Thought experiment that logically proves existance of your s

[Vire70]

Why is this even summoning a debate? It's a total non-issue.

There's a fallacious jump in logic on the OPs part, one which makes zero sense. The part which I quoted above (prior to massive facepalm);

As far as the physical universe is concerned, the two cases are indistinguishable. Yet in the first person you are able to distinguish between the two cases (because you either see red or blue). So you have access to information that is not in the physical universe.

This is simple false reasoning. Yes, from an outside observer the two look identical. From first person you can distinguish (although, I ask, why can't an outside observer see the red/blue anyway?), but this is irrelevant. I don't see where the "not part of the physical universe" is coming from. The individual perceives the difference in color and so can tell...and? It's almost like the OP is implying that perception isn't part of physical reality, which seems to imply that you're presupposing dualism for the sake of proving dualism exists.

[tennenrishin]

Why is this even summoning a debate? It's a total non-issue.

There's a fallacious jump in logic on the OPs part, one which makes zero sense. The part which I quoted above (prior to massive facepalm);

As far as the physical universe is concerned, the two cases are indistinguishable. Yet in the first person you are able to distinguish between the two cases (because you either see red or blue). So you have access to information that is not in the physical universe.

This is simple false reasoning. Yes, from an outside observer the two look identical. From first person you can distinguish (although, I ask, why can't an outside observer see the red/blue anyway?), but this is irrelevant. I don't see where the "not part of the physical universe" is coming from. The individual perceives the difference in color and so can tell...and? It's almost like the OP is implying that perception isn't part of physical reality, which seems to imply that you're presupposing dualism for the sake of proving dualism exists.

I can't really make out what your objection to the argument is.

[tennenrishin]

Too many responses in too many forums. I'll be back in a month or so with an automated interactive argument.

[tennenrishin]

One last thing before I disappear:

If you are a sincere truth-seeker (i.e. if you do not regard your atheism as a religion), it would do no harm to take a long, careful and honest look at the argument.

Here is the link again:
http://www.du-preez.com/dualism

[Ellainix]

Where's the part where this implies souls exist?

[SSY]

And regardless, how are the two cases indistinguishable?

Because from an omniscient perspective, the two cases look exactly the same.

No, from an Omniscient perspective, there is only one situation.

Besides thinking in the first person yields nothing, "I am in a blue room" or "I am in a red room", that is all, it does not imply anything else.

[Vire70]

Why is this even summoning a debate? It's a total non-issue.

There's a fallacious jump in logic on the OPs part, one which makes zero sense. The part which I quoted above (prior to massive facepalm);

As far as the physical universe is concerned, the two cases are indistinguishable. Yet in the first person you are able to distinguish between the two cases (because you either see red or blue). So you have access to information that is not in the physical universe.

This is simple false reasoning. Yes, from an outside observer the two look identical. From first person you can distinguish (although, I ask, why can't an outside observer see the red/blue anyway?), but this is irrelevant. I don't see where the "not part of the physical universe" is coming from. The individual perceives the difference in color and so can tell...and? It's almost like the OP is implying that perception isn't part of physical reality, which seems to imply that you're presupposing dualism for the sake of proving dualism exists.

I can't really make out what your objection to the argument is.

I'm just saying that I don't think you're at all justified in claiming anything "outside the physical universe" is happening. You said "So you have access to information that is not in the physical universe."

This statement appears to be completely unsupported by the prior argument as far as I can see.

The only way this works, as I said, is if you were to somehow presuppose that dualism is real and that perception is 'outside the physical universe'. But that is as circular as "God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is true because God says so."

You seem to be saying "Dualism is real because perception of something is part of the mind, which is 'outside the physical universe" The problem is, you're trying to use Dualism to prove that Dualism is true. If we simply dismiss dualism then the whole argument falls apart.

[LoneMateria]

Too many responses in too many forums. I'll be back in a month or so with an automated interactive argument.

??? so you will return to spam the forum with a bad argument?

[Tanker]

(i.e. if you do not regard your atheism as a religion),

First no Atheist considers Atheism a religion. The only people who do are people who don't know what religion or Atheism are.

Second you argument makes little sense and needs a great deal of clarification.

Third DON'T make an automated anything. If you have questions or commets then YOU should make them.

[SuperPhunThyme]

i may have way over-thought the whole thing but what i'm getting is that the omniscient being can't tell what the individual is thinking as it is not physical?

which is false. thoughts are electrical signals, which are physical things (just a change in charge from negative to positive). supposing the 3rd party is omniscient, we'd assume they can see the physical change in charge (electrical signal) in the brain and be able to interpret the information lying therein. you have no soul. stop crying, start thinking. this whole problem stems from christians confusing the physical existence of thought, with a soul.

[Whitney]

"How is it that the you (and your twin) can distinguish between the cases but someone who knows everything about both of your brains can't."

Simple...if there were such a thing as an omniscient being then it could distinguish between the two...otherwise it wouldn't be omniscient.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omniscient

[Sophus]

That was about as enlightening as a Pat Robertson natural disaster theory.

[tennenrishin]

Two years later... here it is, clarified and expanded. Not an objective proof, but a subjective line of thinking by which you could (if you wanted to) refute physicalism to yourself.

I've posted it in four brief parts. You can access them by starting here
http://www.museful.net/2011/philosophy/ineffability-of-qualia
and following the link to the next post at the end of each post.

[Recusant]

A subjective refutation, eh? That's amusing, but also a waste of 20 minutes (I gave it more than it deserved) that I'll never get back. I can start from any premises that I choose to adopt and "refute" anything subjectively. Then I might go around and inflict my pretentious omphaloskepsis on others, but that would have no bearing on reality.

[tennenrishin]

A subjective refutation, eh? That's amusing, but also a waste of 20 minutes (I gave it more than it deserved) that I'll never get back. I can start from any premises that I choose to adopt and "refute" anything subjectively. Then I might go around and inflict my pretentious omphaloskepsis on others, but that would have no bearing on reality.

The second half of the third part pertains exactly to this type of dismissal.