Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agatha said:
Identical but separate. I have said this many times.
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- Above, you said that the selves would be the same.
- Above, Dave says that the selves would not be the same.
- I'm sure that you and Dave agree -- you just don't mean the same thing by the word "same"...

- Anyway, the trouble is that
#1. you both do experience the kind of self, or aspect of self, that reincarnationists think returns -- you know what they're talking about -- you just think they're wrong about it returning. And,
#2. you both believe that if we were able to perfectly reproduce a brain, we would not reproduce the particular self, or that aspect of self, to which reincarnationists refer. There would be an important difference between the old self and the new self.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Above, you said that the selves would be the same.
- Above, Dave says that the selves would not be the same.
- I'm sure that you and Dave agree -- you just don't mean the same thing by the word "same"...

- Anyway, the trouble is that
#1. you both do experience the kind of self, or aspect of self, that reincarnationists think returns -- you know what they're talking about -- you just think they're wrong about it returning. And,
#2. you both believe that if we were able to perfectly reproduce a brain, we would not reproduce the particular self, or that aspect of self, to which reincarnationists refer. There would be an important difference between the old self and the new self.
Click to expand...


How is that a difference?

Is there a difference between the new body and the original body?
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Above, you said that the selves would be the same.
- Above, Dave says that the selves would not be the same.
- I'm sure that you and Dave agree -- you just don't mean the same thing by the word "same"...
....
Click to expand...

Oh for the love of crumb cake. You are pathetically searching for any tiny gap that you perceive as disagreement or mistake that you can wedge yourself into.

Everyone but you knows what is meant by same. We mean identical. Not the ACTUAL specific instance.

Light 2 identical matches. You will get 2 flames.
 
When you ask a bartender for "same again," are you getting the same beer or a different beer? Are the 6 beers in a 6-pack the same?
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Above, you said that the selves would be the same.
- Above, Dave says that the selves would not be the same.
- I'm sure that you and Dave agree -- you just don't mean the same thing by the word "same"...
Click to expand...

Do you have a dictionary or thesaurus to hand, Jabba? Or perhaps a way to access one on the net?

If so, you will see that "same" can mean "the object/idea that we were initially discussing" or "something separate but identical to the object/idea that we are discussing". And different can mean "an identical (or non-identical) object/idea other than the one we were originally discussing" or "something that has differences from that object/idea".

That is why most people are using precise language such as "identical but separate" to prevent misunderstandings.
Jabba said:
- Anyway, the trouble is that
#1. you both do experience the kind of self, or aspect of self, that reincarnationists think returns -- you know what they're talking about -- you just think they're wrong about it returning.
Click to expand...
Yes, with caveats that are beyond the scope of this particular argument.

Jabba said:
And,
#2. you both believe that if we were able to perfectly reproduce a brain, we would not reproduce the particular self, or that aspect of self, to which reincarnationists refer. There would be an important difference between the old self and the new self.
Click to expand...
No, I don't believe that at all. Indeed, you concede that I don't believe that in the very first line of the quoted post.

I have been quite clear that if we were able to perfectly reproduce a brain (inside the perfectly reproduced body) then it WOULD reproduce the sense of self - the process - that is experienced. Nobody, including the two identical-but-separate people, would be able to identify which was the original and which the copy.

The two processes of their senses of selves would be identical-and-separate at the moment of reproduction, and they would then begin to diverge (to become non-identical) as time passed because as they cannot both occupy the same point in space and time, their experiences of the world would be different.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Above, you said that the selves would be the same.
- Above, Dave says that the selves would not be the same.
- I'm sure that you and Dave agree -- you just don't mean the same thing by the word "same"...
Click to expand...

Oh stop it. I've seen some clumsy attempts at a 'gotcha' before but this is just sad.

You ignore the 50 trintillion times people have explained the distinction to you in eye bleeding detail and try to turn that into "They are the same but not he same" paradox.

1. you both do experience the kind of self, or aspect of self, that reincarnationists think returns -- you know what they're talking about -- you just think they're wrong about it returning.
Click to expand...

Bullwater. Don't dare presume to sit there and tell us what we do and do not know. How the "experience of self" works is yet another thing that has already been explained to you without the common courtesy of you listening.

#2. you both believe that if we were able to perfectly reproduce a brain, we would not reproduce the particular self, or that aspect of self, to which reincarnationists refer. There would be an important difference between the old self and the new self.
Click to expand...

Literally nobody has said that Jabba.
 
Jabba said:
#1. you both do experience the kind of self, or aspect of self, that reincarnationists think returns -- you know what they're talking about -- you just think they're wrong about it returning.
Click to expand...
Reincarnationists are wrong. The concept of reincarnation is incoherent once you understand that consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain.

#2. you both believe that if we were able to perfectly reproduce a brain, we would not reproduce the particular self, or that aspect of self, to which reincarnationists refer. There would be an important difference between the old self and the new self.
Click to expand...
The only difference is the spacetime coordinates.
 
Jabba said:
#1. you both do experience the kind of self, or aspect of self, that reincarnationists think returns -- you know what they're talking about -- you just think they're wrong about it returning.
Click to expand...

Jabba, do you experience a sense of self that rationalists think is a process?
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Above, you said that the selves would be the same.
- Above, Dave says that the selves would not be the same.
- I'm sure that you and Dave agree -- you just don't mean the same thing by the word "same"...
- Anyway, the trouble is that
#1. you both do experience the kind of self, or aspect of self, that reincarnationists think returns -- you know what they're talking about -- you just think they're wrong about it returning. And,
#2. you both believe that if we were able to perfectly reproduce a brain, we would not reproduce the particular self, or that aspect of self, to which reincarnationists refer. There would be an important difference between the old self and the new self.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
How is that a difference?
Is there a difference between the new body and the original body?
Click to expand...
- NO.
- But if two selves are not the same, isn't there a difference between the two selves?
 
Jabba, see if you can understand why we need to use precise language.

I make a batch of cake mixture (batter to you lot across the pond). I use 4 eggs, 250g of butter, 250g of flour, and 250g of sugar.

I divide the mixture between four different1 cake tins. I bake them in a fan oven so that any differences2 in temperature within the oven are minimised, and I move them around in the oven partway through cooking time too, for the same reason.

I take them out of the oven. I have four cakes that are all the same3, made from the same4 batch of batter.

1. This is the sense of 'different' that means identical, but separate - more than one .
2. This is the sense of 'different' that means not identical.
3. This is the sense of 'same' that means identical, but separate - more than one
4. This is the sense of 'same' that means the original.

Having (hopefully) made that clear, do you see now why equivocating the various shades of meanings of 'same' and 'different' is confusing you and causing you to misunderstand other people's posts?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
But if two selves are not the same, isn't there a difference between the two selves?
Click to expand...

What's the difference between the last time this was explained to you and the last, last time it was explained to you?
 
Agatha said:
Jabba, see if you can understand why we need to use precise language.

I make a batch of cake mixture (batter to you lot across the pond). I use 4 eggs, 250g of butter, 250g of flour, and 250g of sugar.

I put the mixture into four different1 cake tins. I bake them in a fan oven so that any differences2 in temperature within the oven are minimised, and I move them around in the oven partway through cooking time too, for the same reason.

I take them out of the oven. I have four cakes that are all the same3, made from the same4 batch of batter.

1. This is the sense of 'different' that means identical, but separate - more than one .
2. This is the sense of 'different' that means not identical.
3. This is the sense of 'same' that means identical, but separate - more than one
4. This is the sense of 'same' that means the original.

Having (hopefully) made that clear, do you see now why equivocating the various shades of meanings of 'same' and 'different' is confusing you and causing you to misunderstand other people's posts?
Click to expand...

Yours is about the 75th time someone has attempted to clearly explain this to Jabba using an incredibly detailed well thought out response.
Who will be # 76 ?
 
Who gives a **** what "reincarnationists" think? People with woo woo ideas are not only wrong, they mostly can't even explain what the hell they mean by their woo woo idea. Sound familiar?
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Above, you said that the selves would be the same.
Click to expand...

You're confusing "identical" with "the same" again. Considering how many times you've been corrected on this, it's hard to conclude that this is an honest mistake.

#1. you both do experience the kind of self, or aspect of self, that reincarnationists think returns -- you know what they're talking about -- you just think they're wrong about it returning. And,
#2. you both believe that if we were able to perfectly reproduce a brain, we would not reproduce the particular self, or that aspect of self, to which reincarnationists refer. There would be an important difference between the old self and the new self.
Click to expand...

The only difference between the two processes you choose to call "self" is that they are separate. They're still identical.
 
Jabba said:
- NO.
- But if two selves are not the same, isn't there a difference between the two selves?
Click to expand...

No. There are two of them. You can have two identical things.

If you understand why there would be no difference between the two bodies, you should be able to understand why there would be no difference between the two selves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom