Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- The sense of self-awareness may be the result of different location and molecules, but the VW has no sense of self-awareness nor analogous result.
Click to expand...
The VW's "going 60 mph" is exactly analogous, as has been pointed out to you dozens of times.
 
Belz... said:
One: spacetime coordinates.
Click to expand...

I think that follows from being made of different matter, since two atoms can't occupy the same space.

The "number of differences" question is a sideshow anyway, and I'm sorry for even entertaining it.
 
Jabba said:
How many differences?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant distraction. The central tenet of materialism is that all properties arise from processes in physical matter. There's nothing magical about a human being; it's just a ball of matter. There's nothing magical about the sense of self; it's just another property. You're trying very hard to tell us that because a human and a Volkswagen are different categories of matter, they must somehow display materialism in a fundamentally different way. That's expressly not how materialism works.

Instead, your argument is exactly special pleading. You are deliberately misrepresenting materialism to make it a straw man that fits the refutation you have already worked out for it. Your critics are right not to let you do that. You have an obligation to reckon P(E|H) according to what materialism actually is.

Called to lunch...
Click to expand...

Which seems to create little difference in your responsiveness.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- The sense of self-awareness may be the result of different location and molecules,
Click to expand...
In materialism, the sense of self is a process of the molecules.

but the VW has no sense of self-awareness nor analogous result.
Click to expand...
In materialism, the VW has a set of processes which the human has nothing analogous to. Does the VW have a soul?

Are you able to understand the concept, Jabba?
 
Jabba said:
- But, even in the materialist model, in the sense of "you" that would not be brought back to life, the new "you" would be someone else.
Click to expand...
This is your lie which you attribute to materialism. You've been told that you won't be able to lie about materialism.

"You" also won't be able to get away with surrounding equivocal words with quotes or underlining them to make them mean soul.

The new VW has no analogue in the materialist model.
Click to expand...
This is your lie which you've been told you won't get away with. Materialism won't allow you to lie about it.
 
RoboTimbo said:
This is your lie. You don't get to attribute your lie to materialism.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Jabba's argument seems to have settled on, "I don't care what you people say, this is what I need your position to be." I guess that's Effective Debate at its finest. We aren't following his script, so he called lunch.
 
Jabba said:
- This is where we're stuck. No -- it wouldn't,
Click to expand...

No, this is where you try to paste a soul onto materialism. Materialism won't let you.

You are welcome to falsify any model you choose but if it isn't materialism, then you won't have accomplished anything. You're creating a straw model to falsify. It isn't materialism.

Are you able to understand your error?
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed, Jabba's argument seems to have settled on, "I don't care what you people say, this is what I need your position to be." I guess that's Effective Debate at its finest. We aren't following his script, so he called lunch.
Click to expand...

Well, it's effective alright. If you can convince people of what their positions and arguments are, you can get them to agree with you even when you're completely wrong.
 
Belz... said:
If you can convince people of what their positions and arguments are, you can get them to agree with you even when you're completely wrong.
Click to expand...

He's ostensibly trying to convince a hypothetical "neutral jury." Such a group apparently won't be fooled by people stating their own arguments instead of having their opponent make one up for them.
 
Jabba: It wouldn't be you.
Board: Yes it would.
Jabba: Yes but it wouldn't be "you."
Board: Yes it would.
Jabba: Yes but it wouldn't be "you"
Board: Yes it would.
Jabba: Yes but it wouldn't be "you"
Board: Yes it would.
Jabba: Yes but it wouldn't be "you"
Board: Yes it would.
Jabba: Yes but it wouldn't be "you"
Board: Yes it would.
Jabba: Yes but it wouldn't be "you"
Board: Yes it would.
Jabba: Yes but it wouldn't be "you"
 
6uGNdRD.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom