Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists
Click to expand...


Jabba -

You have no idea if that's true or not. You have done absolutely nothing to educate yourself about what any religion believes about reincarnation. You haven't even spoken to a single Buddhist or Hindu. You haven't opened so much as a Wikipedia article. So please do not tell us what reincarnationists claim. You don't know. At this point, the evidence leads me to believe you don't even care.


Jabba said:
- Do you think that you experience the process I'm alluding to, but believe (are sure) that it's mortal?
Click to expand...


Jabba -

By this post, you demonstrate that you are still thinking of consciousness as a discrete, unchanging thing. Would you ask if going sixty mph is mortal? The question makes no sense.

Please stop using the word "process" as some sort of throwaway so you can go on pretending it's anything but.

In any case, as you have just never understood ever, not one single person here is sure he/she is mortal. We simply have no evidentiary reason to believe we're not. Everything dies and no anecdote about coming back to life (or reincarnation) has ever held up under scrutiny.
 
I don't know about Hindu, according to MS a

critical process died check error code 0x000000EF

maybe this is confusing Jabba


:duck:
 
Jabba said:
- What can I call the kind of thing/process
Click to expand...
You may stop referring to the process of consciousness as a "thing". In materialism, which is what you're trying to refute, there is no soul.

that would not be me in my copy? I could call it "soul" with the stipulation that by definition, it may not be immortal.
Click to expand...
There is no such animal in materialism, which is what you're trying to refute.

- Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists, but not according to you. I need a word for that concept.
Click to expand...
The word you've repeatedly tried to dishonestly obfuscate is "soul". There is no such concept in materialism, which is what you're trying to refute.
 
Jabba said:
Do you think that you experience the process I'm alluding to, but believe (are sure) that it's mortal?
Click to expand...


ATTENTION JABBA. ANSWER THIS QUESTION. DO NOT IGNORE IT.

Do you think all your opponents secretly agree with you but just don't admit it?
 
godless dave said:
The whole thing would not be you. The head would not be your head. The nose would not be your nose. The skin would not be your skin. The brain would not be your brain.
Click to expand...
- Fine...
- But, I think you know to which process/experience I'm trying to find a word or phrase for -- if so, can you give me a word or phrase to use for it?
 
Jabba said:
- Fine...
- But, I think you know to which process/experience I'm trying to find a word or phrase for -- if so, can you give me a word or phrase to use for it?
Click to expand...


I already did. If you don't want to call it the soul, we can call it the flapdoodle.
 
Jabba said:
- Fine...
- But, I think you know to which process/experience I'm trying to find a word or phrase for -- if so, can you give me a word or phrase to use for it?
Click to expand...

As a tribute to the language of your "razor":

avere l'anima
 
Jabba,

What do you think is going to change when we "agree" on a term to use for you dancing around not calling it a soul?
 
Jabba said:
- Fine...
- But, I think you know to which process/experience I'm trying to find a word or phrase for -- if so, can you give me a word or phrase to use for it?
Click to expand...

You could call it your self, your consciousness, or your self awareness. It really doesn't matter. In the model you claim to be trying to disprove, it comes from a working brain.
 
Jabba said:
- But, I think you know to which process/experience I'm trying to find a word or phrase for -- if so, can you give me a word or phrase to use for it?
Click to expand...


What's wrong with "the ever-changing process of a working neurosystem"?
 
Jabba said:
But, I think you know to which process/experience I'm trying to find a word or phrase for --
Click to expand...

Stop being so dishonest. We know you mean a soul, and we know you're trying to find some word-game method of sneaking the concept into the materialist side of the debate. You've already been told a dozen times in a dozen ways that materialism does not allow for the existence of an effect that does not arise out of the material. You've tried several different ways to leapfrog over the part where you have to prove such a thing exists to the point where you and your critics agree on a name for it. Under materialism there simply is no concept as what you're trying to foist. Asking what to call it is moot.

Now you're trying to skip over the proof a different way and insinuate that whatever someone expresses a belief in is the thing you're talking about. No we don't know what "process/experience/thing/banana/Volkswagen" you're trying to foist. So please be so kind as to explain it. You don't get to say, "Oh, yeah, that thing you just agreed to give a name to -- that's the thing I mean is the proxy for the soul under materialism."

...if so, can you give me a word or phrase to use for it?
Click to expand...

You tell us exactly what you're talking about and exactly where you think it fits into the materialist hypothesis, and we'll start thinking about names.
 
Loss Leader said:
What's wrong with "the ever-changing process of a working neurosystem"?
Click to expand...

Because that wouldn't be the thing that's not reproduced by a perfect copy of the brain. All that is the self under materialism comes from the physical brain, and that's what it is no matter what we decided to call it. There isn't some other thing that happens that makes YOU the way Jabba's trying to foist the concept. Jabba is hoping that if he presses the problem of what to call it, and focuses only on that, we'll have tacitly agreed to the nature of it as he's outlined, and he can have his "gotcha!" moment. The nature of it, as he's outlined it, is the soul. It's like trying to prove someone is married by showing that he offered an answer -- any answer -- to the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
 
Jabba said:
- Fine...
- But, I think you know to which process/experience I'm trying to find a word or phrase for -- if so, can you give me a word or phrase to use for it?
Click to expand...

Describe exactly what part of the materialist hypothesis you're wanting to know the term for.

Unless you mean "soul", which isn't part of the materialist hypothesis which you're trying to disprove. That would be super dishonest of you to try to sneak that in. I think we agree on that.
 
I don't think Jabba understands that him browbeating us into agreeing to some term to describe some made up distinction isn't immediately going to equate to him winning the argument.

As JayUtah says he's not arguing, he's trying to set us up for some grand "gotcha" moment where his character argues our characters into a corner and force us to admit not only that he is right, but he was right all along and we knew it the entire time.

In Jabba's brain the existence of this "thing that wouldn't be reproduced" is as obvious to us as it is to him, but our stodgy, science ruined rational brains that don't practice holistic thinking won't let us just call it a soul, so Jabba has to trick us into making up (and therefore agreeing via... reasons) a new term he can than use to claim we're agreeing with him and admitting we all knew he's been right this whole time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom