Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
WORDS MEAN THINGS!

A "Perfect copy" can't be different from the original because THAT'S WHAT PERFECT COPY MEANS!
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Can you suggest a more precise way to say, "If you had passed, a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life."?
Click to expand...

Nice try, Jabba. You've posted a different statement to the one godless dave made, then asked him to express your statement more precisely, after which you're no doubt planning to pretend godless dave's more precise version of your statement represents his opinion.

The problem with your statements of what you profess to believe is everyone else's position is not that they're imprecise; it's that they're incorrect.

Dave
 
Jabba said:
Can you suggest a more precise way to say, "If you had passed, a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life."?
Click to expand...

Yes, "If you had passed, a perfect copy of you would not have the original soul." You're trying to equivocate "YOU" to hide the concept of a soul and thereby back-door it into materialism. The concept of the sense of self in materialism isn't bothered by vague, handwaving statements like "bring ME back to life" or "looking out through two sets of eyes" that are clearly begging the question of an entity separate from the body, because they simply have no relevant meaning in materialism. In materialism there's no magical entity to fly away after death and join the choir invisible. The property comes and goes exactly with the entity that displays the property, and there's no special-pleading aspect to that property that makes it irreproducible. Since this is well-covered ground, I assume you're bringing it up again just to irritate your critics.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Can you suggest a more precise way to say, "If you had passed, a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life."?
Click to expand...

How about any of the 5170 times it has been said already, "If your functioning brain ceases to function, the process of consciousness also ceases."?

That way you aren't dishonestly trying to wiggle in a soul by using the word "YOU".
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Can you suggest a more precise way to say, "If you had passed, a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life."?
Click to expand...


"After every moment, the brain (and thus its process of consciousness) is different than it was before."

There's no need to talk about death of the body. It's irrelevant. There is no "you" that's alive, let alone capable of being reincarnated. There is just an ever-changing brain suffering from an evolutionarily convenient delusion.



N.B. And please nobody start nattering on about how, if that were true, all the criminals should go free because they're different people than when they committed the crime. Personhood is a social construct as much as a neural one. We agree on certain rough definitions that are not completely scientifically accurate in order to get society to work. Nobody needs the theory of relativity to calculate the path of a baseball from the pitcher to the batter. No definition would be completely accurate without it, but ignoring it still gives us data that's good enough for the Astros.

The fact that we as a society choose to treat people as discrete, unchanging entities doesn't mean we really are. For that matter, law does recognize people can change. That's why juvenile records are sealed and John Hinckley, Jr. is home.
 
Loss Leader said:
"After every moment, the brain (and thus its process of consciousness) is different than it was before."

There's no need to talk about death of the body. It's irrelevant. There is no "you" that's alive, let alone capable of being reincarnated. There is just an ever-changing brain suffering from an evolutionarily convenient delusion.
Click to expand...

QFT.

Personhood is a social construct as much as a neural one. We agree on certain rough definitions that are not completely scientifically accurate in order to get society to work. [snip]

The fact that we as a society choose to treat people as discrete, unchanging entities doesn't mean we really are.
Click to expand...

:clap:
 
Jabba said:
- We need to go even slower...
.
Click to expand...


No WE don't. Have you got a mouse in your pocket?

Jabba, you are the one who has the most trouble keeping up no matter how slow things go. Look at this thread. It has gone no where in 5 years. Drifting continents move faster.

All these years have passed and you haven't convinced anyone of the rectitude of your position, except those one or two contrarians who haven't bothered to read it.
 
Since I am one of 'you guys' I will answer for myself.

Jabba said:
...
- Each of you guys think that your particular self, as a process, can "proceed" only once.
Click to expand...
Well that's kind of a bizarre thing to say.
Given I go to sleep every night, and I have fainted a handful of times, and been out for surgery once, I'm tempted to say that no, since those times of being unconscious I have not really been aware of what is happening outside of me, I would say my process goes dormant then starts up again many many many times. With future technology, maybe that can even be extended, or duplicated.

Jabba said:
...
And, in that sense, a perfect replica of your brain would produce a copy of your process, but not the same process and not the sense of self that is you.
Click to expand...
Really though, the copy would feel it has the same sense of self that is me.
If not?
WHAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT.

Jabba said:
...
If you had passed, a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life.
Click to expand...
Really, how would the new self be different? Would it have the same memories?
When I wake up each day, am I the same self,
HOW DO I TELL?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Can you suggest a more precise way to say, "If you had passed, a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life."?
Click to expand...

No, it's quite fine. But... It is YOUR OPINION, or belief. It is not what we're discussing.

Have this been going on so long that you forgot what we are discussing?

Hans
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Can you suggest a more precise way to say, "If you had passed, a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life."?
Click to expand...

That's a muddled straw man argument that no one has made, and you expect Dave to support it?

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for civiliy and rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jabba said:
- Two.
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering. I know that looks like a silly question but this should help move the discussion forward.


Following the same recipe twice will result in two loaves of bread. Even if I bake one loaf, eat it, then make another one, the second loaf is not the first loaf brought back to existence.

Would you say there is a difference between the two loaves?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Can you suggest a more precise way to say, "If you had passed, a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life."?
Click to expand...
godless dave said:
"A perfect copy is separate from the original".
Click to expand...
- So, pulling those together, you accept that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring your self back to life because the copy would be separate from the original. Right?
- Here, once again, I'm just trying to make sure that you and I are talking about the same concept when we talk about the "self." It's the thing, process or illusion that apparently ceases when our brains die -- never to return. It's the same concept that reincarnationists think returns over and over again.
- That's the concept I'm talking about. I think that you're talking about the same concept.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom