Proof of Immortality, VI

[Jabba]

You are defining them as addressing the same experience, but you are also defining that experience as including things that by definition are not part of materialism...

- One point is that I haven't been successful at defining the process -- so instead, I've tried to denote it, 'point' to it.
- And, I'm pretty sure that you recognize the experience I'm pointing to. I'm pretty sure that we have the same experience/process in mind.
- Then, both H and ~H are addressing that process. H claims that it is mortal; ~H claims that it's not. That is the issue being addressed in the formula.

 

[abaddon]

- One point is that I haven't been successful at defining the process -- so instead, I've tried to denote it, 'point' to it.
- And, I'm pretty sure that you recognize the experience I'm pointing to. I'm pretty sure that we have the same experience/process in mind.
- Then, both H and ~H are addressing that process. H claims that it is mortal; ~H claims that it's not. That is the issue being addressed in the formula.

Nope. Your claim is that H includes a soul but merely pretends that it does not. That is logically invalid.

 

[Belz...]

- One point is that I haven't been successful at defining the process -- so instead, I've tried to denote it, 'point' to it.

What does that even mean? Who cares if you can define the process or not? When are you going to demonstrate your claim?

- And, I'm pretty sure that you recognize the experience I'm pointing to.

Everybody knows what experience you refer to. We've told you dozens of times.

- Then, both H and ~H are addressing that process. H claims that it is mortal; ~H claims that it's not. That is the issue being addressed in the formula.

No it isn't. You've made no effort to address this.

 

[godless dave]

- And, I'm pretty sure that you recognize the experience I'm pointing to. I'm pretty sure that we have the same experience/process in mind.

We all do and we've said so. We've agreed on this in the past. I don't know why you're revisiting it now.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- One point is that I haven't been successful at defining the process -- so instead, I've tried to denote it, 'point' to it.

I love how you try to slide in "One point is that I haven't been successful at defining THE ENTIRE THING I AM TRYING TO PROVE... words words words" as if that some minor side nitpick.

You have utterly and completed failed at the most basic task of even presenting your argument to be argued. And not because you're doing it because it's"just too hard" You know damn well what you are arguing, we know damn well you are arguing. You just think dancing around playing with the language is going to fool anyone.

You're not a befuddled old man Jabba. You're Grand Maester Pycelle putting on a befuddled old man skit. Grow up.

- And, I'm pretty sure that you recognize the experience I'm pointing to. I'm pretty sure that we have the same experience/process in mind.

No because when you say "experience" you mean "experience + soul." You are not honest in your arguments Jabba. We know what you are doing. You have lost credibility and the benefit of the doubt at this point.

Stop trying to strong arm us into making a surface level agreement that you can spin off into something it isn't.

None of us are denying that we all "experience" a "sense of self." We are across the board denying that it requires a soul.

 

[JayUtah]

One point is that I haven't been successful at defining the process -- so instead, I've tried to denote it, 'point' to it.

"Define" and "denote" are just word games. You haven't been successful at back-dooring the soul concept into E, the data -- which is your real intent here. And you shouldn't be successful, because that's begging the question. And you know it's begging the question because you told us so, which is why you scramble frantically for other words to use that mean effectively a "soul" without coming right out and saying it. And you know the result is a straw-man argument because you've already conceded that what you're calling materialism isn't really materialism because you alter it by including a soul.

That's the sum total of it. You're just defibrillating the corpse of your argument and "denoting" that the resulting lifeless flopping about means some sort of progress.

And, I'm pretty sure that you recognize the experience I'm pointing to. I'm pretty sure that we have the same experience/process in mind.

No, we don't, because the let's/use/fifty/different/words you have in mind includes a soul, a concept you're trying to hide behind different words.

Then, both H and ~H are addressing that process.

No, the "process" you have in mind is an individualized soul. You're trying to get that accepted by trickery and entrapment as part of E, the data, so that H will have to explain it. Your whole argument is based on tricking people into agreeing that H has to explain self-awareness as the soul you conceive it being.

H claims that it is mortal; ~H claims that it's not.

No.

H claims that self-awareness is an emergent property of a functioning brain. You haven't told us what ~H is; in your formulation it's simply "everything that isn't materialism," but you don't realize that. You want "self-awareness" to mean "soul," such that it's part of E. As several people have warned you, you're simply trying to define your conclusion as being correct.

That is the issue being addressed in the formula.

Your formulation is nonsense, and has always been. We've explained why at length. You are simply unable to properly formulate a statistical inference because you don't understand what the parts of it are and how they fit together. This is one of several fatal flaws you know exist in your argument but refuse to talk about.

 

[Jabba]

We all do and we've said so. We've agreed on this in the past. I don't know why you're revisiting it now.

- You guys are saying that I'm not defining H correctly
- There is nothing wrong with H in the formula. H and ~H simply disagree about the nature of the self.

 

[Hokulele]

- One point is that I haven't been successful at defining the process -- so instead, I've tried to denote it, 'point' to it.
- And, I'm pretty sure that you recognize the experience I'm pointing to. I'm pretty sure that we have the same experience/process in mind.
- Then, both H and ~H are addressing that process. H claims that it is mortal; ~H claims that it's not. That is the issue being addressed in the formula.

No, the problem is that you aren't referring to a process at all. You are referring to a thing. You pretend to accept the fact that under materialism, there is no thing called a self, but you do not actually accept that truth. You desperately need to have people agree that there is a soul.

Begging the question is a terrible way to start a proof.

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, you explicitly said upthread that your H contained the consciousness that "reincarnationists" believe will return - which should only be in ~H.

Until you fix that, and ensure that you have a materialist-only H, there is really no point in progressing past point 1 of your fringe reset(s). Science does not recognise your "OOFLam", because it is not the materialist position.

Fix that, and then we might be able to move on.

 

[JayUtah]

You guys are saying that I'm not defining H correctly

You admitted you weren't. Remember the part where everyone in concert told you that you had just admitted to committing the straw-man fallacy you have been accused of for years?

There is nothing wrong with H in the formula.

Wiggling the straw man doesn't make it come to life, Jabba.

You already admitted that your version of materialism differed from what your critics cited as materialism. You are done right there, as far as a logical argument goes. You have made up caricature of H so that P(E|H) comes out to be a very small number, just as you announced ahead of time it would need to be in order for your proof to work.

More importantly, you have misformulated E so that it must include your notion of a soul. All the words you use to describe the observation that is the data, E, that is going to affect each hypothesis in your model boil down to a soul -- some severable entity that "brings me to life" or "looks out through two sets of eyes." As we have labored in vain to tell you, you have simply assumed part of your conclusion true as a premise to proving it is true -- specifically as a premise to disproving materialism. Materialism can't explain why you have a soul, therefore materialism is wrong and you must have a soul.

Really, Jabba, this is something a philosophy freshman can spot in an instant.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- You guys are saying that I'm not defining H correctly

No. Let us be very clear here. We are saying that you are intentionally defining it dishonestly, leaving out that part you seem to think we are all going to pretend you haven't made clear obviously exists.

You can't put the soul genie back in the argumentative bottle Jabba.

 

[abaddon]

<snip for brevity>
None of us are denying that we all "experience" a "sense of self." We are across the board denying that it requires a soul.

That's the game of attempting to insert a soul into H. It appears that Jabba believes that if he can insert a soul into H, he will attain some kind of victory while ignoring the fact that H is materialism by definition, which includes no souls at all regardless of what personal beliefs one may hold.

The bottom line is that H is materialism. Inserting ANYTHING else in there makes it ~H and it immediately moves to the other side of the equation.

Oh and a side note, I found it interesting that Jabba raised the whole Lanza/Chopra baloney. That torpedoes his hard line RCC attitude also.

It's probably quantum, WWWOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

 

[godless dave]

- You guys are saying that I'm not defining H correctly
- There is nothing wrong with H in the formula. H and ~H simply disagree about the nature of the self.

And the nature of the self in H is that if you made an exact copy of a person, you would have two identical selves that were not different in any way. Nothing about the experience we're discussing precludes that.

 

[abaddon]

- You guys are saying that I'm not defining H correctly

Yup. How many times must you be told? You are defining H incorrectly. If "souls" are inserted on both sides of your equation, they cancel out and "souls" are cancelled out. In consequence, souls are irrelevant to the argument.

- There is nothing wrong with H in the formula. H and ~H simply disagree about the nature of the self.

Wrong. You really, really, really, really, really want to insert into H things which do not belong in H.


Be clear. H is the posit that there are no supernatural elements to any "self". It matters not a whit what you or I or anyone else might believe. H is materialism pure and simple.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba you will ignore this. You will ignore because you cannot answer or address it without abandoning the act that is the core of this discussion for you.

Here is the difference Jabba. Nothing in our understanding of "The sense of self" requires it to be unique. On a practical level our "sense of self" contains for too many variables to be ever be duplicated but there's nothing intrinsic in the conceptual definition that requires it. If some magic machine was created that could zap me with a ray that duplicated me down to the atomic level, maintaining every particle perfectly, that new me would have the exact same "sense of self" as the original me and would be "me" as much as I am, neither or us would be able to tell if we were the original or the duplicate nor have anymore claim to title of the "true" me.

You think there's some magical soul in me put there by God, presumably one that nothing could duplicate so the new "me" would be lacking in something that made it the real, true "me." You think there is something separate, something added to the "self" from God that would not be there even if everything material was replicated perfectly.

THAT IS THE DISAGREEMENT. BLINK IF YOU UNDERSTAND ME.

 

[Belz...]

- You guys are saying that I'm not defining H correctly

Yeah, so stop trying to jam the soul into H.

 

[abaddon]

No. Let us be very clear here. We are saying that you are intentionally defining it dishonestly, leaving out that part you seem to think we are all going to pretend you haven't made clear obviously exists.

You can't put the soul genie back in the argumentative bottle Jabba.

Well, yes. five years of attempts to inject "souls" into H. "Consciousness", "self", "sense of self" and so forth, all euphemisms for a "soul" in camo.

IMHO, the "OOFLAM" baloney should have been more aggressively nailed down. H is really "You have this one life and that's it". The "at most" Jabba advances is another "jabbaquivocation" to imply that some doubt exists. Under H, logically no doubt exists unless Jabba can randomly insert one or more, and that is the goal.

Jabba seems to believe that if he can undermine H, then ~H must be true. This ignores the simple fact that ~H includes everything else, even things jabba does not like. And which the RCC considers heresy.

 

[The Sparrow]

Jabba, do you think that if you trick one of us into accidentally conceding one of your points, that makes the point true?

 

[abaddon]

Jabba, do you think that if you trick one of us into accidentally conceding one of your points, that makes the point true?

Interesting question. I would like to see Jabba's answer.

 

[RoboTimbo]

SOdhner,
- I'm claiming that H and ~H are addressing the same experience. Are you disagreeing with that?

So you're ok with them both referring to the process of consciousness?