Proof of Immortality, VI

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Your initial intent was to offer a proof of immortality. How, exactly, is this achieved by ignoring the fatal flaws in your line of argument? Until you've understood H, you cannot make any deductions based upon it; or, looking at it a different way, since your definition of H is incorrect, no conclusions can be drawn from a line of argument starting with that definition. That's not a minor flaw to be cleared up later on; disproving H is the central plank of your thesis. In effect, you're trying to build a tower, realizing you don't have the right materials to build the first storey, and saying "Never mind, let's go on to the second and fill that bit in later."

Dave

 

[Belz...]

Pixel,
- To me, a "distinction" between two whatevers is also a "difference" between them.

So two identical protons, by virtue of being distinct, are different?

That's not what you said before.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Pixel,
- To me, a "distinction" between two whatevers is also a "difference" between them.

WHAT THE EVER LOVING BLOODY HELL IS THE "DIFFERENCE" AND/OR "DISTINCTION" BETWEEN THEM?

DESCRIBE WHAT YOU THINK THE DIFFERENCE OR DISTINCTION IS!

You have been asked this a dozen times directly.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Pixel,
- To me, a "distinction" between two whatevers is also a "difference" between them.

So the two identical Mount Rainiers would be different! You said before that only duplicate humans would be "different" but other duplicate things wouldn't be.

Why did you change your mind?

 

[Jabba]

Jabba we aren't mind readers. We can't debate the "clear perception" you have if you put zero effort into explaining or supporting.

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.

Joe,
- The attorneys are not going to convince each other; the best each can hope for. is to convince the jury. I'll also leave it to the eventual, hoped for, jury to decide who needs to grow up.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Joe,
- The attorneys are not going to convince each other; the best each can hope for. is to convince the jury. I'll also leave it to the eventual, hoped for, jury to decide who needs to grow up.

What relationship do you think your burden of proof bears to the burden in a jury trial?

 

[JoeMorgue]

You are not an attorney. There is no jury. You are not trying a court case here.

And even so is... is this how you think the court systems works? That attorneys never have to back up anything they say and can just state things over and over until they win?

If this was a court case you'd have been tried in contempt, kicked out the court room, and disbarred a thousand times over.

 

[Jabba]

So the two identical Mount Rainiers would be different! You said before that only duplicate humans would be "different" but other duplicate things wouldn't be.

Why did you change your mind?

Robo,
- I'll have to think about that one...

 

[jond]

Joe,
- The attorneys are not going to convince each other; the best each can hope for. is to convince the jury. I'll also leave it to the eventual, hoped for, jury to decide who needs to grow up.

The jury can read all the posts you ignore, despite your desperate wish that they didn't exist.

 

[Belz...]

So the two identical Mount Rainiers would be different! You said before that only duplicate humans would be "different" but other duplicate things wouldn't be.

Why did you change your mind?

Because he's stuck. He knows his attempt to push a soul have not worked, so now he's trying something else -- anything -- to configure an argument we'll accept. In this case he's trying to make "different" and "distinct" the same thing, even though he's operated under the premise that they are not in previous posts.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo,
- I'll have to think about that one...

Haven't you been?

 

[Belz...]

Joe,
- The attorneys are not going to convince each other; the best each can hope for. is to convince the jury. I'll also leave it to the eventual, hoped for, jury to decide who needs to grow up.

So you are saying that, like an attorney, you are not looking for the truth, but rather for the conclusion you favour?

You're in the wrong place for that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The jury can read all the posts you ignore, despite your desperate wish that they didn't exist.

Oh... oh my God.

Jabba... do you think "striking stuff from the record" works in real life? Do you really think this mythical jury of people that don't exist that you totally made up in your head that aren't real just... forget things you pretend you never said?

You aren't a judge that can order the jury to "forget what they just heard" if it doesn't follow your rules.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And again this all makes perfect sense within the context that Jabba has fully admitted, that all he is doing is trying to write a story where he wins.

Like I've said we're all stuck in the working draft of Jabba's self insert fan fiction. This is what happens when we have to watch someone try to write themselves out of the fact that they didn't properly develop their main character's motivation well enough.

 

[Jabba]

WHAT THE EVER LOVING BLOODY HELL IS THE "DIFFERENCE" AND/OR "DISTINCTION" BETWEEN THEM?

DESCRIBE WHAT YOU THINK THE DIFFERENCE OR DISTINCTION IS!

You have been asked this a dozen times directly.

- And I've tried to answer it a dozen times. If it isn't ME, it is not just separate, it's different.
- And again, the emergent property of consciousness/self provides a new dimension that unifies the pieces, and that Mt Rainier doesn't have. It is with this dimension that the copy is different than the original.

 

[Belz...]

If it isn't ME, it is not just separate, it's different.

And we've explained dozens of times that it IS you. There is no difference. And don't go back outside of H to fetch the soul theory again. That there are two distinct copies of you that don't see through each other's eyes is irrelevant; they're still identical.

You keep bringing up this objection only because you're trying to fit the soul into H.

- And again, the emergent property of consciousness/self provides a new dimension that unifies the pieces, and that Mt Rainier doesn't have.

This has been answered several times. Why do you ignore every single counter-argument? Jay has killed this one to death, and so have I. There is nothing special about the self, objectively speaking. You just FEEL that it's special.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- And I've tried to answer it a dozen times. If it isn't ME, it is not just separate, it's different.

Jabba what does "answer" mean?

RESTATING YOUR OPINION AGAIN IS NOT AN ANSWER.

Jabba: There's a difference.
Everyone: What's the difference?
Jabba: The difference is they aren't the same.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- And I've tried to answer it a dozen times. If it isn't ME, it is not just separate, it's different.

Wouldn't a duplicate Mount Rainier then be just as different from the original Mount Rainier? I'm sure you don't want to add the fallacy of Special Pleading.

- And again, the emergent property of consciousness/self provides a new dimension that unifies the pieces, and that Mt Rainier doesn't have. It is with this dimension that the copy is different than the original.

Oh, well, I guess you do want to add Special Pleading despite being told that the emergent property of consciousness isn't a "dimension".

Does the dimension of erosion on the two Mount Rainiers mean they have souls and are immortal?

 

[godless dave]

- And I've tried to answer it a dozen times. If it isn't ME, it is not just separate, it's different.
- And again, the emergent property of consciousness/self provides a new dimension that unifies the pieces, and that Mt Rainier doesn't have. It is with this dimension that the copy is different than the original.

Again, H doesn't have this dimension.

 

[RoboTimbo]

the emergent property of consciousness/self provides a new dimension

The emergent property of "going 60 mph" provides a new dimension.
The emergent property of "erosion" provides a new dimension.
The emergent property of "leaking oil" provides a new dimension.

How is it that you are unable to grasp simple concepts, Jabba?