Proof of Immortality, VI

[RoboTimbo]

Correct. But since it is viewed as a process in the brain, it completely invalidates his entire premise.

But as long as he can continue the sham of saying "Gee, I totally don't get that you guys are talking about a process while I'm talking about a discrete thing." then he can continue the discussion.

Continuing the discussion is the lifeblood of fringe claimants, not proving anything. I don't see why he couldn't go at least another five years using the same techniques.

 

[Belz...]

SOdhner,
- I gotta say, in its frustration, this is really interesting -- we just keep passing in the night...
- I can't seem to communicate what I'm trying to communicate...
- I keep thinking that somewhere out there are better words that would actually communicate...
- But so far, no luck.

If you bothered to read what people write you'd realise that you've communicated quite clearly: you're just wrong.

- The basic question right now is whether or not H and ~H are referring to the same experience of "self."

No, that is completely irrelevant. If they both refer to the same self, you still need to address H, which is not something you've done.

My claim is that they are, and what you guys are siting as different definitions, are not "definitions" at all -- but rather, claims about the nature of self.

Again that's completely irreelvant. You're discussing H, and so you must use its actual definition, not yours.

- I'm crossing my fingers...

No you're not.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I gotta say, in its frustration, this is really interesting -- we just keep passing in the night.

No. You are being deliberately obtuse so you can pretend you just being thick is "trying to find a common ground."

Multiple people in this thread have broken down their issues with your nonsense into parts simple enough for a child to follow.

We can't find a common ground because you refuse to dig yourself out of your pit of intellectual absurdity. You have put zero motion into your arguments.

I can't seem to communicate what I'm trying to communicate.

Bull. You can't "communicate what you are trying to communicate" in a way that's going to slip under your opponents radar in a way you can twist into a "win" for the story you are writing in your head.

I keep thinking that somewhere out there are better words that would actually communicate.

Again the problem is that your basic conceptual point of opinion is intellectually indefensible gibberish.

We are see through your silly word games and here you are all but admitting it.

The basic question right now is whether or not H and ~H are referring to the same experience of "self."

No the basic question is whether or not we have souls. Stop pretending it is not.

My claim is that they are, and what you guys are siting as different definitions, are not "definitions" at all -- but rather, claims about the nature of self.

My eye sockets are not deep enough for the eye roll that is in my heart right now.

 

[Waterman]

- The basic question right now is whether or not H and ~H are referring to the same experience of "self." My claim is that they are, and what you guys are siting as different definitions, are not "definitions" at all -- but rather, claims about the nature of self.
- And, a specific aspect of that nature is what our debate is all about and is spelled out in OOFLam and ~OOFLam. H is OOFLam -- and, OOFLam claims that the self is mortal...
- I'm crossing my fingers...

It is my position that all humans have similar experiences of self-awareness. Where we differ in interpreting how they manifest and the source.

In the materialist view the self (self-awareness) is the result of a continuing process of biology and memory that gradually shifts with time which allows for a feeling of continuity. Trauma, drugs or disease can radically alter this process. When the body is no longer functioning in a manner to allow this process to continue, self-awareness is either suspended (sleep or coma) or ceases (death or vegetative state). This is supported by the available evidence.

See the materialist definition of self isn't that hard. If you are struggling so to put the concepts into words adequately perhaps it is because the concept in your mind is ill defined or perhaps non-existent.

On mortality. The body is mortal but the self is a process and processes do not have the property of mortality or immortality in the same way that running does not. Is running mortal or immortal?

On a somber note... have you ever been up close and personal on a day to day basis with a person suffering form dementia or alzhiemers? If so them tell me how this jives with your model of self.

What do you believe is missing from the MATERIALIST definition that would be consistent from the MATERIALIST position (H).

 

[Pooneil]

- I gotta say, in its frustration, this is really interesting -- we just keep passing in the night...
- I can't seem to communicate what I'm trying to communicate...
- I keep thinking that somewhere out there are better words that would actually communicate...
- But so far, no luck.

You've succeeded beyond expectations as performance art. Your up there with inadvertent masters such as Donald Rumsfeld. Jabba, you're looking for the glass box of your youth.

Glass Box
You know, it's the old glass box at the—
At the gas station,
Where you're using those little things
Trying to pick up the prize,
And you can't find it.
It's—

And it's all these arms are going down in there,
And so you keep dropping it
And picking it up again and moving it,
But—

Some of you are probably too young to remember those—
Those glass boxes,
But—

But they used to have them
At all the gas stations
When I was a kid.

—Donald Rumsfeld. Dec. 6, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing

 

[Mojo]

- I can't seem to communicate what I'm trying to communicate...

Sorry, Jabba, but you're begging the question again, this time by assuming that you are trying to communicate. The evidence of your equivocation and obfuscation suggests quite strongly that you are trying not to communicate.

 

[The Sparrow]

......
On a somber note... have you ever been up close and personal on a day to day basis with a person suffering form dementia or alzhiemers? If so them tell me how this jives with your model of self.
...

I've tried this line of challenging. What they claim is the radio receiver is broken, but the signal is still intact.

So the soul is perfect and working, its only the broadcasting of this soul through the mind that is broken.

 

[Mojo]

On a somber note... have you ever been up close and personal on a day to day basis with a person suffering form dementia or alzhiemers?

Yes, my great-aunt. Towards the end she was almost completely incapable of assimilating new information, or remembering what people had said. Visiting her involved repeatedly having the same conversation and answering the same questions.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah I tried the "How does brain damage / degradation work with a soul" argument with Jabba before. I brought up Alzheimers, lobotomies, hemispherectomies, even Phineas Gage.

I'm going to shock you but I never got anything that could be considered even an attempt at an answer.

 

[Monza]

- And, a specific aspect of that nature is what our debate is all about and is spelled out in OOFLam and ~OOFLam. H is OOFLam -- and, OOFLam claims that the self is mortal...

That does not mean that ~H is equal to immortality. ~H is everything else but H. What if we all live once, die, and are then reincarnated exactly one time, then die again never to exist again? That's OTFLam. That is included in ~H. That is not immortality.

 

[Jabba]

I really think that you should explain why having a sense of self is relevant to your argument at all...

SOdhner,
- OOFLam is the hypothesis that we each have only one finite life at most. The "we each" refers to our senses of self.

 

[Jabba]

That does not mean that ~H is equal to immortality. ~H is everything else but H. What if we all live once, die, and are then reincarnated exactly one time, then die again never to exist again? That's OTFLam. That is included in ~H. That is not immortality.

Monza,
- Way back when, I took that possibility into account. More recently, I concluded that the prior probability of that hypothesis/possibility wasn't large enough to worry about.

 

[theprestige]

SOdhner,
- OOFLam is the hypothesis that we each have only one finite life at most. The "we each" refers to our senses of self.

OOFLam is a parody of the scientific explanation for the sense of self.

 

[Mojo]

SOdhner,
- OOFLam is the hypothesis that we each have only one finite life at most. The "we each" refers to our senses of self.

"Senses of self", under H, are brain processes, which cease when those brains cease to function, and are not the same from minute to minute. The "sense of self" you had when you started reading this post no longer exists.

 

[theprestige]

Monza,
- Way back when, I took that possibility into account.

We remember. You made a half-assed attempt at seeming to account for the possibility.

More recently, I concluded that the prior probability of that hypothesis/possibility wasn't large enough to worry about.

We remember. You made a half-assed attempt at justifying your failure of diligence, by appealing to your half-assed accounting sham.

 

[JoeMorgue]

SOdhner,
- OOFLam is the hypothesis that we each have only one finite life at most. The "we each" refers to our senses of self.

Jabba no one here is required to argue using the dishonest made up terms you have created or to pretend the argument exists only in the dichotomy you are clumsily trying to force us on.

OOFLam isn't a thing. It's a made up confusing term you are using to try and force the argument to follow your script.

For the eleventyth billionth time. WE'RE NOT STUPID JABBA. We know what you are doing.

 

[Mojo]

Monza,
- Way back when, I took that possibility into account. More recently, I concluded that the prior probability of that hypothesis/possibility wasn't large enough to worry about.

You have a remarkable ability to do that with anything that is fatal to your argument.

 

[jond]

"Senses of self", under H, are brain processes, which cease when those brains cease to function, and are not the same from minute to minute. The "sense of self" you had when you started reading this post no longer exists.

It's almost as if Jabba refuses to entertain this notion... no wait, he absolutely refuses to entertain this notion.

 

[Jabba]

It is my position that all humans have similar experiences of self-awareness. Where we differ in interpreting how they manifest and the source.

In the materialist view the self (self-awareness) is the result of a continuing process of biology and memory that gradually shifts with time which allows for a feeling of continuity. Trauma, drugs or disease can radically alter this process. When the body is no longer functioning in a manner to allow this process to continue, self-awareness is either suspended (sleep or coma) or ceases (death or vegetative state). This is supported by the available evidence...

Waterman,
- I basically agree with all that except that according to OOFLam my 'movie' never played before, will never play again and never had to play in the first place -- so, according to OOFLam it's pretty damned unlikely that my movie would happen to be playing in 2017 (Gregorian calendar).

 

[Loss Leader]

- The basic question right now is whether or not H and ~H are referring to the same experience of "self." My claim is that they are, and what you guys are siting as different definitions, are not "definitions" at all -- but rather, claims about the nature of self.
- And, a specific aspect of that nature is what our debate is all about and is spelled out in OOFLam and ~OOFLam. H is OOFLam -- and, OOFLam claims that the self is mortal...
- I'm crossing my fingers...

Gibberish. H is the materialist model in which the sense of self is an ever-changing process. It is the result of several systems working independently and then synthesizing their information. It is not a thing. It is a process of the body itself (working correctly).

Until you accept that this is the H that you personally have defined, you will get nowhere.

Instead, you will keep switching between Bayes and syllogisms, mixing up what you want to go where and never clearly defining either H or ~H or anything else.