RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Are you saying that a copy of what you've referred to as the process of Dave would be an identical but distinct process of Dave?
Is that what you mean by a "perfect copy" of what you've called a process?
Proof of Immortality, VII
- Thread starter abaddon
- Start date
- Status
Are you saying that a copy of what you've referred to as the process of Dave would be an identical but distinct process of Dave?
Is that what you mean by a "perfect copy" of what you've called a process?
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
It would be different because it would not be the process that is currently running in Jabba's brain and calling itself Jabba, it would be an identical process running in an identical brain and calling itself Jabba.
The same would be true of Jabba's immortal soul if he had one, of course - that would also have different spacetime coordinates to the ones it has now - but Jabba never thinks anything through that far.
Jabba how do pronouns work in your world?
Even by the most liberal forgiveness of how much Woo lives and dies by silly word games this is beyond absurd.
You're basically at the level of "The other me wouldn't be me because I'm me." This is a poor man's Abbott and Costello sketch pretending it's an idea.
"My language has first-person singular pronouns therefore immortality."
The "you" you are in is called "me" and others aren't because THAT'S HOW THE BLOODY LANGUAGE WORKS!
You're arguing that if you stand next to a lamp and walk a few feet away from it it's a new lamp because the first lamp is "over here" and the other one is "over there" even though they are the same lamp.
You have been argued in Plank Corner, the smallest possible corner an argument can be argued into. You are hiding in pure semantics of the tiniest order.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- Just trying to get my words right.
-Now, what word/term/phrase can I use to indicate the kind of you/self/process that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain?
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
There isn’t one.
It's been five years Jabba. We're at infinite monkeys on infinite typewriter levels here. If you had a valid point you would have "worded it right" by accident by now.
Jabba why the bloody hell are you asking us how to word your argument in a way we'll swallow it?
THERE IS NO POSSIBLE PHRASE THAT YOU CAN USE THAT IS GOING TO MAKE US ACCEPT YOUR NONSENSE.
Also... soul. You're talking about a soul. You've admitted you're talking about a soul. We know you're talking about a soul. Just... call... it... a... soul.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
How about "soul"? The word everyone already knows you mean.
Good of you to admit that you are simply begging the question.
He's not even willing to beg the question himself. He keeps trying to outsource his begging the question to us.
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
Jabba, you already said:
"your self is determined entirely by the cells of your brain, but you must require something more. "
The "something more" is a soul. We get it. You only need establish that such a thing really exists rather than continually just repeating the claim.
"your self is determined entirely by the cells of your brain, but you must require something more. "
The "something more" is a soul. We get it. You only need establish that such a thing really exists rather than continually just repeating the claim.
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
Quantum Mechanics. Besides, current-day laws of physics aren't evidence for whether the universe is or isn't deterministic, because they can always be an approximation to an underlying theory which can be either probabilistic or deterministic.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
If you're discussing materialism, there is no such word, because there is no such concept to require a word to discuss it. If you're not discussing materialism, then the word is "soul," based on the hypothesis that there exists such a thing as a soul that is distinct and separate from the body it animates. Everyone is aware that you're trying to shoe-horn the concept of a soul into materialism, in order to demonstrate that this materialist concept of a soul is vanishingly unlikely to exist, that therefore the whole of materialism is internally inconsistent, and that the materialist hypothesis is thus refuted. The problem with your approach is that the soul is not a part of the materialist hypothesis in any way, shape or form, and therefore the fact that it is incompatible with the materialist hypothesis is of no concern. That's part of what everybody's been trying to tell you for the last five years, and part of what you're trying to magic away by inventing a new word that will insert a concept into materialism that doesn't in fact form any part of it.
Dave
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Soul.
ETA: Ninja'd 6 times. See Jabba, people see right through your transparent arguments.
Last edited:
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Jabba, I know you will ignore this post. But you really shouldn’t. You really need to try to understand it.
Again we have to keep Jabba's script outline in mind here.
You see in the story Jabba's writing in his head and trying to get us all to star in against our will he doesn't "convince" the big mean skeptics that he's right... he gets the big mean skeptics to admit that they knew his was right all along.
In the character arc Jabba's written for us we're not wrong... we're dishonest. We know there's a soul in our heart of hearts but our dogmatic devotion to reason and science and... things making any kind of sense or basic internal consistency of thought has just blinded us to that truth and great and powerful Jabba is here to break us out of our cocoons and get us to admit the truths we all know but are just too stubborn to admit.
Again he's not arguing with us, even poorly. He's directing us toward the big moment where the inspirational music swells in the background and we tearfully admit how foolish we've been, that of course there's a soul everybody knows that, he just had to show us the way to admit it. *Wipes away a tear.*
You see in the story Jabba's writing in his head and trying to get us all to star in against our will he doesn't "convince" the big mean skeptics that he's right... he gets the big mean skeptics to admit that they knew his was right all along.
In the character arc Jabba's written for us we're not wrong... we're dishonest. We know there's a soul in our heart of hearts but our dogmatic devotion to reason and science and... things making any kind of sense or basic internal consistency of thought has just blinded us to that truth and great and powerful Jabba is here to break us out of our cocoons and get us to admit the truths we all know but are just too stubborn to admit.
Again he's not arguing with us, even poorly. He's directing us toward the big moment where the inspirational music swells in the background and we tearfully admit how foolish we've been, that of course there's a soul everybody knows that, he just had to show us the way to admit it. *Wipes away a tear.*
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
It would be reproduced. Everything would be reproduced. Every aspect of the original would have a corresponding aspect in the copy.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, Jabba, you're not trying to get your words right. You're trying to keep them wrong but convince someone to agree they're right so that you can have your anti-skeptics "gotcha!' moment. It's not as if you're even being coy about that being your goal. The right words have been given hundreds of times. The nuanced detail of the materialist position has been made abundantly clear.
One of those details -- or rather, the central principle of materialism -- is that there doesn't exist anything that wouldn't be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain. There is no word for it in materialism because the whole concept is foreign to materialism. The word you're groping for is "soul." As usual, you can't sneak a new word past your critics that means soul but isn't that word.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
What word can I use to indicate the kind of creditor/placemat/banana that grows on banana trees?
You've strung together three words here in order to once again pretend that you agree that consciousness is a process while once again acting as though it's a countable thing.
What word can we use to indicate the kind of going sixty miles per hour that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of a Volkswagen?
If that question makes no sense to you, then you know you're not treating consciousness as a process.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
The word you seek is "soul" and you have yet to demonstrate that any such thing exists.
Furthermore, if the copy is in anyway different from the original, then by definition, it is not a perfect copy at all.
- Status