Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mojo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, most fringe theorists want to drive deeper in to "sub-issues." In some cases, as you note, it's to disguise flaws in their reasoning. David Percy, for example, couches his Moon hoax claims into a 4-hour video and a 500-page book ostensibly so that you don't immediately see the many ways he contradicts himself through his presentation. The book especially is padded with irrelevant references to New Age concepts.

In other cases they simply want to drive the discussion into territory that, for want of a clear landscape of evidence, cannot be resolved either way. Keep in mind that most fringe theorists don't want to resolve a claim. They want it to persist for as long as possible because only then are they the center of attention. Keeping a discussion wallowing in insignificant detail or meta-debate is a common tactic to achieve that.
 
Jabba said:
- Equivocation: the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what you're doing. As many here can attest, that's a staple of your argument style. You've been caught doing it more times than I can count.

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?
Click to expand...

More weasel words, with a straw man thrown in for good measure. Whether you claim to know or merely believe in the immaterial self, you're trying to prove that proposition is true. You tried statistics. You tried your old standby, the false dilemma. You've tried shifting the burden of proof. You've tried begging the question. In all respects you behave as if you're attempting an argument, in your style.

Now you've resorted to the typical fringe claimant's disingenuity of shaming your critics as if they've been too harsh or critical, as if you really haven't been arguing anything all along and they're all misrepresenting you.

This
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.
Click to expand...
clearly states you're trying to prove something. Quibbling over knowledge versus belief is just your latest distraction from your utter inability to provide a logical, evidentiary argument for your proposition.
 
Jabba said:
- 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?
Click to expand...


It wouldn't make a bit of difference to the validity of your claim.
 
Mojo said:
And, because the stuff he's making up is the very thing he's trying to demonstrate the existence of (i.e. an external entity whose existence is independent of the body) he's begging the question.
Click to expand...

He's beyond "Begging the question." He's guilt tripping the question. He's blackmailing the question. He's threatening the question at gunpoint.
 
Jabba said:
- 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?
Click to expand...


Jabba, you are equivocating. You say that you are "not claiming that there is anything immaterial" but that you are "claiming that there may be (probably is) something immaterial". The equivocation lies not only in the shifting of goalposts between "is" and "may be" and that "(probably is)", but also in your previous claim that if you can establish that it is possible that we are immortal then, because what you term "the scientific model" or "OOFLam" or whatever other term you are using to describe essentially the same concept is enormously improbable (something that you haven't established, by the way) then immortality is essentially proven. You may have 'forgotten' that you argued this, but the rest of us haven't.
 
Jabba said:
Jay,
- I'm not claiming that there is anything immaterial;...
Click to expand...
JayUtah said:
Of course you are. Have you been reading the thread?
Click to expand...
Jabba said:
Jay,
- Show me where I said that.
Click to expand...
JayUtah said:
Asked and answered: the entire thread.
Click to expand...
Jay,
- That simply is not true -- and, you know that is not an effective answer to my question...
- An effective answer to my question requires only an example of me claiming that something is material.
 
Jabba said:
...and, you know that is not an effective answer to my question.
Click to expand...

It is the only effective answer to your question. You've spent the entire thread trying to prove the existence of a soul. It is how highly (but typically) dishonest of you now to claim you're only "expressing a belief."

An effective answer to my question requires only an example of me claiming that something is material.
Click to expand...

This doesn't even make sense.
 
Jabba said:
Jay,
- That simply is not true -- and, you know that is not an effective answer to my question...
Click to expand...


Jabba, you are arguing that the 'self' can survive the death of the body. This requires it to have an immaterial cause. Do you really not understand your own argument?
 
Mojo said:
Jabba, you are arguing that the 'self' can survive the death of the body. This requires it to have an immaterial cause. Do you really not understand your own argument?
Click to expand...

He clearly does, but he wants to evade further accountability for it by pretending he has to support it only if he has claimed it as a fact or expressed it in purely declaratory language. That is the shameful last resort of an argument predicated almost entirely on word games.

While he says he backed away from his claim to be able to prove immortality mathematically, he says if he can falsify the proposition of the finiteness of life, it will prove many things "including immortality." Then just above he says that the immaterial self is a belief he "need to support," and proposes to do so by inventively invoking the "mind is a receiver" meme.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Jay,
- That simply is not true -- and, you know that is not an effective answer to my question...
- An effective answer to my question requires only an example of me claiming that something is material.
Click to expand...

Nevermind, Jabba. You have made all sorts of claims, usually in ambiguous wording. Move on.

How does your claim that your existence is improbable support the idea of an immaterial soul?

Why would a soul-receiver be more likely to exist than a self-generator?

Hans
 
Jabba,

I am completely open to the possibility that the main person you are "equivocating to" is yourself.

Throughout this whole half decade long, multi-thread train wreck I've always gotten the impression the person you are most desperate to convince is yourself.

But being intellectually dishonest to yourself does not make being intellectually dishonest to others okay.

None of us are stupid. None us don't know what you are doing. Perhaps you've been doing this farce for so long you've become lost in the character. Perhaps you were always there. I neither know nor care. But the level of intellectual respect you are showing everyone else here with your stalling, the "brain addled old grandfather" routine, your stylized argumentative gymnastics, and your breathtaking in it's scope inability to take in new information has reached the point where it is almost directly insulting.
 
Jabba said:
Jay,
- That simply is not true -- and, you know that is not an effective answer to my question...
- An effective answer to my question requires only an example of me claiming that something is material.
Click to expand...

After all your years of lying, misquoting, and equivocating, you have no business asking others for evidence of your perfidy.
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not evidence. That's just restating your proposal.
 
Mojo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- The necessary assumption is that if bodies are receivers, my self can be 'received' by any body that receives the right 'wavelength.' IOW, if bodies are receivers, MY self is not dependent upon the existence of one particular body.
- (Whereas previously, we were thinking that producing MY self required a particular body -- a totally specific biological signature.)
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- The necessary assumption is that if bodies are receivers, my self can be 'received' by any body that receives the right 'wavelength.' IOW, if bodies are receivers, MY self is not dependent upon the existence of one particular body
Click to expand...

And you don't have the necessary evidence for your "necessary assumption."

Jabba you don't get to win arguments by going "Let's just assume that all the stuff I can't actually support is true."

You get that right?

Your assumption is false. It is not true. It is incorrect. Therefore you're conclusions are too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom