Proof of Immortality, VII

[JoeMorgue]

- Perhaps an analogy would work: I'm a sprinter, Jay's a marathon man -- and, Jay challenges me to a Marathon while ignoring my challenge to him for a sprint.

Discussions aren't sprints or marathons Jabba.

Stop trying to come up with new metaphors for "I want this to be a game that I can win on a technicality."

I can answer his fatal flaws, but only one at a time, cause Jay will complain about my answer -- and then, I'll need to answer his new complaint; etc.

Bullcrap. You haven't answered one flaw, fatal or otherwise, yet.

Again for being such a "master of debate" you have utterly failed at every possible variation of it.

 

[Jabba]

Yes, Jabba. This has been clear to practically everybody for five years.

The problem, as we have been telling you for about the same five years, is that you are trying to assess the materialistic model by the premises of the religious model. Do you not understand why this is not possible?

Hans

Hans,
- I accept that such is not possible. I just don't accept that such is what I've been doing. Give me an example of me doing that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Give me an example of me doing that.

Countless examples have been given. Stop asking for stuff over and over just so you can ignore it.

 

[Jabba]

I refer you to JayUtah's post listing all your claims and the fatal flaw(s) in each.

- My objective now is to deal with each of his claims, but one at a time and only those I understand, but also with my list of perceived objections -- I assume that most of Jay's objections are included in that list.
- This is my latest list:
Objections

1. Bayesian statistics doesn’t apply.
2. Haven’t effectively defined “self.”
3. Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
4. Conjunction fallacy.
5. The only “now” would be when I exist.
6. I misrepresent the materialist model.
7. No such thing as potential selves.
8. If there is such a thing as potential selves, there wouldn’t be an infinity of them.
9. My numbers are invented.
10. The self is a process, not a thing.
11. And only things can return.
12. The likelihood of an event wouldn’t be based on the beginning of time.
13. Mt Rainier, VWs, bread
14. The scientific explanation for the making of selves.

 

[JoeMorgue]

STOP MAKING LISTS AND ACTUALLY ANSWER A QUESTION.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- My objective now is to deal with each of his claims, but one at a time and only those I understand, but also with my list of perceived objections -- I assume that most of Jay's objections are included in that list.
- This is my latest list:
Objections

1. Bayesian statistics doesn’t apply.
2. Haven’t effectively defined “self.”
3. Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
4. Conjunction fallacy.
5. The only “now” would be when I exist.
6. I misrepresent the materialist model.
7. No such thing as potential selves.
8. If there is such a thing as potential selves, there wouldn’t be an infinity of them.
9. My numbers are invented.
10. The self is a process, not a thing.
11. And only things can return.
12. The likelihood of an event wouldn’t be based on the beginning of time.
13. Mt Rainier, VWs, bread
14. The scientific explanation for the making of selves.

Remember that these are severally fatal to your argument. Do as you were instructed. If you can't remember what that was, you may use your skills of going back and finding posts from months ago to remind yourself.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Pixel,
- Take one of my claims that you think is silly or easily debunked and tell me why you think that. You could just refer me back to a previous post.

Use the post-finding skills you've previously displayed to find one. There are thousands. Take your pick.

 

[Belz...]

- My objective now is to deal with each of his claims, but one at a time and only those I understand, but also with my list of perceived objections -- I assume that most of Jay's objections are included in that list.
- This is my latest list:
Objections

1. Bayesian statistics doesn’t apply.
2. Haven’t effectively defined “self.”
3. Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
4. Conjunction fallacy.
5. The only “now” would be when I exist.
6. I misrepresent the materialist model.
7. No such thing as potential selves.
8. If there is such a thing as potential selves, there wouldn’t be an infinity of them.
9. My numbers are invented.
10. The self is a process, not a thing.
11. And only things can return.
12. The likelihood of an event wouldn’t be based on the beginning of time.
13. Mt Rainier, VWs, bread
14. The scientific explanation for the making of selves.

Each of those are fatal. You cannot address them. You lose.

If you stopped trying to make maps and lists and focused on adjusting your claims to match reality you'd have, you know, progressed by now.

 

[jond]

- Perhaps an analogy would work: I'm a sprinter, Jay's a marathon man -- and, Jay challenges me to a Marathon while ignoring my challenge to him for a sprint.
- I can answer his fatal flaws, but only one at a time, cause Jay will complain about my answer -- and then, I'll need to answer his new complaint; etc.

And yet you can write lengthy posts will multiple points? No, you can't answer his fatal flaws, nor can you answer mine. You have lost, badly.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba: *Posts a 38 line breakdown of everyone's arguments, a roapmap for the discussion, and nested flowchart*
Board: "Okay can you give a one sentence response to anyone's argument?"
Jabba: "Oh lordly me I'm a frazzled old man I just can't keep up with this..."

Jabba do you grasp how transparent you are being?

 

[godless dave]

Hans,
I just don't accept that such is what I've been doing. Give me an example of me doing that.

Here's one:

- Here, the new sense of self would be different in that regard -- and, we have no way of predicting "who" it will be instead.

 

[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.

Yes, Jabba. This has been clear to practically everybody for five years.

The problem, as we have been telling you for about the same five years, is that you are trying to assess the materialistic model by the premises of the religious model. Do you not understand why this is not possible?

Hans

Hans,
- I accept that such is not possible. I just don't accept that such is what I've been doing. Give me an example of me doing that.

Here's one:

- Here, the new sense of self would be different in that regard -- and, we have no way of predicting "who" it will be instead.

Why do you think that the fact that copying something results in two things instead of one is a profound observation?

Dave,

- "What we've got here is a failure to communicate."

- If we were able to produce a perfect copy of your body/brain, we would have no idea who the new self would be. But, we're pretty sure it wouldn't be you.
- Theoretically, however, there is nothing we could not predict about perfect copies of Mt Rainier, a VW or a loaf of bread. On the other hand, the self is a natural part of an emergent property (consciousness), and we all suspect that the other three have no analogous emergent property. And again, we have no idea who that new self would be, and that does seem to me a profound difference.

 

[John Jones]

- Perhaps an analogy would work: I'm a sprinter, Jay's a marathon man -- and, Jay challenges me to a Marathon while ignoring my challenge to him for a sprint.
- I can answer his fatal flaws, but only one at a time, cause Jay will complain about my answer -- and then, I'll need to answer his new complaint; etc.

But you're not a sprinter: You haven't moved off the starting blocks in five+ years.

That excuse for only being able to answer Jays' fatal flaws in your argument is nonsense. As many times as you've used such flimsy excuses for not answering his objections, you could have answered his objections, duh!

 

[John Jones]

Hans,
- I accept that such is not possible. I just don't accept that such is what I've been doing. Give me an example of me doing that.

What, again? You'll just ignore it again. Nobody is falling for that bull any more.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- "What we've got here is a failure to communicate."

No "We" don't have anything. You have an inability to listen.

If we were able to produce a perfect copy of your body/brain, we would have no idea who the new self would be. But, we're pretty sure it wouldn't be you.

BECAUSE THAT'S HOW PRONOUNS WORK!

You have created this pointless semantic nonsense, trying to hide the concept of a soul in the pronoun "you."

This has been explained to you multiple times.

 

[John Jones]

- My objective now is to deal with each of his claims, but one at a time and only those I understand, but also with my list of perceived objections -- I assume that most of Jay's objections are included in that list.
- This is my latest list:
Objections

1. Bayesian statistics doesn’t apply.
2. Haven’t effectively defined “self.”
3. Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
4. Conjunction fallacy.
5. The only “now” would be when I exist.
6. I misrepresent the materialist model.
7. No such thing as potential selves.
8. If there is such a thing as potential selves, there wouldn’t be an infinity of them.
9. My numbers are invented.
10. The self is a process, not a thing.
11. And only things can return.
12. The likelihood of an event wouldn’t be based on the beginning of time.
13. Mt Rainier, VWs, bread
14. The scientific explanation for the making of selves.

Nobody is going to tolerate that transparent attempt to drag-out the thread another 5 years. Answer them all with a sentence or 2 in a single post and stop wasting everyone's time. This ain't our first rodeo.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,

- "What we've got here is a failure to communicate."

- If we were able to produce a perfect copy of your body/brain, we would have no idea who the new self would be. But, we're pretty sure it wouldn't be you.
- Theoretically, however, there is nothing we could not predict about perfect copies of Mt Rainier, a VW or a loaf of bread. On the other hand, the self is a natural part of an emergent property (consciousness), and we all suspect that the other three have no analogous emergent property. And again, we have no idea who that new self would be, and that does seem to me a profound difference.

FTFY

That rest or that statement above has already be obliterated: We know who the new self would be. It would be Jabba. We could easily establish this fact by asking the recently duplicated self and life history.

 

[godless dave]

this might get posted twice - forum timed out on me

Dave,

- "What we've got here is a failure to communicate."

- If we were able to produce a perfect copy of your body/brain, we would have no idea who the new self would be. But, we're pretty sure it wouldn't be you.

That may be the case in your reincarnation model, but it is not the case in the materialist model. In the materialist model, we would know for sure that a copy of me wouldn't be me because 1+1=2. We also would know that the copy would be identical to me in every respect. There is nothing we would know about the original that we wouldn't also know about the copy.

- Theoretically, however, there is nothing we could not predict about perfect copies of Mt Rainier, a VW or a loaf of bread. On the other hand, the self is a natural part of an emergent property (consciousness), and we all suspect that the other three have no analogous emergent property.

Emergent properties aren't magical entities for which the concept of "copy" does not mean the same thing as it does for everything else. Everything about an emergent property is determined by the system it emerges from. Two identical systems under identical conditions will produce identical emergent properties.

And again, we have no idea who that new self would be, and that does seem to me a profound difference.

In the materialist model, "who" isn't some property a sense of self has. The who and the what are the same thing. If you know the what, you know the who.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave,

- "What we've got here is a failure to communicate."

What you have is a failure to tell the truth.

- If we were able to produce a perfect copy of your body/brain, we would have no idea who the new self would be. But, we're pretty sure it wouldn't be you.

I'll need a citation for where the materialist model says that. Otherwise, that's "you" lying about "we" and the materialist model.

- Theoretically, however, there is nothing we could not predict about perfect copies of Mt Rainier, a VW or a loaf of bread.

Or a person, in the materialist model. You won't be allowed to lie about it.

On the other hand, the self is a natural part of an emergent property (consciousness),

That's your JILpu (Jabba Immortal Lie per usual). You are playing bait-and-switch with the definition of "self". In the materialist model, the self is the emergent property. Duplicate the organism and you duplicate the self. You won't be allowed to lie about the materialist model having a soul.

and we all suspect that the other three have no analogous emergent property.

This is a lie on two levels. (1) "We all" don't suspect any such thing and (2) the other three do have analogous emergent properties, as you've been reminded of daily. Going 60 mph is an emergent property of a Volkswagen. You've been told that you won't be allowed to imbue the emergent property of consciousness with a magical soul in the materialist model.

And again, we have no idea who that new self would be, and that does seem to me a profound difference.

The materialist model doesn't care what you find to be profound. Again, you lie about the what the materialist model says. You won't be allowed to lie about the materialist model and get away with it.

I will defend with my life your right to lie but I will point it out every time you do it.

Go back and do what you were instructed to do.

 

[JayUtah]

This is my latest list

And it's a list you've conceded you can't answer. Therefore your argument fails. That's what it means to lose a debate, and that's what you've done here whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Now your task is to convince a thinking person that a discussion with you would have any value. You've admitted your argument fails at the fundamental level, so there's no point in delving into detail which is now irrelevant and has no power to save you. You've admitted your devotion to your conclusion is purely emotional, so there's no reason for anyone to think they can argue you out of a "proof" you clearly didn't reason yourself into.

Just thank your opponents for their insight and give them the praise they are due. Stop bellyaching. Stop whining. Stop trying to blame your failures on everyone else.