Proof of Immortality, VI

[JayUtah]

-- there is evidence for the religious concepts, it's just quite questionable.

Then, as we have said, it's not evidence. Number 4 in the list of individually fatal errors in your argument is that you don't understand what evidence is. We have had three full threads previously in which you attempted to shove your concept of evidence down people's throats, and have thereby demonstrated that you simply don't have any clue how to make an evidentiary case.

We start with your Shroud thread, in which you attempted to enter into evidence speculation and gossip. When your critics rightly rejected that, you threatened to stall the thread until your critics changed their minds. Because of the inherent flaw in your reasoning, you had to try to invent a new concept of "supportive" which served only to unsuccessfully hide your tactic of begging the question.

This led to your circumstantial evidence thread, which was your first attempt to sever the question of evidence from the way in which you were trying to use it. It ended in your dismal failure to grasp the concept of consilience of evidence, and to elevate your argument (once again) above begging the question. It featured such entertaining howlers as your inability to formulate an argument -- in your paradigm -- that could distinguish between "cat" and "not-dog."

Then there was your second attempt at severability, your anecdotal evidence thread. Despite your desperate efforts to equivocate between the different ways people think about anecdotes, once people saw what you were trying to do they completely disagreed with you and you abandoned the thread.

In line with that last failed attempt to discuss evidence intelligently, you have posted anecdotal attributions of near-death experiences and reincarnation. As you are well aware, none of that rises to the level of evidence. They are stories told among the faithful to keep the faith. Recently you attempted to argue that there was scientifically tenable evidence for reincarnation. But when your critics thoroughly analyzed that evidence, you were unwilling to even participate in the discussion. It is clear you either had not read the evidence or had no answer for your critics. Your "evidence" was therefore properly refuted.

When you dispute the lack of evidence for religion, you are simply lying. There's no other way to say it.

 

[Belz...]

It's either an experience or a delusion. It can't really be both.

Well yes, it can. Delusions are experiences, too.

 

[JayUtah]

Well yes, it can. Delusions are experiences, too.

Only if it has four legs.

 

[sackett]

Buddhism? Stale stuff. Jabba, try Taoism.

"The self that can be called the self is not the true self."

 

[JayUtah]

"The self that can be called the self is not the true self."

Right, it's a "potential self."

 

[sackett]

Right, it's a "potential self."

Thank you for not helping one bit.

 

[theprestige]

Dave,
- So far, I feel sure that we (including Buddhists) are all talking about the same experience -- we just disagree about its nature.

Time after time, it's been shown that you are talking about the experience and the nature together, trying to traduce agreement on experience into agreement on nature. It's the begged question at the heart of your claims about H.

Plus, given your track record, it's likely that you have no clue what Buddhists are actually talking about.

Plus, what Buddhists are talking about is irrelevant to this discussion. All that matters is what you're talking about. Which you can't explain, and you can't define. You appeal to the Buddhists, or the reincarnationists, or anyone else, and hope we'll supply our understanding of *their* definition, so that you are saved from having to actually define your own idea yourself.

 

[Toontown]

Buddhism? Stale stuff. Jabba, try Taoism.

"The self that can be called the self is not the true self."

Actually, what they say is "The Tao that can be described is not the true Tao."

Maybe Jabba has found the true Tao. And can't describe it.

 

[Jabba]

Actually, what they say is "The Tao that can be described is not the true Tao."

Maybe Jabba has found the true Tao. And can't describe it.

Toon,
- I don't know if you were being serious or not -- but, that is at least sort of where I think I'm at.
- I perceive the self as something that the vast majority of us take totally for granted when it's really the very last 'thing' we should take for granted. I think that scientifically speaking it's a total miracle. So far, I think it simply defies science.
- I had run into Taoism back in college and sort of fell in love, but hadn't consulted it since, and couldn't remember why I thought so highly of it back then. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[JayUtah]

I perceive the self as something that the vast majority of us take totally for granted when it's really the very last 'thing' we should take for granted.

Asked and answered. People are not somehow unenlightened for not thinking about self-awareness the way you do. Further, your personal emotional response to being self-aware is not evidence that you have a soul. It is not evidence that self-awareness is not a property of the organism under materialism. Do not substitute awe and wonderment for evidence, please.

I think that scientifically speaking it's a total miracle.

No. Science doesn't allow for miracles. When you say "scientifically speaking," you never know what you're talking about. You are not scientifically literate. So as a courtesy to your critics, some of whom are actual professional scientists, don't claim to speak for science. You're being very rude about this; please stop it.

So far, I think it simply defies science.

You tried this nonsense before. This is what you say as a lame excuse for why you have no scientifically tenable evidence for anything you claim. You just say that "whatever" it is you believe can't be seen by science, and therefore your beliefs can't be refuted by science. If it defies science then it stands to reason it should defy mathematics too. Where does that leave your proof? You keep trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[The Sparrow]

Toon,
- I don't know if you were being serious or not -- but, that is at least sort of where I think I'm at.

Ah, dodge # 678. Language is inadequate to describe the soul (which isn't a soul but is) that you are talking about.

- I perceive the self as something that the vast majority of us take totally for granted when it's really the very last 'thing' we should take for granted. I think that scientifically speaking it's a total miracle. So far, I think it simply defies science.

ah, dodge #213, the soul is special and magic and science can't explain it, ergo science is wrong about the soul, ergo presto immortal.

- I had run into Taoism back in college and sort of fell in love, but hadn't consulted it since, and couldn't remember why I thought so highly of it back then. Thanks for reminding me.

ah dodge #412, "Hey you all are like me, we are all just learning stuff together in this thread and we are all buddies who are having our ideas challenged, and we're all learning new things together.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- I perceive the self as something that the vast majority of us take totally for granted when it's really the very last 'thing' we should take for granted.

In H, it isn't a 'thing' so you can't refer to the process that way when trying to disprove H.

If you do, you are telling fibs.

 

[godless dave]

- Do you guys think that you experience the same thing/process that religious people call the "soul"?

Several people have answered this question. Are you going to respond to any of them?

 

[Loss Leader]

I perceive the self as something that the vast majority of us take totally for granted when it's really the very last 'thing' we should take for granted.

Then define it.

 

[Jabba]

Then define it.

LL,
- I've tried multiple times. That's why I tried to denote self as that which reincarnationists think comes back to life, or that which would be looking out two sets of eyes if it were actually duplicated.
- How about the barer of consciousness? The 'thing' that recognizes or experiences existence. Whatever it is that is aware.

 

[The Sparrow]

....
- How about the barer of consciousness? The 'thing' that recognizes or experiences existence. Whatever it is that is aware.

Hey, sounds like the description I gave a few posts back and that you either ignored or plagiarized.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11958312&postcount=1190


Anyway, what of it?

Why wouldn't a perfect copy of a person produce a second distinct observer.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- How about the barer of consciousness? The 'thing' that recognizes or experiences existence. Whatever it is that is aware.

Oh, you mean the brain. I'll grant that the brain exists.

 

[jsfisher]

LL,
- I've tried multiple times.

You could just say 'soul' then you would be done.

Be that as it may, how would that get you any closer to an estimate for P(E|H) where E is your sense of self and H is the materialistic hypothesis?

 

[Pixel42]

LL,
- I've tried multiple times. That's why I tried to denote self as that which reincarnationists think comes back to life, or that which would be looking out two sets of eyes if it were actually duplicated.
- How about the barer of consciousness? The 'thing' that recognizes or experiences existence. Whatever it is that is aware.

We call it consciousness and believe it's an ever changing process generated by the brain, you call it a soul and believe it's an unchanging entity that can be separated from the brain.

Now what?

When are you going to prove it's immortal?

 

[JayUtah]

I've tried multiple times.

No, you haven't. You've admitted several times that you can't for lack of language skills, and even a few times expressed doubt that it can be done at all by anyone. If you can't even define what you're trying to prove exists, you lose right away.

That's why I tried to denote self as that which reincarnationists think comes back to life...

That just defers the problem to defining "reincarnationists," which you similarly cannot do. Even now you're struggling with Buddhism, which believes in rebirth but not in a soul. After five years you still cannot get past the preliminaries that every successful proof must start with, so it's time to concede. You've wasted enough of your critics' time.

Further, it's highly disingenuous to define "the self" as something which is necessarily soul-like, such that you can just define your way to success. That's as beggy as a question can get. The observation, E, is that we are self-aware. The observation is not that we have a soul.

...or that which would be looking out two sets of eyes if it were actually duplicated.

This "looking out of two sets of eyes" phrase you keep falling back to is essentially meaningless. You're trying to define a soul in terms of what you think would happen in some hypothetical situation. For that reason it's twaddle, and we've asked you to stop using it in favor of more precise language. But it's clear at this point you have no more precise language. You literally don't know what you're trying to prove exists.

How about the barer of consciousness? The 'thing' that recognizes or experiences existence. Whatever it is that is aware.

Under materialism that's clearly the brain. Do you agree that's what materialism places in this role?