Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[jond]

Dave,
- No.
- They wouldn't have the same sense of self. That's how they would be different.
- Again, I claim that words -- so far -- have failed us. And, unfortunately, I suspect that they always will...
- Whatever, if my "perfect" copy doesn't bring me back to life, it has failed to copy ME in an important way.

If they both think they are the same person, have the same memories etc, what is different? The only difference is that they each have an identical physical body. How does that help you?

 

[Jabba]

That claim has been debunked. YOUR words have failed because they presuppose a soul where none exists.

Argumemnon,
- That claim has not been debunked -- it's been denied.
- My claim doesn't presuppose a soul, it argues for a soul.

 

[JayUtah]

That claim has not been debunked -- it's been denied.

No, it's been thoroughly debunked several times. The errors in your argument are fatal and fundamental, and they have been told to you numerous times by numerous people. When you deliberately disregard nearly everything that's said to you, even braggingly so at times, you don't get to be the one who says to what degree your argument has been refuted.

My claim doesn't presuppose a soul, it argues for a soul.

It argues for a soul by trying to falsify a competing theory, materialism. Your argument for falsifying materialism boils down to presupposing something akin to a soul must also exist under materialism and then dismissing materialism because it can't explain that presupposition.

 

[theprestige]

Argumemnon,
- That claim has not been debunked -- it's been denied.
- My claim doesn't presuppose a soul, it argues for a soul.

Presupposing a soul is the root fallacy of your argument.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, on this page there is a drawing of a human self along with a human eye. As you can see, the eye is physically attached to the self. That's why under H, one self cannot see out of two sets of eyes.

Does that help?

 

[JayUtah]

Jabba, on this page there is a drawing of a human self along with a human eye. As you can see, the eye is physically attached to the self. That's why under H, one self cannot see out of two sets of eyes.

Does that help?

It is indeed helpful in that it shows the self under H, and the arrangement of the sensory apparatus that contributes to it. It is not likely to be helpful in that it doesn't compel Jabba to use the correct definition of self when discussing H. He will read "self" as "soul".

 

[Waterman]

-snip-
H Says that the clone would proceed in no way different than the original would have done. My wife and kids would never be aware of the switch.

Your claim about having a non-physical element that provides some actual 'continuity' which would either be missing or different. In what ways would these differences manifest?

Waterman, or Xaterman (whichever one you are),
- snip -
- My answer to your question: they wouldn't be looking out the same pair of eyes.

Jabba
You will have to expand further. It is not clear to me HOW your response addresses the question I asked. How would these differences make themselves known? Would Xaterman who is an identical but separate entity from Waterman have different preferences, memories, habits or personality? Would his intelligent, observant and loving wife be none the wiser for the switch?

You have continued to make the claim that a perfect replica would… wait a minute... what ARE you claiming. Could you clarify please?

I have Waterman and Xaterman the perfect clone which under YOUR scenario are somehow connected in some way. I place Waterman in a Blue Room and Xaterman in a Red Room. I ask each what color room they are in. Under H the answer is obvious. Under YOUR scenario what do they each say?

 

[Hokulele]

Jabba
You will have to expand further. It is not clear to me HOW your response addresses the question I asked. How would these differences make themselves known? Would Xaterman who is an identical but separate entity from Waterman have different preferences, memories, habits or personality? Would his intelligent, observant and loving wife be none the wiser for the switch?

You have continued to make the claim that a perfect replica would… wait a minute... what ARE you claiming. Could you clarify please?

I have Waterman and Xaterman the perfect clone which under YOUR scenario are somehow connected in some way. I place Waterman in a Blue Room and Xaterman in a Red Room. I ask each what color room they are in. Under H the answer is obvious. Under YOUR scenario what do they each say?

Jabba uses the "two sets of eyes" claim as a way to backdoor his soul into H. He seems to believe that a self is an autonomous entity that inhabits a body. Since there can only be one self in Jabbaworld, it would have to be in two places at once at the same time. He simply cannot accept that this is a bare assertion, that has nothing to do with H. He refuses to address what actually exists under H, as that pretty much invalidates his whole argument from the get go.

 

[JayUtah]

You have continued to make the claim that a perfect replica would… wait a minute... what ARE you claiming. Could you clarify please?

He's exactly claiming that the perfect clone would "not be looking out through the same set of eyes." What that means in terms of materialism or his theory of an immortal soul is unclear and will remain unclear because ambiguity and equivocation are Jabba's stock-in-trade in these sorts of debates. "Looking through the same eyes" and "Bring me back to life" are the ambiguous phrases he uses to allude to concepts he's trying to beg as part of his argument. While it seems like they should mean something, they don't in terms of the more detailed, fundamental discussion everyone else is having.

 

[Waterman]

Jabba uses the "two sets of eyes" claim as a way to backdoor his soul into H. He seems to believe that a self is an autonomous entity that inhabits a body. Since there can only be one self in Jabbaworld, it would have to be in two places at once at the same time. He simply cannot accept that this is a bare assertion, that has nothing to do with H. He refuses to address what actually exists under H, as that pretty much invalidates his whole argument from the get go.

I have read his argument on this earlier but this seems different. This is two entities using the same set of eyes... just trying to get at the underlying assumptions of how this is supposed to work...

 

[Belz...]

Argumemnon,
- That claim has not been debunked -- it's been denied.

Stop lying. It's rude and disrespectful, something you said you disliked.

- My claim doesn't presuppose a soul, it argues for a soul.

Is that why you keep plugging it into your premises? Of course you presuppose it.

 

[John Jones]

Argumemnon,
- That claim has not been debunked -- it's been denied.
- My claim doesn't presuppose a soul, it argues for a soul.

Your claim does presuppose a soul. Everyone sees that but you. This is a pretty smart group of people here, Jabba. You expect a random passerby to believe that you alone are right, and all these other smart people are wrong?

 

[Belz...]

This is a pretty smart group of people here, Jabba.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Mojo]

Your claim does presuppose a soul. Everyone sees that but you.

No, even Jabba sees it. He's just trying to pull the wool over our eyes:

- I've said this before, but I am referring to what I would call a soul, but using that word would seem to be begging the question...

He's failing.

 

[JayUtah]

This is a pretty smart group of people here, Jabba.

Jabba has agreed that we are smart, but only in an "analytical" sense. This is supposedly some limited, left-brain-only mode of thinking that denies us the ability to see his claims from a perspective where they make sense. Jabba argues that he is adept at "holistic" thinking, which he claims is better and which gives insights we could never have. When evaluated by "holistic" thinking, Jabba insists his claims make sense.

This is a little like Paul Bethke over in the end-times thread. He claims that his preaching makes sense in a "prophetic" sense and that his critics do not understand the "prophetic" meaning of scripture and thus get everything wrong. Needless to say, his critics clearly know more of scripture than he does.

Thus we see the pattern. If you can't make headway according to the facts and knowledge that everyone else has, invent some new way of thinking that only you can master, and which proves you right in a way no one else can see or refute.

You expect a random passerby to believe that you alone are right, and all these other smart people are wrong?

In the Shroud thread Jabba made no secret of his belief that only the skeptics at JREF/ISF would object this much to his claims, arguments, and evidence. Not only do I think he would expect just what you lay out, he's said pretty much that in other threads. Many fringe claimants style themselves as great unsung geniuses whose wisdom would be easily appreciated by almost anyone except their critics, who must therefore be entrenched ideologues.

 

[Belz...]

Jabba has agreed that we are smart, but only in an "analytical" sense. This is supposedly some limited, left-brain-only mode of thinking that denies us the ability to see his claims from a perspective where they make sense. Jabba argues that he is adept at "holistic" thinking, which he claims is better and which gives insights we could never have. When evaluated by "holistic" thinking, Jabba insists his claims make sense.

This is a little like Paul Bethke over in the end-times thread. He claims that his preaching makes sense in a "prophetic" sense and that his critics do not understand the "prophetic" meaning of scripture and thus get everything wrong.

Well, that's one way of admitting that you can't make your case, eh?

Many fringe claimants style themselves as great unsung geniuses whose wisdom would be easily appreciated by almost anyone except their critics, who must therefore be entrenched ideologues.

I call it the Galileo syndrome.

 

[theprestige]

I'm pretty sure that at this point, Jabba takes every critique of his method as a blueprint for dishonestly extending the debate.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

What happens if Paul Bethke blinds both the original and the clone? No transmitters, no receiver


Or bored receiver...?

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- Sorry, I was thinking that I had answered your question -- but apparently, I had gotten distracted and didn't quite finish...
- I have already proven that H is true, so I don't know that "likelihood" is an appropriate term in this case. If it is appropriate, I assume that the likelihood is 1.00.

Actually, in the hypothetical situation that the question was about you had demonstrated that H was false. H was the hypothesis that each side of the die had a three on it, and you had demonstrated that they were, in fact, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Do you agree that the likelihood of the observed event (throwing a 3) under H is 1.00 for this scenario?

 

[Mojo]

What happens if Paul Bethke blinds both the original and the clone? No transmitters, no receiver


Or bored receiver...?

Two identical selves looking through no sets of eyes.