Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
LL,
- Here's my previous answer to that objection.
Click to expand...


Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that you'd previously answered with gibberish or that you would continue to refuse to define the characteristics of the self that you think would be reincarnated.

Send me a PM if you choose to write anything that isn't nonsensical.
 
JayUtah said:
You do realize that's impossible under materialism. You do realize that you just admitted to adding something to materialism it does not have, and that this addition is required in order for your falsifying argument to work. You realize you just lost the debate.
Click to expand...

By now he MUST realize that he’s lost the debate.
 
Jabba,

Why are you unable to type the following sentence?

"I believe that what is being referred to as 'a perfect copy' of me would not be the true me because I have a religious faith based belief that the original would be imbued with a special, unique, and nontransferable soul placed there by God, something that would be missing in the copy."

We all know that's exactly what your actual opinion of the topic is. You've all but admitted it. This has been common and openly acknowledged since this debate started.

Just say that. It will still be wrong. But it will be honest.
 
Jabba said:
- Here, the new sense of self would be different in that regard -- and, we have no way of predicting "who" it will be instead.
Click to expand...
No, you are incorrect.

Of course we can predict the new self precisely. It would be an identical-but-separate you. Neither the original you nor the copy you nor anybody else would know which was the original you and which the copy.

How many times must this be said before you concede that you are mistaken in asserting that we all agree with you? Literally nobody agrees with you, which ought to give you pause.
 
Jabba said:
- Here, the new sense of self would be different in that regard -- and, we have no way of predicting "who" it will be instead.
Click to expand...

Yes we have. The new sense of self would be different in that it would be a different instance of the process. However, since the process would be identical, so would it's emerging property, the sense of self.

A copy of a mechanical object is (while identical) a separate object but identical processes are the same. This is because the process is defined only by its properties.

Example:

You have a CD with a piece of music.

You make a copy of the CD.

You now have two CDs, but no matter which you play, the music will be the same.

Hans
 
Agatha said:
No, you are incorrect.



Of course we can predict the new self precisely. It would be an identical-but-separate you. Neither the original you nor the copy you nor anybody else would know which was the original you and which the copy.



How many times must this be said before you concede that you are mistaken in asserting that we all agree with you? Literally nobody agrees with you, which ought to give you pause.
Click to expand...



Quantum theory suggests this may be an ongoing process that’s already happening. Each possibility may be spawning an entire separate universe which either forks off on its own or collapses back into a single universe that represents the “average” of the possibilities.

Billions of Jabbas may be spawned and destroyed every second, or even propagated outward through the universe. There may even have been a version that engaged in this debate honestly and with integrity, either spiraling out into an ever expanding multiverse, or erased from existence when the waveform was collapsed by the dominance of Jabbas who lie and evade.
 
JoeBentley said:
Jabba,

Why are you unable to type the following sentence?

"I believe that what is being referred to as 'a perfect copy' of me would not be the true me because I have a religious faith based belief that the original would be imbued with a special, unique, and nontransferable soul placed there by God, something that would be missing in the copy."

We all know that's exactly what your actual opinion of the topic is. You've all but admitted it. This has been common and openly acknowledged since this debate started.

Just say that. It will still be wrong. But it will be honest.
Click to expand...


What Jabba believes is irrelevant. He's supposedly arriving at a figure for the likelihood of his existence if materialism is true. All that matters in this context is whether immaterial souls exist if materialism is true. Jabba can believe whatever he wants to; immaterial souls do not exist if materialism is true.

But Jabba can't concede this because it is fatal to his argument.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
What Jabba believes is irrelevant. He's supposedly arriving at a figure for the likelihood of his existence if materialism is true. All the matters in this context is whether immaterial souls exist if materialism is true. Jabba can believe whatever he wants to; immaterial souls do not exist if materialism is true.
Click to expand...

Well I'm still of the opinion that we've pretty much gift wrapped that nonsense for him with the whole "According to materialism" disclaimer we're slapping on everything. I still say that's doing more harm than good.

Jabba has successfully (accidentally in an almost Mr. Bean way) argued us into a corner where we are treating "Reality is a valid concept" as just an opinion on an argumentative level.

"If materialism is true" is basically going "If magic and dream logic aren't valid ways of determining factual information." At some point we got thread nannied and hair split so hard we somehow got brow beaten into actually having to slap a disclaimer on "Reality" as a concept. I ca't believe we somehow got herded into having to constantly use a phrase which is functionally "Out mountains of evidence, facts, logical inference, consistent intellectual framework, argumentative and intellectual standards are only valid until you invoke magicdidit."

This has become a thing in a lot of Woo discussions but since Jabba obviously doesn't understand what we saying when we talk about "materialism" he doesn't see it as "The discussion is operating under the obvious fact that reality as a concept is valid" and just sees is as another bit of closed minded skeptical mumbo jumbo for him to overcome with his "holistic thinking."

I hate the term materialism. It devalues reality as a concept and introduces the idea of equally valid alternative methods which is... patently absurd. Now to be fair this is a Jabba discussion so it's not that weird; I mean we haven't got him on-board with "Death exists" and "1 and 2 aren't the same number" but I simply can't believe the Woo Slingers have convinced us that "Reality exists" is some concept we have to put in our arguments for completeness.
 
Last edited:
The emphasis on materialism, in my opinion, is rather artificial and comes from having to keep Jabba from trying to redefine what conditional probabilities are. Without the emphasis, Jabba tends to push the discussion toward the notion that P(E|H) must be very small because he thinks P(H) is very small. He doesn't believe in the materialist hypothesis, and that's fine. But P(E|H) must assume H is true. That's not to say it must be true in the global sense, of course. But it's to say that conditional probability must, you know, assert the condition.
 
I don't disagree in the abstract but I think... blurring the line between a pure thought experiment and Jabba's obvious attempt to write a narrative of him "proving" something in the real world does have... a downside.

Jabba's not trying to prove some esoteric or purely mathematical concept. This isn't a Supertask or Gabriel's Horn or a Koch snowflake or the Banach–Tarski Paradox or Thomson's Lamp or some other piece of mathematically true but practically impossible trivia.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- I've told you how I arrived at virtually zero -- 10-100 is simply a relatively "weak" (I could have used 10-1000) numerical replacement for virtually zero.
Click to expand...


Did your explanation involve 'potential selves" or suchlike? If so it is not valid.

Please either link to the post where you think you told us, or tell us again.
 
Mojo said:
What Jabba believes is irrelevant. He's supposedly arriving at a figure for the likelihood of his existence if materialism is true. All that matters in this context is whether immaterial souls exist if materialism is true. Jabba can believe whatever he wants to; immaterial souls do not exist if materialism is true.

But Jabba can't concede this because it is fatal to his argument.
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- If materialism is true, immaterial souls do not exist.
 
Mojo said:
Did your explanation involve 'potential selves" or suchlike? If so it is not valid.

Please either link to the post where you think you told us, or tell us again.
Click to expand...
- It did. I think that every sperm/ovum combination that never came about in all of time represents a potential self.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- If materialism is true, immaterial souls do not exist.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's what I said in the post you were replying to. And it means that their existence, or any consequence of their existence, can't be included in an assessment of the likelihood of an event under materialism.
 
Jabba said:
- It did. I think that every sperm/ovum combination that never came about in all of time represents a potential self.
Click to expand...


Their is no such thing as a "potential self" in the hypothesis that you claim to be trying to disprove. Consciousness is a process, not a thing.
 
Mojo said:
Yes, that's what I said in the post you were replying to. And it means that their existence, or any consequence of their existence, can't be included in an assessment of the likelihood of an event under materialism.
Click to expand...
- Yes. That's why the likelihood of my current existence under materialism is virtually zero.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- If materialism is true, immaterial souls do not exist.
Click to expand...

Do you think reality exists? Or should I say do you believe in "materialism" as I guess we have to call it now for some reason.

Jabba said:
- It did. I think that every sperm/ovum combination that never came about in all of time represents a potential self.
Click to expand...

I granted you every possible combination of matter in the known universe and explained why even then it would still be nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom