How do we know that places like Narnia do not exist?

Tricky said:
I don't see then how this could be compatible with materialism.


I don't know of anyone here who would agree that a person with a similar brain to you would be "by definition" the reincarnation of you. That is downright silly. Suppose two people with very similar brains are living contemporaneously? Are they the reincarnatioins of each other, only without the nasty dying part? No, that is simply a ludicrous proposition. Even if we casually speak of, for example, Bono being the reincarnation of Beethoven, no-one takes that literally.
Click to expand...

Let's take this one step at a time.

Let's suppose materialism is true.

Now let's say that at 1pm GMT on the 13th June 2006 someone scans your whole body and records every little bit of information. A long time after you're dead and buried, someone in the year 3000 discovers this information and uses it to re-create you. At the moment of being re-created it will seem as if just a few minutes ago you had entered the scanning room and the scanning had just taken place at that very moment. Effectively you will have travelled forward in time almost a 1000 years. Of course you won't remember anything of your present life after the 13th June 2006.

Agree so far?
 
I guess identical twins are an example of your contemporaneous reincarnations, Tricky.

Oh wait ... hold on ... soul cloning. It's not logically impossible, is it? TIMR!

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Reincarnation is certainly possible because it would necessarily follow that if some person living sometime in the future after you had died happens to have a very similar brain to you now, then by definition he would be the reincarnation of you.
Click to expand...

Brain ? Reincarnation is about the SOUL, not the body. Identical twins have identical DNA, but they are in no way the same person.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Now let's say that at 1pm GMT on the 13th June 2006 someone scans your whole body and records every little bit of information. A long time after you're dead and buried, someone in the year 3000 discovers this information and uses it to re-create you. At the moment of being re-created it will seem as if just a few minutes ago you had entered the scanning room and the scanning had just taken place at that very moment. Effectively you will have travelled forward in time almost a 1000 years. Of course you won't remember anything of your present life after the 13th June 2006.

Agree so far?
Click to expand...

HA! That's ridiculous. You're again assuming that the consciousness is some form of metaphysical thing.

Let's try something else, Ian.

Let's say you get scanned, and let's say the NEXT DAY another you is created with the exact same pattern. Does your consciousness occupy both bodies ? How would that possibly work ?

The consciousness is not an immutable thing. It changes every second. It is a result of physical factors and even if duplicated, wouldn't act like you propose. Just because you have a proton in your hand doesn't mean it shares another proton's existence.

ETA: And, by the way, if you're recreated PRECISELY, then you WILL remember everything.
 
Belz... said:
HA! That's ridiculous. You're again assuming that the consciousness is some form of metaphysical thing.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. He's assuming we can make a Star Trek transporter-like copy of a person and store it. So far, so good ...

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
I don't think so. He's assuming we can make a Star Trek transporter-like copy of a person and store it. So far, so good ...

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

It's the same ill-conceived notion of the teletransporter, only now we're interjecting a length of time between your murder and the formation of an identical duplicate of you.

Pathetic.
 
Zaay said:
It's the same ill-conceived notion of the teletransporter, only now we're interjecting a length of time between your murder and the formation of an identical duplicate of you.
Click to expand...
I'm giving Ian the benefit of the doubt (what little doubt remains).

~~ Paul
 
Interesting Ian said:
Let's take this one step at a time.

Let's suppose materialism is true.

Now let's say that at 1pm GMT on the 13th June 2006 someone scans your whole body and records every little bit of information. A long time after you're dead and buried, someone in the year 3000 discovers this information and uses it to re-create you. At the moment of being re-created it will seem as if just a few minutes ago you had entered the scanning room and the scanning had just taken place at that very moment. Effectively you will have travelled forward in time almost a 1000 years. Of course you won't remember anything of your present life after the 13th June 2006.

Agree so far?
Click to expand...
Yup.

Keeping in mind that this is impossible, but that's just physics, it's not required by materialism. So I'm happy to allow this argument. Of course, we know perfectly well what's going to happen.

At some point in the thought experiment, you will insert an immaterialist concept, even though you have asserted (for the sake of the argument) that materialism is true. We will call you on this, and you will tell us we are all stupid.

Are you related to Bishop Berkeley, by any chance? He had the same problem.
 
Interesting Ian said:
PixyMisa simply doesn't understand anything about philosophy. I have been arguing with him for 2 years now and he just doesn't understand anything whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Close to three years, I think.

To tell you the truth, regarding the subject matter of materialism, I don't think anyone has the remotest idea what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
Not so. Unlike, say, Kumar or Iacchus, you are perfectly lucid, merely wrong.

Everybody still makes the schoolboy mistake of supposing that if brains elicit consciousnes, that materialism is by definition true.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone here claims that. Certainly I don't and Stimpy doesn't. You know that, or at least, it has been pointed out to you on many occasions, and you have acknowledged it at least some of the time.

We have told you that all the evidence shows that the brain generates - not "elicits", generates - consciousness. That doesn't prove materialism, and no-one ever claimed it did, but it does provide evidence against dualism and most forms of idealism.

This demonstrates that they do not understand what materialism actually means.
Click to expand...
A claim that no-one ever made can't really demonstrate much of anything, Ian.

The hypothesis that brains elicit consciousness is perfectly compatible with dualism, indeed even interactive dualism.
Click to expand...
You're the only one to use the weasel-word "elicits".

It is even compatible with a "life after death" in the form of reincarnation (although of course I do not believe that brains elicit consciousness). Actually reincarnation is even compatible with materialism. But I digress.
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out, reincarnation is only compatible with materialism if the soul is a material object. Your brain duplicator thingy is not reincarnation. It's just a brain duplicator thingy.

I'll complete my website. I would be pleased if you went to the trouble of reading it because I am attempting to explain myself as clearly as I possibly can on it. If after reading it you still think I'm stupid, then so be it.
Click to expand...
You wouldn't care to provide a link so that we could actually find the thing?

Anyway, how is anterograde amnesia compatible with dualism? We've had one answer, but not a peep out of you.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Let's take this one step at a time.

Let's suppose materialism is true.

Now let's say that at 1pm GMT on the 13th June 2006 someone scans your whole body and records every little bit of information. A long time after you're dead and buried, someone in the year 3000 discovers this information and uses it to re-create you. At the moment of being re-created it will seem as if just a few minutes ago you had entered the scanning room and the scanning had just taken place at that very moment. Effectively you will have travelled forward in time almost a 1000 years. Of course you won't remember anything of your present life after the 13th June 2006.

Agree so far?
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I said earlier. You can make reincarnation compatible with materialism if you assume the soul is a physical thing that can be scanned and reproduced exactly.

Besides, you said "very similar to", not "exactly identical to".

But you know, I think we've been through this "teleporter" business before.
 
Tricky said:
This is exactly what I said earlier. You can make reincarnation compatible with materialism if you assume the soul is a physical thing that can be scanned and reproduced exactly.

Besides, you said "very similar to", not "exactly identical to".

But you know, I think we've been through this "teleporter" business before.
Click to expand...

No, I was assuming normal standard materialism. In other words no soul, not even a physical one.

I have no intention of talking about the teleporter business. I'll be going through that in detail on my website too.

I was just pointing out that normal standard materialism is compatible with reincarnation.
 
Belz... said:
Now let's say that at 1pm GMT on the 13th June 2006 someone scans your whole body and records every little bit of information. A long time after you're dead and buried, someone in the year 3000 discovers this information and uses it to re-create you. At the moment of being re-created it will seem as if just a few minutes ago you had entered the scanning room and the scanning had just taken place at that very moment. Effectively you will have travelled forward in time almost a 1000 years. Of course you won't remember anything of your present life after the 13th June 2006.

Agree so far?
Click to expand...

HA! That's ridiculous. You're again assuming that the consciousness is some form of metaphysical thing.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming it's physical. Not sure what you mean by "metaphysical", but it is evident that you do not understand what the word means.

If consciousness is non-physical then it is not information and hence you would only be able to duplicate the body, not the consciousness. In other words the duplicate in the year 3000 would simply be a corpse.

Let's try something else, Ian.

Let's say you get scanned, and let's say the NEXT DAY another you is created with the exact same pattern. Does your consciousness occupy both bodies ? How would that possibly work ?
Click to expand...

You need to read my post here where I explain all.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1330953#post1330953



ETA: And, by the way, if you're recreated PRECISELY, then you WILL remember everything.
Click to expand...

You are recreated at the very instant that you are scanned. Obviously the you in the year 3000 would not remember your life after the scan. In your ongoing experiences as you get scanned there will be half a chance that you will remain in the scanning room ,and continue on with your life, and half a chance that you will suddenly find yourself being transported 1000 years into the future.
 
Interesting Ian said:
No, I was assuming normal standard materialism. In other words no soul, not even a physical one.

I have no intention of talking about the teleporter business. I'll be going through that in detail on my website too.

I was just pointing out that normal standard materialism is compatible with reincarnation.
Click to expand...
Okay, I was just using "soul" as shorthand. I mean, of course, consciousness, personality, memories, every little thing that makes me "me", which we may collectively call my "soul". Without those things, it is not "me" and is therefore not reincarnation. Now I can believe that all those things have a material basis and could be copied in a perfect scan, so indeed materialism could accomodate this kind of reincarnation, although "copying" would be more accurate. It would make no difference if the copy were "played back" a thousand years in the future or ten seconds in the future.

Of course, this "perfect scan" would only be me at the instant of scanning. As soon as it was reproduced, the "me" would change as new memories and bits of personality were added. And of course, if you made multiple copies, they would all diverge somewhat.

This sort of scenario is not the sort of thing that most people talk about when they say "reincarnation". They generally refer to some sort of non-physical soul which is you, but may retain no memories or personality traits of the current you. I can see how that sort of reincarnation might also be compatible with materialism. The new you would essentially be a "bad copy", one that was like you in some ways and unalike in others. In my opinion, that is not reincarnation. That is just sombody similar to me.
You are recreated at the very instant that you are scanned.
Click to expand...
No. You are recorded at the instant that you are scanned. You are not recreated until the scan is "played back".

Obviously the you in the year 3000 would not remember your life after the scan.
Click to expand...
Technically, the reincarnated you would not have a life in the time between the scanning and being "played back". It would just be a non-living block of data.

In your ongoing experiences as you get scanned there will be half a chance that you will remain in the scanning room ,and continue on with your life, and half a chance that you will suddenly find yourself being transported 1000 years into the future.
Click to expand...
That is not how scanning works. When you put an original on the Xerox machine, there is not "half a chance" that the copy you make from it becomes the original, even if they look virtually identical.
 
Last edited:
Berkeley's Demon

A symptom of the inability of immaterialist philosophers - that is, idealists and dualists - to understand the consequences of materialism. The demon manifests itself when the philosopher makes an attempt to disprove materialism using the argumentum ad absurdum, or proof by contradiction. Inevitably, and usually quite early in the "proof", the philosopher will import a concept that is not valid under materialism, immediately invalidating the argument.

An interesting property of Berkeley's Demon is that its perceptibility to the audience is inversely proportional to its perceptibility to the arguer. Thus, a very subtle flaw might pass by the audience, but will be immediately obvious to the philosopher, who will then retire for for several years to make increasingly elaborate attempts to improve his argument. On the other hand, a blindingly obvious contradiction will merely provoke cries of rage from the philosopher, who will insist that his argument is valid no matter how often the flaw is pointed out.

(From A Skeptical Pixie's Guide to Philosophy)
 
SkepticalPixie said:
Berkeley's Demon

A symptom of the inability of immaterialist philosophers - that is, idealists and dualists - to understand the consequences of materialism. The demon manifests itself when the philosopher makes an attempt to disprove materialism using the argumentum ad absurdum, or proof by contradiction. Inevitably, and usually quite early in the "proof", the philosopher will import a concept that is not valid under materialism, immediately invalidating the argument.

An interesting property of Berkeley's Demon is that its perceptibility to the audience is inversely proportional to its perceptibility to the arguer. Thus, a very subtle flaw might pass by the audience, but will be immediately obvious to the philosopher, who will then retire for for several years to make increasingly elaborate attempts to improve his argument. On the other hand, a blindingly obvious contradiction will merely provoke cries of rage from the philosopher, who will insist that his argument is valid no matter how often the flaw is pointed out.

(From A Skeptical Pixie's Guide to Philosophy)
Click to expand...
Very true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom