ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 11th November 2017, 10:53 AM   #3041
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Yeah, but it's the emergent property (of the specific self) that I'm claiming is not cause and effect traceable.
That's gibber, Jabba. The "self", as you're calling it, is the emergent property. You're dishonestly trying to make it an entity again.

Quote:
- I think you've agreed
And I think you know that's a lie.

Quote:
that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life.
YOU meaning your soul? That's gibber, Jabba.

Quote:
It's that YOU that I'm calling your "specific self."
You mean "soul".

Quote:
The new specific self soul would not be YOU your soul. And, scientifically speaking he would be a brand new WHO soul, and totally untraceable.
Why are you bringing your laughable concept of what science thinks into your metaphysical argument about souls? Just be honest for a change and say soul when you mean soul. I've FTFY above.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 11:05 AM   #3042
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,645
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Yeah, but it's the emergent property (of the specific self) that I'm claiming is not cause and effect traceable.
- I think you've agreed that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life. It's that YOU that I'm calling your "specific self." The new specific self would not be YOU. And, scientifically speaking he would be a brand new WHO, and totally untraceable.
1 Of course it's cause and effect traceable.
2 You're putting words in other peoples mouth and claiming agreement where none exists.
3 You've no spokesperson for science.

Now about this proof of immortality. Where is it?
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 11:12 AM   #3043
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,026
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Yeah, but it's the emergent property (of the specific self) that I'm claiming is not cause and effect traceable.
- I think you've agreed that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life. It's that YOU that I'm calling your "specific self." The new specific self would not be YOU. And, scientifically speaking he would be a brand new WHO, and totally untraceable.
Could you at least say 'speculatively speaking' unless you have some scientific evidence regarding identical brains and how their processes operate?
__________________

Previously known as MostlyDead. Feeling better now.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 03:22 PM   #3044
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,899
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Do you accept that the brain yields an emergent property that has no analog in a loaf of bread?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Yes, but nothing that would change the definitions of "reproduce", "copy", "same", or "different".
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Yeah, but it's the emergent property (of the specific self) that I'm claiming is not cause and effect traceable.
- I think you've agreed that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life. It's that YOU that I'm calling your "specific self." The new specific self would not be YOU. And, scientifically speaking he would be a brand new WHO, and totally untraceable.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
But you haven't explained why it wouldn't be.



Scientifically speaking it would be traceable. You accept that every emergent property of each load of bread would be traceable. There's no reason the emergent properties of brains wouldn't be.
- At this point, I'm trying to show why there should be an infinity of potential specific selves. I assume that an exact copy of my brain would not bring ME back to life. The specific self produced by the copy would not be me. If we kept making exact physical copies of my brain, none of the resultant specific selves should ever be me. And, if that's true, each specific self must be brand new -- in a sense, "out of nowhere" -- and only one of an infinity of potential selves. Not to mention, cause and effect untraceable.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 03:25 PM   #3045
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,699
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
The specific self produced by the copy would not be me. If we kept making exact physical copies of my brain, none of the resultant specific selves should ever be me. And, if that's true, each specific self must be brand new -- in a sense, "out of nowhere" -- and only one of an infinity of potential selves. Not to mention, cause and effect untraceable.
Equivocation ahoy!

They would all be separate, but identical, copies of YOU. They wouldn't be bringing you back, they would be duplicating you.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 03:39 PM   #3046
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,287
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Do you accept that the brain yields an emergent property that has no analog in a loaf of bread?
I don't see how that's obvious, no.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 03:42 PM   #3047
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- At this point, I'm trying to show why there should be an infinity of potential specific selves SOULS. I assume that an exact copy of my brain would not bring ME MY SOUL back to life.
Who would it bring back then? Who would the exact duplicate think it was?

Quote:
The specific self SOUL produced by the copy would not be me. If we kept making exact physical copies of my brain, none of the resultant specific selves SOULS should ever be me. And, if that's true, each specific self SOUL must be brand new -- in a sense, "out of nowhere" -- and only one of an infinity of potential selves SOULS. Not to mention, cause and effect untraceable.
Above, I've had to fix your gibber, Jabba. Do you mean to say souls?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 03:43 PM   #3048
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,287
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Yeah, but it's the emergent property (of the specific self) that I'm claiming is not cause and effect traceable.
You keep claiming it, yes. We know this. We've known this for years. Stop repeating it. You have no basis for saying that it's not causal, so stop making the claim.

Quote:
- I think you've agreed that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life.
That's really the only thing that matters to you, and you don't mind lying and twisting words to reach that conclusion.

As I told you and you ignored, people's "selves" can cease to exist because of cardial arrest and be booted up again. Does that mean that their "self" is not the same person?

Quote:
It's that YOU that I'm calling your "specific self." The new specific self would not be YOU. And, scientifically speaking he would be a brand new WHO, and totally untraceable.
Stop trying to tell us what's scientific. You have no idea what that means.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 03:47 PM   #3049
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,287
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- At this point, I'm trying to show why there should be an infinity of potential specific selves.
No, that's not what you're doing at all. You're trying to claim that copies would be missing an important element. Showing why you think there would be potential selves is what I've been asking you to do for a year now, and you've not done that.

As for copies and missing elements, you agreed not long ago that the "self" is an emergent property of the brain. Ergo, the copy and the original "you" would both have identical, but separate, selves. Both are causally traceable to the body and its functions, and both are there. They are identical. No, you don't see through both sets of eyes because they are separate and souls don't exist under materialism.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 03:49 PM   #3050
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
And, if that's true, each specific self must be brand new -- in a sense, "out of nowhere" -- and only one of an infinity of potential selves. Not to mention, cause and effect untraceable.
Is each time my Volkswagen goes 60 mph brand new - in a sense, "out of nowhere"? Out of an infinity of going 60 mph, what are the chances that my Volkswagen would go that specific 60 mph yesterday at 2:45 pm on the Belt Line?

Jabba, do you believe going 60 mph has a soul or that my Volkswagen is immortal?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 03:59 PM   #3051
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,287
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Is each time my Volkswagen goes 60 mph brand new - in a sense, "out of nowhere"? Out of an infinity of going 60 mph, what are the chances that my Volkswagen would go that specific 60 mph yesterday at 2:45 pm on the Belt Line?

Jabba, do you believe going 60 mph has a soul or that my Volkswagen is immortal?
I don't think the 60 mph analogy is getting through to Jabba. He simply sees the "self" as a separate class. That's why I think we should proceed with the cardiac arrest "loss of self" angle. It's closer to home and more obviously contradictory if he doesn't think waking up from a 2 minute full stop creates a new "you".
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 04:04 PM   #3052
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,062
Jabba, I think we agree that if everybody agrees to agree that what you want to believe is true, it still isn't true.

Put another way, no matter how much you want to believe something, it still doesn't have to be true.

Put still another way, if you really were convinced of the truth of what you want to believe, you wouldn't keep hammering the walls of your echo chamber with all these vapid repetitions of your

same

old

stuff.

Such is my belief, anyway.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil

Last edited by sackett; 11th November 2017 at 04:06 PM.
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 04:21 PM   #3053
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,961
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- At this point, I'm trying to show why there should be an infinity of potential specific selves. I assume that an exact copy of my brain would not bring ME back to life. The specific self produced by the copy would not be me. If we kept making exact physical copies of my brain, none of the resultant specific selves should ever be me. And, if that's true, each specific self must be brand new -- in a sense, "out of nowhere" -- and only one of an infinity of potential selves. Not to mention, cause and effect untraceable.
No, cause and effect is traceable, just not practical. As you know and continue to ignore, the self is an ongoing process and every experience the brain has counties to alter the sense of self. That is the cause and effect. Like when your father told you to never give up, or JayUtah’s post of fatal flaws that you’ve read and ignored. They are part of your “self.”

Oh, and once again: if the duplicate has all your thoughts and memories and has had all your experiences, and therefore thinks it is Jabba, how exactly is it different from you?
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 05:12 PM   #3054
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,873
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- At this point, I'm trying to show why there should be an infinity of potential specific selves. I assume that an exact copy of my brain would not bring ME back to life. The specific self produced by the copy would not be me. If we kept making exact physical copies of my brain, none of the resultant specific selves should ever be me. And, if that's true, each specific self must be brand new -- in a sense, "out of nowhere" -- and only one of an infinity of potential selves. Not to mention, cause and effect untraceable.

Jabba, even assuming this is true, why would immortality make you more likely to exist than immortality?

If there are an infinite number of potential souls, then the chance that you would come to exist is 1/inf. - that's zero.

If there are an infinite number of immortal potential souls, then the chance that you would come to exist is 1/inf. - still zero.

How does any of this help your argument for immortality?
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 05:15 PM   #3055
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- At this point, I'm trying to show why there should be an infinity of potential specific selves.
The only reason you're doing that is to try to prove that P(E|H) has an infinite denominator so that you can say it's nigh unto impossible. Except that H is materialsim, so you have to reckon P(E|H) as if H -- materialism -- were true. Materialism has no concept of "potential" selves. It has been amply shown to you why, even if such a model of potentiality could exist, it would render everything equally impossible. Materialism has no concept of "specific selves." The sense of self under materialism is an emergent property of a functioning brain. It makes no more sense to talk about specific selves that it does to talk about specific "goes 60 mph" or specific "smells like bread." You're not talking about materialism. You're talking about something you've drawn up yourself and are trying to trick your critics into agreeing is materialism.

Quote:
I assume that an exact copy of my brain would not bring ME back to life.
And your assumption falls flat under materialism. ME in this sentence is obviously referring to a soul, which doesn't exist under materialism. You're exactly assuming the thing you're supposed to be proving.

Quote:
The specific self produced by the copy would not be me.
But you can't explain why not. You just insist it wouldn't be. Under materialism, everything that could possibly be any form of you is a product of the matter of your organism. Duplicate that and you duplicate all that is you. Really, that's the central tenet of materialism. If you're reckoning P(E|H) you must accept arguendo everything that's part of E -- especially and including its central tenet.

Quote:
And, if that's true, each specific self must be brand new...
Under materialism there is no "specific self" any more than there is a specific "going 60 mph." What you're proposing is not and cannot be true under materialism, and there's really no question about it.

Quote:
-- in a sense, "out of nowhere"
You don't describe what arises ex nihilo. You just say it must be whatever isn't reproduced in the copy -- a circular definition. You don't explain how something that arises ex nihilo can somehow be countable in that state of non-existence. You're just making stuff up as you go.

Quote:
Not to mention, cause and effect untraceable.
Except that it is. Under materialism a vast amount of evidence traces the sense of self to the operation of the physical brain -- and to nothing else, known or unknown.

You know, I have quite a bit more success conveying concepts to my dog than I do to you. Talking to you is like talking to a particularly rude wall. Since your posts today are no different from your posts yesterday, last week, last month, or last year, you really owe an explanation for why a thinking person should pay attention to you. We aren't the only audience who has told you that you simply spew, withing giving any indication that anyone else is speaking.

Fix that.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 05:29 PM   #3056
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,045
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- At this point, I'm trying to show why there should be an infinity of potential specific selves. I assume that an exact copy of my brain would not bring ME back to life. The specific self produced by the copy would not be me. If we kept making exact physical copies of my brain, none of the resultant specific selves should ever be me. And, if that's true, each specific self must be brand new -- in a sense, "out of nowhere" -- and only one of an infinity of potential selves. Not to mention, cause and effect untraceable.
And you still haven't explained why they wouldn't be cause and effect traceable. A copy of my brain would produce a copy of my self. Everything about the self would be determined by the brain. What would be untraceable? Why do you think two identical brains wouldn't produce two identical selves? More importantly, why do you think that's the scientific position?
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 07:37 PM   #3057
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,163
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
....
If there are an infinite number of immortal potential souls, then the chance that you would come to exist is 1/inf. - still zero.

How does any of this help your argument for immortality?
I can field this one.

Because, as you correctly point out, the chance he would come to exist is zero, and he DOES exist, then the denominator must be wrong. There must be a finite number of souls. Apparently (ok magically) a small enough number that necessitates the re-using of souls to provide enough for all the folks who are living and who have lived and died.

If souls are re-used, that means immortality.

It'a rubbish but I think that's his thinking.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 07:45 PM   #3058
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,122
But that requires Jabba to drop the facade that he isn't obviously just arguing for a soul, which he isn't going to do.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 10:20 PM   #3059
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,873
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
I can field this one.

Because, as you correctly point out, the chance he would come to exist is zero, and he DOES exist, then the denominator must be wrong. There must be a finite number of souls. Apparently (ok magically) a small enough number that necessitates the re-using of souls to provide enough for all the folks who are living and who have lived and died.

If souls are re-used, that means immortality.

It'a rubbish but I think that's his thinking.

You're probably right that this is his thinking. It makes no sense, so it must be.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 02:21 AM   #3060
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,593
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Do you accept that the brain yields an emergent property that has no analog in a loaf of bread?

Are you suggesting that if you were perfectly duplicated, the copy would have a loaf of bread as a brain?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 02:24 AM   #3061
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,721
I believe we are seeing evidence that this may have already happened
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 03:58 AM   #3062
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,645
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- At this point, I'm trying to show why there should be an infinity of potential specific selves. I assume that an exact copy of my brain would not bring ME back to life. The specific self produced by the copy would not be me. If we kept making exact physical copies of my brain, none of the resultant specific selves should ever be me. And, if that's true, each specific self must be brand new -- in a sense, "out of nowhere" -- and only one of an infinity of potential selves. Not to mention, cause and effect untraceable.
Why? That wouldn't prove immortality. Stop wasting time.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 05:55 AM   #3063
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,593
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- At this point, I'm trying to show why there should be an infinity of potential specific selves. I assume that an exact copy of my brain would not bring ME back to life. The specific self produced by the copy would not be me. If we kept making exact physical copies of my brain, none of the resultant specific selves should ever be me. And, if that's true, each specific self must be brand new -- in a sense, "out of nowhere" -- and only one of an infinity of potential selves. Not to mention, cause and effect untraceable.

Unfortunately for you, "because I say so" is not a convincing argument.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 07:23 AM   #3064
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,899
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
And you still haven't explained why they wouldn't be cause and effect traceable. A copy of my brain would produce a copy of my self. Everything about the self would be determined by the brain. What would be untraceable? Why do you think two identical brains wouldn't produce two identical selves? More importantly, why do you think that's the scientific position?
- None of the new copies would bring you back to life. IOW, none of the new specific selves would be YOU. Each new self would be someone else; and, we would have no idea WHO they would be. That's how they would be untraceable.
- But then, that hardly matters. Whatever, just like VWs and loaves of bread, there would be no limit on their numbers.
- I haven't found any 'official' statement as to how science explains the existence of different specific selves, but you and I both suspect that a perfect physical copy of your brain would not bring your specific self back to life. The new specific self would not be you.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 07:36 AM   #3065
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,645
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- None of the new copies would bring you back to life. IOW, none of the new specific selves would be YOU. Each new self would be someone else; and, we would have no idea WHO they would be. That's how they would be untraceable.
- But then, that hardly matters. Whatever, just like VWs and loaves of bread, there would be no limit on their numbers.
- I haven't found any 'official' statement as to how science explains the existence of different specific selves, but you and I both suspect that a perfect physical copy of your brain would not bring your specific self back to life. The new specific self would not be you.

You keep bringing up the highlighted, but it has never made any sense. If you were duplicated after death, you duplicate would be dead too. If it you were duplicated while alive, there would be no need to bring you back to life.

At the moment of duplication, the replicate would be identical to you in all respects including it's sense of identity.

And don't start that 'looking out of two sets of eyes' nonsense again.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 07:39 AM   #3066
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,122
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- None of the new copies would bring you back to life. IOW, none of the new specific selves would be YOU. Each new self would be someone else; and, we would have no idea WHO they would be. That's how they would be untraceable.

WHHHHYYYYY????? ANSWER THE QUESTION

What factor, what quality, what objective difference would there be that would make one "you" and the other "not you?"

And I want a reason. I want a definable, objective factor not "They wouldn't be looking out from the same set of eyes" nonsense or you just restating "They wouldn't be the same" again!

I also want a million dollars and a pony and am as likely to get that.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 07:43 AM   #3067
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,840
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- None of the new copies would bring you back to life. IOW, none of the new specific selves would be YOU. Each new self would be someone else; and, we would have no idea WHO they would be.
Absolute nonsense, we'd know exactly who they are. The duplicate consciousness would be identical to the one produced by the original brain. If that original brain was yours the duplicate consciousness would be as convinced that it is Jabba as the one that typed what I just quoted. And it would be right. It would be you "brought back to life", in so far as that phrase means anything at all.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 07:47 AM   #3068
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,163
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- None of the new copies would bring you back to life. IOW, none of the new specific selves would be YOU. Each new self would be someone else; and, we would have no idea WHO they would be. That's how they would be untraceable.
- But then, that hardly matters. Whatever, just like VWs and loaves of bread, there would be no limit on their numbers.
- I haven't found any 'official' statement as to how science explains the existence of different specific selves, but you and I both suspect that a perfect physical copy of your brain would not bring your specific self back to life. The new specific self would not be you.
Wow. I count 8 unsupported assertions. All of which have been made by you before. When will you start supporting any of them?
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 08:20 AM   #3069
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,873
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
you and I both suspect that a perfect physical copy of your brain would not bring your specific self back to life.

Nobody suspects this except you, Jabba. That's because it's nonsense. The phrase "specific self" has no meaning.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 08:22 AM   #3070
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- None of the new copies would bring you YOUR SOUL back to life. IOW, none of the new specific selves SOULS would be YOU. Each new self SOUL would be someone else; and, we would have no idea WHO they would be. That's how they would be untraceable.
You mean soul, Jabba?

Quote:
- But then, that hardly matters. Whatever, just like VWs and loaves of bread, there would be no limit on their numbers.
Good, you admit that there is no difference.

Quote:
- I haven't found any 'official' statement as to how science explains the existence of different specific selves SOULS,
Thank you for admitting that you are prevaricating about materialism having an opinion on your made up nonsense.

Quote:
but you and I both suspect
that you are lying about imagined agreement.

Quote:
that a perfect physical copy of your brain would not bring your specific self SOUL back to life. The new specific self SOUL would not be you.
Did you mean soul? That's gibber, Jabba.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 08:48 AM   #3071
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,045
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- None of the new copies would bring you back to life. IOW, none of the new specific selves would be YOU. Each new self would be someone else; and, we would have no idea WHO they would be. That's how they would be untraceable.
We know exactly who they would be. Why do you think a copy of my brain wouldn't produce a copy of my self? Why do you think two selves can't be identical?
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 09:19 AM   #3072
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- None of the new copies would bring you back to life. IOW, none of the new specific selves would be YOU. Each new self would be someone else; and, we would have no idea WHO they would be. That's how they would be untraceable.
None of that is materialism. You're reckoning P(E|H), where H is materialism. You don't get to use concepts that aren't from materialism in order to pretend that you've refuted it. In materialism the sense of self is an emergent property of the functioning brain. If you exactly reproduce the brain, it must exhibit the same properties as before. That is how it must be cause-and-effect traceable. That's what materialism literally means.

Quote:
I haven't found any 'official' statement as to how science explains the existence of different specific selves...
Yes, you have. The answer is that science doesn't reckon "specific selves" as entities the way you're trying to foist it. Your statement is like saying, "Professional bakers haven't made any official statement about the fairies I claim are what makes bread rise."

Quote:
...but you and I both suspect that a perfect physical copy of your brain would not bring your specific self back to life. The new specific self would not be you.
Please stop rudely cramming your words into someone else's mouth.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 09:23 AM   #3073
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Wow. I count 8 unsupported assertions. All of which have been made by you before. When will you start supporting any of them?
All of which were made yesterday, the day before, and so forth. I gather from Jabba's admissions that posting here on this subject is something of a hobby for him. Having returned from his flounce telling us he just can't stay away, however, you'd think he'd require something a bit more substantive than simply repeating the same debate every single day.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 09:44 AM   #3074
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11,961
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- None of the new copies would bring you back to life.
Every new copy would be another, identical-but separate YOU.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
IOW, none of the new specific selves would be YOU.
Yes, they would.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Each new self would be someone else; and, we would have no idea WHO they would be. That's how they would be untraceable.
No, this is incorrect.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But then, that hardly matters. Whatever, just like VWs and loaves of bread, there would be no limit on their numbers.
So what?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I haven't found any 'official' statement as to how science explains the existence of different specific selves,
Perhaps that's because "specific selves" is not a scientific concept; you are referring to the quasi-religious idea of souls.

Consciousness is a process and the persistence of self is illusory. In reality, the 'self' stops and starts during sleep and periods of unconsciousness, and continues to change every nanosecond of your waking life.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
but you and I both suspect that a perfect physical copy of your brain would not bring your specific self back to life. The new specific self would not be you.
No, the only person suspecting that is you, and you are wrong. It is dishonest to misrepresent another person's argument by assuming that they agree with you when they clearly do not.
__________________
Not to put too fine a point on it, say I'm the only bee in your bonnet. Make a little birdhouse in your soul.

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 11:14 AM   #3075
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 670
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- None of the new copies would bring you back to life. IOW, none of the new specific selves would be YOU. Each new self would be someone else; and, we would have no idea WHO they would be. That's how they would be untraceable.
You know exactly who the self would be. It would be a duplicate of the self of the original person who was replicated.

That's who it would be.

What on earth are you talking about? It almost seems that you think that duplicates of a person, because it somehow doesn't have the same instance of self that the original did (the flaws in that thinking notwithstanding), that therefore the new person gets populated with a random self from some ill-defined pool of potential selves, and is therefore somehow not subject to the chain of cause and effect that causes selves to emerge as emergent properties of working brains.

You're not making any sense at all.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 11:30 AM   #3076
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,287
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- None of the new copies would bring you back to life. IOW, none of the new specific selves would be YOU.
Is it a new you if you go into cardiac arrest for a minute and then come back from temporary death?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 11:47 AM   #3077
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,163
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
All of which were made yesterday, the day before, and so forth. I gather from Jabba's admissions that posting here on this subject is something of a hobby for him. Having returned from his flounce telling us he just can't stay away, however, you'd think he'd require something a bit more substantive than simply repeating the same debate every single day.
It would be amusing to respond to his posts only with links back to the response already given earlier in the thread. (he doesn't read the responses anyway) but it would be far too much work.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 01:19 PM   #3078
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,899
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
We know exactly who they would be. Why do you think a copy of my brain wouldn't produce a copy of my self? Why do you think two selves can't be identical?
- A copy of your brain would produce a copy of your self. It just wouldn't bring you back to life -- IOW, the new specific self would not be YOU. In that sense, the new self would not be identical to the old self.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 01:22 PM   #3079
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,886
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- A copy of your brain would produce a copy of your self. It just wouldn't bring you back to life -- IOW, the new specific self would not be YOU. In that sense, the new self would not be identical to the old self.
If it wasn't the same it wouldn't be a copy

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 01:25 PM   #3080
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,045
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- A copy of your brain would produce a copy of your self. It just wouldn't bring you back to life -- IOW, the new specific self would not be YOU. In that sense, the new self would not be identical to the old self.
I don't see how it wouldn't be identical. A copy is always separate from the original. That's what "copy" means.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

Last edited by godless dave; 12th November 2017 at 01:30 PM.
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.