Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[carlitos]

Seriously, hasn't this thread reached peak boring yet?

 

[The Norseman]

- I guess the easiest way to describe my perception of this issue is that in a sense, nothing is missing -- but then, in another sense, something is missing. And, the latter sense is the one that counts here...

Yes, you think you have one immortal soul. Everyone knows this. Why you are bothering to pretend that you have any proof/evidence of immortality or souls at this point is a joke.

I guess admitting defeat in a debate isn't in your rule-book yet; when you get honest, maybe you'll decide to include that in as a final step. "Don't be a sore loser."

But, hey, better luck next time in finding a topic with which you can school the horrible skeptics/atheists (seeing as how it's your ultimate aim, after all).

 

[JayUtah]

How about "reincarnation"?

That doesn't mean anything under H.

...the rebirth of a soul in a new body.

That doesn't happen under H. There are no souls in H. So asking whether H can predict or produce reincarnation is meaningless. "Incarnation" has meaning only in dualism.

The trouble with "soul" is that it automatically implies non-physical, immortal, transcendent.

Hence why it's pointless to ask whether H can predict or produce such an effect and to try to dismiss H when you conclude it can't. The effect of reincarnation has nothing to do with E or with H. You might postulate it as part of ~H to explain some of the observations in E. But you cannot use it to falsify H by reckoning P(E|H) in a way that requires reincarnation or souls.

What I'm calling "self" is something that I'm sure does exist -- I experience it.

E is the experience of having a sense of self. We stipulate that every suitably developed human has a substantially similar experience. H explains that sense of self in a particular way. That way does not include or require anything non-material. If you plan to compute P(E|H) you must do assuming H is true -- i.e., that no non-material elements are needed for H to explain E.

But then, I can't be sure of the rest. I suspect that it will be reincarnated.

And that would be ~H. It has nothing to do with H or P(E|H).

 

[jond]

- I guess the easiest way to describe my perception of this issue is that in a sense, nothing is missing -- but then, in another sense, something is missing. And, the latter sense is the one that counts here...

What, exactly, is it that is missing? If the copy thinks it is Jabba, has all Jabba's thoughts, memories, etc, then the copy's "ME" is exactly the same as Jabba's "ME". The only thing is that there are two bodies now instead of one.

Of course, you know this, and continue to pretend that something is missing even though you cannot in any way indicate what it is. And you are the only one insisting there's something missing, so until you come up with an answer you are rudely repeating yourself without addressing any of the myriad posts that show you that you are wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

I guess the easiest way to describe my perception of this issue is that in a sense, nothing is missing -- but then, in another sense, something is missing.

Blatant equivocation. You cannot specify, define, prove, or defend the sense in which you say something must be missing. Hence your critics are under no obligation to accept it on the basis of your vague question-begging. Since they have led you to the inexorable conclusion that, in your hypothetical perfect copy, nothing would be missing, that is the conclusion you should use -- not the one you are desperately clinging to despite all evidence and logic.

And, the latter sense is the one that counts here...

The latter sense is the one you must prove is real and operative in H, and you obviously can't do it. So no, you lose forthwith.

 

[Jabba]

If it's so obvious to you, Jabba, why are you finding it so hard to articulate what is missing from the copy?

You enter the Jabba Replicator 5000, there is a blinding flash of light, and two Jabbas exit. They are identical down to the molecular level, they both believe themselves to be the original Jabba (and they are both wearing clothes). They both have all the memories, mannerisms, and personality of the original you. Friends and family would be unable to tell them apart in any way. They both have an identical sense of self, arising from their identical-but separate brains.

What is the difference between them that you think will distinguish one from the other?

Agatha,
- I do appreciate your civility.
- Second question first: If our method of reproduction didn't allow us to mark the original, no one would ever know which was which.

The examples, based on the work of the renowned child psychologist Jean Piaget, are taken from books by philosopher-psychologist Ken Wilber. Here is an example involving a glass of water and a second, taller empty glass. Wilber writes: If you take [very young] children, and, right in front of their eyes, pour the water from a short glass into a tall glass, and ask them which glass has more water, they will always say the tall glass has more, even though they saw you pour the same amount from one glass to the other. They cannot ‘conserve volume.’ Certain ‘obvious’ things that we see, they do not and cannot see—they live in a different worldspace. No matter how many times you pour the same amount of water back and forth between the two glasses, they will insist the tall glass has more….
Marion, James. Putting on the Mind of Christ: The Inner Work of Christian Spirituality (pp. 15-16). Hampton Roads Publishing. Kindle Edition.

- Seems to me that either me -- or you guys -- just don't recognize the logic in this situation. Your position just doesn't make sense to me; my position just doesn't make sense to you... Words fail us.
- Not that one of us is at the cognitive level depicted here, just that we are at different levels. I accept that I could be the one missing something...

- This ought to stir a lot of pots!

I agree, and the obvious point that follows from this agreement is that there is nothing 'missing' from the copy. Both the original and the copy have what you are calling "ME". There would be two, unconnected but identical, YOUs.

Nothing is missing, nothing distinguishes the original from the copy.

Wilber claims that experiments show that small children look at 2d shape and size to determine bigger/smaller & more/less, but as they get older, they learn to conceptualise volume. I don't have the time right now to check if this is the case, but I'm not sure what you are illustrating with this.

ETA I did just make a quick check on the book that you got this from, and also looked at the original experiments that Piaget and others did. It is not quite as simple as Wilber claims, 1)nor does it follow that one must have a higher, broader or more developed understanding to believe in souls or immortality.​

2)Are you positing that you are unable to conceptualise materialism, or are you positing that sceptics are unable to conceptualise souls? And that one side or other needs to broaden their understanding? Because I don't think either of those is the case.

3)There is nothing wrong with holding the opinion "I am immortal, I have a soul which will continue past my physical death" as long as you also recognise that it's a faith-based, evidence-free position.

Agatha,
#1. It doesn't follow -- but, it does allow for an explanation.
#2. As you suspect, I'm not really positing the former, but I am positing the possibility of the latter.
#3. Unfortunately, my belief isn't faith-based. While, I have always wanted it to be true, I had pretty much given up on the possibility when I suddenly perceived the logic I'm trying to describe. And remember, my theological background is Christian.

 

[godless dave]

- I guess the easiest way to describe my perception of this issue is that in a sense, nothing is missing -- but then, in another sense, something is missing. And, the latter sense is the one that counts here...

The highlighted is what you have not been able to support.

Having two of something does not guarantee there is any difference between them. The two things being self-aware does not change that.

 

[JayUtah]

#1. It doesn't follow -- but, it does allow for an explanation.

Weasel words. Your example is simply not germaine. You're trying to posture developmental issues as an explanation for the insinuation that a belief in souls is somehow a more developed mode of thought. You've made this argument before, accusing your critics of being limited to "analytical" thinking while you practiced the supposedly superior "holistic" thinking. It's the same smug nonsense you tried to inflict on everyone before.

#2. As you suspect, I'm not really positing the former, but I am positing the possibility of the latter.

Yes you are. And just as you did before, when you tried to claim you were naturally just so much better a thinker than any of your critics, you have no evidence whatsoever to support your postulate. Your problem has never been that your critics cannot conceive of the idea of souls. Your problem has been that your critics properly forbid you from begging the notion of souls where it by rights cannot and should not appear in your argument. I predicted some time ago that, having exhausted once again any rational argument, you'd fall back to the odious self-aggrandizing claims of inherent superiority. You frankly need to find a line of reasoning that doesn't amount to calling your critics simpletons. It's rude and wrong.

Unfortunately, my belief isn't faith-based.

Your belief is blatantly, admittedly faith-based. Not long ago you admitted you had no answer for your critics' rebuttals, but that you still believed you were right. That is exactly a faith-based belief.

...when I suddenly perceived the logic I'm trying to describe.

You've described it. We all understand what you think you're trying to prove, and we all follow the line of reasoning. The problem is that your line of reasoning is wrong. Not merely unclear or uncertain , but wrong. There are literally thousands of posts in these threads that explain how it's wrong. It's quite rude of you to pretend they don't exist.

And remember, my theological background is Christian.

Yes, and it is essentially the Christian formulation of incarnation that you're trying to foist. You said you could prove it mathematically, but it's obvious all you can do is beg the question and then try to shame your critics into accepting it.

 

[The Norseman]

Yes, and it is essentially the Christian formulation of incarnation that you're trying to foist. You said you could prove it mathematically, but it's obvious all you can do is beg the question and then try to shame your critics into accepting it.

Yeah, that's where I was confused for a while; when he started talking about what "reincarnationists" believe or think. As far as I understand, reincarnation isn't a Christian mode of thought, per se. Spiritual resurrection, sure, that's Christian, but "reincarnation?"

 

[jsfisher]

js,
- How about "reincarnation"?

https://www.google.com/search?q=rei...69i59j0l4.16757j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8:the rebirth of a soul in a new body.

Your attempt to substitute 'reincarnation' for 'brought back to life' is leading you in a circle. Moreover, soul? Really? That would be an immaterial thing that doesn't exist under H. Where are you trying to go with this?

- The trouble with "soul" is that it automatically implies non-physical, immortal, transcendent. What I'm calling "self" is something that I'm sure does exist -- I experience it. But then, I can't be sure of the rest. I suspect that it will be reincarnated.

Sense of self, not soul. The sense of self would be reproduced in the clone, exactly reproduced in every detail. That's why I wrote:

If by "brought back to life" you mean the creation of an entity with your exact sense of self, then, yes, you would be brought back to life.

If you mean something else, than you aren't addressing P(E|H).

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, I can conceptualize souls just fine. I can imagine souls that are really part of a universal consciousness, and that through enlightenment - realizing that the self is an illusion -can break the cycle of reincarnation and achieve a state of nirvana

I can imagine souls that upon death are devoured by a demonic sword.

I can imagine souls that are housed in vessels outside the body, so that if the body dies the soul is preserved, to later inhabit that same body, or invade another one, or animate a clockwork machine.

I can imagine souls that can be trapped at the moment of death so that their divine energy can be used to power magic items.

I can conceive of them just fine. I don't think they really exist.

 

[JayUtah]

Yeah, that's where I was confused for a while; when he started talking about what "reincarnationists" believe or think.

I suspect that was a red herring. Jabba has insisted he isn't trying to prove any specific religion, but he seems to fall back on distinctively Christian ideas.

As far as I understand, reincarnation isn't a Christian mode of thought, per se. Spiritual resurrection, sure, that's Christian, but "reincarnation?"

Jesus was resurrected as a reincarnate being. His body was missing from the tomb and the resurrected Jesus appeared to the apostles with the crucifixion marks still in them. Corporeal resurrection is considered an important doctrine in Christianity. But when most people think of reincarnation they mean reincarnation into a new mortal organism, a process that may occur several times. It wouldn't be the first time Jabba has equivocated.

 

[John Jones]

js,
- How about "reincarnation"?

https://www.google.com/search?q=rei...69i59j0l4.16757j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8:the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
- The trouble with "soul" is that it automatically implies non-physical, immortal, transcendent. What I'm calling "self" is something that I'm sure does exist -- I experience it. But then, I can't be sure of the rest. I suspect that it will be reincarnated.

You've previously complained about the term 'soul' because this pinned you down to a 'begging the question fallacy'. Has any of your narrative become less begging the question since then?

 

[abaddon]

Yeah, that's where I was confused for a while; when he started talking about what "reincarnationists" believe or think. As far as I understand, reincarnation isn't a Christian mode of thought, per se. Spiritual resurrection, sure, that's Christian, but "reincarnation?"

I suspect nobody has made a big deal of that because Jabba's proposition is so fundamentally incoherent.

Nevertheless, It is Jabba's claim to be not just a christian, but a Catholic. Fair enough.

But is that true? Re-incarnation simply is not allowed in xtianity or catholicism. It's heresy.

Jabba must therefore reject catholicism, or be rejected by catholicism. There is no middle ground on this.

How is one to resolve this dichotomy? Frankly, I am not sure it can be resolved. Jabba has gone way outside any flavour of christianity to the extent that he is not christian at all. Hindu would be my best guess as a fit for Jabba's beliefs, but even that doesn't fit really well.

Perhaps the best description is that Jabba has a unique belief all his own. Nothing wrong with that.

But it is not christianity. Nor Catholicism. Nor any flavour of Judeo madness. What it is is some sort of meld between western religion and eastern philosophy.

Now, we could be having a quite interesting conversation about why one might select concept A out of religion B to create new religion C. But we are not. Why not?

The position proposed is heretical to the RCC and most christian sects.

 

[The Norseman]

I can imagine souls that upon death are devoured by a demonic sword.

Elric? I mean, that's if I remember the stories correctly.

I suspect that was a red herring. Jabba has insisted he isn't trying to prove any specific religion, but he seems to fall back on distinctively Christian ideas.

Now you mention it, I thought he had claimed Catholicism on his blog(s), but I could be mis-remembering.

Jesus was resurrected as a reincarnate being. His body was missing from the tomb and the resurrected Jesus appeared to the apostles with the crucifixion marks still in them. Corporeal resurrection is considered an important doctrine in Christianity. But when most people think of reincarnation they mean reincarnation into a new mortal organism, a process that may occur several times. It wouldn't be the first time Jabba has equivocated.

LOL That's true!

But thanks for the deeper explanation, as always!

I suspect nobody has made a big deal of that because Jabba's proposition is so fundamentally incoherent.

Nevertheless, It is Jabba's claim to be not just a christian, but a Catholic. Fair enough.

But is that true? Re-incarnation simply is not allowed in xtianity or catholicism. It's heresy.

Jabba must therefore reject catholicism, or be rejected by catholicism. There is no middle ground on this.

How is one to resolve this dichotomy? Frankly, I am not sure it can be resolved. Jabba has gone way outside any flavour of christianity to the extent that he is not christian at all. Hindu would be my best guess as a fit for Jabba's beliefs, but even that doesn't fit really well.

Perhaps the best description is that Jabba has a unique belief all his own. Nothing wrong with that.

But it is not christianity. Nor Catholicism. Nor any flavour of Judeo madness. What it is is some sort of meld between western religion and eastern philosophy.

Now, we could be having a quite interesting conversation about why one might select concept A out of religion B to create new religion C. But we are not. Why not?

The position proposed is heretical to the RCC and most christian sects.

Interesting. I don't know much about Catholicism, so I appreciate the insight here.

It really demonstrates that theists all claim they talk about the same 'god' or 'heaven' (or Bible even), or whatever, but they really all have a separate concept and belief structure that is unique to the person.

It's equivocation all the way down!

 

[Belz...]

js,
- How about "reincarnation"?

There is no such thing as reincarnation under H.

And this isn't a flaw of H. It's just not what you want to hear.

If you were more interested in reading responses rather than find ways to ignore them you'd know this by now because it's been repeated to you dozens of times already.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, I can conceptualize souls just fine. I can imagine souls that are really part of a universal consciousness, and that through enlightenment - realizing that the self is an illusion -can break the cycle of reincarnation and achieve a state of nirvana

I can imagine souls that upon death are devoured by a demonic sword.

I can imagine souls that are housed in vessels outside the body, so that if the body dies the soul is preserved, to later inhabit that same body, or invade another one, or animate a clockwork machine.

I can imagine souls that can be trapped at the moment of death so that their divine energy can be used to power magic items.

I can conceive of them just fine. I don't think they really exist.

Dave,
- What you can't seem to conceptualize is the difference between me being brought back to life and me not being brought back to life.

 

[Belz...]

Dave,
- What you can't seem to conceptualize is the difference between me being brought back to life and me not being brought back to life.

We conceptualise it just fine. We're telling you that it's irrelevant. You are the one who can't seem to conceptualise that you're working under H, not ~H.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- What you can't seem to conceptualize is the difference between me being brought back to life and me not being brought back to life.

It doesn't require but a moment's thought- unless you're using an idiomatic definition of 'bring back to life' that you won't reveal to us.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- What you can't seem to conceptualize is the difference between me being brought back to life and me not being brought back to life.

What, precisely, is the difference between you being brought back to life, and an exact duplicate who self identifies as Jabba?