Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dancing David said:
That is not true at all, if you turn on the engine of the copy , a running process, you seem to state that it will run exactly like the original.

The running engine is an emergent property, are you saying the cams and pistons will be in the same positions between the two?
Click to expand...
- Dave,
- I'm saying that the running engine is not an emergent property.
 
Jabba said:
- Dave,
- I'm saying that the running engine is not an emergent property.
Click to expand...

You can say water isn't wet, doesn't make it true.

But you'll just pretend the difference between stating a claim and making an argument hasn't been explained to you a hundred times and you'll just lie about what we agree with you about anyway.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- I'm saying that the running engine is not an emergent property.
Click to expand...

Then you're just trying to redefine terms. You realised that you can't explain the difference between the two emergent properties so now you're trying to wiggle out of that corner you painted yourself in by changing the meaning of the words.

No one is fooled by these feeble attempts to salvage your theory.
 
Jabba said:
- The materialist model accepts that you and your copy have an emergent property that the VWs do not have -- and, those emergent properties are different also.
Click to expand...

Stop lying about the materialist model. The materialist model doesn't want your lies attributed to it.
 
halleyscomet said:
A soul. He's claiming you have a soul and the car does not, but he lacks the courage of his convictions or personal integrity to come out and say it honestly.
Click to expand...

If he admits that he's talking about a soul, then it becomes clear that what he calls OOFLam is not the non-religious hypothesis. It's a hypothesis where mind-body dualism is true but minds only exist once for a finite amount of time. Since nobody subscribes to that hypothesis he would accomplish nothing by disproving it.
 
Belz... said:
Then you're just trying to redefine terms.
Click to expand...

That's the one trick of the Jabba pony. He simply states his desired conclusion and then blusters his way through a set of foisted definitions under which his conclusion would be trivially true. He is completely incapable of dealing with any sort of objection or fallacy in his conclusory claims, and tries to blame his critics for being too stupid, biased, or mean-spirited to "understand" his conclusions and definitions.
 
Jabba said:
- While the two systems may be identical, they are not the same -- and, they do not produce the same self.
Click to expand...

Still having trouble with "identical but separate"? It's a simple concept to comprehend.

Your self will not be looking out your copy's eyes.
Click to expand...

It would only if you're talking about a SOUL, which doesn't exist under H.

Under H, that it doesn't see through both sets of eyes is irrelevant to whether it's identical.

That H doesn't allow reincarnation or resurrection is not a flaw, it's just how that universe is set up. You have to assume it is true if you're going to calculate odds given H.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
While the two systems may be identical, they are not the same -- and, they do not produce the same self.
Click to expand...

Under materialism the two systems must exhibit the same properties if they are identical in their material. You are simply inventing your own private version of materialism and trying to claim your critics agree with it.

Your self will not be looking out your copy's eyes.
Click to expand...

The self is not an entity -- separate or otherwise -- under materialism. It doesn't look. You're trying to make "self" mean "soul."
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- Yeah.
- While the two systems may be identical, they are not the same -- and, they do not produce the same self. Your self will not be looking out your copy's eyes.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They don't produce the same self because there are two of them. My self couldn't look out of my copy's eyes because it's not connected to those eyes. Running the heater on Volkswagen 1 will not defrost the windshield of Volkswagen 2.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Would the duplicate Volkswagen be going the same 60 mph as the original?
Click to expand...

It's cute that after nearly a year of avoiding the question of how many potential "going 60 mph" there are, he's suddenly convinced himself that as of today, "going 60 mph" is not an emergent property. Bluster and denial seem to be all he's capable of these days.
 
Jabba said:
- Yeah.
- While the two systems may be identical, they are not the same -- and, they do not produce the same self. Your self will not be looking out your copy's eyes.
Click to expand...
It would be an identical but separate person, with an identical but separate consciousness. The only difference would be in their spacetime coordinates as the two people cannot occupy the same point in space & time.

If it was you, Jabba, that was replicated: prior to the replication there would be one Jabba - you.

After the replication there would be two Jabbas. Both would be identical in every particular right down to the molecular level. Both would believe themselves to be the original. Both would have the same feelings, thoughts, memories. Both would be Jabba. Neither of them could look out of the other's eyes, because although they are identical, they are separate.

And prior to the replication, we would know exactly 'who' the copy would be. It would be another, separate, identical Jabba.
 
JayUtah said:
It's cute that after nearly a year of avoiding the question of how many potential "going 60 mph" there are, he's suddenly convinced himself that as of today, "going 60 mph" is not an emergent property. Bluster and denial seem to be all he's capable of these days.
Click to expand...



I think you can improve the accuracy of your comment by removing those last two words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom