Proof of Immortality, VII

[jond]

- No. I should have included, "And, the fact that I am set apart."
- I'm running out of time for this morning...

Not under the materialistic model, which you agreed to on December 27.

 

[Belz...]

- No. I should have included, "And, the fact that I am set apart."

It's not a fact if it's not true. The only way you could claim to be set apart is if you can prove the existence of souls, which is what you're saying to prove in the first place. Your argument is circular.

 

[godless dave]

- No. I should have included, "And, the fact that I am set apart."

But that's not a fact in the materialist model.

 

[Dave Rogers]

- The unlikelihood of my current existence if I am mortal.

Do you mean the unlikelihood of your current existence given that you exist at some time in history - which is of course no more unlikely than your current incarnation as Jabba in your assumption that you have an immortal soul that is not always incarnated? Or do you mean the unlikelihood of your current existence in absolute terms, which you have yet to demonstrate to be any less likely than the fact that the soul you were chosen to have is the one that you have and not one of the infinite other possible souls?

The answer, of course, is that you mean some combination of both, chosen to give the impression that your existence is more likely if you have an immortal soul despite the fact that it contains the internal contradiction of comparing a conditional with an absolute probability. But you've chosen to continue pretending that you don't realise this.

Dave

 

[Jabba]

No, it's a difficult concept for you to obfuscate. You've already admitted you mean "soul." And you've already admitted you use different words to try to disguise that meaning and grovel for agreement. Zooterkin is pointing this out -- you are unable to prove the existence of an immortal soul unless you can beg the existence of a soul.



The form in which you allege yourself to exist matters. You are trying to keep it ill-defined so that you have ludicrously wide goal posts.

Jay,
- I'm referring to what religious people call a "soul" -- but, what non-religious people call a "self." The two groups just disagree about its nature.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Jay,
- I'm referring to what religious people call a "soul" -- but, what non-religious people call a "self." The two groups just disagree about its nature.

That makes as much sense as referring to what carpenters call a 'nail', and engineers call a 'bolt', and claiming that those two groups 'just disagree about its nature.'

Still, when the only tool you have is a hammer...

Dave

 

[Belz...]

Jay,
- I'm referring to what religious people call a "soul" -- but, what non-religious people call a "self." The two groups just disagree about its nature.

Yeah, materialists claim that it's a function of the brain, so under H it is.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm referring to what religious people call a "soul" -- but, what non-religious people call a "self."

No, you're not. You're trying to paste the idea of a soul onto materialism. And you're complaining because your critics easily see through the word games you're trying to use to do that. Your critics point out that you have admitted the self is merely a product of the brain under materialism, but when people remind you of that concession you fall comically silent, as if you now realize that it was a mistake for you to have done so. Give your critics their due and congratulate them for eking that important concession out of you.

The two groups just disagree about its nature.

A distinction which your argument has yet to respect. You just try to suggest that a "self" as materialists use the word has all the properties of a soul you need to falsify materialism. E.g., it's distinct, it's an entity, it's countable.

Had you completed your assignment and answered the high-level questions, dealing with this would have been one of them. But you can't deal with it, so you didn't answer the questions.

 

[JayUtah]

That is one of the premises in my syllogism...

And that means your argument is circular.

...and, I have tried to prove it mathematically.

No, you haven't. You've simply assigned a random number to its probability with no rationale or justification. That's a mathematical proof in the same way people on American Idol have no clue how bad they really sing.

To do that, I introduced the concept of "potential selves,"...

You added something to materialism it does not and cannot have. That's one of those fatal flaws you're so terrified to answer. You can't get around admitting that you're just tacking random crap onto the competing hypothesis, straw-man fashion, in order to make it easier for you to refute.

...suggesting that there must be more than 10¹⁰⁰ of such. I assume that this is where you disagree?

You've been given a list of the things I disagree with. I gave you six months plus several weeks to answer it, but you can't seem to follow simple instructions for doing it. Now quit stalling and do what I ask in the way I asked you to do it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well they say the soul of rock and roll is the city and from what I see I believe them.

And rock and roll can never die, there's more to the picture than meets the eye.

Cities are immortal.

 

[JayUtah]

No. I should have included, "And, the fact that I am set apart."

But you are not set apart in any way that escapes the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[Monza]

The "new information" on which you are basing your argument is the observation that you exist. If the likelihood of your body existing "right now" is less than 10^-100 then the likelihood that your existence is observed "right now" must also be less than 10^{-100, whether or not you have an immortal "self". The thing that is observed is your body, not your "self".}

Mojo, - I think that the answer is that others observe my body. It is only me that observes my self -- and, it's that observation to which I'm referring.

But have you ever observed your self without your body present? Have you observed yourself prior to the existence of your body? Say, in the year 1888?

- No.

Conclusion: The odds of observing yourself are the same as the odds of your body existing. Mojo's original statement holds true. If the likelihood of your body existing "right now" is less than 10^-100 then the likelihood that your existence is observed "right now" must also be less than 10^{-100, whether or not you have an immortal "self".}

 

[RoboTimbo]

Mojo,
- I think that the answer is that others observe my body. It is only me that observes my self -- and, it's that observation to which I'm referring.

What's the definition of "self" you're using this time? You aren't going to be allowed to bait and switch.

 

[abaddon]

- No. I should have included, "And, the fact that I am set apart."

Jabba, am I set apart?

 

[Jabba]

Jay,
- I'm referring to what religious people call a "soul" -- but, what non-religious people call a "self." The two groups just disagree about its nature.

No, you're not. You're trying to paste the idea of a soul onto materialism. And you're complaining because your critics easily see through the word games you're trying to use to do that. Your critics point out that you have admitted the self is merely a product of the brain under materialism, but when people remind you of that concession you fall comically silent, as if you now realize that it was a mistake for you to have done so. Give your critics their due and congratulate them for eking that important concession out of you...

Jay,
- Yes I am... and, no I'm not.
- Materialists do not believe that the self is immortal, so they dismiss the normal concept of "soul" -- which does include immortality. I'm just claiming that they're talking about the same personal experience as the theists are talking about.
- Do you disagree with that?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

- I'm running out of time for this morning...

Naaah... you're immortal, you've got all the time in the world.

 

[JayUtah]

no I'm not.

You quite obviously are.

I'm just claiming that they're talking about the same personal experience as the theists are talking about.

You're trying to make the "self" under materialism an individualized entity, as the soul is under your beliefs.

Do you disagree with that?

You have been given a comprehensive list of my objections which you can't be bothered to address in the manner requested. Stop insulting me by asking me ad nauseam to repeat myself.

 

[Belz...]

- Yes I am... and, no I'm not.

 

[jond]

Jay,
- Yes I am... and, no I'm not.
- Materialists do not believe that the self is immortal, so they dismiss the normal concept of "soul" -- which does include immortality. I'm just claiming that they're talking about the same personal experience as the theists are talking about.
- Do you disagree with that?

Jabba, on December 27th you agreed that the materialistic model holds that the self is a process generated by the brain. On December 30th you agreed that in order to get anything other than one finite life, you need to add another entity (a soul). Which means that for theists, your current existence is both a body and a soul. On May 4th you agreed that a body and a soul cannot be less likely than a body alone.

Do you agree with this? If not, I can once again collect the posts where you did.

 

[Belz...]

Jabba, on December 27th you agreed that the materialistic model holds that the self is a process generated by the brain. On December 30th you agreed that in order to get anything other than one finite life, you need to add another entity (a soul). Which means that for theists, your current existence is both a body and a soul. On May 4th you agreed that a body and a soul cannot be less likely than a body alone.

Do you agree with this? If not, I can once again collect the posts where you did.

I think you should link to the posts along with the dates, and bookmark it so you can re-post it as needed.