Proof of Immortality, VII

[JoeMorgue]

No it wouldn't. I think you're trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

There are no pegs. There are no holes. There's no soul and Jabba is not going to live forever.

Back when all the smart people believed the earth was the entire universe (because the earth was all they could see), I might have said, "Not likely. It is unlikely that all we can see just happens to coincide with all that exists. Plus, it is too ludicrously unlikely that a universe consisting of one little planet would have produced sentient life. There must be very, very many planets."

The smart people were wrong back then, but I would have been right.

Well la de da ain't you just special.

Oh. Like "bodies that could be you" is an a priori specification, and "the body that is you" is a posterior specification?

Meaningless twaddle in florid prose. Latin nonsense is still nonsense.

Back when all the smart people believed the planets in the Sol system were the only planets that existed (because the bodies in the solar system were the only things they could see that moved), I might have said, "Not likely. It is unlikely that all we can see that moves just happens to coincide with all that exists. Plus, it is too ludicrously unlikely that a universe consisting of one paltry little collection of planets would have produced sentient life. There must be very, very many planets."

The smart people were wrong back then, but I would have been right.

Again, well la de da ain't you special.

Why does this one thread keep inviting this anti-intellecual "Oh you eggheads need to be taken down a notch" nonsense?

I don't mind stretching that definition beyond the breaking point. It needs to be stretched beyond the breaking point. It is inadequate.

Translation: "I'm going to play silly word games."

 

[Toontown]

Why does this one thread keep inviting this anti-intellecual "Oh you eggheads need to be taken down a notch" nonsense?

You answer that question every day.

What eggheads? You mean the pseudo-intellectual thread squatters?

 

[Jabba]

Dave (Godless),
- Way back when, when I was first claiming how unlikely I was -- given OOFLam -- and, how that reflected on OOFLam, you brought up the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier, suggesting that if I was correct about my existence and immortality, it must be either that Mt Rainier is immortal, or just that the existence of Mt Rainier defied science (I can't remember which).
- Ultimately, I claimed that I was "set apart,"whereas Rainier was not (which would explain why the same logic wouldn't apply to Rainier) -- and further that I (my particular self-awareness) was not scientifically traceable, whereas Rainier was.
- Since then, we've addressed the same issue regarding VWs and loaves of bread, with similar results, and I've presented my, likely, best arguments re "set apart" and "scientifically traceable" for each sub-issue. Whatever, for now, I'll leave those arguments as my closing statements for those issues and sub-issues.
- And then, you claimed that my resistance to the sperm+ovum explanation for particular self-awarenesses was misguided, but seemed to be accepting my explanation when you accepted that a perfect copy of my brain, or my sperm+ovum, would not bring ME back to life.

 

[Monza]

Jabba,

In all seriousness and sincerity, have you read any of the replies to your posts? Even if you ignore everyone but Godless Dave, it doesn't seem you have read or understood his posts. You just keep repeating the same thing but never address the basic errors that have been pointed out to you time and time again.

 

[JayUtah]

Dave (Godless),
- Way back when, when I was first claiming how unlikely I was -- given OOFLam -- and, how that reflected on OOFLam, you brought up the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier, suggesting that if I was correct about my existence and immortality, it must be either that Mt Rainier is immortal, or just that the existence of Mt Rainier defied science (I can't remember which).
- Ultimately, I claimed that I was "set apart,"whereas Rainier was not (which would explain why the same logic wouldn't apply to Rainier) -- and further that I (my particular self-awareness) was not scientifically traceable, whereas Rainier was.
- Since then, we've addressed the same issue regarding VWs and loaves of bread, with similar results, and I've presented my, likely, best arguments re "set apart" and "scientifically traceable" for each sub-issue. Whatever, for now, I'll leave those arguments as my closing statements for those issues and sub-issues.
- And then, you claimed that my resistance to the sperm+ovum explanation for particular self-awarenesses was misguided, but seemed to be accepting my explanation when you accepted that a perfect copy of my brain, or my sperm+ovum, would not bring ME back to life.

1. Yes, you've tried all these arguments before, many times.

2. Your argument to be "set apart" (i.e., somehow different than all other material) boiled down to begging that you had a soul. Your "traceability" argument was pure question-begging.

3. Your insistence on ambiguous language festooned with textual apparatus to suggest some alternate meaning (e.g., "bring ME back to life...") has been thoroughly discussed.

4. Your critics aren't going anywhere, so ignoring them is not going to make them go away and let you claim that you "must" have bested them.

 

[godless dave]

Dave (Godless),
- Way back when, when I was first claiming how unlikely I was -- given OOFLam -- and, how that reflected on OOFLam, you brought up the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier, suggesting that if I was correct about my existence and immortality, it must be either that Mt Rainier is immortal, or just that the existence of Mt Rainier defied science (I can't remember which).
- Ultimately, I claimed that I was "set apart,"whereas Rainier was not (which would explain why the same logic wouldn't apply to Rainier) -- and further that I (my particular self-awareness) was not scientifically traceable, whereas Rainier was.
- Since then, we've addressed the same issue regarding VWs and loaves of bread, with similar results, and I've presented my, likely, best arguments re "set apart" and "scientifically traceable" for each sub-issue. Whatever, for now, I'll leave those arguments as my closing statements for those issues and sub-issues.

If those are your best arguments then you might as well quit now, since you supported neither the "set apart" concept nor the "scientifically untraceable" concept.

- And then, you claimed that my resistance to the sperm+ovum explanation for particular self-awarenesses was misguided, but seemed to be accepting my explanation when you accepted that a perfect copy of my brain, or my sperm+ovum, would not bring ME back to life.

It's not a "sperm+ovum" explanation, it's a brain explanation. The materialist view is that human brains are conscious and have a sense of self. Sperm + ovum is where a new brain eventually comes from.

I accept that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring you back to life for exactly the same reason that I accept that a perfect copy of a loaf of bread would not be the first loaf of bread. In other words, I accept that 1+1=2. This does not contradict the idea that self-awareness comes from the brain. On the contrary, it's a logical consequence of it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave (Godless),

Weird. Why not just call him godless dave?

- Way back when, when I was first claiming how unlikely I was -- given OOFLam -- and, how that reflected on OOFLam, you brought up the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier, suggesting that if I was correct about my existence and immortality, it must be either that Mt Rainier is immortal, or just that the existence of Mt Rainier defied science (I can't remember which).
- Ultimately, I claimed that I was "set apart,"whereas Rainier was not (which would explain why the same logic wouldn't apply to Rainier) -- and further that I (my particular self-awareness) was not scientifically traceable, whereas Rainier was.

What is "particular" about what you've called a process? This is just your immortal lie.

- Since then, we've addressed the same issue regarding VWs and loaves of bread, with similar results, and I've presented my, likely, best arguments re "set apart" and "scientifically traceable" for each sub-issue. Whatever, for now, I'll leave those arguments as my closing statements for those issues and sub-issues.

That's probably best since, if they are your "best arguments", you've utterly failed.

- And then, you claimed that my resistance to the sperm+ovum explanation for particular self-awarenesses was misguided,

As misguided as your misuse of "particular" to refer to what you've called a process of self-awareness.

but seemed to be accepting my explanation when you accepted that a perfect copy of my brain, or my sperm+ovum, would not bring ME back to life.

You continue to dishonestly use waffle terms such as "ME", capitalizing and underlining them to give some significance that doesn't exist in reality. What has specifically been said is that there would be two duplicate but separate instances of you and what you've called your process of self-awareness, each thinking correctly that it is Jabba, as you've agreed.

When you mean "SOUL", just say soul. It would be the honest thing to do and I think you agree with everyone that you've lost at every turn.

 

[Jabba]

If those are your best arguments then you might as well quit now, since you supported neither the "set apart" concept nor the "scientifically untraceable" concept.

- Obviously, I disagree. I think that a neutral jury would generally disagree also. And could be that Caveman and Toon agree with those two conclusions of mine -- though, I doubt that they like my arguments.

It's not a "sperm+ovum" explanation, it's a brain explanation. The materialist view is that human brains are conscious and have a sense of self. Sperm + ovum is where a new brain eventually comes from.

I accept that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring you back to life for exactly the same reason that I accept that a perfect copy of a loaf of bread would not be the first loaf of bread. In other words, I accept that 1+1=2. This does not contradict the idea that self-awareness comes from the brain. On the contrary, it's a logical consequence of it.

- Would a perfect copy of my brain bring my particular self-awareness back to life?

 

[Belz...]

Dave (Godless),
- Way back when, when I was first claiming how unlikely I was -- given OOFLam -- and, how that reflected on OOFLam, you brought up the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier, suggesting that if I was correct about my existence and immortality, it must be either that Mt Rainier is immortal, or just that the existence of Mt Rainier defied science (I can't remember which).
- Ultimately, I claimed that I was "set apart,"whereas Rainier was not (which would explain why the same logic wouldn't apply to Rainier) -- and further that I (my particular self-awareness) was not scientifically traceable, whereas Rainier was.
- Since then, we've addressed the same issue regarding VWs and loaves of bread, with similar results, and I've presented my, likely, best arguments re "set apart" and "scientifically traceable" for each sub-issue. Whatever, for now, I'll leave those arguments as my closing statements for those issues and sub-issues.
- And then, you claimed that my resistance to the sperm+ovum explanation for particular self-awarenesses was misguided, but seemed to be accepting my explanation when you accepted that a perfect copy of my brain, or my sperm+ovum, would not bring ME back to life.

How's re-stating your claims worked for you so far?

Did you think we had forgotten?

We know you claim it's set apart. But you have not justified that claim.

 

[Belz...]

- Obviously, I disagree. I think that a neutral jury would generally disagree also.

So far all neutral juries have agreed against you. Where's this mythical jury that happens to agree with you?

- Would a perfect copy of my brain bring my particular self-awareness back to life?

Stop asking the same question over and over and read the *********** responses.

 

[godless dave]

- Would a perfect copy of my brain bring my particular self-awareness back to life?

I just answered that in the very post you're replying to.

Try reading this again:

I accept that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring you back to life for exactly the same reason that I accept that a perfect copy of a loaf of bread would not be the first loaf of bread

 

[jond]

- Obviously, I disagree. I think that a neutral jury would generally disagree also. And could be that Caveman and Toon agree with those two conclusions of mine -- though, I doubt that they like my arguments.

Where's that laughing dog???

- Would a perfect copy of my brain bring my particular self-awareness back to life?

What would the difference between a perfect copy self identifying as Jabba and you be, exactly? And why do you keep ignoring this question?

 

[RoboTimbo]

- Obviously, I disagree. I think that a neutral jury would generally disagree also. And could be that Caveman and Toon agree with those two conclusions of mine -- though, I doubt that they like my arguments.

Toontown was actually kind enough to illustrate for you that you couldn't make 1+4=7 without fundamentally changing your argument. You haven't changed your fundamental argument.

You have a neutral jury right here. They disagree with your arguments for the thousands of reasons given which you haven't addressed. You're just been too dishonest to address the fatal flaws or even acknowledge them.

- Would a perfect copy of my brain bring my particular self-awareness back to life?

Your immortal lie. How is what you've called a process of self-awareness "particular". Does a Volkswagen go a "particular" 60 mph?

Jabba, you can refute your made up nonsense all you want. You can stick a soul onto your OOFLAM and then say that OOFLAM doesn't address souls. It doesn't matter. If you haven't falsified the actual materialist model, you've lost.

 

[Belz...]

Your immortal lie.

It sure keeps getting brought back to life repeatedly in new bodies.

 

[Jabba]

I just answered that in the very post you're replying to.
Try reading this again:

- No, you didn't.
- I used "my particular self-awareness" in my question -- you had used "you" (referring to "me") in your previous answer. I wanted to make sure that we were talking about the same thing/process.

- OK. I'll stick with the "brain" model, and avoid the "sperm+ovum" model.

 

[godless dave]

- No, you didn't.
- I used "my particular self-awareness" in my question -- you had used "you" (referring to "me") in your previous answer.

They're the same thing.

 

[jond]

- OK. I'll stick with the "brain" model, and avoid the "sperm+ovum" model.

Great. Now you have to explain how a process in the brain can continue when the brain stops functioning.

 

[Belz...]

- No, you didn't.
- I used "my particular self-awareness" in my question -- you had used "you" (referring to "me") in your previous answer. I wanted to make sure that we were talking about the same thing/process.

For ****'s sake, Jabba, you've been using the same terms for years. You can't possibly expect us to believe that you suddenly thought we didn't understand your terms.

 

[JayUtah]

I wanted to make sure that we were talking about the same thing/process.

No, you were trying to play your standard silly word games in hopes of springing a "gotcha!" As usual, it failed.

I'll stick with the "brain" model, and avoid the "sperm+ovum" model.

How about you just use the materialist model for everything, as the reckoning of P(E|H) requires in your model, instead of trying to create the illusion of victory by tricking someone into agreeing with your slyly and dishonestly worded straw-man formulations of materialism?

 

[Jabba]

They're the same thing.

- That's what I wanted to know. I've been mistaken about assumptions before.