Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
....

- Anyway, I then suggested that if we were able to duplicate the brain --
and the self along with it, while the first brain was still living -- the self would be looking out two sets of eyes. I was still trying to make sure that we were all talking about the same experience.
- My conclusion is that the self to which most of us are referring would be occupying -- received by -- two different brains, and be looking out two sets of eyes.......
Click to expand...
What a truly bizarre thing to posit.

Besides WANTING it to be true, have you any, you know, evidence that the brain is a radio? And why have we wasted 1000 posts since the last time you said the brain is a radio?

Oh well, at least you sort of answered the question about dual observers and now we know what current unfalsifiable you are clinging to.
 
Jabba said:
I was trying to make sure that we were talking about the same thing/process as we discussed the "self."
Click to expand...

Bull. Please stop treating us like we're stupid Jabba. You are trying to play with and massage the language into tricking someone to make some surface level agreement or concession to your nonsense so you can go back to this mythological "Neutral Audience" and use it as proof that your "Patented Debate Method" defeated a bunch of big mean skeptics.

*Very slowly in the vain hope it will sink in* We're not here to help you write the dialog for your self insert fan fiction Jabba.

You have an obsessive, pathological need (far, far beyond the simple and understandable universal human desire to just be right) to create a some elaborate fantasy world for yourself where you are demonstrably right about this mishmash of religious nothing you've latched onto and you are expecting us to help you by letting you direct us as if we were actors in a skit.

We will not do it. We know what you are doing and what you are trying to do.

I've said it before Jabba if this idea of a... story where you beat the big mean skeptics is so bloody important to you, just make the whole thing up and lie to yourself that it is true. It would actually be more intellectually honest and socially polite than the stupid game you are clumsy trying to play with us here.

I'd better leave it at that -- for now, at least.
Click to expand...

WHY!? What in you repeating the same rambling nonsense for the 245 billionth time requires a rest period for either you or us?
 
Last edited:
When someone says they conclude the brain is a radio, I believe 'conclude' means some sort of evidence has been analysed and studied to lead one to that conclusion.

Jabba, we all eagerly await you presenting evidence that the brain is a radio, receiving the transmission of your soul..............from somewhere.

We are also curious of the science behind you saying that cloning a brain would result in the soul being picked up by 2 receivers. This would seem to imply that the physical substance of the brain, you know, its particular combination of chemicals and matter, cause it to be tuned into receive a particular soul broadcast, and that soul only.

I'd also like to hear the process how this happens.
So are there like 100 billion souls in waiting, then, randomly, a brain comes into existence that is tuned (ahead of time???) to pick up a particular soul ?

Was that particular brain biology targetted already to that frequency of soul? How does this all work? Is it random? So some souls never have the luck of being tuned into by a brain? Do other souls get picked up multiple times. When someone is reincarnated, is that because the new body's brain is identical to the old body's brain and therefore can tune into the same soul? How is it that the brain is identical but the rest of the body is not?
 
JayUtah said:
How do you expect him to win the debate unless he can lay out all the ground rules and instruct his critics what points they'll be defending? It's almost like you don't want the playwright to control the plot of the play and designate how each of the characters in it are going to behave?
Click to expand...

I knew we should have ask for final script approval before agreeing to these roles.

I never thought we'd have a thread that required stunt doubles.
 
Jabba said:
- I was trying to make sure that we were talking about the same thing/process as we discussed the "self."
Click to expand...


That depends. Is this argument/recap of the musical episode of "Once Upon A Time" really your best try/description of your wife?
 
JoeBentley said:
I've said it before Jabba if this idea of a... story where you beat the big mean skeptics is so bloody important to you, just make the whole thing up and lie to yourself that it is true. It would actually be more intellectually honest and socially polite than the stupid game you are clumsy trying to play with us here.
Click to expand...

It'd also save a lot of time for everyone, jabba included.
 
The Sparrow said:
When someone says they conclude the brain is a radio, I believe 'conclude' means some sort of evidence has been analysed and studied to lead one to that conclusion.

Jabba, we all eagerly await you presenting evidence that the brain is a radio, receiving the transmission of your soul..............from somewhere.

We are also curious of the science behind you saying that cloning a brain would result in the soul being picked up by 2 receivers. This would seem to imply that the physical substance of the brain, you know, its particular combination of chemicals and matter, cause it to be tuned into receive a particular soul broadcast, and that soul only.
Click to expand...


Jabba probably realizes that this can't possibly be true, which is why he is constantly dodging the question regarding whether or not identical twins are one soul peering at the world through two sets of eyes.
 
Hokulele said:
Jabba probably realizes that this can't possibly be true, which is why he is constantly dodging the question regarding whether or not identical twins are one soul peering at the world through two sets of eyes.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear that too.

I can ask my twin daughters if it's true.
 
Mojo said:
That means that since you exist, the hypothesis that you have an immortal "self" is wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't think it says anything whatsoever about an immortal "self", actually. All Jabba's ever even tried to prove is that the materialist hypothesis is highly unlikely given that he exists. He's never even scratched the surface of why ~H necessarily has anything to do with immortality, so far as I can recall.

Dave
 
Jabba said:
- I was trying to make sure that we were talking about the same thing/process as we discussed the "self." First, I said that it's the thing/process that reincarnationists think comes back to life. I'm pretty sure that we all know what that experience is -- we just disagree with each other about its nature.

- From http://www.dictionary.com/browse/self:
Philosophy.
the ego; that which knows, remembers, desires, suffers, etc., as contrasted with that known, remembered, etc.
the uniting principle, as a soul, underlying all subjective experience.
- (Note that the dictionary version doesn't just say "soul" -- it says, "as a soul.")

- Anyway, I then suggested that if we were able to duplicate the brain --
and the self along with it, while the first brain was still living -- the self would be looking out two sets of eyes. I was still trying to make sure that we were all talking about the same experience.
- My conclusion is that the self to which most of us are referring would be occupying -- received by -- two different brains, and be looking out two sets of eyes...
Click to expand...
godless dave said:
My question is: how did you reach that conclusion?
Click to expand...
- Try a new word. The same "PERCEIVER" would be in both brains.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom