Proof of Immortality III

[Dancing David]

- There is a phenomenon we call "consciousness." Then, there are NUMEROUS specific examples of consciousness, and we call them "selves."

Nope, you just put that label on them, the correct and lowest denominators is 'body'.

Assertion of conclusions again.

There are bodies which appear to involve events we label as consciousness.

 

[Dancing David]

- I'm suggesting that our brains do not produce the consciousness, they receive it as a self...

Burden of proof to Jabba

 

[Mojo]

If consciousness is like a radio signal that our brains receive, why is each and every iteration of consciousness unique to the brain that is receiving it? Why is there no documented evidence of anyone tuning into Jabba's consciousness the way anyone in range can tune their fm dial to 90.9 and get WBUR. All at the same time, and everyone is receiving the exact same broadcast. And yet that NEVER happens with consciousness.

jond,
- Yes, that could never happen.
- But there are good reasons that this doesn't affect my argument.
- If you accept this, I can provide evidence to support it.
- it will take me a while to do because I'm old and slow.
- I'll be back.

 

[jond]

jond,
- Yes, that could never happen.
- But there are good reasons that this doesn't affect my argument.
- If you accept this, I can provide evidence to support it.
- it will take me a while to do because I'm old and slow.
- I'll be back.

Well, when you it put it like that, how could I object? Take all the time you need.

 

[carlitos]

This is like saying that a bomb does not produce an explosion, or a tree does not produce fruit; they just snatch it out of the nether realm.

Every argument made in these threads is snatched out of someone's nether realm.

 

[Jabba]

- I'm suggesting that our brains do not produce the consciousness, they receive it as a self...

Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

Dave,
- I think that I do. Though, it's complicated...


1. If OOFLam is incorrect, consciousness, and the self, have to be non-physical/immaterial.
2. And, while consciousness is different than anything we would normally call material -- and appears to be what we would call immaterial -- it also seems to be always connected to something material…
3. But, if OOFLam is incorrect, consciousness cannot be produced by something material either.
4. But then, maybe (as a presuppositional consideration – such as “relative time”!) the physical connection could be as a receiver – as a radio is for radio waves.
5. IOW, there seems to be another way to explain a necessary physical connection besides “production.”
6. Also, there doesn’t seem to be any other potential explanation for an immaterial self being always connected to something material.
7. And for now, we can’t eliminate the possibility that the self is immaterial.
8. And, my current existence being so unlikely if OOFLam is correct becomes significant evidence that our brains act as receivers for our selves.

 

[JayUtah]

IOW, there seems to be another way to explain a necessary physical connection besides “production.”

But it's not an explanation, as there is nothing necessarily immaterial to explain. You can't make any of these words you've been throwing around fit both the evidence and your beliefs. So you're just inventing a new concept that does, and wishing it into existence in order to explain a phenomenon you can't show exists.

And for now, we can’t eliminate the possibility that the self is immaterial.

Shifting the burden of proof. Your theory requires there to be an immaterial self. You have the burden to prove it. No one else has to "eliminate the possibility" in order not to believe in it without evidence.

And, my current existence being so unlikely if OOFLam is correct becomes significant evidence that our brains act as receivers for our selves.

Asked and answered. You keep throwing around this wrong statistical factoid as if it had both been proven and means something. It is neither. You are unable to prove statistically that you are the special snowflake you claim to be, and you have nothing other than wishful thinking to connect that probability to anything in your theory.

It doesn't matter how many different ways you equivocate this; it boils down to the same errors you've been making for years.

 

[JayUtah]

I should add that Jabba hasn't originated the "mind as only a receiver of consciousness" idea. it pops up quite frequently in woo circles, and it fails every time for the same reasons it's failing here: it postulates an unobserved effect and further postulates an undetectable process to explain the effect by means of an unevidenced cause.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- I think that I do. Though, it's complicated...


1. If OOFLam is incorrect, consciousness, and the self, have to be non-physical/immaterial.
2. And, while consciousness is different than anything we would normally call material -- and appears to be what we would call immaterial -- it also seems to be always connected to something material…
3. But, if OOFLam is incorrect, consciousness cannot be produced by something material either.
4. But then, maybe (as a presuppositional consideration – such as “relative time”!) the physical connection could be as a receiver – as a radio is for radio waves.
5. IOW, there seems to be another way to explain a necessary physical connection besides “production.”
6. Also, there doesn’t seem to be any other potential explanation for an immaterial self being always connected to something material.
7. And for now, we can’t eliminate the possibility that the self is immaterial.
8. And, my current existence being so unlikely if OOFLam is correct becomes significant evidence that our brains act as receivers for our selves.

You're begging the question again. And as for 8), remember that the likelihood of you existence if "OOFLam" is correct is not equal to the likelihood of "OOFLam" being correct if you exist.

 

[Mojo]

Also, remember that your current existence if your consciousness is not produced by your body is at least as unlikely as your current existence if your consciousness is produced by your body, because while both require your body to exist, the former also requires your particular consciousness to be associated with your particular body.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- I think that I do. Though, it's complicated...


1.If OOFLam is incorrect, consciousness, and the self, have to be non-physical/immaterial.
2.And, while consciousness is different than anything we would normally call material -- and appears to be what we would call immaterial -- it also seems to be always connected to something material…
3.But, if OOFLam is incorrect, consciousness cannot be produced by something material either.
4.But then, maybe (as a presuppositional consideration – such as “relative time”!) the physical connection could be as a receiver – as a radio is for radio waves.
5.IOW, there seems to be another way to explain a necessary physical connection besides “production.”
6.Also, there doesn’t seem to be any other potential explanation for an immaterial self being always connected to something material.
7.And for now, we can’t eliminate the possibility that the self is immaterial.
8.And, my current existence being so unlikely if OOFLam is correct becomes significant evidence that our brains act as receivers for our selves.

Utter and complete gibberish. Except for point 7. Point 7 is where you just beg the question and assume the soul is immaterial without actually presenting any, um, e v i d e n c e .

 

[MRC_Hans]

8. And, my current existence being so unlikely if OOFLam is correct becomes significant evidence that our brains act as receivers for our selves.

False. Of course, the probability is entirely irrelevant, but since you won't belive that, think of this:

What is the difference between the probability of your existence under OOFLAM and your existence as a receiver? How is the existence of that particular receiver any more probable?

Hans

 

[Loss Leader]

2.And, while consciousness is different than anything we would normally call material -- and appears to be what we would call immaterial -- it also seems to be always connected to something material…

Jabba -

I have to expand on this, because it's been eating at me for hours. Above is really where you go wrong. You start of correctly stating that consciousness "seems to be" immaterial. But then you just move forward as if it were proven.

You yourself once said that if consciousness is an illusion, it's a very convincing one. And everyone agreed. It is convincing. It has me convinced. It has every healthy person on earth convinced. It would probably be impossible to conduct the daily tasks of living without an integrated psyche.

In fact, we can study this. Schizophrenics appear disconnected from their own thoughts. They experience a portion of their thinking as voices or hallucinations. Part of their mind is working, but it's not being folded into the whole. Science now can look at these brains and scientistdhave found abnormalities. They appear, in some cases, moth-eaten.

So what evidence do we have to consider the conscious as separate from the body? You've given us none.

3.But, if OOFLam is incorrect, consciousness cannot be produced by something material either.

This makes no sense. Why can't something immaterial be produced by something material in your philosophy? You have the immaterial world working on. interacting with, and directing material brains. Why is it only a one-way street.?

If you're going to dismiss all the laws of physics, at least be self-consistent about it.

 

[Mojo]

3.But, if OOFLam is incorrect, consciousness cannot be produced by something material either.

This makes no sense. Why can't something immaterial be produced by something material in your philosophy? You have the immaterial world working on. interacting with, and directing material brains. Why is it only a one-way street.?

It's just Jabba trying to use circular reasoning again. Remember that "OOFLam is incorrect" is what he is trying to prove. This conclusion requires that consciousness is produced by something other than the material body, because the body's existence has a finite duration. He's currently trying to argue that consciousness is produced outside the body and is introducing his desired conclusion as a premise.

 

[Mojo]

I suspect that he's trying to equivocate between "for OOFLam to be incorrect it is necessary that consciousness is produced outside the body" and "if OOFLam is incorrect then consciousness is produced outside the body".

 

[Jabba]

...
5. IOW, there seems to be another way to explain a necessary physical connection besides “production.”...

But it's not an explanation, as there is nothing necessarily immaterial to explain...

Jay,
- I'm not claiming that there is anything immaterial; I'm claiming that there may be (probably is) something immaterial.
- To support that belief, I need to offer a possible explanation for what seems to be a necessary material connection with what seems to be immaterial.

 

[Mojo]

- I'm not claiming that there is anything immaterial; I'm claiming that there may be (probably is) something immaterial.

Equivocation ahoy!

- To support that belief, I need to offer a possible explanation for what seems to be a necessary material connection with what seems to be immaterial.

No, to support that belief you need evidence that these immaterial entities exist.

There's a forum member called Kumar who thinks that if he can only come up with a possible mechanism for homoeopathy working then that will somehow overcome the lack of evidence that it has any effects. It ain't so, and you are falling into the same error.

 

[Mojo]

It's just Jabba trying to use circular reasoning again. Remember that "OOFLam is incorrect" is what he is trying to prove. This conclusion requires that consciousness is produced by something other than the material body, because the body's existence has a finite duration. He's currently trying to argue that consciousness is produced outside the body and is introducing his desired conclusion as a premise.

This is presumably the reason for wanting to split the discussion into "sub-issues" and "sub-sub-issues", etc. If he's arguing a "sub-issue" there's more chance of slipping his major conclusion into the premises without anyone noticing.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not claiming that there is anything immaterial...

Of course you are. Have you been reading the thread?

I'm claiming that there may be (probably is) something immaterial.

Weasel words. You have attempted both a statistical and an evidentiary argument (albeit indirectly via your standard false dilemma) for an immaterial self and failed at both. Now you're resorting to shifting the burden of proof -- expecting your critics to prove an "immaterial self is impossible."

You originally claimed you could prove immortality mathematically. Now you're just widening the goalposts until you can find an equivocation that appears to score a goal.

To support that belief, I need to offer a possible explanation for what seems to be a necessary material connection with what seems to be immaterial.

No, you're trying to justify that belief, which means inventing other things for which you have no evidence and speculative ways in which those things work. You're trying to invent new reasons why an immaterial self would be necessary.

 

[Jabba]

Jay,
- I'm not claiming that there is anything immaterial; I'm claiming that there may be (probably is) something immaterial...

Equivocation ahoy!...

- Equivocation: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself.

Mojo,
- I'm trying to honestly express the degree to which I believe something. Would you have me claim that I know something is true when I only think that it's true?