• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Sodhner,
- I'm not looking at whether or not a soul exists under materialism. I'm claiming that a self exists under materialism, and I'm arguing that materialism is wrong about the self's mortality.
Click to expand...

You say "self" but you mean soul.

Jabba said:
- The next hurdle. If we were able to reproduce a perfect copy of your brain, we wouldn't reproduce YOU. YOU does not come out of the cells of your brain.
Click to expand...

I've said it a few times, I'll say it again. You are thinking of, essentially, sentimental value. It's an understandable thing, but it's not an actual difference in a way that matters to this equation.
 
SOdhner said:
I've said it a few times, I'll say it again. You are thinking of, essentially, sentimental value. It's an understandable thing, but it's not an actual difference in a way that matters to this equation.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but he agreed that the self is a process, which means he agrees that YOU _does_ come out of the cells of your brain.
 
Argumemnon said:
Not only that, but he agreed that the self is a process, which means he agrees that YOU _does_ come out of the cells of your brain.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he's wrong either way. Either we're talking about an actual objective thing in which case it's a process that comes from your brain and so he's wrong, or we're talking about the subjective thing that is based on the value we assign to it (such as sentimental value) and so he's wrong.

Secret option C, which is where he actually is, is if we're talking about a non-physical but objectively real thing which would be by definition a soul - and in that case he's still wrong because he's supposed to be talking about the materialistic view.

So he's wrong, he's wrong, or he's wrong. I cannot think of a way for him to be correct in this case.
 
Jabba said:
deleted
Click to expand...

Why bother?

As far as I can recall, you've rarely bothered to delete or redact anything in the many thousands of times you've made the same monotonous claims. In those exceedingly rare occasions that you have done so, you later re-embrace those same foolish arguments as if nothing had happened.

I'd like to see this statement you willingly deleted. It must have been a real whopper!
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
Why do you think there's any kind of pool? ...
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- Again, something difficult to express effectively. To me, at least, "pool" at least implies a limitation, so an ''unlimited" pool really means no pool. And, in that case the whatever comes out of nowhere.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
It comes out of the cells your brain is made of. Those are made out of matter which mostly comes from the food you eat (and food your mother ate).
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- The next hurdle. If we were able to reproduce a perfect copy of your brain, we wouldn't reproduce YOU. YOU does not come out of the cells of your brain.
Click to expand...
godless dave said:
We already covered this hurdle. You agreed a perfect copy of my brain would produce a perfect copy of my self. Reproducing my brain would reproduce my self.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- So, one of our problems is getting our words sorted out. When above, you said,"You agreed" you referenced the following (I did the hi-lighting):

godless dave said:
I already said it wouldn't be me. It would be an exact copy if me. It would be exactly like me in every respect. Just like the second load of bread would be exactly like the first loaf of bread. It would be identical to me.

Where we diverge is that you are using a different definition for the word "identical" when it's applied to selves than when applied to everything else. You seem to be implying that if two selves were identical then they would really be the same self in two locations.
Click to expand...
- IOW, you said that it would be an exact copy of you, but would not be you -- just what I said (hi-lighted) that you didn't seem to agree with above.
 
Jabba, this isn't any more complicated than the two loaves of bread.

I come out of the cells of my brain.

If you made an exact copy of my brain, an exact copy of me would come out of it.

I do agree that an exact copy of me wouldn't be me (as would anyone who understands the meaning of the word "copy"). I don't agree that this means the brain doesn't produce the self. On the contrary, it's exactly what we would expect if the brain produced the self.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
So, one of our problems is getting our words sorted out.
Click to expand...

No, the words are sorted out. The problem is getting you to stop doing such violence to them by trying to make them say what you want them to mean rather than what they mean.

IOW, you said that it would be an exact copy of you, but would not be you
Click to expand...

And he has explained several times that the language you're choosing equivocates between cardinality and identity, and he clarifies his intended meaning every time. This is why we tell you to stop using deliberately vague words like "Woluld not be you" or "Would not bring ME back to life." You're quite obviously avoiding the important failure of your argument by insisting on doughy language.
 
JayUtah said:
No, the words are sorted out. The problem is getting you to stop doing such violence to them by trying to make them say what you want them to mean rather than what they mean.



And he has explained several times that the language you're choosing equivocates between cardinality and identity, and he clarifies his intended meaning every time. This is why we tell you to stop using deliberately vague words like "Woluld not be you" or "Would not bring ME back to life." You're quite obviously avoiding the important failure of your argument by insisting on doughy language.
Click to expand...

Don't forget "looking out of 2 sets of eyes"! :D
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- So, one of our problems is getting our words sorted out. When above, you said,"You agreed" you referenced the following (I did the hi-lighting):

- IOW, you said that it would be an exact copy of you, but would not be you -- just what I said (hi-lighted) that you didn't seem to agree with above.
Click to expand...

Jabba, do you understand that "1+4=7" is just as wrong as "1 and 4 are 7"?
 
Jabba said:
- So, one of our problems is getting our words sorted out.
Click to expand...

Jabba,

Our only problem, the only problem, your only problem is your total, complete, and at this point baffling inability to move your "Patented Effective Debate Style" beyond "Just repeat your stance over and over and dishonestly pretend people are agreeing with you when they aren't."
 
Jabba: 1 + 2 = 7.
Board: No it doesn't.
Jabba: 2 + 1 = 7.
Board: That's the same thing.
Jabba: Okay would you agree that if you add the values of 2 and 1 together you get seven?
Board: Still the same thing.
Jabba: Okay obviously our problem is the wording. Would you agree that 2 and 1 combined would make 7?
Board: No.
Jabba: I see you agree with me.
 
I love how not a month ago I was roundly taken for task for suggesting that people are being intentionally dense in discussion and here we are trying to explain that "A copy means the thing is the same" and "1 and 2 aren't the same numbers" to a grown man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom