Proof of Immortality, VII

[Belz...]

Or should I say, "you're" the only ONE holding you back.

But his sense of self has changed since then, so it isn't really him!

 

[The Norseman]

But his sense of self has changed since then, so it isn't really him!

lol Hmmm... that's true. After all "he's" been set aside because... because of Napoleon's soul sense of self is one in "infinity" plus or minus 48957402984057094824509823745423542984.

Yes, that looks like a pretty impressive number! I'll keep that.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- I've moved off the starting blocks over and over again -- it's your vision that's the problem.

No. You've been told to be honest. This is not a good start.

- No. For every time I'd try to explain something, Jay would have several complaints.

Are you referring to the fatal flaws that everyone has pointed out with your "logic" as "complaints"? Why? Why not be honest and call them what they are?

He just kept piling up objections

He, and everyone else, pointed out the errors in your "logic" and the fatal flaws to your arguments. I agree with you that your logic and arguments have no redeeming characteristics and are deserving of all the feedback you've gotten.

-- he would have kept me busy and behind for ever

Correcting your errors is something that you should be spending time on. Whose fault is it that it's your errors that should have kept you busy and behind?

-- even though, I was right most of the time, duh..

No, that's just another outright lie.

 

[Mojo]

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.

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.

And there you are doing it again in the very next post. It's pretty clear where the "failure to communicate" is occurring.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba: I'm immortal.
Board: No you aren't and here's dozens of valid arguments against it.
Jabba: My claim is I'm immortal.
Board: No you aren't and here's dozens of valid arguments against it, again.
Jabba: Okay well I think that everyone agrees with me that pasta is made of chestnut.
Board: What, no nobody has agreed to that. And why haven't you addressed the dozens of valid arguments against your original claim?
Jabba: Oh lordy me I'm just a frazzled old man who can't keep up with all these arguments even though I'm the master f debate. I need to lay down on my fainting couch before I am overcome with the vapors.
Board: What?
Jabba: My claim is I'm immortal.
Board: You just did a fringe reset. We've already given you dozens of valid arguments against your claim that you haven't addressed.
Jabba: What I'm claiming is I'm immortal.
Board: We know. You still haven't addressed any of our arguments.
Jabba: Oh Lord I've done gone bambozzled again.
Board: *Sighs*
Jabba: My claim is I'm immortal.
Board: Really?
Jabba: Of course I would be perfectly happy to address any claims.
Board: What about the dozens we've already given to you several times?
Jabba: My claim is I'm immortal.
Board: Is this thing on?
Jabba: What we have here is a failure to communicate.

 

[Mojo]

- 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.

Let's explore this analogy: here's how the race would look if it went the same way as the thread.

Jabba challenges Jay to a sprint. Jay accepts.

They line up at the start line. The starting gun fires. Jabba stumbles a few yards, and looks up to see Jay crossing the finish line. Jabba calls Jay back, saying the he needs to re-tie his shoelaces before he can start the race.

They line up again. The starting gun fires. Jabba lumbers a few yards and stops, saying that he needs to re-tie his shoelaces. Jay crosses the finish line. Jabba announces his intention to re-tie his shoelaces.

They line up again. The starting gun fires. Jay crosses the finish line. Jabba stays on the starting blocks and says it's time for his nap. Jay waits for Jabba to have a nap.

They line up again. The starting gun fires. Jabba ambles a few yards, and looks up to see Jay crossing the finish line. Jabba says he needs to re-tie his shoelaces, and calls Jay back to the start to line up again.

This continues in the same way for some time. Every time the gun fires, Jay sprints across the finish line while Jabba hardly moves.

Jabba complains that as Jay has now run 26 miles he is cheating by running a marathon instead of a sprint.

 

[Agatha]

Dave,

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

I think most people are being very clear in their communications. Unfortunately, you aren't addressing what people are saying. That is neither an insult to you or to your ideas; it's an objective fact.

- 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.

We would know exactly who the 'new self' would be. It would be an exact duplicate of you. Separate from the original, and identical to the original - it would be another 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.

Re the highlighted: you do not speak for me, nor for almost everyone else in this thread.

Far from suspecting that the other three have no analogous emergent properties, we all (other than you) agree that those other three do have emergent properties. If we were to duplicate the loaf of bread, there would now be two identical-but-separate loaves of bread with identical-but-separate emergent properties.

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

We do know who that new self would be. It would be a identical-but-separate you. Prior to replication, there is one you. Afterwards, there are two yous. That's how replication works.

 

[Mojo]

I think most people are being very clear in their communications. Unfortunately, you aren't addressing what people are saying. That is neither an insult to you or to your ideas; it's an objective fact.



We would know exactly who the 'new self' would be. It would be an exact duplicate of you. Separate from the original, and identical to the original - it would be another you.

- Re the highlighted: you do not speak for me, nor for almost everyone else in this thread.

Far from suspecting that the other three have no analogous emergent properties, we all (other than you) agree that those other three do have emergent properties. If we were to duplicate the loaf of bread, there would now be two identical-but-separate loaves of bread with identical-but-separate emergent properties.

We do know who that new self would be. It would be a identical-but-separate you. Prior to replication, there is one you. Afterwards, there are two yous. That's how replication works.

By saying that we don't know "who the new self would be", Jabba is doing precisely what he just denied he is doing. "Selves", in the way Jabba is using the term, do not exist under the hypothesis he is trying to disprove. The question of who the new self would be is meaningless.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Jabba, I don't know if its misunderstanding or deliberate obfuscation on your part but you don't seem to get what Jay wants. Let me try with an analogy.

Let's say I want to make everyone delicious Eggs Benedict and I announce my intention to do so. Jay on the other hand notices (for theme sake of simplicity) 3 fatal flaws with my plan to make everyone delicious Eggs Benedict and lists them for me.

1. We have no eggs.

2. The hob/stove/cooker is broken.

3. I don't have any idea of the recipe for Eggs Benedict.


He asks me, much as he has asked you, to give a brief description of how I'm going to get past each flaw. So what I do is I take the numbered list and I think about it a bit, and in the space of an hour or two I come back with my answers.

1. I'll go to the shops, I live within walking distance of a couple of supermarkets and they'd be bound to have enough eggs.

2. I call the landlord or a repairman to come out and fix the cooker. Meanwhile I'll also check out the prices of a new range just in case it can't be fixed.

3. I'll google the recipe. There's bound to be several online, and some by famous chefs. At least one is going to be well explained and result in a great brunch dish.

In providing the list as above I have explained how I plan to deal with the fatal flaws. Of course Jay might subsequently point out that say, all the shops nearby are closed and I'd have to deal with that after, but for now I've done what Jay wanted. A simple list of how I will be dealing with each of the fatal flaws in my plan to cook Eggs Benedict for everyone.

Why can't you do the same?

 

[John Jones]

- 1) I've moved off the starting blocks over and over again -- it's your vision that's the problem.
- 2) No. For every time I'd try to explain something, Jay would have several complaints. He just kept piling up objections -- he would have kept me busy and behind for ever -- even though, I was right most of the time, duh.

1) My vision might be bad, but it's better than yours. Why have you done innumerable fringe resets if you started your 'sprint' from the starting blocks 5 years ago, and have made zero progress persuading anyone?

Let's put it to a vote. Has Jabba moved off the dialectical starting blocks in the years since he started this thread?

2) You have not once attempted to address JayUtah's objections in the form he requested: add objections addressed with a line of two of text in a single post.
If you claim otherwise: post a link or be recognized as lying again.

You have kept yourself busy by frequent fringe resets and by asking the same questions incessantly for 5 years and ignoring the answers. Everybody can see that but you. Tell me again about limit vision, DUH!!

 

[JoeMorgue]

By saying that we don't know "who the new self would be", Jabba is doing precisely what he just denied he is doing. "Selves", in the way Jabba is using the term, do not exist under the hypothesis he is trying to disprove. The question of who the new self would be is meaningless.

The absurdity of this really is amazing.

Jabba's entire argument is based on the idea that people have magical, nontransferable souls. But he argued himself into a corner right out the gate by parroting the word "materialism" back at us (I still argue Jabba has literally zero idea what materialism means he just thinks if he keeps agreeing to our terms he can slip the soul under our radar.)

And ever since then it's just been him trying to find new words for "soul." He was stuck on "sense of self" for a while than it just became "self" and then the lamb bleating "But it wouldn't be meeeeee" nonsense and now, and this whole thing is like a parody when I type it out, his argument is another "him" wouldn't be "him" because... the pronoun "you" or something it's just hilariously silly. With occasional rudely pretentious sprinkles of him just staight up telling us we agree with him thrown in from time to time.

Jabba is stuck at a point in his argument which is dependent on they're being something inherently different between a person and an exact copy (a soul) but he's been argued into a corner in every way he's tried to bring a soul into the debate so he's just stuck at "It's not the same because it's different."

 

[Jabba]

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.

Dave,
- The materialist model would also assume that a perfect copy would not bring you back to life. In that sense of you (and who), we would have no idea who the new self would be -- are you just suggesting that we have no idea who you are either?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Jabba enjoys winding up sceptics, he's very good at it

 

[JayUtah]

The materialist model would also assume that a perfect copy would not bring you back to life.

Wrong. Exactly wrong. Wrong by definition. First of all "bring back to life" is ambiguous. It's not clear exactly what you mean by that, which of course is your intent. You refuse to be pinned down on anything that you mean, so that you can just beg people to agree with it as nebulously formulated. Please stop doing that, as it's very rude to rely deliberately on vague meanings and then complain because they're vague.

Second, you agreed that consciousness is an emergent property of the organism under materialism. Therefore, under materialism, all properties of an object must be exactly reproduced if the object is exactly reproduced. All that is attributable to "you" under materialism must be duplicated as perfectly as the organism is duplicated. That's what it means to make a perfect copy.

Your argument is simply trying to foist your straw man onto your critics. I identified this as one of the fatal flaws in your argument at the fundamental level, and you have conceded you cannot correct it.

...are you just suggesting that we have no idea who you are either?

We're pointing out that you're misrepresenting materialism deliberately in order to make it seem like something that's refutable via your pre-selected argument. That's one of several ongoing errors you're committing, and show no interest in fixing.

Therefore your proof immediately fails.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- The materialist model would also assume that a perfect copy would not bring you back to life. In that sense of you (and who), we would have no idea who the new self would be -- are you just suggesting that we have no idea who you are either?

As I said in the post you replied to, we would know who the knew self would be. It would be that one. The original would be this one. The word "who" literally means "what or which person or people". The original and the copy would be two separate people and we would know who each of them were.

 

[Loss Leader]

The materialist model would also assume that a perfect copy would not bring you back to life. In that sense of you (and who), we would have no idea who the new self would be -- are you just suggesting that we have no idea who you are either?

Jabba, please stop lying about "you" being a discrete thing under the materialist model. "You" are no more brought back to life by being copied than "you" are after "you" eat a Snickers bar. The self is a constantly-changing process. Are "you" the same person "you" were before "you" had children? I'm not. My fundamental priorities are different, my memories, my love of naps and far more.

The question posed above pretends that there is some thing about a person that may or may not be reproducible. There is not.

To the extent that we talk about a discrete person (which we do very often, especially when we have dinner reservations), it's just shorthand. It's not real.


ETA: Nevermind. We've been over this ground hundreds of times. The fact that you keep saying it is evidence that you don't care.

 

[JayUtah]

You have kept yourself busy by frequent fringe resets and by asking the same questions incessantly for 5 years and ignoring the answers.

It's all very amusing. If I go back over the past six months, the time since I posed the list of individually fatal flaws, I can see that Jabba hasn't paid the slightest attention to anything I've written. As far as his responses go, I may as well not have written anything at all to the forum. Then lo and behold, when Jabba needs a scapegoat for his bruised ego, I'm it. All of a sudden he's making excuses for his bad behavior, saying it's all due to his having to deal with me all the time, and having no time to do it. In the most mind-boggling interpretation of the facts, it's almost as if he's blaming his failure on his having to ignore so many people!

Everybody can see that but you.

I'm absolutely sure he can see it. He was given an opportunity to address the actual issues with his argument, but in a way that wasn't his typical performance art. As many predicted, he ignored it until it couldn't be ignored, and then he found some lame excuse for why he shouldn't be asked to depart from his well-word pattern. It's a foregone conclusion at this point that Jabba is just a troll, a performance artist with no interest in the least in whether his proof works or not.

 

[JayUtah]

Let's explore this analogy:

Or put even more simply, it's as if he's complaining that the other runners have an unfair advantage because they can run faster than he can. He wants ground rules that make the race "fair" by giving him a head start, because any race he loses can't have been fair.

Those who have actually been in athletics know the difference between a great runner who wins races and a "great" runner who is constantly making excuses for not winning despite his greatness. Greatness is reckoned differently between those cases.

 

[Belz...]

Dave,
- The materialist model would also assume that a perfect copy would not bring you back to life. In that sense of you (and who), we would have no idea who the new self would be -- are you just suggesting that we have no idea who you are either?

The materialist model makes no such assumption. You've been told this hundreds of times.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- The materialist model would also assume that a perfect copy would not bring you back to life. In that sense of you (and who), we would have no idea who the new self would be -- are you just suggesting that we have no idea who you are either?

The materialist model makes no allowances for the concept of bringing a replicate 'back to life', or 'looking out of two sets of eyes' in case you were going to disgrace yourself again with that foolish non-argument.

We would know who the new self was by checking their fingerprints and by asking their identity. Guess how the replicate Jabba would reply, our befuddled friend.

The replicate would do a fringe reset, ignore every counter-point, do another fringe reset, repeat " I claim..." a thousand times in 5 years, and make clownish arguments about " bring back to life" and "looking out of two sets of eyes" hundreds of time with no evidence. Rinse, lather, and repeat.