Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
JesseCuster said:
What does free will have to do with anything? I don't recall free will being a factor in your mathematics or argument for how we are immortal. Sounds like you're just throwing in stuff at random into your argument in the hope that something works...
Click to expand...
Jesse,
- You brought up determinism. Free will is like the complement to determinism. That's how it relates to what you said.
 
Jabba said:
- I'm trying to show that what you subscribe to is wrong... So far, I'm not doing too well, but it is appropriate behavior under the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Jabba it's been five years. Your hand wringing over your inability to make a point you've never actually tried to make is sad.

And again... you can't put this facade on after you've already admitted your actual motive. You don't care about this discussion. You care about your fake manufactured one you want to present to that mythical audience you have that doesn't exist.
 
Jabba said:
- This "self," or "sense of self" -- whatever you want to call it -- is something we all experience.
- You don't believe that anything, including the self, is immaterial.
- I'm trying to show you why I believe that OOFLam is wrong. That belief does imply that the self is immaterial.
- I'm trying to show that what you subscribe to is wrong... So far, I'm not doing too well, but it is appropriate behavior under the circumstances.
Click to expand...

We all know you're trying to show that OOFLam is wrong. And you've been shown why you are wrong in a multitude of ways. Not least of which is that you keep insisting that OOFLam includes a self that is separate from our bodies/brains. But OOFLam, being based on the materialistic model, includes no such thing. Further your insistence on showing that our existence is so unlikely that something else must be true completely ignores the obvious fact that your self that you insist on is far less likely than the materialistic model.

The ONLY way for you to show that the materialistic model is wrong is to demonstrate the existence of selves separate from bodies. This is not a mathematical problem. It requires actual evidence of selves existing outside of brains. So far everything you've presented falls square
Y under "brain processes".
 
Jabba said:
- That's why I'm here... As you can tell, I still think I'm right.
Click to expand...

If that was why you've come, you wouldn't present such an obtuse face to the notion that your argument against materialism is not even wrong. Unevidenced assertions are not considered as valid points of contention in the materialistic worldview. They never will be.

Materialism's ideology is changeable. In fact it has been changing since ancient times as empirical evidence is discovered, analyzed, verified, and falsified. Yesterday's accepted evidence doesn't agree with today's. Tomorrow morning, it may well change again. But it won't be baseless assertion that changes these things.

You say that you think you're right about some very tender notions that have been instilled in the human condition for a very long time. For better or for worse, these notions have been mulled over by theologians, disseminated by clergy, corrupted by priests and kings, saved by grace, and scourged by those who manipulate them for their own satisfaction.

Believe what you will, but to convince me of your belief's worth, you're going to have to be a great deal more concise.
 
Jabba said:
- This "self," or "sense of self" -- whatever you want to call it -- is something we all experience.
- You don't believe that anything, including the self, is immaterial.
- I'm trying to show you why I believe that OOFLam is wrong. That belief does imply that the self is immaterial.
- I'm trying to show that what you subscribe to is wrong... So far, I'm not doing too well, but it is appropriate behavior under the circumstances.
Click to expand...

You have wasted 5 years here, in that case. Spending all of your time whining about what it is that you want to show is in no way a valid substitute for actually showing it.

Look at your post above. It consists of 4 statements.

Statement one is not necessarily true. A moments thought will show you why, or should.
Statement two is flat out wrong. You are in no position to know what ANYONE may or may not believe. And it does not matter anyway. Materialism by definition excludes anything immaterial regardless of whether one holds that position or not.
Statement three and four are yet again re-statements of what you WANT to show but have failed to show for five frakkin' years.

It's just another content free post.
 
Jabba said:
- This "self," or "sense of self" -- whatever you want to call it -- is something we all experience.
- You don't believe that anything, including the self, is immaterial.
- I'm trying to show you why I believe that OOFLam is wrong. That belief does imply that the self is immaterial.
- I'm trying to show that what you subscribe to is wrong... So far, I'm not doing too well, but it is appropriate behavior under the circumstances.
Click to expand...

But you haven't tried to show us that materialism is wrong. You've asked us to assume it's wrong so that you can get infinity in the denominator for P(E|H). You've asked us to assume it's wrong so we will treat your self being very unlikely differently from Mount Rainier being very unlikely.

You're asking us to assume mind-body dualism is true so that you can prove immaterial minds are immortal. I will certainly concede that mind-body dualism would allow possibilities for immortality of the mind that materialism does not. Absent any good reason to accept mind-body dualism, I have no reason to entertain any of those possibilities.
 
*yawn*

I miss the good old days when Jabba would grovel and abase himself to try and get a crumb of agreement out of us on some point - presumably leading to a gotcha moment.

Remember when Jabba would promise to provide evidence if we would agree to accept it sight-unseen beforehand?

Comedy gold.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Jesse,
- You brought up determinism.
Click to expand...
No I didn't. You said that once the 'laws of physics took over' that the chance of Mount Rainier forming was 1.00

In other words, the events that unfolded since the big bang happened completely deterministically.

Free will is like the complement to determinism. That's how it relates to what you said.
Click to expand...
That's lovely and all. But can you actually work it into your proof and argument instead of just mentioning it casually as if others are meant to figure out how it related to your argument?
 
Jabba said:
- I'm trying to show you why I believe that OOFLam is wrong. That belief does imply that the self is immaterial.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't, because "OOFLam", as you present it, includes immaterial souls. Even if you call them "selves".

If you want to argue against the position that there are no immaterial "selves", then you cannot include immaterial "selves" in the position you are arguing against.
 
Jabba said:
- I'm trying to show you why I believe that OOFLam is wrong.
Click to expand...


Jabba, everyone agrees that "OOFLam" is wrong. That is because "OOFLam" is a strawman you have invented, in which immaterial souls exist but are mortal. Disproving your strawman gets you no closer to proving immortality.
 
Mojo said:
Jabba, everyone agrees that "OOFLam" is wrong. That is because "OOFLam" is a strawman you have invented, in which immaterial souls exist but are mortal. Disproving your strawman gets you no closer to proving immortality.
Click to expand...


Quoted out of apparent daily necessity. [Emphasis mine]
 
godless dave said:
But you haven't tried to show us that materialism is wrong. You've asked us to assume it's wrong so that you can get infinity in the denominator for P(E|H). You've asked us to assume it's wrong so we will treat your self being very unlikely differently from Mount Rainier being very unlikely.

You're asking us to assume mind-body dualism is true so that you can prove immaterial minds are immortal. I will certainly concede that mind-body dualism would allow possibilities for immortality of the mind that materialism does not. Absent any good reason to accept mind-body dualism, I have no reason to entertain any of those possibilities.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- Do you accept that materialism might be wrong?
 
JoeBentley said:
Hey and we're back to the "begging for a special pleading."

It's like retro.
Click to expand...


I suspect that it's a cunningly* disguised reset, and now that Dave has agreed Jabba will restate his claim that if it is possible that materialism is wrong his existence under it is so unlikely that materialism must be wrong, and ignore the last five years of discussion.


*For very small values of cunning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom