philochristos

Trumbo wrote:

If anyone feels like responding, I'll message you my old username and a little bit more about me if you think we might have interacted back then (I promise I will not be offended if you do not remember me).

What's the point of being coy? Just tell us who you are. I'm Philochristos (aka Sam I am) both here and on DDO. I don't remember if I was active during the time you were active, so I don't know if I would know you or not. I think I joined DDO in 2009, and I was kind of active for a while. I'm not sure when I slowed down.

I don't think your memories, personality traits, etc. are what make you you. There are a few reasons.

First, I just take it as a given that we maintain personal identity through change--both physical and mental. This isn't something I can prove. It's just something I take as a given because I'm a common sense realist. Every day we acquire new memories and forget old ones, but we're still the same person. You go from being awake to being asleep to being awake again and never cease being the same person. You can be in a good mood one day and a bad mood the next day and still be the same person. You can have a change in personality due to alcohol or bad life experiences and still be the same person.

So I think there's more to what you are than your mental states. Your mental states are had by you but they are not the same thing as you.

Second, if it's possible to create a human body/brain and implant somebody else's memories and personality in it, then it's just as possible to implant false memories and personality. You could put information in an another person's head about events that never actually happened. Obviously if a person's memories are of a past that never actually happened, then the person who has those memories cannot be the same person as the person who actually experienced that past. That past didn't exist, after all, so neither did the person.

With that being the case, suppose you did the exact same thing--implanted memories into a human you just brought into existence--except this time the events in the memories actually happened. It would still be the case that the events did not happen to THIS person you have just created. It's no different than if the memories had been false. In both cases a person has memories of a past that didn't actually happen to them. It doesn't seem to make a difference whether the events took place or not. If memories are implanted in a person who just came into existence, then that person cannot be the same person the events of those memories happened to.

Third, if it's possible to copy one person's mental states into another person and have that new person be the same person, then it would be possible for one person to be in two different places at the same time. It would have to be possible for two people to be the same person.

But that is clearly not possible. According to the indiscernibility of identicals, if A and B are the same thing, then whatever is true of A is also true of B and vice versa. Also, if there's anything true of A that is not true of B or vice versa, then A and B are not the same thing.

So suppose there's a guy name Jim. Let's call him Jim1 because he's the original. Then you create a duplicate we'll call Jim2, and we'll implant all of Jim1's memories and personality traits into Jim2. From the moment Jim2 comes into being, they will begin to have diverse experiences. Not everything that happens to one will happen to the other, so their memories will begin to diverge. Since there will immediately be things true of one that are not true of the other, it's impossible for Jim1 and Jim2 to be the same person. Jim1 will have no first person access to Jim2's experiences, and Jim2 will have no first person access to Jim1's experiences, so it is impossible for them to be the same person.

So it's impossible for Jim2 to be the same person as Jim1 even if Jim2 was implanted with all of Jim1's memories and personality.

At least that's how I see it.

ChatGPT is too conciliatory to be a good debate opponent.

Fanfiction is fun both to read and to write.

>Just be competent.

And be good looking.

Heir Maximus, who humbly goes by AirMax.

What did Jesus mean when he said, "And Jesus called them to him and said to them, 'You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all.'"? That's in Mark 10. How can we rule the world if we're supposed to be servants and slaves?

How would you count the people who identify as "spiritual but not religious"?

I used to think "cancel culture" was mostly a left-wing thing, but it seems like the right has gotten on board with it, too. Very few on the right opposed Jimmy Kimmel getting fired, and it wasn't because his ratings was low. It was because he implied that that Charlie's killer was MAGA. They approved of his cancellation because they disapproved of what he said.

I'm a Calvinist, so I was drawn by the Father. That's the theological answer, anyway.

The more situational answer is that I was exposed to Christianity from childhood. We weren't church going people, though, and religion wasn't really a big deal growing up. It was just the background assumption.

In my early 20's, I became somewhat agnostic after realizing I had no reason to think any of it was true. I still felt drawn to it, though, so I didn't stop calling myself a Christian.

But then one day I was thinking about the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which I had learned about in nuclear power school in the navy. While thinking about it, I realized they couldn't both be true. If the universe has always existing, and it's always been winding down, then it should've already reached thermodynamic equilibrium. There shouldn't be any stars or life. But here we are, which means either that the universe has NOT always been winding down, or it had a beginning. After stewing about that for a few days, not making the connection to God right away, it finally dawned on me that the creation idea in Christianity solves the problem nicely. The universe DID have a beginning and has been winding down ever since.

I stopped calling myself agnostic at that point, but it wasn't until a few years later that I read _The Case for Christ_ by Lee Strobel and thought, "By golly, the resurrection actually happened!" I was about as full blown Christian at that point as I could've been.

PBS Spacetime. I used to love that channel when it was more active. I learned a ton, and it was really interesting.

To the person below me:

Do you think it's worth it to get the new Gen 6 4Runner, or is it better to get a used Gen 5?

What is free will?

Not at the same time. And to answer your other question, Philochristos.

To the person below me:

Would you rather be eaten by a bear or a shark?

That's a great question. I've had dreams where I was trying to get rid of a dead body, and it always caused me a lot of anxiety. I had one dream that was particularly long and vivid. I was so involved in the dream that after I woke up, it took me a full five minutes to fully realize none of it had happened. I have never felt such a weight lifted off my shoulders as I did that morning when I realized I had not committed murder, I was not being pursued by the police, and I would not be going to prison.

Anywho, to answer your question, I'm pretty sure there would be fire involved, and if I could manage it, there would also be a bone pulverizer involved, followed by the scattering of ashes on some body of water. It really all depends on opportunity and circumstances, though.

To the person below me:

When will you wear wigs?

I just took a screenshot of your Egyptian hieroglyphics, uploaded it to ChatGPT, and asked if it could read it. ChatGPT read it and offered this as a translation. Tell me if this is correct.

“An offering which the king gives (and Anubis/Osiris grants): an offering of bread, beer, cattle, and fowl, all good and pure things on which a god lives, for the ka of [Name].”

1. things either exist always at all places, or they dont

Why couldn't something exist at all times, but not at all places? Or why couldn't something exist in all places, but not at all times?

It is definitional premise, it is how dependent things are defined.

Do you think that's what everybody means when they use the word, "dependent"?

P2. Dependent things are things which fail to exist at certain times or places

How would you demonstrate the truth of this premise? It seems at least possible to me that something could be dependent without ever having failed to exist. Isn't it possible that God could have been sustaining something in existence from all eternity, in which case it never failed to exist?

I'm glad things are working out, that you're at the helm, and that you have a good team. I have one suggestion. It would be nice to have a "preview" button so you can proof read your debate post before posting it. I had some formatting issues come up in my last debate that I didn't know were an issue until I posted. A preview button could've caught that.

Green Eggs and Ham.

It made me really ask the question, "Who am I?" My parents named me Samuel when I was born, but everybody called me Sam. That's who I am. Sam, I am.

This book also made me come to grips with what I really like and what I don't like. I don't like green eggs and ham, for example. It doesn't matter whether the eggs are green, the ham is green, or they're both green. If they're green, I don't like them.

You're right to call Trump out on his lack of fairness, his one-sidedness, and the partisan nature of his speech. But by calling the right out on their capitalizing on a tragedy to further their political agenda, you are doing exactly the same thing. BOTH side routinely capitalize on tragedies to push their own political agendas. Both sides do it in an unfair and uncharitable way.

Politicians do it to advance their careers. The media does it to support their team. Ordinary citizens do it because they are being duped by politicians, the media, and their favorite pundits. They are mere pawns in the game politicians are playing. Many of them choose to live in bubbles, to have their views re-enforced by talking heads, and only listen to opposing views to find fodder they can spin in such a way as to re-enforce their point of view.

Fair-minded people who strive for objectivity are few and far between. Whenever anybody does take a stab at fair-mindedness, they are shouted down by their own side and accused of being in bed with the enemy.

I think most choices are binary. Consider the choice of whether to wear pants or not. That's a binary choice. The fact that there are different kinds of pants and also shorts and skirts doesn't mean the choice to wear pants or not isn't a binary choice. Whether you wear Levi's, wranglers, Diesel, or whatever, you're still wearing pants.

That might be why I was unable to launch my debate. I set it up wrong and tried to delete it. After deleting it, it wouldn't let me set it up again, probably because it's not really deleted. I dunno. I gave up on it, though.

I'm probably not going to fill out my personal details until I get emotionally invested. It's too soon yet. Until then, I'll remain a random person.

My dad used to tell me I should meet her mom because that's a good indication of what she will look like when she's her mom's age.

I don't think the half-your-age+7 rule makes a lot of sense. Imagine if you had a daughter who was 20 years younger than you. When you're 40, she's 20, and your minimum age is 27. But when you're 60, and your daughter is 40, your minimum age would be 37, which is younger than your daughter. That's weird.

I think a better thumb rule (the one I use) is that your boo should be closer to your age than to your daughter's age. If you don't have a daughter, just imagine you had a daughter when you were 25 years old, and use that as your guide.

"So, now I want to hang up gloves and date a woman to have a long-term relationship because I think all this fun have to finish sooner or later."

That's a depressing reason to get married - because you're ready for the fun to be over. Don't you want to have a fun marriage?

I think it's possible to over season your food. When I make pizza sauce, pretty much all I add is salt, garlic, oregano, and red pepper. I add basil to my finished pizza. Anything beyond that, and it's just over doing it. My pizzas are pretty magical. I think simplicity can be pretty magical in general.

You mean like Reeta Skeeter is really J.K. Rowling, and the whole story is true? Or Syrio Forel is the same person as Jaqen H'ghar?

It would be great if there were a "preview" button for when you post a round in a debate so you can make sure there's no formatting issues before hitting the "post" button.