Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- I finally see what you mean... You're right -- two bodies, by definition, cannot be the same body, but they don't have to be "different" in the sense to which I'm referring...
- But then, OOFLam refers to, and I've been referring to, the kind of self to which reincarnationists refer; you know what that kind of self is; and you believe that that kind of self would be different between identical brains.
Click to expand...


Jabba, I really can't see how you can have honestly come to that conclusion unless your reading comprehension is seriously defective.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
What sense of self is that? If you mean to say soul, just say so. Why are you so afraid to use the term they actually use?
Click to expand...


Because it would make it too obvious that he is begging the question. So obvious that even really stupid people a less skeptical audience would see it.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Because it would make it too obvious that he is begging the question.
Click to expand...

Jabba left begging the question way back there. He's guilt tripping the question. He's blackmailing the question. He's threatening the question at gunpoint. Jabba is in the question's cockpit and it's gonna land in Cuba.
 
Dave,
- Below, you're in red, I'm in black.

(1143)Jabba, to reproduce something is to copy it. Agatha and I both believe that if you reproduced a brain you would reproduce its self.
In fact, here's what Agatha herself said: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.
What was unclear about that?
(1169)I finally see what you mean... You're right -- two bodies, by definition, cannot be the same body, but they don't have to be "different" in the sense to which I'm referring...
- But then, OOFLam refers to, and I've been referring to, the kind of self to which reincarnationists refer; you know what that kind of self is; and you believe that that kind of self would be different between identical brains.
(1171) No, I do not. I believe identical selves would work exactly like identical bodies.
(1174)- Would I be brought back to life?
(1176) An exact copy of you would be brought to life.

- But not back to life? That's the difference.
 
I don't know why you keep asking. No, you would not be brought back to life unless the original body was re-animated.

There would still be no difference between the two selves, just like there would be no difference between the two bodies. Having two things does not mean those things are necessarily different.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by back to life, Jabba. In this scenario, have you died? Was the copying process done before or after death? If you have not died, how does "bringing you back to life" apply?


And please, while I have your attention, please can you clarify whether OOFLam is your idea of materialism (i.e. in H), or something that is part of your ~H? This is really quite important.
 
Jabba said:
- But then, OOFLam refers to, and I've been referring to, the kind of self to which reincarnationists refer;
Click to expand...
Are you sure?

Jabba said:
- The "likelihood" of my current existence -- given OOFLam (Only One, Finite, Lifetime at most) is not 1.00. Given OOFLam, it's virtually zero.
- This fact has mathematical implications re the "posterior probability" of OOFLam.
Click to expand...
 
I'm beginning to suspect that Jabba thinks that "posterior probability" means "a probability that he has pulled from his posterior".
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Below, you're in red, I'm in black.

(1143)Jabba, to reproduce something is to copy it. Agatha and I both believe that if you reproduced a brain you would reproduce its self.
In fact, here's what Agatha herself said: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.
What was unclear about that?
(1169)I finally see what you mean... You're right -- two bodies, by definition, cannot be the same body, but they don't have to be "different" in the sense to which I'm referring...
- But then, OOFLam refers to, and I've been referring to, the kind of self to which reincarnationists refer; you know what that kind of self is; and you believe that that kind of self would be different between identical brains.
(1171) No, I do not. I believe identical selves would work exactly like identical bodies.
(1174)- Would I be brought back to life?
(1176) An exact copy of you would be brought to life.

- But not back to life? That's the difference.
Click to expand...


Two identical things are two things, not one. Please try to understand this.
 
godless dave said:
I don't know why you keep asking. No, you would not be brought back to life unless the original body was re-animated.

There would still be no difference between the two selves, just like there would be no difference between the two bodies. Having two things does not mean those things are necessarily different.
Click to expand...
- But, the point is that I would not be brought back to life -- the old self was me, the new self would not be me. That is a difference -- a critical difference.
 
Jabba said:
- But, the point is that I would not be brought back to life -- the old self was me, the new self would not be me. That is a difference -- a critical difference.
Click to expand...

The new self would think it is you. It would have all your thoughts and memories. How, exactly, would it be different other than being one of two? Like two identical mountains, or two identical sheep.
 
Jabba said:
- But, the point is that I would not be brought back to life -- the old self was me, the new self would not be me. That is a difference -- a critical difference.
Click to expand...


It would be you, just not the same you.
 
Jabba said:
- But, the point is that I would not be brought back to life -- the old self was me, the new self would not be me. That is a difference -- a critical difference.
Click to expand...

How is that a difference? They are no different than the two bodies. I see two things but I don't see a difference between them.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Below, you're in red, I'm in black.

(1143)Jabba, to reproduce something is to copy it. Agatha and I both believe that if you reproduced a brain you would reproduce its self.
In fact, here's what Agatha herself said: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.
What was unclear about that?
(1169)I finally see what you mean... You're right -- two bodies, by definition, cannot be the same body, but they don't have to be "different" in the sense to which I'm referring...
- But then, OOFLam refers to, and I've been referring to, the kind of self to which reincarnationists refer; you know what that kind of self is; and you believe that that kind of self would be different between identical brains.
(1171) No, I do not. I believe identical selves would work exactly like identical bodies.
(1174)- Would I be brought back to life?
(1176) An exact copy of you would be brought to life.

- But not back to life? That's the difference.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the difference. The two bodies are identical but distinct. The two processes called self, by us and reincarnationists and catholics and zoroasterians and Cthulhu worshippers alike, are identical but distinct. You bring a copy to life, not the original. This isn't coming _back_, though the copy fully believes to be the original. They are identical but distinct. They are not the same. They are identical. They are separate. Identical. Separate. There is no soul involved. There is no reincarnation involved. There is no afterlife involved.

Now can we get on with it, or do you plan on asking the same stupid questions for another few decades?
 
Jabba said:
- Would I be brought back to life?
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- But, the point is that I would not be brought back to life -- the old self was me, the new self would not be me. That is a difference -- a critical difference.
Click to expand...


I realize you're ignoring everything, including he people you're pretending to respond to, but the "self" is not a thing. It is a constantly changing process.

Otherwise: please define "self" in whatever way you're using it.
 
Jabba said:
- But, the point is that I would not be brought back to life -- the old self was me, the new self would not be me. That is a difference -- a critical difference.
Click to expand...

If I wreck my Volkswagen and get an identical replacement, is it the same Volkswagen? Do Volkswagens have souls?
 
Jabba said:
- But, the point is that I would not be brought back to life -- the old self was me, the new self would not be me. That is a difference -- a critical difference.
Click to expand...


Hi Jabba,

But it's a difference that exists for any copy of anything. I made an analogy a while back when we were talking about Volkswagens. If a perfect copy were made of the VW from the Herbie movies, it would be a separate distinct vehicle from the one that was actually filmed in the movie. No one could ever tell the difference as it would be identical in every way.

The point is that the old VW would not be brought back -- the old VW is the Herbie in the movie, the new VW would not be the one in the movie. That is a difference -- a critical difference. It just happens to be a difference that exists between all originals and their copies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom