Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Are you saying that I am not referring to your awareness?
Click to expand...

You're trying to hobble science with your made-up nonsense, in order to make it sound as if science leaves you a "hole" through which you can stuff your beliefs. You say science can't predict the nature of the consciousness that would emerge if, hypothetically, you built an exact duplicate of the organism down to the minutest detail.

You're simply wrong.

Science would only be hampered in that obligation of consciousness consisted of more than what it is observed to exhibit, as you desperately want to be the case. Since science observes no effect of consciousness that is independent of its operation in an organism, there is no reason not to predict that the outcome of a new identical organism would be a new identical consciousness. There would be reason to doubt this prediction only if evidence of an consciousness effect could be shown that didn't depend on the organism.

Since you insist on expanding the definition of consciousness to include "possible" hypothetical properties and effects that are only the product of your speculation, and which you have wrongly tasked your critics with disproving, you are now trying to wedge these invented and unevidenced properties into the mix in order to complain that science can't predict their behavior under your thought experiment.

This is exactly circular reasoning. You're complaining that science can't explain an effect that exists only in your imagination, and the effect you imagine is the thing you're trying to prove -- the independence of consciousness from its organism.
 
It looks like we are back at trying to explain to Jabba that two things can be identical but separate.
 
Jabba said:
- My claim is that given the natural laws of science, the likelihood of the exact shape of Mt Rainier is virtually one. But also given the natural laws of science, and the consequent OOFLam, the likelihood of my self is still virtually zero.
Click to expand...

Well, that's interesting. The exact shape of Mt. Rainier exists. What does that tell you about the likelihood of the natural laws of science?
 
damn, that means Jabba's gotta find a new word to use instead of soul...
 
Jabba said:
- My claim is that given the natural laws of science, the likelihood of the exact shape of Mt Rainier is virtually one. But also given the natural laws of science, and the consequent OOFLam, the likelihood of my self is still virtually zero.
Click to expand...


So if I go up to Mt. Rainier with a shovel and start flinging dirt around, I've changed the shape of the mountain. Was the likelihood that I'd do that exactly 1?

Forget about me. What about all the trees and animals living on the mountain? Seeds are deposited randomly. Worms eat away at the ground. Then there's the snow. Snow and ice accumulate and carve away at the mountain. Each snowfall creates new shapes.

Were all of these factors destined to happen?

Maybe Mt. Rainier is part of a dynamic system that causes it to continuously change shape. Maybe calling that particular area "Mt. Rainier" is a shorthand humans use to mean, "That collection of things located roughly over there which is always changing." And maybe the soul is the same - a collection of constantly-changing neurons roughly located over there.
 
jond said:
damn, that means Jabba's gotta find a new word to use instead of soul...
Click to expand...


It's easier than that.

He needs to stop playing this juvenile game.

I'd also like to remind people that when Jabba responds by asking a question, (count how many times he does it), he's not interested in any answer given to that question.

He's prolonging his silly game.

And as everyone is very aware, he's very careful as to who he chooses to respond to and who he chooses to ignore. His method of choosing is so "in your face" that it amazes me how people still want to play with him.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Is the self you're referring to your awareness?
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Well, let's be careful here. We're all talking about two "awarenesses" (since "self" and "consciousness" and "you" are worn out as euphemisms for "soul"). There is one awareness that is the process arising in one organism. And there is another awareness that is the process arising in the organism that is the magical exact duplicate. Rather than equivocate which one is "your awareness" for the purposes of answering such questions, keep the language consistent. I'm looking at you, Jabba. You know, the guy who keeps changing wording and frames of reference to try to entrap people into meaningless semblances of agreement.
 
godless dave said:
The fact that there are two of them. The exact same cause for there being two brains. Each is made of different raw material. They are in different locations, were produced at different times, or both.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- Theoretically, if scientists knew all the factors that went into your creation, they could predict the details of your brain. However, they would not be able to predict who your awareness would be.
- If, in your interpretation, scientists could predict who your awareness would be, you and I are not talking about the same kind of "awareness" or, the same kind of "who.".
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Theoretically, if scientists knew all the factors that went into your creation, they could predict the details of your brain. However, they would not be able to predict who your awareness would be.
Click to expand...

And how exactly do you know this?

- If, in your interpretation, scientists could predict who your awareness would be, you and I are not talking about the same kind of "awareness" or, the same kind of "who.".
Click to expand...

"No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Hans
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Theoretically, if scientists knew all the factors that went into your creation, they could predict the details of your brain. However, they would not be able to predict who your awareness would be.
- If, in your interpretation, scientists could predict who your awareness would be, you and I are not talking about the same kind of "awareness" or, the same kind of "who.".
Click to expand...
Then I don't think you're talking about a kind of awareness or "who" that exists under OOFLam.
 
Jabba said:
Theoretically, if scientists knew all the factors that went into your creation, they could predict the details of your brain. However, they would not be able to predict who your awareness would be.
Click to expand...

Weasel-word nonsense. You have shown no evidence of any effect of consciousness that is not tied to the brain. You're just paying around with words to restate your claim that some other kind of self must exist, and that it must exist outside science's ken.

If, in your interpretation, scientists could predict who your awareness would be, you and I are not talking about the same kind of "awareness" or, the same kind of "who.".
Click to expand...

That's just about as circular as reasoning can get. You're saying that a defining characteristic of your notion of the self, whatever it actually turns out to be, is that science cannot characterize it. You're assuming your desired conclusion -- once again -- as a premise. For heaven's sake, please take a course in elementary propositional logic. You're simply wishing your desired belief into existence.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- IOW, you and I are not talking about the same kind of "who"?
Click to expand...
Of course you're not. The "who" that you mean takes for granted the existance of the inmortal soul. Nobody here agrees to just assume your argument.
 
Loss Leader said:
Of course you're not. The "who" that you mean takes for granted the existance of the inmortal soul. Nobody here agrees to just assume your argument.
Click to expand...

No different than the Shroud thread: "Before we begin, everyone has to agree that what I present is evidence that the shroud is authentic."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom