Thought experiment that logically proves existance of your s

[tennenrishin]

See http://www.du-preez.com/dualism.

Read carefully.
Any thoughts?

EDIT 2011:
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 the revised article in four brief parts. You can access them by starting here and following the link to the next post at the end of each post, or jump straight to the argument.

[LoneMateria]

:spam2:  

[Whitney]

See http://www.du-preez.com/dualism.

Read carefully.
Any thoughts?

My thought is....why are you spamming the forum?  If you want to post something use your own words.

ps, your thought experiment doesn't logically follow to its conclusion, if you bother returning I'll explain why.

[tennenrishin]

your thought experiment doesn't logically follow to its conclusion, if you bother returning I'll explain why.

I've returned  

[Ihateyoumike]

I choose to believe that I exist in both boxes simultaneously. Prove me wrong.

[Whitney]

your thought experiment doesn't logically follow to its conclusion, if you bother returning I'll explain why.

I've returned  

Just because it might be impossible to tell two people apart due to them being completely genetically similar (in reality this would never be an issue since differences in life experiences shape personality) it doesn't follow that souls exist. It simply would mean that the only physical beings that can tell the twins apart are the twins themselves...reality being what it is doesn't require that everyone everywhere have all knowledge.

So not only does the argument not follow logically to the conclusion that "physicalism" (btw, nice made up word...I think you were looking for materialism or naturalistic worldvew) fails but even if that part of your argument held up it wouldn't logically lead to the conclusion that souls exist.

[Vire70]

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.

[tennenrishin]

I choose to believe that I exist in both boxes simultaneously. Prove me wrong.

I cannot prove you wrong. One of the assumptions of this thought-experiment (or mind game   ) is the reader's sentience. It requires you to imagine it in the first person. (Contrary to the thread's title, It isn't proof, it is a way in which you can prove to yourself.)
Suppose you are locked into a red room. In another blue room, some matter is arranged into a physical copy of your body. All this time, you remain locked up in the red room. What color room do you find yourself in?

[tennenrishin]

your thought experiment doesn't logically follow to its conclusion, if you bother returning I'll explain why.

I've returned  

It simply would mean that the only physical beings that can tell the twins apart are the twins themselves...reality being what it is doesn't require that everyone everywhere have all knowledge.

True. So some third person will not be able to tell the difference. What the argument claims, however when it says "physically indistinguishable" is that an omniscient observer of the physical universe cannot tell the two cases apart. An omniscient observer can see everything there is to see about the physical universe. No-one (not even the twins) can have more knowledge than this observer in their physical brains, because this observer can even see everything inside their physical brains. So in this formulation, the point that the argument makes is: "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."

"physicalism" (btw, nice made up word...I think you were looking for materialism or naturalistic worldvew) fails but even if that part of your argument held up it wouldn't logically lead to the conclusion that souls exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

[SSY]

This may just be me, but the argument makes no sense.

The two cases, look the same from the point from the perspective of the universe, but from the universe's point of view (Or any third party) the situation is just two people in two boxes, the two states are really the same. Another way one could look at it is, you may think you are in the red room, and your copy is in the blue, while the other, thinks they are in the blue room, and their copy resides in the red room, these states occur mutually, so again, really just one situation viewed from two perspectives.

The information that you say is outside the physical universe, is really inside the universe, ie "The room around me is red, I am in a red room". The room, being red, is in the universe, that is the only information that is gained here.

[AlP]

I read through this thread and the link hoping I missed something important. We have identical twins that can't distinguish between red and blue? I suppose they might be color blind but that would make it a lame thought experiment. And regardless, how are the two cases indistinguishable? The twins are simply in two different rooms, regardless of whether they can distinguish the color.

[tennenrishin]

The two cases, look the same from the point from the perspective of the universe, but from the universe's point of view (Or any third party) the situation is just two people in two boxes, the two states are really the same.

Exactly the point. Why is it that you can distinguish between the cases if there is no difference in the state of the entire physical universe? You should think in the first person because the argument relies on invoking your sentience.

[AlP]

The two cases, look the same from the point from the perspective of the universe, but from the universe's point of view (Or any third party) the situation is just two people in two boxes, the two states are really the same.

Exactly the point. Why is it that you can distinguish between the cases if there is no difference in the state of the entire physical universe? You should think in the first person because the argument relies on invoking your sentience.

I fear SSY missed the fact that there wasn't actually a problem in the first place. I make that mistake all the time as an engineer.

I say again, there are simply two twins in different rooms and as far as I can tell there is no existential crisis. The rooms being red and blue is irrelevant.

Why does this thread still exist. Good lord.

[tennenrishin]

I read through this thread and the link hoping I missed something important. We have identical twins that can't distinguish between red and blue?

No.

I suppose they might be color blind but that would make it a lame thought experiment.

They are not color blind, but possibly the thought experiment is lame Lameness doesn't mean it's invalid.

And regardless, how are the two cases indistinguishable?

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

[tennenrishin]

I say again, there are simply two twins in different rooms and as far as I can tell there is no existential crisis. The rooms being red and blue is irrelevant.

If you are interested, begin at the top, go through the argument until you get to the first point with which you disagree or don't understand, then I'll respond to your objections.