Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[JayUtah]

I must admit that my reflexes do push in that direction -- but, my goal is to avoid those reflexes and instead to be as "transparent" as possible... I know that you won't believe such a thing -- but, I swear to God (or, a reasonable facsimile thereof) that it's true.

You must think we're pretty stupid. Remember the Shroud thread, where you lifted posts from this site and reproduced them out of context at your own site, without even a link back? Remember how you omitted from that "summary" all your critics' posts that rebutted your arguments or answered your questions? Remember all the people who asked politely and then finally demanded that you remove what you had dishonestly quoted from them? You carried out a prolonged program of misrepresentation.

No, Jabba. Your propensity to misrepresent is longstanding, calculated, and deliberate. You're right that we don't believe your professed transparency, and we have the evidence to support that. You lifted a quote from Blackmore hoping that none of your critics would check up on you. When will you realize that you always get caught when you misquote someone?

What I'm trying to argue here is that even if the self IS an illusion, according to OOFLam, my illusion will cease to exist, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place and whose likelihood of currently existing is infinitesimal.

Yet it does exist. Billions of them exist. What you're trying to do here is shoehorn everything you run across into your broken numerical argument. Blackmore does not support your claim.

I'm also claiming that my illusion has feelings,and its existence matters to it.

Wow, you simply can't resist the notion that every noun must refer to a "thing." An illusion cares and has feelings. That's got to the be dumbest thing I've heard all week. Maybe "green" likes to go bowling. Maybe "height" misses its deceased grandmother.

The scientific model doesn't care what you feel. Your ongoing existential crisis is not evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

And, the likelihood of your particular current existence -- given OOFLam -- is infinitesimal.

Only if you believe every Texas sharpshooter.

 

[Jabba]

We all know what kind of self you're trying to refer. It is a process, and it is the result of your brain's functioning. The likelihood of your self existing is exactly the same as the likelihood of your body existing. And the only self you could have ever been is the one you are, because your "self" is the result of every expierience you've ever had.

Remember when you agreed that your bodies existence wasn't really all that unlikely and that "science does a good job of explaining our bodies existence"?

Remember when you said "I assume our selves require our bodies to communicate materialistically"?

How can you possibly think that your scenario (which involves both a body and a non material soul) is more likely than the scientific scenario, which only involves a body?

Jond,

- This self to which I'm referring is apparently not the result of specific chemistry -- your very same chemistry would not reproduce your particular self.
- I assume that there is a limited number of different human bodies possible -- but, the number of selves possible is unlimited.

 

[Jabba]

Is the likelihood of the existence of my physical body infinitesimal?

Dave,
- I don't think so.

 

[Hokulele]

Jond,

- This self to which I'm referring is apparently not the result of specific chemistry -- your very same chemistry would not reproduce your particular self.
- I assume that there is a limited number of different human bodies possible -- but, the number of selves possible is unlimited.

If you were to be duplicated, would you know whether or not you are the original? Why do you have such trouble addressing such a simple question?

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- I must admit that my reflexes do push in that direction -- but, my goal is to avoid those reflexes...

You're clearly failing.

...and instead to be as "transparent" as possible...

You're succeeding in that, but only to the limited extent that everyone can see right through you.

- I also admit that Blackmore is an atheist, and believes that the "self" is an illusion.

Yes, but you only admitted that when you got caught quote-mining her. Before that you were trying to use an out of context quotation to bolster your argument.

- What I'm trying to argue here is that even if the self IS an illusion, according to OOFLam, my illusion will cease to exist, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place and whose likelihood of currently existing is infinitesimal.
- I'm also claiming that my illusion has feelings,and its existence matters to it.

How would any of this differ if you were not the One True Jabba, but were in fact one of the infinite number of other "potential selves" that you claim could be occupying your body?

- Also, I was using Blackmore to isolate the particular kind of self to which I've been trying to refer.

One that is not part of the hypothesis you need to disprove, and which therefore cannot be used in an expression of the likelihood of your existence under that hypothesis.

 

[jond]

Jond,

- This self to which I'm referring is apparently not the result of specific chemistry -- your very same chemistry would not reproduce your particular self.
- I assume that there is a limited number of different human bodies possible -- but, the number of selves possible is unlimited.

That's because the self is a PROCESS not a thing. It is constantly evolving with every new experience you have. Which has been explained to you countless times and you ignore it every single time..

 

[aleCcowaN]

You must think we're pretty stupid. Remember the Shroud thread, where you lifted posts from this site and reproduced them out of context at your own site, without even a link back? Remember how you omitted from that "summary" all your critics' posts that rebutted your arguments or answered your questions? Remember all the people who asked politely and then finally demanded that you remove what you had dishonestly quoted from them? You carried out a prolonged program of misrepresentation.

No, Jabba. Your propensity to misrepresent is longstanding, calculated, and deliberate. You're right that we don't believe your professed transparency, and we have the evidence to support that. You lifted a quote from Blackmore hoping that none of your critics would check up on you. When will you realize that you always get caught when you misquote someone?

Paint me surprised that behind a majority of believers here and there, there are quite immoral egos. What else to expect from people who invent things for pleasure, peace of mind or to control their fellow people.

 

[Jabba]

If you were to be duplicated, would you know whether or not you are the original? Why do you have such trouble addressing such a simple question?

Hokulele,
- If I were actually duplicated, I would be looking out both sets of eyes -- and, my best guess is that my self would remember which body was there first.
- Like a computer hooked to two robots. All of a sudden, I'd have two sets of eyes, and my self (the computer) would remember which set was first.
- But then, I don't know why that should matter...

 

[JayUtah]

This self to which I'm referring is apparently not the result of specific chemistry -- your very same chemistry would not reproduce your particular self.

Straw man. Consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain under H. That's not the same as "specific chemistry."

I assume that there is a limited number of different human bodies possible -- but, the number of selves possible is unlimited.

Under H, "self" not ennumerable.

 

[jond]

Jond,

- This self to which I'm referring is apparently not the result of specific chemistry -- your very same chemistry would not reproduce your particular self.
- I assume that there is a limited number of different human bodies possible -- but, the number of selves possible is unlimited.

And, BTW: in anticipation of this tired canard, I already responded in detail the other day. Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11622334#post11622334

 

[JayUtah]

If I were actually duplicated, I would be looking out both sets of eyes...

Not under H.

Like a computer hooked to two robots.

No, that's not what it means to be an emergent property. That may be how your notion of an immortal soul works, but it's not how consciousness works under H.

But then, I don't know why that should matter...

Because the thought experiment illustrates the error in your reasoning. You assume consciousness under H is a "thing" like a robot. It isn't. It's a property.

 

[Mojo]

- If I were actually duplicated, I would be looking out both sets of eyes -

No, you wouldn't. There would be two Jabbas, each looking through its own set of eyes.

- and, my best guess is that my self would remember which body was there first.

Each Jabba would think it was the original.

- Like a computer hooked to two robots. All of a sudden, I'd have two sets of eyes, and my self (the computer) would remember which set was first.

No, you wouldn't, and don't pretend you haven't been told this before. If you were duplicated, there would be two Jabbas, not one.

You really shouldn't have indulged your "reflexes" in such a way so soon after pretending that you were trying not to.

- But then, I don't know why that should matter...

So why the extreme reluctance to address this issue with anything other than another reset?

 

[Jabba]

That's because the self is a PROCESS not a thing. It is constantly evolving with every new experience you have. Which has been explained to you countless times and you ignore it every single time..

jond,
- Will that particular process continue when my body dies? OOFLam would say that it will not, that it will never process again and it never had to process in the first place. In other words, given OOFLam, the likelihood of this particular process currently processing is infinitesimal.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I don't think so.

Then the self you're talking about is not part of H.

 

[jond]

jond,
- Will that particular process continue when my body dies? OOFLam would say that it will not, that it will never process again and it never had to process in the first place. In other words, given OOFLam, the likelihood of this particular process currently processing is infinitesimal.

Of course OOFLam says it won't, because the process stops when the brain stops. The likelihood of your current processing is exactly the same as your brain.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba,
- Here's a dog:



- Here's a duplicate of the dog:



The dogs are identical.

Is either dog looking through two sets of eyes?

 

[godless dave]

Hokulele,
- If I were actually duplicated, I would be looking out both sets of eyes --

That's not what the word "duplicate" means.

How about answering Hokule's actual question? If there were a self that were exactly like yours, with the same memories, would it be able to tell if it were the original or the duplicate?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Straw man. Consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain under H. That's not the same as "specific chemistry."



Under H, "self" not ennumerable.

I reckon Jabba is no longer going to reply to your posts. You called his dishonest game off and he's not gonna face that music, hence you most probably entered a new blind spot of his.

Believers have that capacity to set off all that bothers them by placing a saint in the middle or assigning to themselves a coupon in heaven that can be exchanged by a dinner with Buddha.

 

[JayUtah]

Will that particular process continue when my body dies? OOFLam would say that it will not, that it will never process again and it never had to process in the first place.

You're still trying to think of a process as a thing.

In other words, given OOFLam, the likelihood of this particular process currently processing is infinitesimal.

"This particular process" is trying to conceptualize it as a thing. It isn't a thing. It isn't enumerable.

Your consciousness is the same as my consciousness in that in each case of our physical organism it proceeds in the same way as a property of our functioning brains. That you subjectively experience yours differently from mine does not mean there are two separate, countable "things." There exists the property of the process of consciousness, irrespective of how many physical items there exist that may exhibit it, and even (abstractly) if no item exhibits it. White doesn't cease to be a concept after all the snow metls.

Again, this is not even a hard concept in philosophy. No matter how much you are trying to make H adopt the notion of a soul, consciousness is not anything like you keep trying to make it out to be.