Proof of Immortality, VII

[carlitos]

I think we should continue with relevant Casablanca quotes.

Jabba, if you are immortal then:

"Who are you really, and what were you before? What did you do and what did you think"

You know what Jabba sounds like? Like a man who's trying to convince himself of something he doesn't believe in his heart.

ETA - Sorry for poking in here uninvited.

PPS - Oh geez, I was late with that post.

Jabba...

“You know how you sound…? Like a man who’s trying to convince himself of something he doesn’t believe in his heart.”

/Casablanca

 

[Dancing David]

- That was not all I said.
- Here's what I said about "who."
- By "who," I didn't mean which self-awareness was which. Instead, I was referring to the type of process/thing that we call "you" or "me." We know that the new self-awareness will not be you or me, but we have no idea "who" it will be. That's what I meant by "who." And not having a pool of potential self-awarenesses to draw from, how in the hell can we even guess who it will be?"

- But now, I'm thinking that I should have just said that "who" refers to the particular self-awareness. And not having a pool of potential self-awarenesses to draw from, how in the hell can we even guess who (what particular self-awareness) it will be?

The only reference to a process that is you or me is a physical body, the rest is a made up fantasy

 

[Dancing David]

LL,
- Do you accept that both sides are referring to the same kind of experience when we talk about particular selves.

Absolutely not you are using a made up term you can't even define clearly or explain

 

[JayUtah]

You know what Jabba sounds like? Like a man who's trying to convince himself of something he doesn't believe in his heart.

In one of his less desperate and accusatory periods, Jabba confided that he was deeply emotionally invested in the believe that he had an immortal soul. That's not surprising; so are many other people. But Jabba goes on to say that he's also invested in the notion that a mathematical proof of his belief is possible. He tells us it would be emotionally devastating to him were he to be unable to provide that proof.

That's what makes it all the more galling when he tries to tell us we must be color-blind if we can't see the genius of his proof. He's already admitted he isn't emotionally equipped to admit failure on this question. And he now expects his critics to consider the possibility that it's they who are blind, rather than he who is too emotionally distraught to face facts.

 

[sackett]

After you've been emotionally devastated by the failure of a teenage belief, what do you do? At the age of 74?

Get over it and feel better? Can such things be?

 

[John Jones]

- That was not all I said.
[...]

So now you know how we feel. <snicker>, <scorn>

 

[John Jones]

LL,
- Do you accept that both sides are referring to the same kind of experience when we talk about particular selves.

You are the only one talking about "particular selves".

 

[JayUtah]

You are the only one talking about "particular selves".

Eh, sorta. MRC_Hans is talking about it, but he's trying to bridge the gap in language and understanding between Jabba's choice of words and the concepts we see in the materialist hypothesis. I think it's fair to say that no one but Jabba is talking about "particular selves" in the way Jabba intends it to mean.

 

[RoboTimbo]

LL,
- Do you accept that both sides are referring to the same kind of experience when we talk about particular selves.

An adult groveling for agreement is am embarrassment.

You have permission to falsify any model you choose. Just be aware that falsifying some goofy one that includes a soul won't accomplish anything.

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- Do you accept that both sides are referring to the same kind of experience when we talk about particular selves.

No. First of all, the materialist model doesn't recognize any such thing as "particular selves." Second of all, you're not treating consciousness as an "experience," but as a thing.

There are also no "sides" to the issue. There's only the need to use the assumptions of materialism when calculating probability under materialism. Whatever you claim is your "side," is not the antithesis of materialism. It's just gibberish that even a well-versed Buddhist or Hindu would likely not even recognize.

You should take some time to speak to practitioners of eastern religions in order to actually learn their views. Then, you could speak with knowledge instead of pretending that your personal ignorance is equivalent to objective unknowability.

 

[John Jones]

Won't anyone agree just a tiny bit that Jabba is almost nearly a little correct? Boo hoo hoo!

 

[ferd burfle]

LL,
- Do you accept that both sides are referring to the same kind of experience when we talk about particular selves.

Okay campers, rise and shine! And don’t forget your booties 'cuz it’s cooold out there today!

Here we are again, Jabba. The same old equivocation, begging for agreement and “have youquit beating your wife ” dishonesty.

Remember this?

Dave,
- Sure. But, that doesn't mean that you should just accept acclaimed -- or apparent -- facts when they don't make sense to you. And actually, I'm sure that you have not done that -- just that your overall inference/conclusion regarding these issues (materialism and mortality) is different than mine.
- 'Unfortunately,' I have come to the tentative conclusion that reality is actually more than science (and cause and effect) can effectively address. IOW, I tend to believe in magic...

Ellipsis in the original

Minus the weasel word, you believe in magic. You admitted you base your claims on something that you can’t prove logically and for which in 5 years you’ve provided no evidence. There’s no basis for a skeptical argument on your part in the context of this admission.

Pack it in, please. Go enjoy your your life and your grandkids. Please quit wasting your life and our time.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- That was not all I said.

Jabba why does your "Effective Debate Method" allow you to ignore huge swaths of your opponents' arguments while still having the utter gall to take anyone to task for not addressing everything you say?

 

[John Jones]

Jabba why does your "Effective Debate Method" allow you to ignore huge swaths of your opponents' arguments while still having the utter gall to take anyone to task for not addressing everything you say?

Chutzpah, effrontery, impudence, impertinence, cheek, cheekiness, insolence, audacity, or temerity.

Jabba, pick your favorite.

 

[Loss Leader]

You know what Jabba sounds like? Like a man who's trying to convince himself of something he doesn't believe in his heart.

I grew up in the same county as Dr. Fred Zugibe, a Shroud-believer. He was a sane, sober and careful man. He wasn't just respected as a doctor and coroner, he was flat-out beloved. To this day, just the name Zugibe opens doors into government - Democrat, Republican, Monarchist, whatever.

And yet the man was obsessed with proving experimentally that the Shroud was real. He erected a giant cross in his garage, tied his son-in-law to it, dipped the whole thing in red paint and then pressed it against some cloth. He was, on this one and only issue, completely bonkers.

I never understood it. Faith is faith. Seeking proof, by definition, shows a lack of faith.

 

[Jabba]

None of that adds to the explanation of what you mean by "who".



It will be the self-awareness produced by that particular brain. That's who it is. Everything about it is determined by that particular brain. What information about it do you think we wouldn't have?

- "Who" refers to SSA (specific self-awareness). SSA is the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life, but that you think has only one finite life (existence), at most. (Unfortunately, referring to reincarnationists' belief seems to be the best way to make sure that listeners know to what I'm referring by "who" or "specific self-awareness.") You and I both accept that a perfect copy of my brain would not bring my SSA back to life -- but, we have no idea who, or which SSA, it would be. Without a pool to draw from, how could we even guess which SSA it would be?

 

[Dave Rogers]

- "Who" refers to SSA (specific self-awareness). SSA is the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life,

OK so far, because you're describing a particular class of hypotheses that are a subset (note: just a subset, not the complete set) of ~H.

but that you think has only one finite life (existence), at most.

You are not paying attention. No, we do not think any such thing; we think that the concept you are referring to is a meaningless one.

- (Unfortunately, referring to reincarnationists' belief seems to be the best way to make sure that listeners know to what I'm referring by "who" or "specific self-awareness.")

That's because the concept you're discussing only has a meaning within the framework of a reincarnationist belief system; you can't explain it in the context of H because it doesn't exist in the context of H.

You and I both accept that a perfect copy of my brain would not bring my SSA back to life -- but, we have no idea who, or which SSA, it would be. Without a pool to draw from, how could we even guess which SSA it would be?

No. At this point I think we have to call this a deliberate lie, because you're continuing to insist that everyone but you believes something they have stated repeatedly they do not believe. Stop telling this lie.

Dave

 

[halleyscomet]

- "Who" refers to SSA (specific self-awareness). SSA is the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life, but that you think has only one finite life (existence), at most. (Unfortunately, referring to reincarnationists' belief seems to be the best way to make sure that listeners know to what I'm referring by "who" or "specific self-awareness.") You and I both accept that a perfect copy of my brain would not bring my SSA back to life -- but, we have no idea who, or which SSA, it would be. Without a pool to draw from, how could we even guess which SSA it would be?

So, a soul.

You've wasted pages upon pages of posts in a rather pathetic bid to rename the rather basic, nearly universal, religious concept of the "soul." You're trying to rename a concept so common to the religions of the world that religions that LACK the concept of a soul are in the minority.

Do you honestly think we're all too stupid to see through such a inept attempt at subterfuge?

More importantly, WHY are you engaging in such a pathetic attempt at rhetorical meandering? What do you hope to gain from talking endlessly about a soul while inexplicably insisting that a different term be used for it?

 

[Monza]

- "Who" refers to SSA (specific self-awareness). SSA is the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life, but that you think has only one finite life (existence), at most. (Unfortunately, referring to reincarnationists' belief seems to be the best way to make sure that listeners know to what I'm referring by "who" or "specific self-awareness.") You and I both accept that a perfect copy of my brain would not bring my SSA back to life -- but, we have no idea who, or which SSA, it would be. Without a pool to draw from, how could we even guess which SSA it would be?

This has been addressed multiple times. A perfect copy of your brain would make a perfect copy of you. We would know exactly who it would be. It would be Jabba; a second, separate, distinct, but completely identical Jabba.

 

[Dave Rogers]

More importantly, WHY are you engaging in such a pathetic attempt at rhetorical meandering? What do you hope to gain from talking endlessly about a soul while inexplicably insisting that a different term be used for it?

So that he can at last say, "Right, you've agreed that materialism includes the concept of specific self-awareness; this is equivalent to the concept of a soul, which you've all stated is not included in materialism. Materialism therefore is invalid because it contains an internal contradiction, therefore I am immortal." Of course, there's a whole series of fatal errors in the second deduction there, but that doesn't stop him wanting to pretend that the first one is valid.

Dave