Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[JayUtah]

Well, it has taken years of posts, years of attempts to get you to engage. You are now down to the level of flat out porkie pies.

Indeed, it's now a matter of blatant lies. Dave says,

I don't accept that it exists. I said I understand what the concept is.

and Jabba says,

It seems to me that you and reincarnationists are both referring to a real part of the human conception of self, and that you do accept that this part actually exists.

If that level of delusion weren't more likely to be some kind of performance art, it would be time to call the van with the guys in white coats. But as I said, this is what those of us do who aren't graced with Jabba's affirmative attention. We make it so that he has to overtly lie in order to try to recast the debate the way he wants. It becomes essentially impossible for him to convey the impression any failure here on his part is the fault of his critics.

 

[JayUtah]

- The 'thing' that reincarnationists think returns is physically reproducible?

The brain is theoretically reproducible, and under H if you could exactly reproduce it, the copy would exhibit a sense of self identical to the first. As to the "thing" reincarnationists think returns, godless dave has told you explicitly at least twice he does not believe any such thing exists. Nor do I. Nor is there any such concept in H. Kindly stop suggesting otherwise.

 

[abaddon]

- The 'thing' that reincarnationists think returns is physically reproducible?

That is so messed up, it is difficult to even start to respond.

H does not care what reincarnationists imagine. H does not include any reincarnation.

You are asking why H cannot reproduce a thing you cannot define and which is no part of H. Why would H care in the slightest?

 

[Jabba]

- The 'thing' that reincarnationists think returns is physically reproducible?

The human brain is, in theory although not in practice, physically reproducible.

- But, the human brain is not what the reincarnationists think returns.

 

[JayUtah]

- But, the human brain is not what the reincarnationists think returns.

Stop being deliberately obtuse, Jabba. The human brain is, under H, all that is responsible for producing the sense of self, and the brain is (in theory) physically reproducible. The notion that anything the reincarnationists believe is part of H, or is something godless dave is invoking, is a product strictly of your addled imagination which Dave has twice explicitly refuted.

 

[godless dave]

- But, the human brain is not what the reincarnationists think returns.

I know. What they think returns is a soul.

You already know I don't believe in souls.

I understand the concept of a soul. I also think I understand that when people who believe in reincarnation talk about what gets reincarnated, many of them are referring to a concept that corresponds with the parts of the brain that undergo subjective experiences and have a sense of personal identity; what Freud called the ego.

 

[abaddon]

- But, the human brain is not what the reincarnationists think returns.

They can "think" whatever they like. Sans evidence, it is unsupported tripe.

 

[abaddon]

As I think of it, does anyone else notice a correlation between trump and jabba? The same pronouncements, the same style of rhetoric, the same dodges, the same fringe resets, the same blanking out of disagreement? Just an idea that occurred.

 

[Hokulele]

- But, the human brain is not what the reincarnationists think returns.

So what? That doesn't have anything to do with H.

 

[Belz...]

- But, the human brain is not what the reincarnationists think returns.

Who cares? We're talking about H.

 

[JayUtah]

So what? That doesn't have anything to do with H.

Who cares? We're talking about H.

In the alternate version of the debate playing in Jabba's head, he's convinced Dave has accepted that the reincarnationists' version of the soul exists. Naturally Dave has confirmed that (1) he doesn't believe in souls, and (2) the reincarnationists' notion of a soul has nothing to do with H. But, Trumplike, Jabba just blusters ahead as if facts don't matter.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- But, the human brain is not what the reincarnationists think returns.

Who cares what the reincartionists think?

Hans

 

[jond]

In the alternate version of the debate playing in Jabba's head, he's convinced Dave has accepted that the reincarnationists' version of the soul exists. Naturally Dave has confirmed that (1) he doesn't believe in souls, and (2) the reincarnationists' notion of a soul has nothing to do with H. But, Trumplike, Jabba just blusters ahead as if facts don't matter.

Yes, Dave has slightly muddied the waters by accepting that Jabba is talking about a thing. Of course, Jabba sees any opening as acceptance no matter how many times Dave has said he's wrong.

 

[Steve]

As I think of it, does anyone else notice a correlation between trump and jabba? The same pronouncements, the same style of rhetoric, the same dodges, the same fringe resets, the same blanking out of disagreement? Just an idea that occurred.

Yes, that has recently occurred to me.

 

[Loss Leader]

You may think of those as being part of your identity. But I'm talking about the concept of differentiating yourself from everyone else. Your mind has an idea that there is an "I" that is separate from your children, those women you lied to, the person who sold you that jug of milk, and everyone else.

That sure isn't much too take from one life to another, a sense of individuality devoid of any other aspect.

In any case, Jabba is currently in the business of confusing his H and his ~H so thoroughly that, like Daffy, we'll soon be arguing it's duck hunting season.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- It seems to me that you and reincarnationists are both referring to a real part of the human conception of self, and that you do accept that this part actually exists.

Blatant misrepresentation of Dave's clearly stated position. But irrelevant to the issue.

- But, the human brain is not what the reincarnationists think returns.

Jabba, as far as calculating the likelihood of an event if H is true is concerned, it doesn't matter what the reincarnationists think. It doesn't matter what Dave thinks. All that matters is what H says.

H says that there are no immaterial souls. If H is true, how many immaterial souls are there?

It isn't a difficult question.

 

[caveman1917]

Under H the sense of self is not an entity, nor is it severable from the organism.

No mind uploading then?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- But, the human brain is not what the reincarnationists think returns.

Right. It's that "thing" you keep claiming "must" exist, for which there is no evidence, and which is not any part of H.

 

[Slowvehicle]

That sure isn't much too take from one life to another, a sense of individuality devoid of any other aspect.

In any case, Jabba is currently in the business of confusing his H and his ~H so thoroughly that, like Daffy, we'll soon be arguing it's duck hunting season.

...it's BASEBALL season...(at least, starting Sunday. GO D-BACKS!)

 

[MarkCorrigan]

We can see such other complex patterns arise in organisms we know don't have souls, such as what happens when a crow skis down a snow-covered roof on a jar lid, solely for the pleasure of it.

I just googled this. You've made my day.