Proof of Immortality III

[Mojo]

Here, I should say that OOFLam seems to imply immateriality.

How the hell did you get there? So far you have been claiming that "OOFLam" is a scientific hypothesis, presumably on the grounds that "OOFLam" is implied by materialism and science is materialistic. The "OOFLam" that you are attacking is a model in which your consciousness is the result of physical and chemical processes in your brain. This in no way "seems to imply immaterialism", wherever you put the italics tags.

You are trying, once again, to foist dualism on the model you are trying to refute.

 

[Jabba]

It isn't even that: what you are talking about us something like the scientific consensus model of the universe. Because science relies upon methodological naturalism, it doesn't include immortal souls because immortal souls are undetectable. You are trying to impose a "hypothesis" that is unfalsifiable.

The "hypothesis" you are relying on is nothing more than a strawman.

Mojo,
- Before I shoot my mouth off, I think that you're referring to both hypotheses here: the hypothesis I'm trying to "impose" is ~OOFLam, and the "strawman" is OOFLam. Am I correct?

 

[Jabba]

How the hell did you get there? So far you have been claiming that "OOFLam" is a scientific hypothesis, presumably on the grounds that "OOFLam" is implied by materialism and science is materialistic. The "OOFLam" that you are attacking is a model in which your consciousness is the result of physical and chemical processes in your brain. This in no way "seems to imply immaterialism", wherever you put the italics tags.

You are trying, once again, to foist dualism on the model you are trying to refute.

Mojo,
- You're right. I got confused. OOFLam implies materialism.

 

[Jabba]

Indeed, and the way you have defined "OOFLam" means that ~H includes scenarios under which we each have only one finite lifetime at most. You have managed to define your terms in such a way that disproving "OOFLam" doesn't disprove OOFLam.

Mojo,
- I think this must be based upon my earlier confusion...

 

[Jabba]

Thus giving yourself room in which to equivocate.

Mojo,
- I just should have started with that softened claim -- it's really a better expression of my position. How could I equivocate? What would I say?

 

[JayUtah]

I just should have started with that softened claim -- it's really a better expression of my position.

You've been frantically shifting goalposts back and forth this entire time. You need to come to terms with the fact that all your critics can see you do this, and that it's highly dishonest in a debate.

Whether it expresses your position is irrelevant. If you plan to prove your hypothesis mathematically, you need to express that hypothesis in a way that's valid for your proposed proof. You haven't done that yet.

 

[JayUtah]

OOFLam implies materialism.

Wrong. You can still have immaterialism in the context of one finite life. This has been explained to you ad nauseam. Please pay attention.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- You're right. I got confused. OOFLam implies materialism.

Nope, you're still confused: materialism implies "OOFLam", but "OOFLam" doesn't imply naterialism because it also includes non-materialist scenarios under which we have finite lifetimes.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- Before I shoot my mouth off, I think that you're referring to both hypotheses here: the hypothesis I'm trying to "impose" is ~OOFLam, and the "strawman" is OOFLam. Am I correct?

No, your version of "OOFLam" is a strawman that you are trying to impose so that you can refute it. That is what a strawman argument is.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- I just should have started with that softened claim -- it's really a better expression of my position. How could I equivocate? What would I say?

You would try to get your "softened" claim accepted, and then tried to have your original claim accepted on the same basis. See, for example, the point made by jsfisher, and me, that you have changed H without changing your argument against H, when your original argument is not an argument against your new H. It was only a few days ago so don't pretend you don't remember. We've seen you do it, you've seen you do it.

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- Have any of my attempts above helped to define "soul" or "self"?

No. They aren't testable things. The fact that you feel a connection to Jabba-30 doesn't mean anything.

Imagine if I tried to study why passenger planes sometimes go straight up at 90 degrees. Having talked to many passengers who experienced such an emergency, I "know" this sometimes happens. But then I talk to pilots and fond out the planes never exceeded 30 degree climbs. It's just that passengers feel like 30 degrees is straight up.

Should I still continue researching why some passenger planes go ballistic?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
H is OOFLam, which basically implies that the self is entirely physical.
- And, we are, indeed, at least close to Mt Rainier again. I think that your MT Rainier issue is much the same issue as my P(E|H) issue -- if the likelihood of my existence is an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in the posterior evaluation of OOFLam, the likelihood of Mt Rainier should be an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in the posterior evaluation of the scientific model.

So should we doubt the field of geology?

 

[zooterkin]

- You're right. I got confused. OOFLam implies materialism.

Don't be silly. One version of OOFLAM is the conventional Christian model, which I assume you're familiar with. One finite life, not an immortal body, but with a soul.

 

[JayUtah]

Don't be silly. One version of OOFLAM is the conventional Christian model, which I assume you're familiar with. One finite life, not an immortal body, but with a soul.

I gather the F in OOFLAM is what Jabba intends to be transcended by the soul. I doubt Jabba is arguing for corporeal immortality. But since he can't manage to get to a formulation of anything that works, who knows?

 

[jsfisher]

I gather the F in OOFLAM is what Jabba intends to be transcended by the soul. I doubt Jabba is arguing for corporeal immortality. But since he can't manage to get to a formulation of anything that works, who knows?

I could be mis-remembering, but I thought Jabba had favored the reincarnation model.

 

[JayUtah]

I could be mis-remembering, but I thought Jabba had favored the reincarnation model.

You're not misremembering, but Jabba defines not-OOFLAM (what he claims he can prove) as the agglomeration of all those options, including the Christian model and reincarnation. So while he will argue in favor of reincarnation, it's not to the exclusion of other options.

 

[Mojo]

You're not misremembering, but Jabba defines not-OOFLAM (what he claims he can prove) as the agglomeration of all those options, including the Christian model and reincarnation. So while he will argue in favor of reincarnation, it's not to the exclusion of other options.

H and ~H are defined as whatever Jabba finds convenient at any given moment.

 

[Mojo]

H is OOFLam, which basically implies that the self is entirely physical.

The way you have defined it, yes.

But mortality includes scenarios in which the self is immaterial but has a finite lifetime. You are trying to prove immortality by disproving H. Do you see your problem?

 

[Loss Leader]

I could be mis-remembering, but I thought Jabba had favored the reincarnation model.

My memory is that he really had some sort of corporeal immortality in mind. It was only after he was pressed that he fell back to any immortality, including reincarnation or periodic existences or anything else. Since reincarnation is not a tenet of christianity, I'm not sure why he favors it.

 

[JayUtah]

My memory is that he really had some sort of corporeal immortality in mind. It was only after he was pressed that he fell back to any immortality, including reincarnation or periodic existences or anything else.

That's substantially what I recall too.

Since reincarnation is not a tenet of christianity, I'm not sure why he favors it.

Neither here nor in the Shroud thread has Jabba explicitly said he wants to prove Christian tenets. He has alluded enough times to a Christian formulation of various mysticisms to make that a tenable speculation, but he seems interested in avoiding being corralled to that.