Scientific conjecture about an atheistic conception of the afterlife

demonstration

You haven't even demonstrated good understanding of your own terms. How after all should one distinguish your "specific subjective existence" from "identity or individuation"; to show that the former is impossible to copy and the latter is/are Xerox-safe? It can't be done. The terms cannot be distinguished in this way.

(Would a wag venture that this impossibility also demonstrates incorporeality, by Cyperium's standard?)

Joking aside: the terms, insofar as they have meaning, are intimately related, inseparable. You didn't understand the terms well enough to notice.

--

Philosophy is unlike poker.

Anyone know why?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It isn't a question of which person is the copy, he would remember making the copy and would know that he is the copy as he is at the place where the copy was made.

There are no laws that forbid such a copy so it isn't magical. It is science fiction though, but not to the degree that it contradicts science in any way, if we had the technology to compute such a large mass and the technology to reassemble it from the materials that it is made up from then there would be nothing to stop us.

It proves that although all things physical are copied there are still the subjective side of it that can't be copied. Also if I made two copies at the same moment, then what is it that decides which is going to have which subjective existence? Even time would be ruled out as we could (possibly) set them up at the same moment.

The universe is gigantic and there is a possibility of natural duplications. I think there were some calculation of how far away the duplicate would be, it was far away, but not impossibly far.

We need to account for what is possible, not only the limited scope we have available. There are no contradictions to physics with my idea of copying and it's easy to conceive the implications of it. There would be no difference between identical twins except that they would be more identical.

It is always good to exercise thought experiments on difficult subjects, even if those thought experiments are lightyears ahead of any physical experiment. Einstein didn't actually build a elevator in space (and we didn't have the technology at that time) either even if it shows the effects of general relativity.

I mean that one could copy the content of the brain to another brain, including the identity and all other contents, but the subjective existence can't be copied. Even though I copy everything in my brain and "put it" in another brain I still would only exist as myself. There is a bit of ambiguity in the term "individuation", for me it is the same as finding what makes you individual from all the possibilities, in other words, it's much the same as creating a identity. Anything that is stored in the brain as physical information can be copied, including the progress of individuation and identity.

I'm not sure why you even brought up individuation if you see it as perfectly equivalent to subjectivity (you can't have one without the other?), the fact that you brought it up to differ from subjectivity is what brought me to believe that you meant it as building a identity.


You failed to answer this:
There is no identification with Nicos needed, Nicos is forgotten (just as the amnesiac had forgotten Old Paul) but in the perspective of Nicos his subjective existence continues with Thanos; as you said in the essay chapter 9 (part 2):

``Nicos' supposedly interminable time-gap has actually reached its end with Thanos' birth. Nicos has passed, imperceptibly, to Thanos; and the amnesiac new man who is Thanos lives unknowingly as a continuation of the life of his father Nicos.´´

So who does unknowingly live as a continuation of James? Which of the twins? Both can't live unknowingly as a continuation of James as the singular subjective existence of James can't recover as two persons.

Do you see that now?


Also, do you agree that being a system doesn't need to change it in any way? Being a system would probably be the function of the unphysical that you asked for. I don't find any reasons why it necessarily would alter a system depending on which subjective existence was the system.

Thanks for the link to the Google search, I didn't know that the thought experiment was called "philosophy of duplication", I didn't read about it before either. Btw; do you think that just because it has been discussed before that it must be false, or that it must have been concluded to be false? I have tried to push the idea for years on these forums, and no one has been able to convince me that it is false in any way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.