically be able to reproduce an exact copy of Mount Rainier, it wouldn't be the same Mount Rainier. There would be two of them, not one.
No, because two identical things are two things, not one thing.
If the copy was a perfect copy, what would that difference be?
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
That makes them different but I don't see how it makes them more meaningful.
You still haven't explained what this difference is.
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,803
Jabba, what are the odds that you will continue posting in this thread after you are dead and buried?
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
As long as Jabba remains convinced that something that seems obvious to him must necessarily be true he will never even try to understand, let alone correct, the errors he is making.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Can you explain in your own words what "begging the question" means? I'm not sure I understand it the same way you do.
In fact, you aren't even the same sense of self you were yesterday nor will you ever be able to reproduce it. This doesn't help your argument.
I don't actually believe you're dead just because your sense of self is different today than it was yesterday. Can you point me to your obituary?
- Status