Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
jond said:
What, precisely, is the difference between you being brought back to life, and an exact duplicate who self identifies as Jabba?
Click to expand...

I'll take that: there is no difference but there is a distinction. It's not the same entity, and there is no continuity of the process jabba calls "self". Of course, it's doubtful that there's continuity of self in the same body from moment to moment, and the "self" is a spectator, not an actor, in the show.
 
The difference that Jabba claims exists is essentially what is required for what he's trying to prove.
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can conceptualize that too. Under H the only way to bring you back to life is to reaninate your corpse, because under H, your body is you. There's no aspect of you that isn't your body.
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course he can. We all can. It's a common trope in science fiction. It's a topic of extensive debate among philosophers--who have even developed a specialized vocabulary for such discussions.

Spending five years treading a path already well worn by others would be one thing. You've spent the past five years struggling to put one foot in front of the other and actually start the journey.
 
jsfisher said:
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?
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:
jsfisher said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you mean something else, than you aren't addressing P(E|H).
Click to expand...
js,
- But, if there is such a thing as reincarnation, OOFLam is wrong...
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

jond said:
What, precisely, is the difference between you being brought back to life, and an exact duplicate who self identifies as Jabba?
Click to expand...
jond,
- That is the point. I see (or, imagine) a difference. You guys don't.
 
Jabba said:
js,
- But, if there is such a thing as reincarnation, OOFLam is wrong...
Click to expand...

Well, no.

Your imaginary OOFLAM, which you made up, is that there is Only One Finite Life At Most. That does not preclude reincarnation. All you are trying to do is inject a conceptual soul into everything to which it does not pertain. H has no souls.
 
Jabba said:
js,
- But, if there is such a thing as reincarnation, OOFLam is wrong...
Click to expand...

That would be one avenue to pursue in making a small step towards supporting your claims.

What scientifically sound repeatable evidence is that that supports reincarnation.

BTW are copies of apes, cats and dogs missing the same thing as human copies? Why or why not?
 
The Norseman said:
Elric? I mean, that's if I remember the stories correctly.




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




LOL That's true!

But thanks for the deeper explanation, as always!





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!
Click to expand...
I was raised Catholic. Feel free to delve into my ancestral enormous burden of guilt.

Yeah, the RCC actually intentionally does that. Sins of the fathers and all malarkey. Personally, I bailed out around the time that I learned Santa was fake. But that is back in the seventies.
 
zooterkin said:
Blood and souls for my Lord Arioch! (But Elric was the wielder of the sword, which was called Stormbringer.) (About time I re-read some of those novels.)
Click to expand...

If you want to be pedantic about it, Stormbringer was one of a pair of swords both with the same attributes. The other lesser know was Mournblade.
 
Jabba said:
js,
- But, if there is such a thing as reincarnation, OOFLam is wrong...
Click to expand...

If 5 minus 18 be a positive number, then Mathematics is wrong.
If Nazi Germany were victorious in winning World War II, then History is wrong.
If ....

So, where do you expect to go with your statement?
 
Jabba said:
But, if there is such a thing as reincarnation, OOFLam is wrong...
Click to expand...

True, but you haven't proven there is such a thing as reincarnation. And your goal is to prove immortality, not prove that one of the number of possible alternatives to immortality is wrong. You're so wrapped up in the gyrations of the proof that you've forgotten what it is you're trying to prove.

You've chosen to prove immortality by suggesting that one of its alternatives, materialism, is very unlikely. As part of the method you have selected, you must reckon P(E|H). And to do so, you must reckon it as if H were true. H does not include reincarnation. So you don't get to wave reincarnation around as your method for "disproving" H. This is a very basic error. No nuance or special ways of thinking required.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom