Proof of Immortality, VII

[jond]

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.

Indeed.

 

[Dancing David]

- "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?

Muwahaha

So you mean soul, ha ha ha ha

It does not exist under the materialist perspective

 

[Dancing David]

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

It certainly does, materialism says that it is a transitory event of limited time and duration

You only assume it is persistent

 

[halleyscomet]

It certainly does, materialism says that it is a transitory event of limited time and duration

You only assume it is persistent

I've found the explanation for the entire thread!!! This has all been an elaborate setup by Jabba to reference this Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal web comic!

 

[JoeMorgue]

You laugh but there's a SMBC so dead on about this very thread, as in it's an attempt to make an over the top parody of Bayesian statistics so ludicrous that it is essentially Jabba's exact argument, that I'm halfway ready to think Zach Weinersmith is somehow aware of this thread.

https://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4127

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

This is a lie. You've referred to self-awareness as a process of the organism. The self-awareness will be the self-awareness exhibited by the organism.

If you mean "soul", that isn't part of the materialist model, which is what you're trying to falsify. It is a lie to continually try to shoehorn one into the materialist model when you know it doesn't belong there.

Everyone knows you are lying about it and you will be called on it every time you do it.

 

[halleyscomet]

You laugh but there's a SMBC so dead on about this very thread, as in it's an attempt to make an over the top parody of Bayesian statistics so ludicrous that it is essentially Jabba's exact argument, that I'm halfway ready to think Zach Weinersmith is somehow aware of this thread.

https://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4127

I had forgotten about that one.

SMBC appears to handle the edge cases where an XKCD does not (yet) exist.

 

[Mojo]

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

Yes, we do: it will be the self-awareness produced by that specific brain.

Once again, you are begging the question. Using "which" instead of "who" doesn't change that, and nor does underlining it. Under materialism, there are no independently existing souls.

 

[barehl]

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

You mean this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guf

This same ridiculous notion was used with a different shade of lipstick in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game series. Of course, Card also had trees with souls.

As others have tried to explain to you, we don't manufacture an engine and then embue it with motoricity to get it to run. We don't put paint on a canvas and then give it the mysterious picturicity to make a visible image. We don't put words in a book and then inject that book with novelicity to evoke a meaningful story. Each of these is nothing more than its parts. So too is the brain. Nothing more.

 

[The Sparrow]

...we don't manufacture an engine and then embue it with motoricity to get it to run....

I LIKE that. I like that a lot.

 

[Mojo]

I LIKE that. I like that a lot.

Yes, the ideas of motoricity, pictureicity and novelicity are perfect analogies to the soul, but I guarantee that Jabba will find himself inexplicably unable to understand them.

 

[Jabba]

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

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

- This is where we can't seem to communicate.
- By "specific self-awareness," I mean the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life. You have the same kind of experience, but don't think it will ever return to life. I think you know the experience to which I refer.
- Neither of us thinks that producing a perfect copy of my brain would bring ME back to life, nor do we believe that replicating your brain would bring YOU back to life. We both believe that replicating your brain would produce a new specific self-awareness, but we have no idea WHO that would be.
- That's the info we don't have -- but apparently, you and I don't have the same experience in mind by "that which a reincarnationist thinks returns," by "ME," "You" or "WHO.

- Fortunately, that shouldn't matter...
- Here, my objective is to determine the likelihood of the current existence of my SSA, given OOFLam -- and, I think that you now agree that 1/10¹⁰⁰ is a reasonable estimate. If you don't agree, that's what we need to be talking about.

 

[jond]

- This is where we can't seem to communicate.
- By "specific self-awareness," I mean the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life. You have the same kind of experience, but don't think it will ever return to life. I think you know the experience to which I refer.
- Neither of us thinks that producing a perfect copy of my brain would bring ME back to life, nor do we believe that replicating your brain would bring YOU back to life. We both believe that replicating your brain would produce a new specific self-awareness, but we have no idea WHO that would be.
- That's the info we don't have -- but apparently, you and I don't have the same experience in mind by "that which a reincarnationist thinks returns," by "ME," "You" or "WHO.

- Fortunately, that shouldn't matter...
- Here, my objective is to determine the likelihood of the current existence of my SSA, given OOFLam -- and, I think that you now agree that 1/10¹⁰⁰ is a reasonable estimate. If you don't agree, that's what we need to be talking about.

What part of “the experience is a process happening in your brain” do you not understand? That is the materialistic model. You keep insisting that WHO is a separate entity and insisting that the materialistic needs to include that separate entity. You are wrong.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, the ideas of motoricity, pictureicity and novelicity are perfect analogies to the soul, but I guarantee that Jabba will find himself inexplicably unable to understand them.

That's not a problem; first, say that you're sure he'd understand the concepts if only you could find the proper words to express them, then just tell him outright that he agrees with you that these are valid analogies for the experience that we all collectively refer to as the soul.

Dave

 

[godless dave]

- This is where we can't seem to communicate.
- By "specific self-awareness," I mean the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life. You have the same kind of experience, but don't think it will ever return to life. I think you know the experience to which I refer.
- Neither of us thinks that producing a perfect copy of my brain would bring ME back to life, nor do we believe that replicating your brain would bring YOU back to life. We both believe that replicating your brain would produce a new specific self-awareness, but we have no idea WHO that would be.
- That's the info we don't have -- but apparently, you and I don't have the same experience in mind by "that which a reincarnationist thinks returns," by "ME," "You" or "WHO.

I'm pretty confident we do have the same experience in mind. What I'm asking about is what this means:

we have no idea WHO that would be.

"Who" means "which person". That's the literal meaning of the word. If we know which self awareness we're talking about, and we know which brain is experiencing self awareness, then we know who it is. What about that self awareness don't we know?

 

[halleyscomet]

- By "specific self-awareness," I mean the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life. You have the same kind of experience, but don't think it will ever return to life. I think you know the experience to which I refer.

And those would be?

- Here, my objective is to determine the likelihood of the current existence of my SSA, given OOFLam -- and, I think that you now agree that 1/10¹⁰⁰ is a reasonable estimate. If you don't agree, that's what we need to be talking about.

Nope. Lying about the supernatural nature of what you're arguing to try and cram it into a materialistic paradigm won't help you, it will only highlight your attempts at deception.

Your efforts at being deliberately vague are pathetic and transparent. Your arguments may very well be the worst I've yet seen from a woo-woo proponent on this forum and I've talked to people who insist they're God with the only "poof" being their say-so. They, at least, have the basic decency to admit there's a supernatural component to their claims.

 

[Dave Rogers]

- By "specific self-awareness," I mean the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life.

Yes, we know you mean "soul".

I think you know the experience to which I refer.

Yes, we know that what you're describing as "the experience to which I refer" is the soul.

Neither of us thinks that producing a perfect copy of my brain would bring ME back to life, nor do we believe that replicating your brain would bring YOU back to life.

You know that this is a lie. Stop repeating it.

We both believe that replicating your brain would produce a new specific self-awareness, but we have no idea WHO that would be.

You know that nobody else in the thread believes this. Stop lying about it.

Here, my objective is to determine the likelihood of the current existence of my SSA, given OOFLam -- and, I think that you now agree that 1/10¹⁰⁰ is a reasonable estimate.

No, nobody agrees that this is a reasonable estimate; everybody but you agrees that it's a completely irrelevant number extracted from a nether orifice.

Dave

 

[jond]

What part of “the experience is a process happening in your brain” do you not understand? That is the materialistic model. You keep insisting that WHO is a separate entity and insisting that the materialistic needs to include that separate entity. You are wrong.

As for the math:

1: What is the likelihood of your brain existing? In the materialistic model, the likelihood of your “self” existing is exactly the same as your brain existing. Because the self is a process that your brain does.

2: What is the likelihood of your self existing as a separate entity? Whatever number you pull out of your rear end really doesn’t matter: because your “self” still involves your brain, so you also need to account for that as well.

Run the numbers, pick whatever number you want for each. The likelihood of 1 alone will always be at minimum equal to 1 & 2, and in reality will be much more likely than 1 & 2.

You know this, of course, and therefore continue to insists that the materialistic model is missing something, but it isn’t. All your whining about it isn’t me is nonsense.

ETA: oops, on my iPad and quoted myself instead of Jabba. Not that it matters as he’s going to ignore it anyway.

 

[The Sparrow]

- This is where we can't seem to communicate.....

That's because you ignore responses.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- This is where we can't seem to communicate.

No, this is where YOU refuse to communicate. You dishonestly ignore the rebuttals to your nonsense and then lie about people agreeing with you.

- By "specific self-awareness," I mean the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life SOUL.

FTFY. Please start being honest when you post.

You have the same kind of experience, but don't think it will ever return to life.

You agree that saying that an "experience" can "return to life" is an idiotic thing to say.

I think you know the experience to which I refer.

You aren't referring to an experience, you're referring to a soul. Yes, we know.

- Neither of us thinks that producing a perfect copy of my brain would bring ME back to life, nor do we believe that replicating your brain would bring YOU back to life.

This is outright dishonesty. You mean that replicating you would mean a new soul. A thing. Please refrain from this type of dishonesty in future.

We both believe that replicating your brain would produce a new specific self-awareness, but we have no idea WHO that would be.

This is an outright lie. You've been told dozens of times that in the materialist model, the self-awareness is a process of the particular organism. You don't have permission to stick a soul into the materialist model.

- That's the info we don't have

Outright lie. See above.

-- but apparently, you and I don't have the same experience in mind by "that which a reincarnationist thinks returns," by "ME," "You" or "WHO.

Frankly, you have no clue what "reincarnationists" think. What you think is "SOUL". Everyone knows it. You're dishonestly conflating a thing with a process.

- Fortunately, that shouldn't matter...

Unfortunately for you, it matters a great deal. A sense of self in the materialist model is a process of the organism. No souls need apply.

- Here, my objective is to determine the likelihood of the current existence of my SSA SOUL, given OOFLam MY MADE UP NONSENSE

You have permission to falsify any goofy model you choose but if it isn't the materialist model then you're wasting your time.

-- and, I think that you now agree that 1/10¹⁰⁰ is a reasonable estimate. If you don't agree, that's what we need to be talking about.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.