Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Monza said:
What if, when you copy a person, you also copy the emergent property of a particular awareness "existence"? Then you would have two of them!

Two Mount Rainiers, two grains of sand, two snowflakes, and two Jabbas.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Monza,
- If I understand your question, I should be looking out two sets of eyes.
Click to expand...

Monza said:
No, you didn't understand. In the scenario of making a copy of you: you would look out one set of eyes, and the other you would look out of the other set of eyes.
Click to expand...
- I see what you mean... By the definition of "copy," if you are simply copying my awareness, it wouldn't be me, it would be a copy of me. This is where the words fail me.
- Unfortunately, I don't know what the 'moral' of this story is...
 
Jabba said:
- I see what you mean... By the definition of "copy," if you are simply copying my awareness, it wouldn't be me, it would be a copy of me.
Click to expand...

Jabba this has strained all levels of reasonable. None of us should have to explain to a grown man what a "copy" is yet again just so you won't listen.

You've just up and decided for no reason that the very concept of "me" is magic. You've literally turned a pronoun into a soul.

It's functionally insane.

The copy of you would also be you. He would think of himself as 'me' same as you do. He would consider himself the original true Jabba with the soul and see you as the 'copy' that is 'looking out a different set of eyes' the exact same way you would.

What about this possibly confused you?

This is where the words fail me.
Click to expand...

Jabba how many times are you going to fail to put your argument into words before you just admit you don't have one?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
By the definition of "copy," if you are simply copying my awareness...
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as an individualized awareness in materialism. Can you copy a car's "going 60 mph?" No, you cannot. You can copy the car, and both cars can then go 60 mph. That's how this works. You're trying to make awareness sound like a separate entity. Specifically, you're trying to make "awareness" mean a soul, and you're trying to make materialism sound like dualism. And we're going to catch you every time you try.

...it wouldn't be me, it would be a copy of me.
Click to expand...

The organism would be a copy of the original organism. Both organisms would exhibit the property of self-awareness.

This is where the words fail me.
Click to expand...

You can't find the words to equivocate around the concepts you're deliberately misrepresenting. Good. That's how this sort of refutation works.

Unfortunately, I don't know what the 'moral' of this story is...
Click to expand...

The obvious moral is that lying about what other people say doesn't fool them into agreeing with you. There is a further moral in that you gain nothing by quibbling over irrelevant detail when you already admitted your argument is broken at the fundamental level. You're just trying to save face.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- I see what you mean... By the definition of "copy," if you are simply copying my awareness, it wouldn't be me, it would be a copy of me. This is where the words fail me.
- Unfortunately, I don't know what the 'moral' of this story is...
Click to expand...

It would self identify as Jabba. Which is what you claim to be on about. And you refuse to address or even acknowledge this answer. Let alone identify any difference between two identical people who both self identify as Jabba.

-also, you’re back to insisting that you’re not talking about the likelihood of your body existing but rather that you are talking about your self awareness. In which case the likelihood of that existing is exactly 1. In the materialist model, it is generated by your brain and as a result can only be your self awareness.

You have lost Jabba. Badly.
 
SOdhner said:
I know it's been asked before, but has Jabba ever answered where and how he draws the line for what gets to be immortal?

We know he thinks that people are immortal. We know he thinks mountains and snowflakes and VWs are not.

But what about chimpanzees? Dogs? Geckos? Cockroaches? Bacteria?

I can at least picture some arguments against those last two, but I can't think of any logic that could possibly say humans have this property but not other apes, and I would say lots of non-primates as well. Heck, even some non-mammals like crows show self-awareness.
Click to expand...
- My suspicion is that life breeds consciousness of some level or another -- even plants maybe. If so, I would argue that we are all from the same infinitely divisible bucket -- and consequently immortal.
- Again, I suspect that human understanding of reality is about the same level as chicken understanding of calculus.
 
Jabba said:
Again, I suspect that human understanding of reality is about the same level as chicken understanding of calculus.
Click to expand...

You can apply whatever handwringing you want to your hypothesis -- if and when, after five years, you actually get around to formulating one. Materialism, however, does not suffer from such self-imposed suspicions of inadequacy. The materialist hypothesis is simple and straightforward, and sufficient. Do not attempt to muddy up your formulation of P(E|H) with your personal feelings.
 
Jabba said:
- I see what you mean...
Click to expand...
Let's see if that's true...

By the definition of "copy," if you are simply copying my awareness,
Click to expand...
As I suspected, either you have no idea what he meant or you are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting it. Processes aren't subject to copying. How would one go about "copying" the same "going 60 mph" as a Volkswagen? So you lied when you said you understood and turned around and deliberately misunderstood.

it wouldn't be me, it would be a copy of me. This is where the words fail me.
Click to expand...
Aw, did you run out of words that imply "soul"?

- Unfortunately, I don't know what the 'moral' of this story is...
Click to expand...
Does the model you're trying to refute include souls and have "particular" awarenesses? If so, it isn't materialism.
 
Jabba said:
- My suspicion is that life breeds consciousness of some level or another
Click to expand...
Like a brain having the emergent property of consciousness. I'm not sure how the word "breeds" applies to it, though. Maybe Volkswagens breed "going 60 mph". An odd concept to apply "breeds" to processes.

-- even plants maybe.
Click to expand...
Except they don't have brains or central nervous systems.

If so, I would argue that we are all from the same infinitely divisible bucket -- and consequently immortal.
Click to expand...
If your goal is to refute materialism to replace it with immateriality, you have to refute materialism.

As it stands, you've not refuted materialism and you've not been able to mount a positive argument for immortality. You've gone nowhere. Just think of that advanced degree you could have gotten in a relevant field in that time!

- Again, I suspect that human understanding of reality is about the same level as chicken understanding of calculus.
Click to expand...
Which is about the same level of understanding you've displayed of logic. And words. And math. And philosophy. And reincarnation. And processes. And science. And materialism. And...
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- My suspicion is that life breeds consciousness of some level or another -- even plants maybe.
Click to expand...

Okay, so anything alive probably has a soul in your theory.

That means the soul doesn't require a nervous system, which is fine. Makes sense, really, since it can also exist without a physical body.

But matter doesn't require a soul to exist - for example, you've said that mountains don't have souls.

So then, if I had a human body and could somehow cut it off from this pool of consciousness it wouldn't cease to exist or anything, right? Because mountains and VWs don't just vanish. And since chemical reactions don't need souls, the body wouldn't die either. And the brain, as part of the body, would keep functioning.

And so from our perspective, we wouldn't know the difference. The person wouldn't have a soul anymore but would continue walking, talking, eating, etc. because every part of their body would continue to function as normal including their brain.

Right?
 
Jabba said:
- IOW, OOFLam [U][U][U]is[/U][/U][/U] referring to a particular awareness, and not to the body (though the body might be totally responsible for the awareness).

["noparse" tags added by Mojo]
Click to expand...


That's why "OOFLam" is a strawman.

And, by the way, repeating the tags won't make it any more underlined than one set of tags will. I've told you this before, but you don't seem to have retained the information.

ETA: And underlining a word doesn't change its meaning.
 
Last edited:
Well there is a certain freedom in being this wrong. I mean things can't get one hundred and one percent completely wrong now can they?
 
Last edited:
Yeah but 99% of internet arguments are nitpicking. The internet generally sucks at actually long form criticism.

I'm being semi-serious here. Internet denizens in general are absolute masters of taking one thing, either in or out of context, and nitpicking it to the orbit of Jupiter and back.

But with Jabba there's nothing to nitpick. The core is rotten, nitpicking is like sucking the marrow out of the bone before you butcher the cow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom