Are these credible people in the same room as the neutral audience that is impressed with your debate skills?
Proof of Immortality, VI
- Thread starter jond
- Start date
- Status
Are these credible people in the same room as the neutral audience that is impressed with your debate skills?
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
I've gotta ask: Have you actually read Lanza's work? You been busted in the past for citing things you hadn't read that actually contradicted you.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- No.
- According to my arguments so far, rocks do not have the unifying emergent properties of life and consciousness, and there existence wouldn't mean very much... Though actually, why is there something instead of nothing. Nothing would make a lot more sense than something!
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
It's debatable whether quantum mechanics is taking Lanza wherever it is he's trying to get to.
And, as usual, your source doesn't actually get you where you're trying to go. Once again you've cited something without reading or understanding it.
Every time, Jabba.
Every. Single. Time.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
But then that implies there are more souls now than there were in, say, 1805, because Napoleon's one soul was divided into two or more souls. But in contrast you say the number of souls is infinite, because that's where you get your Big Denominator that makes H go away in your proof. Relational comparisons only work with finite numbers, Jabba. You can't say the infinity of souls present in 1805 was less than the infinity of souls there are now. Because, you know, infinity actually has a definition vis-a-vis relations of that ilk.
Are you able to reconcile that mathematical fact with your feeble accusation this morning that your critics are simply in denial of your genius and have no actual evidence or argument upon which to base the right kind of refutation? You really do owe your critics an apology for your continually shabby misrepresentation of them and your ongoing waste of their time.
No, you're casting vague, desperate aspersions on the scientific method because you need it to be just unsure enough of its data and conclusions that you can wedge your soul concept into the inductive gap. Do you really think you're the first to try the "Science can't know enough to refute me!" ploy? This is not at all the first time you've just up and declared (with no evidence or argument) that science can't know something that's crucial to your claim. You are decidedly not the scientist here, Jabba. Please don't rail against the straw man.
But you don't believe that life and consciousnesses are "emergent properties." We had to explain to you what that term even meant. You are just parroting the term hoping we'll make a surface level agreement you can latch onto.
You think God is putting Souls in people and the differences is rocks don't have souls while you do. We all know that Jabba.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
We're only at loggerheads if you're going to put the ideas of crackpots on the same level as those of actual physicists. Nobody credible agrees with Lanza about biocentrism. As a doctor and biologist he seems to be quite capable and know what he's talking about. When he ventures into other fields he sounds like a crackpot.
Citing crackpots is not going to help your case any more than citing a book of alleged accounts of reincarnation.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Asked and answered. You're special-pleading the emergent property of life and consciousness, when in fact all complex entities have emergent properties -- just different emergent properties. Your argument so far is blatantly illogical.
The "meaning" of an emergent property is not something materialism cares about. You're simply trying to vaunt up a certain emergent property to be more than it is, because you need it to be more than it is. You need it to be a soul.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Are you saying the existence of things with life and consciousness are more meaningful than the existence of things that lack those properties?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, we already demonstrated you are unable to distinguish real science from pseudoscience. Remember how your critics actually read your sources and gave a detailed analysis, and you didn't even acknowledge it?
No, Lanza is taking quantum mechanics into strange places where it does not belong. We already tested your knowledge of quantum mechanics and found it sorely lacking. That you are fooled by obvious pseudoscience does not mean your critics are similarly benighted.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
But your argument is based on the probability of you existing - and that applies equally well to everything else. There's nothing about being conscious that significantly changes the fact that any specific thing is wildly unlikely to exist.
EDIT: Actually, I could argue that if you want to use your view of "potential" things, rocks are actually WAY more unlikely since there's a much larger valid range of configurations of rock than there are for, say, humans. Put a human together wrong and it's not a human at all, but you can make a rock in almost any size and shape you want. So any specific rock, by your logic, is wildly less likely to exist.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Answer the following questions.
1. To what extent is Lanza's theory of biocentrism accepted within the relevant scientific communities?
2. What activities have you personally undertaken to determine whether biocentrism is a widely-accepted scientific theory, as opposed to a single-author fringe theory?
3. What activities have you personally undertaken to become educated in the sciences that pertain to Lanza's theory?
4. Since the "infinite pool of consciousness" directly contradicts your earlier discretization (and, as I explain above, cannot support your mathematical proof), to what extent would you say Lanza's work -- which you now cite as support of your findings -- contradicted your original attempt to cardinalize and discretize consciousness?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Jabba, do you realise that this reply means that you are admitting that you are using the Texas sharpshooter fallacy? If any of the other "potential" Jabbas could use the same argument, then there is nothing that makes you "special".
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Exactly what about Napoleon was passed on? His fashion sense? His knowledge of military tactics? His ability to speak French?
In what non-trivial way is anybody a reincarnation of Napoleon?
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
Quantum woo, therefore immortality.
Wow you are just throwing buckets of slop at the wall now hoping SOMETHING might stick.
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
Woo again.
Science doesn't know EVERYTHING therefore my assertion COULD BE True.
Therefore until it is disproven it is reasonable to believe.
Just because you can make some wild ass assertion, doesn't compel anyone to disprove it. You have to actually back up your assertion with evidence and reasoned arguments. You have done neither
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
emphasis mine. What the hell does the significance you attach to something have to do with reason and evidence?
How would it make more sense?
why is either extreme somehow more plausible?
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Jabba,why are you still arguing? You've already acknowledged that your model is not the scientific model. You've already acknowledged that the likelihood of your brain existing and being the generator of your self is more likely than your brain existing and a separate self also existing and also some means of the two interfacing. Why do you continue to think your argument has any merit at all?
- Status