Proof of Immortality, VI

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by SOdhner
You've missed the main point of my post, which is that regardless of how you want to define it you HAVE TO use our definition in your premise...

Originally Posted by Jabba...
- The basic question right now is whether or not H and ~H are referring to the same experience of "self."...

Originally Posted by godless dave
That is not the question. We already know the answer to the question. The answer is "yes". We are talking about the same experience...

Dave,
- Isn't that SOdhner's question?

I don't see how. SOdhner was talking about the nature of the self, not the experience.

- So SOdhner is implying that I'm not involving the materialist definition in H?

 

[RoboTimbo]

So SOdhner is implying that I'm not involving the materialist definition in H?

No, he and virtually everyone else has outright said so with examples.

To pretend otherwise is deliberate dishonesty.

 

[Waterman]

Included for Reference:

In the materialist view the self (self-awareness) is the result of a continuing process of biology and memory that gradually shifts with time which allows for a feeling of continuity. Trauma, drugs or disease can radically alter this process. When the body is no longer functioning in a manner to allow this process to continue, self-awareness is either suspended (sleep or coma) or ceases (death or vegetative state). This is supported by the available evidence...

Waterman,
- I basically agree with all that except that according to OOFLam my 'movie' never played before, will never play again and never had to play in the first place -- so, according to OOFLam it's pretty damned unlikely that my movie would happen to be playing in 2017 (Gregorian calendar).

Bolding mine
Ok….???
So you agree that:
The self is a process
This process may be altered through various mechanisms
This process may be suspended or halted

Your primary disagreement is defended by asserting that we are unlikely. Most people have agreed that the further back in time you go the more unlikely our individual existence becomes. However as time moves forward that probability converges on 1 with your birth and continued existence. The person you have become is shaped by your biology and experiences you were not predestined to have any of those. The unlikelihood of our individual existence has no bearing on the existence of an immaterial component of our being or immortality.

Do you understand the sentient puddle logical fallacy where in the puddle marvels at how well he fits the hole he finds himself in? You are marveling at the complexity of your life and all the factors had to come together to make you who you are. But you were not made to fit a Jabba shaped hole that was waiting for you. You were shaped by myriad of forces in world to be who you are. Circumstances provided an opportunity for a being to form in an available niche and the being that emerged happened to designate itself as Jabba.

 

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by SOdhner
You've missed the main point of my post, which is that regardless of how you want to define it you HAVE TO use our definition in your premise...

Originally Posted by Jabba...
- The basic question right now is whether or not H and ~H are referring to the same experience of "self."...

Originally Posted by godless dave
That is not the question. We already know the answer to the question. The answer is "yes". We are talking about the same experience...





- So SOdhner is implying that I'm not involving the materialist definition in H?

He's not implying it he's saying it. So am I. As soon as we agree we're talking about the same experience you tack on something that is part of the nature under ~H. When someone objects you take the discussion back to whether we're talking about the same experience.

 

[Jabba]

He's not implying it he's saying it. So am I. As soon as we agree we're talking about the same experience you tack on something that is part of the nature under ~H. When someone objects you take the discussion back to whether we're talking about the same experience.

- Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree. To what do I tack that on?

 

[RoboTimbo]

- Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree. To what do I tack that on?

Where have you not?

 

[JayUtah]

So SOdhner is implying that I'm not involving the materialist definition in H?

He's saying it. We're all saying it. Moreover, you admitted to it not more than a few days ago -- what you're proposing as H is lip service to materialism, liberally contaminated with your insistent on a soul. Not even your careful choice of words -- "involving" -- makes this any sort of mystery. Stop pretending to be befuddled. We're not buying it.

Not only that, it's Fatal Flaw no. 8 in this list you're desperately trying to pretend doesn't exist.

 

[SOdhner]

- So SOdhner is implying that I'm not involving the materialist definition in H?

You could just reply to my post, rather than debating with someone else about what I'm saying. I laid it out pretty clearly for you, used a numbered list and everything.

 

[JayUtah]

- Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree. To what do I tack that on?

Nice try. Asking whether you are "involving" the materialist hypothesis in H doesn't save you. You start with materialism and then you tack on the idea of a soul. When we point out that this is what you're doing, you run back to the starting point and insist that you've "involved" materialism and beg people to agree that you've properly represented H. You assume the existence of a soul at every point in your argument. You just call it by different names -- and admit that you do this -- in order to try to hide the begged question.

See, Jabba, you're not really very good at equivocation. You're not at all skilled at debate, but you're not even very skilled at pretending to have a debate. Your tactics are way too transparent and ham-fisted. You get attention from critics only because they hold out hope that you can at some point be shamed into realizing just how obviously ridiculous your argument is, as well as for your stubbornness in holding onto it by these means. There's no nuance for you to hide in on this one. You frankly admitted you were adulterating H with your own ideas. Move on.

You know this list of points upon which we disagree exists. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11871278&postcount=3198 . When you say you're continuing the discussion in order to discover where we disagree, we know that's a lie. You already know the points of disagreement. You just have no answers.

 

[godless dave]

- Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree. To what do I tack that on?

Here's one example:

I still don't understand what sense that is. They are "different" in the same way the bodies are "different". There are two of them.

- So, you don't know what reincarnationists think comes back to life.

 

[abaddon]

- Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree. To what do I tack that on?

Enough with the equivocation and dodging, Jabba.

Simple question. Do you support reincarnation, yes or no?

If you do, you are no christian.

If you do not, then your argument is false.

After years of the shroud nonsense, where you claim that jesus effectively reincarnated, are you now claiming it to be commonplace?

Are you tossing christianity out the window?

 

[jond]

- Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree. To what do I tack that on?

As has been pointed out an infinite number of times, you tack on an extra thing you call the self (soul) when the materialist model is that the self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. Not a thing, a process. Brain stops, process stops is the materialistic model.

And, of course, you acknowledged just a couple weeks ago that your model is not the materialistic model. Do you need us to pull up th quote again?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree.

Jabba do you think we're all stupid? I'd appreciate an answer.

Even you can't possibly be maintaining in your head the delusion that we haven't been clear with our disagreement.

 

[Jabba]

He's not implying it he's saying it. So am I. As soon as we agree we're talking about the same experience you tack on something that is part of the nature under ~H. When someone objects you take the discussion back to whether we're talking about the same experience.

Originally Posted by Jabba
- Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree. To what do I tack that on?

Here's one example:

Originally Posted by godless dave
I still don't understand what sense that is. They are "different" in the same way the bodies are "different". There are two of them.

Originally Posted by Jabba
- So, you don't know what reincarnationists think comes back to life.

Dave,

- I am learning a lot about the difficulty that we humans have when trying to discuss disagreements...

- Try this. I involve reincarnationists because I assume that they would believe that there is a difference between the particular, individual, sense of awareness in the original body and that in the perfect copy.
- I think they would think that the original sense would not be brought back to life. It is the sense of self that they think does come back to life in reincarnation that they think would not come back in the perfect copy -- and, that's how the original and the perfect copy would be different.
- And, you should agree with them when it comes to the original and the perfect copy -- that particular, individual, sense of self awareness would not be brought back to life in the copy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I am learning a lot about the difficulty that we humans have when trying to discuss disagreements...

Bull. You are fully admitted that your goal here is to create a wizard's duel way of "arguing" where you can twist everything your opponents say into either them agreeing with you or a win for you

You have aren't learning anything about disagreements. You trying to find a way to learn how to disagree in a way that your nonsense isn't proven wrog.

The rest of your post is just you rudely AND YET AGAIN IN DEFIANCE OF ALL LOGIC just repeating the same thing.

I ask you again Jabba. Do you think we are stupid?

 

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by Jabba
- Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree. To what do I tack that on?



Originally Posted by godless dave
I still don't understand what sense that is. They are "different" in the same way the bodies are "different". There are two of them.

Originally Posted by Jabba
- So, you don't know what reincarnationists think comes back to life.

Dave,

- I am learning a lot about the difficulty that we humans have when trying to discuss disagreements...

- Try this. I involve reincarnationists because I assume that they would believe that there is a difference between the particular, individual, sense of awareness in the original body and that in the perfect copy.

And that's where you're talking about the nature of the experience and not the experience itself.

- I think they would think that the original sense would not be brought back to life. It is the sense of self that they think does come back to life in reincarnation that they think would not come back in the perfect copy -- and, that's how the original and the perfect copy would be different.

And this is our disagreement. I think that two identical things can exist that are not different from each other.

- And, you should agree with them when it comes to the original and the perfect copy -- that particular, individual, sense of self awareness would not be brought back to life in the copy.

I agree the original would not be brought back to life because an identical copy is separate from the original even if there is no difference at all between the original and the copy.

When you assert that there would be difference between the two selves is when you tack on something about the nature of the self. We both agree that we experience a sense of self. Where we disagree is on the nature of that experience.

 

[JayUtah]

I am learning a lot about the difficulty that we humans have when trying to discuss disagreements...

Nonsense. You're deliberately obfuscating and ambiguating simple statements, and deliberately trying to entrap your critics into "gotcha!" semblances of agreement. Please answer JoeBentley's question: do you literally think we're stupid and can't see what you're doing? This is not rhetorical. In the past you have accused your critics of being incapable of a particular kind of thought you say is required to appreciate your argument. Do you honestly think you're actually getting away with anything?

I involve reincarnationists...

You can "involve" whatever you want when you're discussing your hypothesis and the probability of your existence under it. You may not impose that on the data. You may not impose that on your critics. You may not impose that on a hypothesis that explicitly disallows it.

And, you should agree with them when it comes to the original and the perfect copy -- that particular, individual, sense of self awareness would not be brought back to life in the copy.

No. Proponents of the materialist hypothesis should have to agree to no such thing just because you choose to "involve" it. You are blatantly begging the question and blatantly constructing a straw man. We are telling you how the materialist hypothesis would approach that hypothetical situation. You don't get to say otherwise. It's not your theory. You don't get to do with it as you please or reformulate it to make this debate possible for you to win.

This is elementary thinking, Jabba, not some farfetched or nuanced complaint. You are literally trampling over some of the simplest rules of rational thinking.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- I am learning a lot about the difficulty that we humans have when trying to discuss disagreements...

No, you've pretty much written the book on how to introduce difficulty where none exists otherwise.

- Try this. I involve reincarnationists because I assume that they would believe that there is a difference between the particular, individual, sense of awareness in the original body and that in the perfect copy.

No, you use them because then you feel absolved from defending whatever you attribute to their beliefs. It's dishonest.

- I think they would think that the original sense would not be brought back to life. It is the sense of self that they think does come back to life in reincarnation that they think would not come back in the perfect copy -- and, that's how the original and the perfect copy would be different.

No, a sense isn't a separate living thing that comes back to life or not. Continuing to pretend it is is dishonest.

- And, you should agree with them when it comes to the original and the perfect copy -- that particular, individual, sense of self awareness would not be brought back to life in the copy.

No, senses aren't separate living things that come back to life. Continuing to say they are is dishonest.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Try this. I involve reincarnationists because I assume that they would believe that there is a difference between the particular, individual, sense of awareness in the original body and that in the perfect copy. I think they would think that the original sense would not be brought back to life. It is the sense of self that they think does come back to life in reincarnation that they think would not come back in the perfect copy -- and, that's how the original and the perfect copy would be different.

Jabba -

With respect, this is extraordinarily easy. Try this: Go talk to reincarnationists (Hindus an Buddhists and others). Read up on their individual religious beliefs. Join a forum like https://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com and http://www.hindudharmaforums.com.

Find out exactly what they believe from their own words. There is absolutely no need to guess about anything. This isn't like the Shroud. We don't have to use indirect evidence and guesswork. Reincarnationists are alive and easily available for consultation.

Take a week off and learn their beliefs.

 

[Mojo]

- Try this. I involve reincarnationists because I assume that they would believe that there is a difference between the particular, individual, sense of awareness in the original body and that in the perfect copy.

Just to get this straight: are you invoking "reincarnationists" here because you think they believe the same thing as you do, or because you think they believe the same thing that materialism claims?

- I think they would think that the original sense would not be brought back to life. It is the sense of self that they think does come back to life in reincarnation that they think would not come back in the perfect copy -- and, that's how the original and the perfect copy would be different.

Yes, but this is not the materialist position.

- And, you should agree with them when it comes to the original and the perfect copy -- that particular, individual, sense of self awareness would not be brought back to life in the copy.

WHY should we agree with them that there would be a difference between you and a perfect copy of you? Remember, the materialist position here is not that you would not be brought back to life because of a difference between you and the copy, but simply because a perfect copy, while identical to the original in all its properties, would be a second entity. It would not be you, but a second person identical to you at that particular point in time.

And why does it matter whether or not we agree with them? Even if we did, it would just mean that we disagree with the materialist hypothesis that you are trying to disprove. It wouldn't alter that hypothesis so that it includes the existence of souls. You still wouldn't be able to factor souls into your calculation of P(E|H).