Intro "Maizelbub" art by Dan Rossi Website - danrossidraws.artstation.com/ Twitter - / danrossidraws Catch all my streams LIVE at / actualjake #Politics #Debate #Twitch
its easy we've been raised in an environment that posits explainable phenomena as magic, tho they'll never call it that and avoid the word like the plague cuz they understand almost intuitively how it sounds.
Also he doesn’t even know what materialism is. He says that if you believe your conscious died when your molecules were disrupted then reassembled your original consciousness died, you aren’t a materialist. But his not understanding that the notion of self is an illusion, that is what materialists actually believe. Also his basically just killed me and revived me? Lmao? This guy is brainbroken
@@newglof9558 Don't you think it's silly semantics with "A belief there isn't a god" vs "A lack of bleief in a god" It sounds like it's parsing words in my view. Would you expand on that if you feel so inclined?
He is quite a bit less intelligent than he appears here. People all explain why he is so off the mark and he just ignores it and says nobody has answered his question.
This dude is unironically the main character from Soma. "We did it, we're on the Ark!" "What do you mean. We're still here." "Simon, I keep trying to explain this to you and you keep refusing to listen, copies of us are on the Ark, but you can't transfer awareness" "NO!" Like bro thinks that having the same "physical body" in two different places means that they share the same awareness.
In Star Trek your consciousness is in subspace while they transport you. You can feel yourself in both locations for a second. Lieutenant Barclay was attacked by a weird creature in there.
Well, the only prerequisite to being an atheist is a lack of belief in god or gods, the supernatural stuff is just follows (ususally). Tarot, witchcraft, homeopaty, those would not exclude you from being an atheist
This is true. But I would argue that spiritualism/supernatural belief is equally as stupid as religion. But it's definitely not as institutionally powerful or damaging as religion is. Definitely all brain worms though
This was am episode of ST:TNG. In it Riker was transported off an alien world. What they didn't know was that he was copied and reflected back to the surface. 1 went to the ship, 1 got marooned. When they found out about the marooned one, they picked him up. That guy went by Riker's middle name. They both went on to live separate lives
Right at the beginning he does the same Apologist "some call it materialism" as a way to combine a worldview with a lack of belief in a religious worldview. And that's not how words work. I'm sure many atheists follow a humanist or materialist-ish worldview, but that's not going to be a universal statement among "atheists" as individuals. There is no ordained atheist leadership so the appeals to atheist icons won't ever mean anything either. The Catch-22 of doing the debate-bro Apologist routine is that while it's parroted by existing believers, it tends to drive away non-believers or make them more combative for the presuppositions.
The guy forgot that swapping out all your molecules every now and again is a thing your body not only does on its own, but is very much a natural phenomenon
His issue is saying "your consciousness is in your body". His language is preventing him from conceptualizing what consciousness actually is. He can't conceptualize consciousness without a soul. He thinks consciousness is something that inhabits your molecules when actually it's more like an ongoing chemical reaction that results from your particular configuration of molecules. If the chain of reactions ends your stream of consciousness ends.
Having a stream of consciousness isn't a heck of a lot different from having a movie playing from a vcr onto a TV. If I eject the vhs, and put in a molecularly identical vhs at the exact same point as the previous vhs was stopped, would there be any indication that the break in the stream occurred? It's as useful a question as asking "what if time froze and you didn't notice? Would you care?" Probably not tbh.
So his entire "arguement" boils down to a bunch of if-then statements where he has yet to prove the ifs are even accurate, and in some cases, possible...
3rd edition D&D 'supernatural' referred to the extra abilities monsters might have that they are born with [Gorgon eyes, banshee scream] Anything that adhered to the natural structure of the world but wasn't a cast spell
his first point reminds me of the movie the Prestige, where *SPOILERS**SPOILERS**SPOILERS**SPOILERS**SPOILERS**SPOILERS* Wolverine clones himself every night and at random 1 clone is drowned every night. The fear he feels is that every night the version that wakes up in the morning might be the one that drowns that night. It's a different consciousness that potentially lives on.
if only we had a way to simulate this... oh wait, twins are totally a thing. you split one fetus into two and... oh shit, they have separate consciousness. not one consciousness split between two bodies.
Simple answer to this hypothetical: your molecular structure alone is not what defines "you," because location is part of identity. If I have 2 identical silicon crystals with the exact same number and arrangement of atoms, the crystals are still distinct from each other because they are in different places.
His answer that under christianity the soul doesnt move... has zero evidence. Truthfully he doesnt have an answer either because this is a philosophical hypothetical with no real answer. Theres no way to know if your "soul" moves or not!
if something exists in the universe, it is, by definition, "natural" in this context... sooooo... he's basically saying that the existence of existence itself proves the existence of the non-existent...
If a person thinks that all the answers to their questions "disagree with" the position of the person they're asking...they're asking the wrong questions. You can come up with questions to ask a flat-earther whose answers could affirm their position, even though it's demonstrably wrong. Guess Professor Psych 101 over here isn't as smart as he thinks he is.
while we cannot directly observe consciousness with our senses and it's currently somewhat beyond our scientific understanding, we can observe the products of consciousness everywhere. i hear a person talk -> i believe that person has a mind, they exist as a conscious being. never heard god talk though... js...
Yeah, it's a lot like Star Trek transporter philosophy. The transporter takes you apart, records the information about where all your atoms were, and transmits that information elsewhere when it's used to rebuild that body it just recorded. Some people think that counts as just moving your body. Some people think that counts as killing you and constructing a doppelganger. The difference of opinion comes down to whether you think physical continuity is required for identity across change. Personally, I don't think continuity is required, so I think you do survive Star Trek transporters. And you can come up with other thought experiments. Consider the episode where Riker experiences a transporter malfunction. His body is left on the transport pad as if he never left. But it's also constructed at the target pad, as if he did leave. So you have two identical Rikers. Which is the real Riker? It seems to me they both are. Of course, opinions vary.
Supernatural is an oxymoron. The moment something exists IN NATURE it is by default a natural occurrence. It can be an unexplained natural occurrence, but natural non the less.
once again, these people don't understand lack of belief and have to treat our rejection as a positive claim or some bs, there can be supernatural events and no god, there can be a god and no supernatural events, I reject the premise and my stream of conciousness has nothing to do with either and does not prove there is a soul
There's a lot of question-begging going on under the hood with this guy. Consciousness and souls and stuff are all very spooky, its easier to see what's going on if we step away from them. Take a chemical process that doesn't feel so mystical... Lets say you've got a campfire. It burns down a bit, you add more logs, it burns down a bit more, and you add some more logs, and now the original logs are entirely burned away. Is it still the same campfire? Obviously it is. But lets say I put the fire out. I transport all the extinguished logs to another location, and I later use them in a new campfire. Is it the same fire? Obviously not. There's nothing even remotely mystical or difficult about this. I don't need to invent some magical non-material force to answer these questions, and the only reason it would seem any different from a human consciousness is you started with the assumption that it must be different.
common logical fallacy, the asserting that the supernatural exists and his proof is the _assumption_ that the supernatural exists, at least partly because he just literally doesn't KNOW what's real and what's supernatural fantasy...
Even if you were to grant the argument of having your molecules swapped, and another you created from the original molecules, it wouldn't contradict the materialistic view. He just tossed in the presupposition that souls exist, without even making any argument for the soul existing. If the molecule swap and rebuild were possible, it would still comply with materialism. This kid is lacking so much
This argument fails on every front, as Jake pointed out, but the most obvious problem is that he is making the assumption that consciousness itself is supernatural, but his argument defeats that on its own premises. Even if we grant that there could be a clone with our exact genetic/atomic make up recreated on a different planet, we wouldn't necessarily care about it, not because our consciousness is objectively special in a supernatural sense, but merely because our existence resides in our physical body. Our doppleganger also wouldn't care about us, necessarily, because their existence is entirely dependent on their own physical minds and bodies. As for the genetic clone crafted from the Star Trek transporter accident, outside of it just killing us, both of instances would be completely valid versions of us. It's why there's a dilemma when that story beat happens. Both do have a claim to life and the identity of the original. Because their identity exists as the expression of their internal and, at least as far as we can tell, materialistic, systems.
This is so dumb. The third question lacks context. Let’s say we’re Ship of Theseus-ing this shit and replacing my molecules (magically, I guess) one at a time, without breaking my stream of consciousness; then the new matter body is still me. If you then take all the old molecules and arrange them into a body; well, you’d just end up with a handsome corpse. (If I were the Ship of Theseus, you’d get another ship from my old material, but that’s because ships are not in fact alive.) However, if you replace my molecules all at the exact same moment, breaking my stream of consciousness; I die. I’m dead now, thanks. Also, both the old body and new body are now corpses. Congrats. Somebody please inform this guy that our bodies already kind of do this matter replacement by themselves. He’s shedding dead skin cells as we speak and it sounds like he’s unaware of that basic fact. EDIT: I paused to write this after he posed the question, not knowing Jake would respond with my exact point immediately after I pressed play again 😅 All I can say is: great minds…
There are so many leaps in logic with regard to this argument. Star Trek has tackled these ideas in ways that are so much more fulfilling. I don't know how this guy thinks that any of this confirms the supernatural or how any of that then disproves atheism. This is room-temperature IQ cope on full display.
Technically you can be an atheist and still believe in some supernatural things. Literally all being an atheist means is that you don't believe in god. Yes, most atheists probably don't believe in other supernatural things either, but it's certainly possible. I don't know why people insist on making things more complicated than they have to be.
I’ve met atheists who believe in ghosts and one atheist, who doesn’t think evolution is the reason we exist Dude was like “ look at everything we can do bro you think we’re just animals??” 😂
"Consciousness" is not a synonym for "the soul", buddy..... it's the active process of our brains interpreting our sensory experience. The reason we can expect to have a consciousness in the future isn't because it's some entity that Exists but because we understand that the mechanisms of our brains will likely still be firing tomorrow, baring unfortunate circumstances. "Consciousness" is a state of being, not an independent object.
Also, stop putting your links in the comments of the videos you critique. RUclips will delete them. It is futile. Edit: If you do another video about his "Mega argument", talk about how your brain does not replace its cells. Except for the hippocampus but that part only does because of damages to it. Your body might be different compared to when you were a newborn but your brain is only built upon. Maybe research upon that to make sure its true, that's just what I heard.
You know, what he is talking about is interesting but I don't know why he thinks anything he's saying has to do with the supernatural. Consciousness ≠ souls and souls don't exist. Consciousness is just your brain working at full capacity. Well, I guess it doesn't have to be full capacity. Consciousness is just your brain working. You're half asleep, you're half conscious. I bet consciousness runs deeper though scientifically in that there could be different consciousness's through out our bodies. Just not as powerful as our brains but that's just me. No pun intended. He pulls me apart and puts me back together and asks "Shoot him or yourself" That's a clone copy but that is a whole other computer existing in the same universe. Id rather shoot the one made of the new stuff. You mix us up and who knows what's gonna happen to my consciousness but I still fail to see what any of that has to do with the supernatural. Edit: I could be wrong but I think that your brain does not replace its cells anyway except for the hippocampus but that part only does because of damages to it. Your body might be different compared to when you were a newborn but your brain is only built upon.
My answer is that you are the new or old matter body depending on if your stream of consciousness was stopped during the swapping. If it wasn't, you're the new body. If it was, you're the old one. Jake's answer? Something contradictory and something something Christians are "not well". Unfriendly atheism strikes again....
I'm not going to diss you for taking the concept of a 'you' or 'I' for granted, but there is no well-defined meaning for this. When we ask 'which one is you?' what are we actually asking? The first problem is that question itself presumes one or the other is 'you'. If you want my personal belief, I would tell you that 'you' is an instant of the continuous process going on in the brain. It is impractical to say that you arent the 'you' described when talking about yourself in the past tense, but I believe we shouldnt be treating these 2 concepts as the same thing. I guess what I'm trying to say which is, neither the clone or the original are you, because they are future hypotheticals. Its like asking, there is a future where you wake up at 9am, and another where you wake up at 12pm, which one are you? We cant possibly say, 'you' isnt a thing of the future. Either we believe that all such futures are encapsulated under the term 'you'(there is no preferential treatment for any such future), or we believe none of such future are 'you'. I believe the latter. 'If an alien on another planet clones you and will give you a really good time, would you be exited', I might be, but the years of experience tells me not to believe anything like this is true, so unless you could prove to me it would happen, I would assume that the 'me' of tomorrow is one of many expected futures. I think a lot of the christian points rely on treating your emotional reaction to a hypothetical as your logical opinion on the matter(something that would only catch out an idiot who only seeks to justify their emotions), but the reality is although I may not feel like I will be on an alien planet tomorrow, in the hypothetical, there is a 50/50 chance that an entity that can be described as 'me' is going to be on an alien planet, and rationally, it should be treated as such, but emotionally I shall continue my life believing that I wont wake up tomorrow in a void having been brought to life again by the random fluctuations of a dead universe, which assuming the universe is infinite and infinitely varied, is far more likely that 'me' continuing as I am(actually its this exact hypothetical that makes me define 'me' as an instant, it is irrational to consider the infinitely many possible futures in which I wake up in a goo of entropy as feasible, they are far too detatched from my image of my future self to consider them myself, I'm sure they would beg to differ, but oh well) Also, I'm listening to the video as im watching this, he is an unrivalled dumbass. He cant be bothered to confront the hypothetical on the grounds he thinks 'uhhhh you cant molecularly deconstruct me'. And then tries to email the guy to 'debate' him, after demonstrating for 20 minutes he isnt capable of a single rational thought. God I reall fucking hate him.
I actually disagree with you both to be honest. In my opinion the answer to the "dilemma" is a doubling of consciousness. Their problem (I assume) is that they assume that only one version of a consciousnes can exist. Which is not the case if we accept their definition of materialism, Yes, all your atoms are replaced without harming you (and this is a thought experiemtn, you are able to just stipulate things). So your own version of "new matter" in old form continues existing. But your "old matter" reconstructed in old form achieves the exact same purpose. In more "fantasitcal" terms to use his example of replacing yourself with air first, yes, as Jake said, you die. But if you get reconstructed later you do re-continue to exist. "Resurrect" in some sense. I think the actual wrong premise of this "proof" is the definition of continued consciousness. It is very shoddily explained by the video and I suspect tthat materialism philosophers actually *do not* believe in the version of the concept the video suggests. But it is not made clear if that is the case, so the example stands, but *does* have an answer that does not imply the supernatural. If the video framed the premise correctly, the thought experiment would be internally consistent! Just based on the wrong assumption.
Cough medicine alone shouldn't have this kind of effect, like dude what else did you ingest with it? I'm all for some fun absurdism or nonsense in fiction, but come on man sometimes you need more to your fiction. Doppelgangers or twins sharing a consciousness hasn't really been proven real (or doppelgangers in general). Or empirically tried and tested telepathy. As cool as some of that is.
I dont think its fair to argue that the hypothetical is a moot point because you think it isnt possible. If we want to disregard the hypothetical we have to give a reason why its impossible, given its not too absurd to believe you can measure the exact state of a human and replicate them elsewhere.
@@pneumaniac14 I was going on the whole "could you really duplicate a consciousness or have a link to your duplicate's consciousness" thing. The ship of Theseus molecule by molecule thing is kinda dumb.
"The supernatural not existing isn't a belief, it's just true!" Maybe work on your epistemology a bit there buddy. Claiming to be all rational and everything...
a·the·ism /ˈāTHēˌiz(ə)m/ noun disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. It makes sense, you just have to completely change the words definition.
Развлечения
"Consciousness" is literally just a label that we put on our subjective experience of mental processes, I don't know why this is so hard for them
Everything is hard for them
its easy we've been raised in an environment that posits explainable phenomena as magic, tho they'll never call it that and avoid the word like the plague cuz they understand almost intuitively how it sounds.
She consci's on my ous til I ness
- Rene Descartes
I would just like to say “I don’t know” as an answer to any of these questions is actually a valid response and doesn’t prove anything either way.
Atheism and materialism are two totally different things which is why different words are used.
I hate the framing of this point(... two different words... ) . Synonyms exist. These words just aren't synonymous.
@@EuwuMPVgg ok.
Also he doesn’t even know what materialism is. He says that if you believe your conscious died when your molecules were disrupted then reassembled your original consciousness died, you aren’t a materialist. But his not understanding that the notion of self is an illusion, that is what materialists actually believe. Also his basically just killed me and revived me? Lmao? This guy is brainbroken
We don't really know what living is. Sometimes atoms arranged in certain ways just get very haunted
We're ghosts possessing a meat robot.
Max stirner was right about the ghosts
I love how his entire athiesm is wrong argument is completely based on him incorrectly defining atheism.
Right out the gate too!
Atheism is not a lack of belief
@@newglof9558 Don't you think it's silly semantics with "A belief there isn't a god" vs "A lack of bleief in a god"
It sounds like it's parsing words in my view. Would you expand on that if you feel so inclined?
its the only thing they know
@@newglof9558 what is it?
anyone want to swap molecules
Yeah
Sure
At least buy me dinner first.
@@bcyost1908 why bother the you I buy dinner won’t be made up of 100% the same particles that the you asking was you won’t even be the same person.
you want to swap fluids with me?!??!? 😳
This dude is trying to ask the questions about consciousness proposed in Soma with a tenth the IQ.
He is quite a bit less intelligent than he appears here. People all explain why he is so off the mark and he just ignores it and says nobody has answered his question.
This dude is unironically the main character from Soma.
"We did it, we're on the Ark!"
"What do you mean. We're still here."
"Simon, I keep trying to explain this to you and you keep refusing to listen, copies of us are on the Ark, but you can't transfer awareness"
"NO!"
Like bro thinks that having the same "physical body" in two different places means that they share the same awareness.
@@jaime117dbro thought he won the coin flip
So this is Ship of Theseus/The Star Trek Teleporter issue with "therefor God!" stuck at the end...
Does this guy know that all of our cells replace themselves over time
Jake also said this later in the video :(
Yeah Dr. Gero was a good scientist
@@RancorousSea dr gero killed my dad :(
It's sophistry. It's always sophistry.
In Star Trek your consciousness is in subspace while they transport you. You can feel yourself in both locations for a second. Lieutenant Barclay was attacked by a weird creature in there.
I feel like this is the sort of mind that created Time Cube
What in the Zero Escape hypotheticals is this
LMAO
I'm really worried that this guy doesn't believe taking people apart kills them
Oh wow this person’s anti-atheism video turned into them having bad mental health thingies real quick.
considering religion is a false coping mechanism... many such cases.
Love the cell division and replication. When i listened I was like this literally happens and we are still the same person.
Well, the only prerequisite to being an atheist is a lack of belief in god or gods, the supernatural stuff is just follows (ususally). Tarot, witchcraft, homeopaty, those would not exclude you from being an atheist
This is true. But I would argue that spiritualism/supernatural belief is equally as stupid as religion. But it's definitely not as institutionally powerful or damaging as religion is.
Definitely all brain worms though
This was am episode of ST:TNG. In it Riker was transported off an alien world. What they didn't know was that he was copied and reflected back to the surface. 1 went to the ship, 1 got marooned. When they found out about the marooned one, they picked him up. That guy went by Riker's middle name. They both went on to live separate lives
Right at the beginning he does the same Apologist "some call it materialism" as a way to combine a worldview with a lack of belief in a religious worldview. And that's not how words work. I'm sure many atheists follow a humanist or materialist-ish worldview, but that's not going to be a universal statement among "atheists" as individuals. There is no ordained atheist leadership so the appeals to atheist icons won't ever mean anything either. The Catch-22 of doing the debate-bro Apologist routine is that while it's parroted by existing believers, it tends to drive away non-believers or make them more combative for the presuppositions.
I disagree, my clone is an extension of me because he contains all my memories, feelings, and experience - He is me, I am him, we are one.
not really after immediately being born cause your experiences starting being different and you two immediately become too different people
@@user-zm4ro7yh4e No, we have the same mind, we are one.
@@flunkiebubs2002 so its like when you use both controls in an arcade game to control the two characters? ye makes sense
I'm funnier than my clone, he's a hack imo
The guy forgot that swapping out all your molecules every now and again is a thing your body not only does on its own, but is very much a natural phenomenon
His issue is saying "your consciousness is in your body". His language is preventing him from conceptualizing what consciousness actually is. He can't conceptualize consciousness without a soul. He thinks consciousness is something that inhabits your molecules when actually it's more like an ongoing chemical reaction that results from your particular configuration of molecules. If the chain of reactions ends your stream of consciousness ends.
It's like saying that running a video game continuously is impossible without some supernatural energy inhabiting your computer.
I replace all your molecules has thé samedi energy as "inflates you making you big and round" 😂😂
Swapping or deconstructing things requires energy. There's impact.
his assertion about disassembly and reassembly isn't based on fact: he's LITERALLY describing the Star Trek Transporter!
Having a stream of consciousness isn't a heck of a lot different from having a movie playing from a vcr onto a TV. If I eject the vhs, and put in a molecularly identical vhs at the exact same point as the previous vhs was stopped, would there be any indication that the break in the stream occurred? It's as useful a question as asking "what if time froze and you didn't notice? Would you care?" Probably not tbh.
So his entire "arguement" boils down to a bunch of if-then statements where he has yet to prove the ifs are even accurate, and in some cases, possible...
If the supernatural exists, then God exists, therefore God exists. That's about the extent of these "if if if" arguments
3rd edition D&D 'supernatural' referred to the extra abilities monsters might have that they are born with [Gorgon eyes, banshee scream]
Anything that adhered to the natural structure of the world but wasn't a cast spell
All of our molecules are different by now anyway.
I am pretty sure that the uncertainty principle makes his whole argument null anyway.
Bro got WAY too faded and thought he was onto something
We are what our atoms do, like a song is made from notes played on instruments.
Thumbnail Jesus looked like a shroom I ate once
Do NOT eat dabbing jesus
@@danielomar9712 I can't change the past, whiled trip fam
@@samhall7385 😭😭😭😭
his first point reminds me of the movie the Prestige, where *SPOILERS**SPOILERS**SPOILERS**SPOILERS**SPOILERS**SPOILERS*
Wolverine clones himself every night and at random 1 clone is drowned every night. The fear he feels is that every night the version that wakes up in the morning might be the one that drowns that night. It's a different consciousness that potentially lives on.
if only we had a way to simulate this... oh wait, twins are totally a thing. you split one fetus into two and... oh shit, they have separate consciousness. not one consciousness split between two bodies.
Simple answer to this hypothetical: your molecular structure alone is not what defines "you," because location is part of identity.
If I have 2 identical silicon crystals with the exact same number and arrangement of atoms, the crystals are still distinct from each other because they are in different places.
This guy watched _The Prestige_ and took away the message "therefore God"
I learned to stay true to myself, by watching myself die.
Bro what if we actually do wake up in each other's bodies every day and we just don't know 😮
in order to have natural "supernatural" things, you must have natural extradimensional things
This is why you don't get high before marathoning a playthrough of SOMA.
His answer that under christianity the soul doesnt move... has zero evidence. Truthfully he doesnt have an answer either because this is a philosophical hypothetical with no real answer. Theres no way to know if your "soul" moves or not!
Hemant Mehta did a wonderful atheist bible study series
if something exists in the universe, it is, by definition, "natural" in this context... sooooo... he's basically saying that the existence of existence itself proves the existence of the non-existent...
He's wasting so much time. Why doesn't he just say:
"Imagine you believe there is a god.
There! I disproved atheism! "
What is the proper machete order for the gospels?
this guy read the jaunt once and thought he could take down atheism once and for all
17:50 Jake, you spelled Twitch wrong!
These people should understand chatgpt exists and can do all the things human can do. This disproves the fact that humans are conscious.
Ah, i remember that one. Logicked did a very thorough debunking of this molecular-sized brain take.^^
Man this guy really thought he was cooking throughout the entire video...
repetition is difference.
If a person thinks that all the answers to their questions "disagree with" the position of the person they're asking...they're asking the wrong questions. You can come up with questions to ask a flat-earther whose answers could affirm their position, even though it's demonstrably wrong.
Guess Professor Psych 101 over here isn't as smart as he thinks he is.
while we cannot directly observe consciousness with our senses and it's currently somewhat beyond our scientific understanding, we can observe the products of consciousness everywhere.
i hear a person talk -> i believe that person has a mind, they exist as a conscious being. never heard god talk though... js...
Yeah, it's a lot like Star Trek transporter philosophy. The transporter takes you apart, records the information about where all your atoms were, and transmits that information elsewhere when it's used to rebuild that body it just recorded. Some people think that counts as just moving your body. Some people think that counts as killing you and constructing a doppelganger. The difference of opinion comes down to whether you think physical continuity is required for identity across change. Personally, I don't think continuity is required, so I think you do survive Star Trek transporters.
And you can come up with other thought experiments. Consider the episode where Riker experiences a transporter malfunction. His body is left on the transport pad as if he never left. But it's also constructed at the target pad, as if he did leave. So you have two identical Rikers. Which is the real Riker? It seems to me they both are. Of course, opinions vary.
What’s atheism? Look at my puzzle. Need i say more?
Christians taking Ls
Supernatural is an oxymoron. The moment something exists IN NATURE it is by default a natural occurrence.
It can be an unexplained natural occurrence, but natural non the less.
Why does this guy sound like Vaan from Final FantasyXII
once again, these people don't understand lack of belief and have to treat our rejection as a positive claim or some bs, there can be supernatural events and no god, there can be a god and no supernatural events, I reject the premise and my stream of conciousness has nothing to do with either and does not prove there is a soul
There's a lot of question-begging going on under the hood with this guy.
Consciousness and souls and stuff are all very spooky, its easier to see what's going on if we step away from them. Take a chemical process that doesn't feel so mystical...
Lets say you've got a campfire. It burns down a bit, you add more logs, it burns down a bit more, and you add some more logs, and now the original logs are entirely burned away. Is it still the same campfire? Obviously it is.
But lets say I put the fire out. I transport all the extinguished logs to another location, and I later use them in a new campfire. Is it the same fire? Obviously not.
There's nothing even remotely mystical or difficult about this. I don't need to invent some magical non-material force to answer these questions, and the only reason it would seem any different from a human consciousness is you started with the assumption that it must be different.
common logical fallacy, the asserting that the supernatural exists and his proof is the _assumption_ that the supernatural exists, at least partly because he just literally doesn't KNOW what's real and what's supernatural fantasy...
Even if you were to grant the argument of having your molecules swapped, and another you created from the original molecules, it wouldn't contradict the materialistic view. He just tossed in the presupposition that souls exist, without even making any argument for the soul existing.
If the molecule swap and rebuild were possible, it would still comply with materialism. This kid is lacking so much
This argument fails on every front, as Jake pointed out, but the most obvious problem is that he is making the assumption that consciousness itself is supernatural, but his argument defeats that on its own premises. Even if we grant that there could be a clone with our exact genetic/atomic make up recreated on a different planet, we wouldn't necessarily care about it, not because our consciousness is objectively special in a supernatural sense, but merely because our existence resides in our physical body. Our doppleganger also wouldn't care about us, necessarily, because their existence is entirely dependent on their own physical minds and bodies.
As for the genetic clone crafted from the Star Trek transporter accident, outside of it just killing us, both of instances would be completely valid versions of us. It's why there's a dilemma when that story beat happens. Both do have a claim to life and the identity of the original. Because their identity exists as the expression of their internal and, at least as far as we can tell, materialistic, systems.
“His belief” isn’t proof of something existing and being falsifiable. Same old nonsense.
I'll always enjoy spirituality minded people using science and philosophy to disprove atheism. It's like they can't prove the existence of God. Weird.
This is so dumb. The third question lacks context. Let’s say we’re Ship of Theseus-ing this shit and replacing my molecules (magically, I guess) one at a time, without breaking my stream of consciousness; then the new matter body is still me. If you then take all the old molecules and arrange them into a body; well, you’d just end up with a handsome corpse. (If I were the Ship of Theseus, you’d get another ship from my old material, but that’s because ships are not in fact alive.) However, if you replace my molecules all at the exact same moment, breaking my stream of consciousness; I die. I’m dead now, thanks. Also, both the old body and new body are now corpses. Congrats.
Somebody please inform this guy that our bodies already kind of do this matter replacement by themselves. He’s shedding dead skin cells as we speak and it sounds like he’s unaware of that basic fact.
EDIT: I paused to write this after he posed the question, not knowing Jake would respond with my exact point immediately after I pressed play again 😅
All I can say is: great minds…
There are so many leaps in logic with regard to this argument. Star Trek has tackled these ideas in ways that are so much more fulfilling. I don't know how this guy thinks that any of this confirms the supernatural or how any of that then disproves atheism. This is room-temperature IQ cope on full display.
Technically you can be an atheist and still believe in some supernatural things. Literally all being an atheist means is that you don't believe in god. Yes, most atheists probably don't believe in other supernatural things either, but it's certainly possible. I don't know why people insist on making things more complicated than they have to be.
I’ve met atheists who believe in ghosts and one atheist, who doesn’t think evolution is the reason we exist
Dude was like “ look at everything we can do bro you think we’re just animals??”
😂
Can I ask you a question please @@HandlingYou
@@PaulYates-nf7vx
You just did
Do you want to ask another?
@@HandlingYou what is a ghost
@@PaulYates-nf7vx
They’re fairytales
You don't believe in God but will you believe space clones
"Consciousness" is not a synonym for "the soul", buddy..... it's the active process of our brains interpreting our sensory experience. The reason we can expect to have a consciousness in the future isn't because it's some entity that Exists but because we understand that the mechanisms of our brains will likely still be firing tomorrow, baring unfortunate circumstances. "Consciousness" is a state of being, not an independent object.
If we assume they are synonymous, is he suggesting that an identical clone of you would not be conscious? Does the clone get a cloned soul?
Also, stop putting your links in the comments of the videos you critique. RUclips will delete them. It is futile.
Edit: If you do another video about his "Mega argument", talk about how your brain does not replace its cells. Except for the hippocampus but that part only does because of damages to it. Your body might be different compared to when you were a newborn but your brain is only built upon. Maybe research upon that to make sure its true, that's just what I heard.
You know, what he is talking about is interesting but I don't know why he thinks anything he's saying has to do with the supernatural. Consciousness ≠ souls and souls don't exist. Consciousness is just your brain working at full capacity. Well, I guess it doesn't have to be full capacity. Consciousness is just your brain working. You're half asleep, you're half conscious. I bet consciousness runs deeper though scientifically in that there could be different consciousness's through out our bodies. Just not as powerful as our brains but that's just me. No pun intended.
He pulls me apart and puts me back together and asks "Shoot him or yourself" That's a clone copy but that is a whole other computer existing in the same universe. Id rather shoot the one made of the new stuff. You mix us up and who knows what's gonna happen to my consciousness but I still fail to see what any of that has to do with the supernatural.
Edit: I could be wrong but I think that your brain does not replace its cells anyway except for the hippocampus but that part only does because of damages to it. Your body might be different compared to when you were a newborn but your brain is only built upon.
The Christian god has went through several revisions , and adaptations from several religions. Is he still the same god? Checkmate theists
My answer is that you are the new or old matter body depending on if your stream of consciousness was stopped during the swapping. If it wasn't, you're the new body. If it was, you're the old one.
Jake's answer? Something contradictory and something something Christians are "not well". Unfriendly atheism strikes again....
Wait there isn't even a swapping of anything though. Why is your answer built on presuppositions
I'm not going to diss you for taking the concept of a 'you' or 'I' for granted, but there is no well-defined meaning for this. When we ask 'which one is you?' what are we actually asking? The first problem is that question itself presumes one or the other is 'you'. If you want my personal belief, I would tell you that 'you' is an instant of the continuous process going on in the brain. It is impractical to say that you arent the 'you' described when talking about yourself in the past tense, but I believe we shouldnt be treating these 2 concepts as the same thing.
I guess what I'm trying to say which is, neither the clone or the original are you, because they are future hypotheticals. Its like asking, there is a future where you wake up at 9am, and another where you wake up at 12pm, which one are you? We cant possibly say, 'you' isnt a thing of the future. Either we believe that all such futures are encapsulated under the term 'you'(there is no preferential treatment for any such future), or we believe none of such future are 'you'. I believe the latter. 'If an alien on another planet clones you and will give you a really good time, would you be exited', I might be, but the years of experience tells me not to believe anything like this is true, so unless you could prove to me it would happen, I would assume that the 'me' of tomorrow is one of many expected futures. I think a lot of the christian points rely on treating your emotional reaction to a hypothetical as your logical opinion on the matter(something that would only catch out an idiot who only seeks to justify their emotions), but the reality is although I may not feel like I will be on an alien planet tomorrow, in the hypothetical, there is a 50/50 chance that an entity that can be described as 'me' is going to be on an alien planet, and rationally, it should be treated as such, but emotionally I shall continue my life believing that I wont wake up tomorrow in a void having been brought to life again by the random fluctuations of a dead universe, which assuming the universe is infinite and infinitely varied, is far more likely that 'me' continuing as I am(actually its this exact hypothetical that makes me define 'me' as an instant, it is irrational to consider the infinitely many possible futures in which I wake up in a goo of entropy as feasible, they are far too detatched from my image of my future self to consider them myself, I'm sure they would beg to differ, but oh well)
Also, I'm listening to the video as im watching this, he is an unrivalled dumbass. He cant be bothered to confront the hypothetical on the grounds he thinks 'uhhhh you cant molecularly deconstruct me'. And then tries to email the guy to 'debate' him, after demonstrating for 20 minutes he isnt capable of a single rational thought. God I reall fucking hate him.
I actually disagree with you both to be honest.
In my opinion the answer to the "dilemma" is a doubling of consciousness. Their problem (I assume) is that they assume that only one version of a consciousnes can exist. Which is not the case if we accept their definition of materialism,
Yes, all your atoms are replaced without harming you (and this is a thought experiemtn, you are able to just stipulate things). So your own version of "new matter" in old form continues existing.
But your "old matter" reconstructed in old form achieves the exact same purpose. In more "fantasitcal" terms to use his example of replacing yourself with air first, yes, as Jake said, you die. But if you get reconstructed later you do re-continue to exist. "Resurrect" in some sense.
I think the actual wrong premise of this "proof" is the definition of continued consciousness. It is very shoddily explained by the video and I suspect tthat materialism philosophers actually *do not* believe in the version of the concept the video suggests. But it is not made clear if that is the case, so the example stands, but *does* have an answer that does not imply the supernatural.
If the video framed the premise correctly, the thought experiment would be internally consistent! Just based on the wrong assumption.
Cough medicine alone shouldn't have this kind of effect, like dude what else did you ingest with it? I'm all for some fun absurdism or nonsense in fiction, but come on man sometimes you need more to your fiction.
Doppelgangers or twins sharing a consciousness hasn't really been proven real (or doppelgangers in general). Or empirically tried and tested telepathy. As cool as some of that is.
I doubt clones would have telepathy or shared consciousness either.
I dont think its fair to argue that the hypothetical is a moot point because you think it isnt possible. If we want to disregard the hypothetical we have to give a reason why its impossible, given its not too absurd to believe you can measure the exact state of a human and replicate them elsewhere.
@@pneumaniac14 I was going on the whole "could you really duplicate a consciousness or have a link to your duplicate's consciousness" thing. The ship of Theseus molecule by molecule thing is kinda dumb.
Really this video is just a bunch of "but if magic was real, wouldnt that prove god is real?" And like, idk, not necesarrily.
"The supernatural not existing isn't a belief, it's just true!"
Maybe work on your epistemology a bit there buddy.
Claiming to be all rational and everything...
a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌiz(ə)m/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
It makes sense, you just have to completely change the words definition.
Thus changing all the molecules