Jabba, I've asked you several times to avoid this sort of meaningless twaddle. Please don't be so rude as keep pulling the discussion back to your vague generalities. Listen to your critics, who are carefully explaining how the materialist model handles concepts of life and self-awareness.
The soul, Jabba. What you seem to be pinning on the "reincarnationists" (whoever those might be) is simply your concept of the soul. No such thing exists in materialism. No concept of "a particular self" exists in materialism. It is not an individualized thing; self-awareness is a property. "That aspect of the self" is clearly trying to be the soul again. How many
hundreds of times must we tell you that no such thing exists in the model you're trying to refute?
No. Materialism does not in any way include the concept of a reincarnatable soul.
Just more equivocation. You're clearly talking about a soul, but you are also dishonestly trying to hide the question you know you're begging. You say "the self" because you don't want to use the word soul. Now you're just saying "whatever the reincarnationists believe in" (without defining either them or that) so that you can have a new phrase that means soul without actually coming out and saying soul.
No, now you're just playing word games to try -- once again -- to sneak the soul concept in as part of E, the data. No, materialism does not accept in any way the soul that is reincarnated from body to body. Not even a little bit. Now you're equivocating "experiencing the sense of self" as your method of trying to make your soul part of E. Not gonna happen, Jabba. How many times have people called you on this blatant deception? Will it ever sink in that your critics are not blind or idiots?
No, you're just circularly defining "back to life" as whatever you claim is the operative difference you can't define in concrete terms.
You can't define what you mean by self. Which is to say, it really is a soul and you've admitted as such. But you keep using different confusing and vague terms to hopefully fool people into thinking you're not begging the question of a soul.
You're conflating the subjective experience of self-awareness with potential causes for that self-awareness. You're trying to sneak the concept of a soul into E as data rather than as part of a hypothesis to explain the data. You're using the "whatever experience the reincarnationists have" as your bridge for doing that. We already identified as a fatal flaw in your argument your amateurish inability to understand what the parts of a statistical inference are and what role they play.
No.
No. H is materialism. ~H is the set of everything that isn't materialism, which may include theories that involve reincarnation. This is the false dilemma we have repeatedly identified as a fatal flaw in your argument, which you steadfastly refuse to address.
Despite your desperate efforts to put words in your critics' mouths, we do not agree any such thing. "That kind of self" and "bring back to life" are not clearly defined, and have no apparent paragon in materialism. Please do not simply paste vague requirements onto the problem solely for the purpose of claiming materialism can't explain them. Straw man.
You don't get to nail down that self. You don't own it. It is not yours to mess with and redefine from day to day as you get stuck in the debate.
Self-awareness under H is an emergent property of a functioning brain. It is not particularized or individualized in any way that is distinguishable or enumerable. Stop trying to redefine your way out of this dilemma. You lost this debate years ago, and you know it. A concise summary of that loss appears
here, where you've explicitly known about it for weeks. Your conscious and deliberate desire not to engage them tells the whole world you know your argument is refuted.
