Proof of Immortality, VII

[godless dave]

- "Who" refers to SSA (specific self-awareness).

I understand that. What makes you think I don't?

A specific brain produces a specific self-awareness.

You and I both accept that a perfect copy of my brain would not bring my SSA back to life

Exactly as we would expect if a specific self awareness is produced by a specific brain. Two brains obviously can't produce the same self awareness, because they're not the same brain.

-- but, we have no idea who, or which SSA, it would be.

What information about it wouldn't we have?

Remember, in the materialist model, a self awareness isn't "drawn" at all. A living human brain is self aware (while it's awake).

 

[halleyscomet]

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.

Science fiction enjoys playing with this concept. Both star Trek and Farscape for example had plots where characters were duplicated in such a way as to render the concept of which was the "real" one immaterial. They were typically used to explore how different life experiences can shape a person's actions and evolution.

Comic Books are riddled with "parallel universe" versions of characters. While often used as an easy way to introduce a cast of characters with opposing morality it can also be used to explore the impact our decisions have upon us over the course of our lives.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

What does that have to do with the materialist model, which is what you're trying to falsify?

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

No, that's your immortal lie. Is it a different immortal lie because it's a new instance of it?

So, anyway. Stop with the immortal lie.

(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.")

Actually, this is another lie. Everyone has told you that they know you are referring to a soul. You've explicity stated that you're referring to a soul. The best way would be for you to refer to it as a "soul".

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.

More lying. Nobody else accepts that self-awareness is alive. It is a process. You continue to lie when you refer to a process in the materialist model as "alive" and when you claim that others agree with you.

Without a pool to draw from, how could we even guess which SSA it would be?

Without a pool of "going 60 mph" to draw from, how could we even being to guess which "going 60 mph" a Volkswagen is going?

You are consistent in your lying.

 

[Loss Leader]

- "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?

Really, Jabba? Really? You asked me a question. I answered it and then you ignored my answer? Is that effective debate? Is it anything other than rude?

In any case, you are once again citing the beliefs of reincarnationists incorrectly. First of all, you're doing it to avoid setting out any sort of definition yourself. The question remains: What characteristics of an individual do you think are reincarnated? Does the person even remember his past life? Do they both dislike anchovies? What is your particular definition?

Second, you cannot invoke reincarnationists because you refuse to find out what they actually believe. You could get any one of a thousand books on various eastern religions. You could spend three days on a Buddhist forum asking questions. You could even watch a video on YouTube. The fact that you won't indicates that you have no intention of ever refining your argument. Your goal is just to repeat it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- "Who" refers to SSA (specific self-awareness).

Jabba do you think making up new acronyms keeps us from seeing through your arguments?

You're talking about a soul Jabba. We know. You know. You've admitted it. We know you've admitted it. You know that we know.

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?

That's all jibberish.

*Very, very, very slowly as if speaking to a small, perhaps mentally challenged child.*

The term "who" as used in general day to day usage does not magically define the natural, explainable mental processing that goes on in the human brain as some magical Woo-woo Soul put there by God.

We are not disagreeing with your statements, we are dismissing them as meaningless gibberish. We DO EVER LOVING EFFING NOT accept the childish "Have you stopped beating your wife" duality you are trying to force our answers into.

We are NOT agreeing to the things you claim we are agreeing to. You have NOT trapped us in some Gotcha.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So it seems the final hairsplit will be Jabba pretending that "same but seperate" is a concept that cannot apply to human identify because of... reasons.

"But it wouldn't be the saaaaaaaame!" better be all you put in your "Roadmap" of your argument Jabba.

 

[Monza]

Science fiction enjoys playing with this concept. Both star Trek and Farscape for example had plots where characters were duplicated in such a way as to render the concept of which was the "real" one immaterial. They were typically used to explore how different life experiences can shape a person's actions and evolution.

Comic Books are riddled with "parallel universe" versions of characters. While often used as an easy way to introduce a cast of characters with opposing morality it can also be used to explore the impact our decisions have upon us over the course of our lives.

Someone (sorry, can't remember who) brought this up a couple weeks ago. He described a Star Trek TNG episode that illustrated this concept perfectly.

You are correct that sci-fi is littered with this concept. I just thought of another one: Back to the Future Part 2. There is a point in the movie where Marty McFly goes back to 1955 again. While there he sees himself performing the actions from the first movie. This is a funny moment as he tries to avoid interrupting himself and stopping the events from the first movie. But the important concept here is that at this point in time, there are two Marty McFlys. Each one is the "real" McFly, even though they are separate.

Jabba can't seem to grasp the fact that to duplicate something results in two of that something.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba can't seem to grasp the fact that to duplicate something results in two of that something.

Oh he understands it perfectly, he's just going through this shtick because he thinks it means he's trapped his opponents in some contradiction he can "gotcha" them over so he can finally act out his version of the big scene where Tom Cruise has Jack Nicholson on the stand in A Few Good Men.

Jabba still thinks he's winning (or again thinks he's writing a story where his character is winning). He thinks he's got us on the ropes with his brilliant "But it wouldn't be the same and you agree with me because you are saying they are different" argument.

Jabba's core dishonest conceit right now is to pretend we have't been clear in what we mean between "distinct" and "different" so he can continue writing the narrative so it plays out that we are being inconsistent.

Again there is no possible way to look at this as an argument. It only makes sense in the framework of someone writing a story. Even the worst argumentatives have to at least acknowledge the other sides arguments, if only to dismiss or misconstrue them.

Jabba really does think he can get something intellectually meaningful out of throwing every possible variation on the same argument against the wall until something sticks, ignoring every opponent's argument that he can't argue against (which at this point is all of them and which at every point was most all of them) and taking all that and using it as the building blocks to write the self insert fanfic he dreams of where he uses his patented effective debate method to prove that skeptics aren't "holistic" thinkers therefore he's immortal.

 

[halleyscomet]

Oh he understands it perfectly, he's just going through this shtick because he thinks it means he's trapped his opponents in some contradiction he can "gotcha" them over so he can finally act out his version of the big scene where Tom Cruise has Jack Nicholson on the stand in A Few Good Men.

Jabba still thinks he's winning (or again thinks he's writing a story where his character is winning). He thinks he's got us on the ropes with his brilliant "But it wouldn't be the same and you agree with me because you are saying they are different" argument.

Jabba's core dishonest conceit right now is to pretend we have't been clear in what we mean between "distinct" and "different" so he can continue writing the narrative so it plays out that we are being inconsistent.

Again there is no possible way to look at this as an argument. It only makes sense in the framework of someone writing a story. Even the worst argumentatives have to at least acknowledge the other sides arguments, if only to dismiss or misconstrue them.

Jabba really does think he can get something intellectually meaningful out of throwing every possible variation on the same argument against the wall until something sticks, ignoring every opponent's argument that he can't argue against (which at this point is all of them and which at every point was most all of them) and taking all that and using it as the building blocks to write the self insert fanfic he dreams of where he uses his patented effective debate method to prove that skeptics aren't "holistic" thinkers therefore he's immortal.

Jabba is trying to Mary Sue himself into immortality.

 

[Jabba]

...
A specific brain produces a specific self-awareness...

- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.

 

[godless dave]

- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.

We don't? What information don't we have about it?

 

[JayUtah]

- "Who" refers to SSA (specific self-awareness). SSA is...

No, Jabba. Trying to hide your foists behind acronyms is no more successful than trying to hide them in quotes or by underlining ambiguous words. Turning your private ideas into acronyms does not suddenly endow them with legitimacy, as if they were well-known, well-defined, well-studied principles.

Nor does rendering an acronym change the fact that you're really trying to say "soul." Nor does it hide the fact that you're trying deliberately and desperately to conflate a property with a discrete entity. Since you attempt these deceptions on a daily basis, and get caught on a daily basis, perhaps you'll soon figure out that it doesn't work and thereafter stop insulting the intelligence of your critics.

SS is the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life...

No. You have been invited several times to inform yourself on reincarnation. Now it's just time to call a spade a spade. Most reincarnationists are not, in fact, animists. And it is exactly the animist assumption that you need in your theory in order to get something countable. As is common in your argument, you remain profoundly ignorant of the topics that apply to it.

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."

Except that you don't know what reincarnationists believe. It's therefore not a clarification but a cop-out. You don't want to be pinned down to a specific idea of immortality or a soul because then you'll have to admit you have no evidence for it. You just want to falsify materialism and say that some vague immortalityish hypothesis "must" hold instead.

But you know this, because it's Fatal Flaw no. 5 in this list I can prove you know about, but which you are now frantically pretending doesn't exist. You vacillate between H as a singular hypothesis and ~H as a singular hypothesis.

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.

No, no one agrees to that. In fact there is strong disagreement over your continued use of ambiguous language ("bring back to life") and your insistence on blurring the meanings of "distinct" and "identical."

And of course this is the same discussion we had yesterday, the day before, last week, last month, and last year. Your "effective" debate hasn't progressed beyond stating your beliefs and lying about whether people agree with them.

Without a pool to draw from, how could we even guess which SSA it would be?

For the third time, because the definition of materialism requires it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.

What you mean is "We don't know which soul will inhabit it," and as you've repeatedly been told this is a meaningless statement under materialism.

Dave

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.

THE EXACT SAME SELF-AWARENESS

IF IT'S SAME, IT'S THE SAME! THAT'S WHAT SAME MEANS!

HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW HOW WORDS WORK?

An exact replica of you would be another you. There would be two yous, neither one more you than the other other. It would have the exact same self-awareness.

"Specific" is a weasel word.

 

[JayUtah]

- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.

Yes, we do. For the fourth time, because materialism requires it to be identical to the original. Self-awareness is a property of the material under materialist, because all that is observable under materialism is a property of the material. Duplicate the material exactly and you must duplicate its properties exactly.

 

[halleyscomet]

- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.

So what?

What does your lazy, unfounded, assertion suggest?

 

[halleyscomet]

 

[godless dave]

This thread has now descended to the point where posting memes actually improves it.

 

[jond]

- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.

Seriously, Jabba, this is the most ridiculous thing you've posted.

 

[JayUtah]

Seriously, Jabba, this is the most ridiculous thing you've posted.

And possibly also the most blatantly insulting, since the repudiation of the statement was previously given multiple times by multiple people. It's pretty in-your-face rude to ignore what people say and then claim there's a "communication difficulty" and insinuate that they're all blind.