Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- So, the new body would not be you.
Click to expand...

Equivocates on "you." There is no magical you-ness in materialism, so stop groping for new words that mean "The copy wouldn't have a soul."

Once again you're doing nothing more than trying to trick people into agreeing to an equivocation between identity and cardinality. "Wouldn't be the same organism" is one meaning; "Wouldn't be distinguishable" is another meaning.

Your argument has zero intellectual content and negligible honesty. You're a grown man of supposedly mature years. Please debate like one.
 
Last edited:
Having a B.A. in Linguistics means I'm qualified to be pedantic on the internet

Personal pronouns are interesting to linguists. "Me" always refers to the person who is speaking, no matter who it is. "You" refers to the person the speaker is addressing, no matter who it is.

The nature of the word "me" means that when I say it, it can only refer to Godless Dave. When Jabba says it, it can only refer to Jabba.

I will always be "me" from my perspective. From my perspective, an identical copy of me would be "him". From the copy's perspective, the copy is "me" and the original is "him". Personal pronouns get their meanings from the relationships to the person speaking.
 
Dancing David said:
Jabba,
What makes you sure that the 'you' of now is the same 'you' that existed yesterday?

What evidence do you have?
Click to expand...

If that 'you' of now has a history that extends into yesterday, then that 'you' of now is that 'you' of yesterday. Whether 'you' were that 'you' yesterday or not. Because you're that 'you' now.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- So, the new body would not be you.
Click to expand...


No, it would, at the moment of replication, be a second person identical to him in all respects, including its consciousness.

Jabba, if you have two identical things, how many of them do you have?
 
godless dave said:
Personal pronouns are interesting to linguists. "Me" always refers to the person who is speaking, no matter who it is. "You" refers to the person the speaker is addressing, no matter who it is.

The nature of the word "me" means that when I say it, it can only refer to Godless Dave. When Jabba says it, it can only refer to Jabba.

I will always be "me" from my perspective. From my perspective, an identical copy of me would be "him". From the copy's perspective, the copy is "me" and the original is "him". Personal pronouns get their meanings from the relationships to the person speaking.
Click to expand...

Yeah but by ch... I mean... shut up, Dave.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
-The new body would be you, but it wouldn't bring you back to life?
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
Jabba, if you have two identical things, how many of them do you have?
Click to expand...

The question is moot. Jabba could have any number of identical things, and not one of those identical things would be him. Not even if you thought one of them was him.

Jabba's opposition has, however, succeeded in luring him into a netherworld of mootness, in which he now wanders aimlessly.
 
godless dave said:
Personal pronouns are interesting to linguists. "Me" always refers to the person who is speaking, no matter who it is. "You" refers to the person the speaker is addressing, no matter who it is.

The nature of the word "me" means that when I say it, it can only refer to Godless Dave. When Jabba says it, it can only refer to Jabba.

I will always be "me" from my perspective. From my perspective, an identical copy of me would be "him". From the copy's perspective, the copy is "me" and the original is "him". Personal pronouns get their meanings from the relationships to the person speaking.
Click to expand...

I pointed this out months ago, that essentially Jabba is trying to shove a soul into how pronouns works.
 
Jabba said:
- So, the new body would not be you.
Click to expand...

pa957Qt.jpg
 
godless dave said:
Personal pronouns get their meanings from the relationships to the person speaking.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. But Jabba tries to assign new (and obviously equivocal) meanings to them, either by innuendo or by "quotes" and underlining. E.g.,
It wouldn't be "me".
It wouldn't be you.​
As someone already commented weeks ago, Jabba cannot be trusted to respect the common meaning of the words he uses. It's all about playground-level trickery.
 
godless dave said:
Personal pronouns are interesting to linguists. "Me" always refers to the person who is speaking, no matter who it is. "You" refers to the person the speaker is addressing, no matter who it is.

The nature of the word "me" means that when I say it, it can only refer to Godless Dave. When Jabba says it, it can only refer to Jabba.

I will always be "me" from my perspective. From my perspective, an identical copy of me would be "him". From the copy's perspective, the copy is "me" and the original is "him". Personal pronouns get their meanings from the relationships to the person speaking.
Click to expand...


FX: [Knocking on door]

MINNIE: Oh! Who's there?

SEAGOON (off): It's me.

MINNIE: Henry, there's a man called 'Me' at the door.

CRUN: Me? He'll have to prove it. (Raises voice) You, out there!

SEAGOON (off): Yes?

CRUN: Prove you're me.

SEAGOON (off): All right. I'm Henry Crun.

CRUN: Oh, that's me, Minnie. Min, open the door and let him in.

MINNIE: But you are in, Hen.

CRUN: Well, you'll have to let me out again.

MINNIE: Why?

CRUN: because I'm out there waiting to come in.

MINNIE: Oh, very well.

FX: [Door opens]

SEAGOON: Ah, thank you.

FX: [Door closes]

[Pause]

SEAGOON: Now, Mr Crun, I want to warn you that...

FX: [Knocking]

CRUN: Who's that out there?

MINNIE (off): It's me. You've locked me out.

CRUN: Nonsense. Me just came in. He's here now.
Click to expand...

http://www.thegoonshow.net/scripts_show.asp?title=s06e12_the_terrible_revenge_of_fred_fu_manchu
 
Last edited:
By Jabbian logic the "Who's on First?" sketch is the greatest philosophical argument of all time.
 
JoeMorgue said:
By Jabbian logic the "Who's on First?" sketch is the greatest philosophical argument of all time.
Click to expand...

Nah, he read "Waiting for Godot" and decided he could create something even MORE drawn out and futile.

Next up, his son has applied his Father's ideological tactics to computer gaming:

bHhnzS7.jpg
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
-The new body would be you, but it wouldn't bring you back to life?
Click to expand...
FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, you are brought back to life.


Jabba said:
- So, the new body would not be you.
Click to expand...
FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, the new body would be you.



Toontown said:
The question is moot. Jabba could have any number of identical things, and not one of those identical things would be him. Not even if you thought one of them was him.

Jabba's opposition has, however, succeeded in luring him into a netherworld of mootness, in which he now wanders aimlessly.
Click to expand...
O rly? It's all our fault that whatever Jabba posts is irrelevant? To put it charitably, you know not of what you speak.
 
The Norseman said:
FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, you are brought back to life.
Click to expand...

False.

The Norseman said:
FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, the new body would be you.
Click to expand...

False. The old body is the old body. The new body is the new body. Whether anyone knows which one is which or not.

Whatever the new body does is not being done by the old body and has never been done before. Even if it looks like something the old body has done or is doing.

The Norseman said:
O rly? It's all our fault that whatever Jabba posts is irrelevant? To put it charitably, you know not of what you speak.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. I'm not on Jabba's side.

I'm not on your side either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom