godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
This shows that you don't understand H. If you don't understand the model you can't get a usable number for P(E|H).
Proof of Immortality, VI
- Thread starter jond
- Start date
- Status
This shows that you don't understand H. If you don't understand the model you can't get a usable number for P(E|H).
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
"Brought back to life" doesn't even figure into it unless you're dead before being duplicated, so don't bring up that stupid non-argument again.
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
Next time you accuse us of being close minded or mean, remember how you are avoiding this question. Ask of you by multiple people.
The difference between the original and the copy is _____ ?
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
To be fair, it seems clear what Jabba thinks the difference is - the "I" that is currently looking out of Jabba's eyes will not be the same "I" that's looking out of the copy's eyes. His beliefs make it impossible for him to grasp that that's a distinction without a difference.
JimOfAllTrades
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,143
Materialism (which you say is what you mean with the "H" in your formula) says that a perfect copy would be identical but separate. The fact that the copy is separate is the reason you wouldn't "be brought back to life" or be connected to the copy in any way, even though you and the copy would have an identical personality, memories, sense of self, etc., at the moment the copy is made.
Since this is what materialism predicts, and this is what you agree would happen, and as far as we can tell by observation this is what happens every time we duplicate something, I don't see a problem with this.
How about this: Materialism (Your "H") says that every time a normally functioning human body develops to a certain point, that human body will develop a sense of self. Every time, probability 100%.
If this is what H predicts, what was the probability you would develop a sense of self when your body developed to that point? Whatever that probability is, along with the probability that your body would come to exist, is the probability you must use when trying to figure the probability that you exist under H.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No. The difference is that under materialism, the notion "brought back to life" simply has no meaning. You're trying to make the issue of the restoration or instigation of "life" a mysterious, special factor in E, the data. It is not. The notion of "life" in that statement is something you're drawing from ~H and attempting to make part of E. In fact ~H and H define "life" very differently. ~H defines it as the incarnation of a soul into an otherwise dumb organism. H defines life as a set of emergent properties associated with organisms. (Although this explanation sidesteps for a moment that either H or ~H must be a singular hypothesis and the complement must be all other hypotheses, not another singular hypothesis.)
You persist in trying to make your theory E, which is tantamount to assuming the desired conclusion. It is obvious to everyone -- even those outside this forum whom you've consulted -- that you're doing this. You need to stop "perceiving disconnects," as if you simply need to find the right words, and start recognizing the error in your argument.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
That's because he stubbornly refuses to leave the idea of the soul out of H, which is what we've been trying to tell him for months, if not years, decades or millennia. I forget how long.
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
Yes, I get that. But when pressed for a more specific indication of what attributes would be different, he seems to just throw up his hands in a 'you just don't get it' kind of way.
And when I pressed him about the 'continuity' aspect, and how the copy would have the sense of continuity with the same past just like the original, well, I don't think he actually reads past the first couple lines as he skims for his 'gotcha'.
It's this dishonesty that irks me. He pretends to want to debate, but his behavior indicates otherwise.
Guys "Materialism" is just a magic word to Jabba. Saying his nonsense doesn't work under "materialism" is so much the braying of geese to him.
And yes I know at some point he either pretended to agree with materialism or pretend to understand it, but that was just a parrot repeating words back in hope we'll give him a peanut. I see no evidence he understands that arguments being made against him.
We have to stay small. I'm not 100% sure he's grasped 1 and 2 aren't the same number yet.
And yes I know at some point he either pretended to agree with materialism or pretend to understand it, but that was just a parrot repeating words back in hope we'll give him a peanut. I see no evidence he understands that arguments being made against him.
We have to stay small. I'm not 100% sure he's grasped 1 and 2 aren't the same number yet.
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
Now you're on the befuddled bandwagon?
Waterman
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 251
That is correct because as you agreed earlier the self is a process. For something to be 'brought back to life' requires an immaterial component that exists separate from the body and does not exist in the material definition.
A process is something that happens
A thing is something that exists
The self is a process it happens, it does not exist in the same way that a rock does. Yes the language is imprecise but most people don't try to split hairs this finely. Everytime you type thing/process it is a nonsense phrase.
Last edited:
The broader the terms we use, the more Jabba splits the hair.
The more defined the terms we use, the more Jabba pretends we're discussing a distinction we don't recognize.
Identical but distinct, a physical distinct thing versus a process, a process ending, a process stopping and restarting, a process being copied, a theoretical exact copying of a complicated process in some hypothetical perfect scenario versus doing it on any practical level in the real world... these are all concepts people just don't have this many problems with without ulterior motives. The fact that we're five years into this argumentative prison sentence and still having to explain them to an ostensibly grown man without any an attempt at them gaining an argumentative forward traction is...surreal in its absurdity.
We're playing his games waaay to much. He's playing us and I'm done with.
Since Jabba doesn't have a crisis of faith as to where ABC goes when he changes the channel and isn't regaling us with questions of where "falling" goes when the rock reaches the bottom of the hill he understands what we are telling him.
The more defined the terms we use, the more Jabba pretends we're discussing a distinction we don't recognize.
Identical but distinct, a physical distinct thing versus a process, a process ending, a process stopping and restarting, a process being copied, a theoretical exact copying of a complicated process in some hypothetical perfect scenario versus doing it on any practical level in the real world... these are all concepts people just don't have this many problems with without ulterior motives. The fact that we're five years into this argumentative prison sentence and still having to explain them to an ostensibly grown man without any an attempt at them gaining an argumentative forward traction is...surreal in its absurdity.
We're playing his games waaay to much. He's playing us and I'm done with.
Since Jabba doesn't have a crisis of faith as to where ABC goes when he changes the channel and isn't regaling us with questions of where "falling" goes when the rock reaches the bottom of the hill he understands what we are telling him.
Belz...
Fiend God
- I'll be back.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
- This seems to be an inoperable disagreement... I perceive a clear difference between the original and the copy; you do not. I think we should put an asterisk here, and move on.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Maybe you should read Waterman's post.
Belz...
Fiend God
What's the difference?
If you bothered to answer this fundamental question we'd at least have something to discuss.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Where are you unable to comprehend the posts that answer this? How can we help your comprehension?
Jabba we aren't mind readers. We can't debate the "clear perception" you have if you put zero effort into explaining or supporting.
We aren't at an "inoperable disagreement" we just have one person, that would be you, in the discussion who has not once even attempted to explain or support their claim. You have an inhuman ability to not understand that "stating" an opinion is not the same thing as supporting it or explaining it.
And no we aren't going to "put an asterisk here and move on." Again you're asking us to just accept that you are right so you can use that to prove you are right.
We're not "moving on" from the entire point of this discussion as if its some small hijack.
If you can't explain why you think people have souls THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO DISCUSS AND YOU HAVE NOT WON THIS ARGUMENT.
You know all of this. You know what game you are playing, we know what game you are playing. Grow up.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Pixel,
- To me, a "distinction" between two whatevers is also a "difference" between them.
- Status