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 25th November 2017, 07:30 AM   #41
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,156
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Back in 3320 of the previous chapter, you said,
"I come out of the cells of my brain.
If you made an exact copy of my brain, an exact copy of me would come out of it.
I do agree that an exact copy of me wouldn't be me"

- I'm just trying to find the right words. While a perfect copy would reproduce you, it wouldn't be you...
Are you saying that a copy of what you've referred to as the process of Dave would be an identical but distinct process of Dave?

Is that what you mean by a "perfect copy" of what you've called a process?
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 25th November 2017, 07:33 AM   #42
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,924
Originally Posted by jond View Post
What, exactly would the difference be? If the duplicate self identifies as Jabba, how is that different from you?
It would be different because it would not be the process that is currently running in Jabba's brain and calling itself Jabba, it would be an identical process running in an identical brain and calling itself Jabba.

The same would be true of Jabba's immortal soul if he had one, of course - that would also have different spacetime coordinates to the ones it has now - but Jabba never thinks anything through that far.
__________________
"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 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 25th November 2017, 08:03 AM   #43
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,392
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm just trying to find the right words. While a perfect copy would reproduce you, it wouldn't be you...
Originally Posted by jond View Post
What, exactly would the difference be? If the duplicate self identifies as Jabba, how is that different from you?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Of course not. When is a copy ever the original? When are two things ever the same thing?
Jabba how do pronouns work in your world?

Even by the most liberal forgiveness of how much Woo lives and dies by silly word games this is beyond absurd.

You're basically at the level of "The other me wouldn't be me because I'm me." This is a poor man's Abbott and Costello sketch pretending it's an idea.

"My language has first-person singular pronouns therefore immortality."

The "you" you are in is called "me" and others aren't because THAT'S HOW THE BLOODY LANGUAGE WORKS!

You're arguing that if you stand next to a lamp and walk a few feet away from it it's a new lamp because the first lamp is "over here" and the other one is "over there" even though they are the same lamp.

You have been argued in Plank Corner, the smallest possible corner an argument can be argued into. You are hiding in pure semantics of the tiniest order.
__________________
"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

Last edited by JoeBentley; 25th November 2017 at 08:12 AM.
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 25th November 2017, 08:10 AM   #44
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,964
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Back in 3320 of the previous chapter, you said,
"I come out of the cells of my brain.
If you made an exact copy of my brain, an exact copy of me would come out of it.
I do agree that an exact copy of me wouldn't be me"

- I'm just trying to find the right words. While a perfect copy would reproduce you, it wouldn't be you...
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Of course not. When is a copy ever the original? When are two things ever the same thing?
- Just trying to get my words right.
-Now, what word/term/phrase can I use to indicate the kind of you/self/process that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain?
__________________
"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 25th November 2017, 08:11 AM   #45
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,023
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Just trying to get my words right.
-Now, what word/term/phrase can I use to indicate the kind of you/self/process that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain?
There isn’t one.
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 25th November 2017, 08:15 AM   #46
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,392
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Just trying to get my words right.
It's been five years Jabba. We're at infinite monkeys on infinite typewriter levels here. If you had a valid point you would have "worded it right" by accident by now.

Quote:
Now, what word/term/phrase can I use to indicate the kind of you/self/process that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain?
Jabba why the bloody hell are you asking us how to word your argument in a way we'll swallow it?

THERE IS NO POSSIBLE PHRASE THAT YOU CAN USE THAT IS GOING TO MAKE US ACCEPT YOUR NONSENSE.

Also... soul. You're talking about a soul. You've admitted you're talking about a soul. We know you're talking about a soul. Just... call... it... a... soul.
__________________
"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 25th November 2017, 08:16 AM   #47
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,749
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Just trying to get my words right.
-Now, what word/term/phrase can I use to indicate the kind of you/self/process that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain?

"Soul".
__________________
"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 25th November 2017, 08:23 AM   #48
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,156
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Just trying to get my words right.
-Now, what word/term/phrase can I use to indicate the kind of you/self/process that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain?
How about "soul"? The word everyone already knows you mean.

Good of you to admit that you are simply begging the question.
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 25th November 2017, 08:24 AM   #49
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,392
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Good of you to admit that you are simply begging the question.
He's not even willing to beg the question himself. He keeps trying to outsource his begging the question to us.
__________________
"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 25th November 2017, 08:27 AM   #50
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,216
Jabba, you already said:

"your self is determined entirely by the cells of your brain, but you must require something more. "

The "something more" is a soul. We get it. You only need establish that such a thing really exists rather than continually just repeating the claim.
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 25th November 2017, 08:35 AM   #51
caveman1917
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,224
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Seriously? Newton's Laws of Motion.
Quantum Mechanics. Besides, current-day laws of physics aren't evidence for whether the universe is or isn't deterministic, because they can always be an approximation to an underlying theory which can be either probabilistic or deterministic.

Last edited by caveman1917; 25th November 2017 at 08:38 AM.
caveman1917 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 25th November 2017, 08:40 AM   #52
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,340
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Just trying to get my words right.
-Now, what word/term/phrase can I use to indicate the kind of you/self/process that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain?
If you're discussing materialism, there is no such word, because there is no such concept to require a word to discuss it. If you're not discussing materialism, then the word is "soul," based on the hypothesis that there exists such a thing as a soul that is distinct and separate from the body it animates. Everyone is aware that you're trying to shoe-horn the concept of a soul into materialism, in order to demonstrate that this materialist concept of a soul is vanishingly unlikely to exist, that therefore the whole of materialism is internally inconsistent, and that the materialist hypothesis is thus refuted. The problem with your approach is that the soul is not a part of the materialist hypothesis in any way, shape or form, and therefore the fact that it is incompatible with the materialist hypothesis is of no concern. That's part of what everybody's been trying to tell you for the last five years, and part of what you're trying to magic away by inventing a new word that will insert a concept into materialism that doesn't in fact form any part of it.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 25th November 2017, 08:42 AM   #53
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,909
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Just trying to get my words right.
-Now, what word/term/phrase can I use to indicate the kind of you/self/process that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain?
Soul.

ETA: Ninja'd 6 times. See Jabba, people see right through your transparent arguments.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave

Last edited by John Jones; 25th November 2017 at 08:44 AM.
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 25th November 2017, 08:43 AM   #54
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,023
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
If you're discussing materialism, there is no such word, because there is no such concept to require a word to discuss it. If you're not discussing materialism, then the word is "soul," based on the hypothesis that there exists such a thing as a soul that is distinct and separate from the body it animates. Everyone is aware that you're trying to shoe-horn the concept of a soul into materialism, in order to demonstrate that this materialist concept of a soul is vanishingly unlikely to exist, that therefore the whole of materialism is internally inconsistent, and that the materialist hypothesis is thus refuted. The problem with your approach is that the soul is not a part of the materialist hypothesis in any way, shape or form, and therefore the fact that it is incompatible with the materialist hypothesis is of no concern. That's part of what everybody's been trying to tell you for the last five years, and part of what you're trying to magic away by inventing a new word that will insert a concept into materialism that doesn't in fact form any part of it.

Dave
Jabba, I know you will ignore this post. But you really shouldn’t. You really need to try to understand it.
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 25th November 2017, 08:44 AM   #55
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,392
Again we have to keep Jabba's script outline in mind here.

You see in the story Jabba's writing in his head and trying to get us all to star in against our will he doesn't "convince" the big mean skeptics that he's right... he gets the big mean skeptics to admit that they knew his was right all along.

In the character arc Jabba's written for us we're not wrong... we're dishonest. We know there's a soul in our heart of hearts but our dogmatic devotion to reason and science and... things making any kind of sense or basic internal consistency of thought has just blinded us to that truth and great and powerful Jabba is here to break us out of our cocoons and get us to admit the truths we all know but are just too stubborn to admit.

Again he's not arguing with us, even poorly. He's directing us toward the big moment where the inspirational music swells in the background and we tearfully admit how foolish we've been, that of course there's a soul everybody knows that, he just had to show us the way to admit it. *Wipes away a tear.*
__________________
"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 25th November 2017, 09:10 AM   #56
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Just trying to get my words right.
-Now, what word/term/phrase can I use to indicate the kind of you/self/process that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain?
It would be reproduced. Everything would be reproduced. Every aspect of the original would have a corresponding aspect in the copy.
__________________
"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; 25th November 2017 at 10:02 AM.
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 25th November 2017, 09:14 AM   #57
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,520
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Just trying to get my words right.
-Now, what word/term/phrase can I use to indicate the kind of you/self/process that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain?
No, Jabba, you're not trying to get your words right. You're trying to keep them wrong but convince someone to agree they're right so that you can have your anti-skeptics "gotcha!' moment. It's not as if you're even being coy about that being your goal. The right words have been given hundreds of times. The nuanced detail of the materialist position has been made abundantly clear.

One of those details -- or rather, the central principle of materialism -- is that there doesn't exist anything that wouldn't be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain. There is no word for it in materialism because the whole concept is foreign to materialism. The word you're groping for is "soul." As usual, you can't sneak a new word past your critics that means soul but isn't that word.
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 25th November 2017, 09:49 AM   #58
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,117
Here's some math:

1 x 1 = 1 and 1*

where

* = A SOULLESS CREATURE FROM THE DEVIL'S DARKEST PLOTTING AND WHEN IT DIES IT VANISHES THANK GOD!

OH YEAH, AND I LIVE FOREVER AND IT'S REALLY REALLY FUN!
__________________
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
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 25th November 2017, 01:47 PM   #59
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,109
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-Now, what word/term/phrase can I use to indicate the kind of you/self/process that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain?


What word can I use to indicate the kind of creditor/placemat/banana that grows on banana trees?

You've strung together three words here in order to once again pretend that you agree that consciousness is a process while once again acting as though it's a countable thing.

What word can we use to indicate the kind of going sixty miles per hour that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of a Volkswagen?

If that question makes no sense to you, then you know you're not treating consciousness as a process.
__________________
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 25th November 2017, 02:39 PM   #60
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,015
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Just trying to get my words right.
-Now, what word/term/phrase can I use to indicate the kind of you/self/process that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain?
The word you seek is "soul" and you have yet to demonstrate that any such thing exists.

Furthermore, if the copy is in anyway different from the original, then by definition, it is not a perfect copy at all.
__________________
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 25th November 2017, 02:46 PM   #61
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,674
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Quantum Mechanics.
A penny is too big for QM to matter.

Quote:
Besides, current-day laws of physics aren't evidence for whether the universe is or isn't deterministic, because they can always be an approximation to an underlying theory which can be either probabilistic or deterministic.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
jt512 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 25th November 2017, 03:03 PM   #62
caveman1917
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,224
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
A penny is too big for QM to matter.
That doesn't stop it from being probabilistic. A probability of 99.9999% is still a probability. Besides, if the system is chaotic (which it probably is) then thermal or even quantum probabilistic factors may matter.

Quote:
Where do you come up with this stuff?
What do you mean?
caveman1917 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 25th November 2017, 03:14 PM   #63
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Where do you come up with this stuff?
I bet he has to wash his hands afterward.
Peregrinus 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 25th November 2017, 05:37 PM   #64
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,674
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
That doesn't stop it from being probabilistic. A probability of 99.9999% is still a probability.
It's a deterministic system. It's probability of landing the side up that Newton's Laws dictate is 100%.

Quote:
Besides, if the system is chaotic (which it probably is) then thermal or even quantum probabilistic factors may matter.
Even if the system is chaotic, it is still deterministic, and QM doesn't enter the picture.
jt512 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 25th November 2017, 05:40 PM   #65
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,704
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm just trying to find the right words.
No, you're not. You're trying to find a way to con yourself into an agreement, while we're all seeing you do it.
__________________
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 25th November 2017, 05:41 PM   #66
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,704
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Quantum Mechanics. Besides, current-day laws of physics aren't evidence for whether the universe is or isn't deterministic, because they can always be an approximation to an underlying theory which can be either probabilistic or deterministic.
At the scales being discussed, the quantum effects cancel out.
__________________
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 25th November 2017, 10:41 PM   #67
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,109
OMG! Someone created an internet platform that creates Jabba's Effective Debate in real time - map and everything.

Jabba, you should play this thread out over there and find out just what the "audience" thinks of your arguments, branch by insane branch.
__________________
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 26th November 2017, 05:01 AM   #68
caveman1917
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,224
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
It's a deterministic system. It's probability of landing the side up that Newton's Laws dictate is 100%.
I suppose you don't have any evidence for that assertion? Mainstream physics would disagree with you, for one, since the correspondence principle states that Newton's Laws are a statistical approximation of a quantum system when the parameters become large. It's simply false that there is some cut-off point beyond which physical systems are deterministic and 100% determined by Newton's Laws, Newton's Laws are an approximation which becomes more accurate as the system becomes larger but it's always just a statistical approximation, it's never 100%.

Which should also answer one part of your "Where do you come up with this stuff?" as an example of how a deterministic theory can be an approximation to an underlying probabilistic theory. It's also possible the other way around, where a probabilistic theory can be an approximation to an underlying deterministic theory. Which should be enough for you to be able to conclude that you can't determine whether the universe is or isn't deterministic by considering whether a particular theory of physics is or isn't deterministic, all you can say is that that particular theory is/isn't deterministic.

Quote:
Even if the system is chaotic, it is still deterministic, and QM doesn't enter the picture.
And some evidence for this one?
caveman1917 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 26th November 2017, 06:11 AM   #69
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,392
What does any of this have to do with Jabba being immortal?

Why do you insist on nannying this thread with your anti-skeptic pedantics?
__________________
"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 26th November 2017, 06:40 AM   #70
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,964
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Just trying to get my words right.
-Now, what word/term/phrase can I use to indicate the kind of you/self/process that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
It would be reproduced. Everything would be reproduced. Every aspect of the original would have a corresponding aspect in the copy.
- What can I call the kind of thing/process that would not be me in my copy? I could call it "soul" with the stipulation that by definition, it may not be immortal.
- Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists, but not according to you. I need a word for that concept.
__________________
"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 26th November 2017, 06:43 AM   #71
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,023
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- What can I call the kind of thing/process that would not be me in my copy? I could call it "soul" with the stipulation that by definition, it may not be immortal.
- Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists, but not according to you. I need a word for that concept.
Nothing would not be you in materialism. The duplicate would self identity as Jabba, just as you self identify as Jabba.
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 26th November 2017, 06:44 AM   #72
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,749
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- What can I call the kind of thing/process that would not be me in my copy? I could call it "soul" with the stipulation that by definition, it may not be immortal.
- Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists, but not according to you. I need a word for that concept.

You've got one: "soul". However, if you prefer, you can call it a "flapdoodle".

It is something that doesn't exist under materialism, so cannot be factored into any calculation of likelihood under materialism. Whether or not it is considered immortal is irrelevant to this.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Mojo; 26th November 2017 at 06:46 AM.
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 26th November 2017, 06:46 AM   #73
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU
Posts: 365
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
And some evidence for this one?
http://www.perlikowski.kdm.p.lodz.pl/papers/PR2008.pdf

does that work for you?

ETA: JoeBentley already asked: shouldn't this subject be treated separately from Jabba's statistical proof that a non-existent entity is immortal, or whatever he currently means ?

ETA2: QED (Quod Erat Demonstrandum != Quantum Electro-Dynamics)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post12090268

Last edited by wea; 26th November 2017 at 07:18 AM.
wea 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 26th November 2017, 07:00 AM   #74
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,392
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- What can I call the kind of thing/process that would not be me in my copy? I could call it "soul" with the stipulation that by definition, it may not be immortal.
- Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists, but not according to you. I need a word for that concept.
Jabba... what are you doing?

You're begging and grovelling for the people who are disagreeing with you to hand you an argument for you to win the debate with.

What's it like in your head? How does reality work in your universe?

I've never seen anyone make up a debate in their head and lose it.
__________________
"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 26th November 2017, 07:08 AM   #75
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,023
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- What can I call the kind of thing/process that would not be me in my copy? I could call it "soul" with the stipulation that by definition, it may not be immortal.
- Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists, but not according to you. I need a word for that concept.
Oh, and: here you are again insisting that thing and process are the same. They are not. What you want is for there to be a thing (called a soul) which does not exist in materialism. Under materialism, the self is a process in a functioning brain. Brain stops functioning, self stops as well. Reincarnationist believe there is a thing (called a soul) that exists as a separate entity from the brain. This does not exist in materialism.

I know you will ignore this post, but you really shouldn’t.
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 26th November 2017, 07:15 AM   #76
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,964
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
You've got one: "soul". However, if you prefer, you can call it a "flapdoodle".

It is something that doesn't exist under materialism, so cannot be factored into any calculation of likelihood under materialism. Whether or not it is considered immortal is irrelevant to this.
Mojo,
- Do you think that you experience the process I'm alluding to, but believe (are sure) that it's mortal?
__________________
"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 26th November 2017, 07:19 AM   #77
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,023
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- Do you think that you experience the process I'm alluding to, but believe (are sure) that it's mortal?
The process you are alluding to is a process in the brain. We all experience it. And we are all aware that when the brain stops functioning the process will will stop. You, on the other hand, insist that there exists a separate thing that is not a process in your brain. None of us, not even Godless Dave, believe that thing exists.
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 26th November 2017, 07:24 AM   #78
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- What can I call the kind of thing/process that would not be me in my copy? I could call it "soul" with the stipulation that by definition, it may not be immortal.
- Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists, but not according to you. I need a word for that concept.
The whole thing would not be you. The head would not be your head. The nose would not be your nose. The skin would not be your skin. The brain would not be your brain.
__________________
"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 26th November 2017, 07:25 AM   #79
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,749
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- Do you think that you experience the process I'm alluding to, but believe (are sure) that it's mortal?

No, because the flapdoodle you are alluding to is not a process, but a thing. Under materialism, flapdoodles do not exist. Brain processes do exist, and will cease when the brain ceases to function.
__________________
"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 26th November 2017, 07:31 AM   #80
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,216
There are no flapdoodles in ooflam.


..............or ARE there?
duh duh duuuuuuuuuuh!!!!!
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
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 03:00 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.