Proof of Immortality, VII

[Belz...]

Would another exactly, down to the tiniest detail, copy of that neuro-chemical process be me? I don't know or care. It's not a valid question. It's applying a term to something in context it was never meant to be used and trying to use the fact the term doesn't work as evidence of something.

This, exactly.

 

[Jabba]

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.

Dave,
- Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.
- I'm trying to show that the self must continue to exist after the death of the brain.
- One of my claims is that the materialists and reincarnationists are talking about the same concept/experience (the "self") when they discuss the possibility of life after death. I represent the materialist model by OOFLam and the likelihood of your current existence under that model.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.
- I'm trying to show that the self must continue to exist after the death of the brain.
- One of my claims is that the materialists and reincarnationists are talking about the same concept/experience (the "self") when they discuss the possibility of life after death. I represent the materialist model by OOFLam and the likelihood of your current existence under that model.

I hate to break it to you, but you've been failing miserably for 5 years.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave,
- Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.

Can't wait for you to start.

- I'm trying to show that the self must continue to exist after the death of the brain.

When will you start?

- One of my claims is that the materialists and reincarnationists are talking about the same concept/experience (the "self") when they discuss the possibility of life after death.

In the materialist model, which is what you're trying to refute, the self is a product of the organism. You don't get to paste a soul onto the materialist model.

I represent the materialist model by OOFLam and the likelihood of your current existence under that model.

No, you misrepresent the materialist model. You try to paste a soul onto it. You and I agree that that's dishonest but we also agree that you've embraced dishonesty.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.

Unfortunately, the way you're trying to show that it's wrong is by demanding that something not part of it and completely incompatible with it should be considered part of it, so that you can claim a contradiction. In effect it's a circular strawman argument; you're misrepresenting the materialist hypothesis as a different, internally inconsistent, hypothesis so that you can then point to its internal inconsistency and claim it to be refuted. That's a fundamentally dishonest argument, and what's equally dishonest is your attempt to claim that you can somehow make it a valid argument by choosing an appropriate synonym for the word "soul".

One of my claims is that the materialists and reincarnationists are talking about the same concept/experience (the "self") when they discuss the possibility of life after death.

Another of your claims is that this experience is not reproduced when all the elements contributing to it in any way are reproduced, and what you're so obviously trying not to say is "because the soul is involved, and souls are unique." Let me make it clear to you:

In materialism, there is no analogue to the soul.

Dave

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.
- I'm trying to show that the self must continue to exist after the death of the brain.
- One of my claims is that the materialists and reincarnationists are talking about the same concept/experience (the "self") when they discuss the possibility of life after death. I represent the materialist model by OOFLam and the likelihood of your current existence under that model.

Except whenever you try to come up with a value for P(E|H), you don't base it on the materialist model. In the materialist model, the self comes from the brain. It does not come from nowhere. It is cause and effect traceable.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, I'm confused by your use of the word "reproduce". You seem to agree that reproducing a brain would result in two brains, the original and the copy. But when it comes to what you're calling "selves", you seem to be implying that "reproducing" a self would result in one self in two locations. I don't get it.

Dave,
- I'm saying that what I'm calling the self would be different in the copy in the same way that a new loaf of bread would be different than the original -- except that the new self is the result of an emergent property that has no analog in the new loaf of bread.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave,
- I'm saying that what I'm calling the self would be different in the copy in the same way that a new loaf of bread would be different than the original -- except that the new self is the result of an emergent property that has no analog in the new loaf of bread.

Yes, you're saying the new self has a different soul. We all know that. Under materialism, there is no such thing as a soul, so your claim is not valid under materialism.

Dave

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave,
- I'm saying that what I'm calling the self SOUL would be different in the copy in the same way that a new loaf of bread would be different than the original -- except that the new self SOUL is the result of an emergent property that has no analog in the new loaf of bread BECAUSE BREAD DOESN'T HAVE A SOUL.

See how it looks when I remove your dishonesty and add what should be your honest words?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I'm saying that what I'm calling the self would be different in the copy in the same way that a new loaf of bread would be different than the original -- except that the new self is the result of an emergent property that has no analog in the new loaf of bread.

So, like I've been saying, if you made an exact copy of my body, my self would be reproduced.

 

[Belz...]

- Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.
- I'm trying to show that the self must continue to exist after the death of the brain.

Yes we know. We also know how terribly you've failed at those.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.

Okay. Do you plan to start actually doing this at some point?

I'm trying to show that the self must continue to exist after the death of the brain.

You're failing. And I don't mean failing at doing it, I mean failing at trying to do it.

One of my claims is that the materialists and reincarnationists are talking about the same concept/experience (the "self") when they discuss the possibility of life after death. I represent the materialist model by OOFLam and the likelihood of your current existence under that model.

You represent nothing. You haven't made a claim. You just keep repeating over and over what your claims are going to be at some point in the future. I don't think a can think of a proper example of any greater use of an amount of words to say nothing in history.

Jabba you will ignore this. The fact that you continue to act as if your opponents can't see through your act is literally, no hyperbole, without embellishment, by far the most intellectually insulted I have ever been in a discussion.

We're 5 plus years into this discussion and you haven't even begun to actually make a point. I don't care if this is an act, I don't care if it is trolling, I don't care if it's some persona you're crafting, I don't care if you really are some befuddled old man.

It's indefensible. And you are beyond saving.

 

[Belz...]

- I'm saying that what I'm calling the self would be different in the copy in the same way that a new loaf of bread would be different than the original

No, it would be distinct. And? Who cares if you're not "brought back to life"? That has nothing to do with whether materialism is false.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave,
- I'm saying that what I'm calling the self would be different in the copy...

Explain exactly how it would differ.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Explain exactly how it would differ.

"They wouldn't be the saaaaaaaame!"

 

[JayUtah]

Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.

And, as you've been repeatedly told, you don't get to do that in the context of the term of your statistical model that deals with materialism. When reckoning that term, P(E|H), you must do so as if H were true, whether you believe it to be true or not, and even if your overall goal is to falsify it.

I'm trying to show that the self must continue to exist after the death of the brain.

That's your overall goal, yes. But at this point in the proof you're trying to reckon P(E|H). You must do so using H as it is formulated, and you must assume it is true throughout this portion of the inference. Otherwise you're not performing a correct statistical inference; you'd just be using pseudo-mathematics to conceal a blatantly begged question.

Your whole notion of "potential selves" as discriminable entities is to pretend to justify the Big Denominator you announced ahead of time you would need in order for your proof to work. Insofar as you are using the Big Denominator only to argue that P(E|H) must be very, very small, it has meaning only within the P(E|H) term of your formula, part of the likelihood ratio. Hence all the concepts you use to justify the Big Denominator must fall under the auspices of H and not just be something you made up.

Leaving aside that there's no countable set of "potential selves" in materialism that gives a meaningful probability, your bigger problem is that you can't use an assumption that H is false, or the premonition that you can prove it false, as a premise in constructing such a proof with respect to P(E|H). First, that's just blatantly circular reasoning. Second, it's expressly not how the likelihood ratio works in a statistical inference.

One of my claims is that the materialists and reincarnationists are talking about the same concept/experience (the "self") when they discuss the possibility of life after death.

That claim is expressly false. Materialists do not allow for any such effect or entity as reincarnation would require. I presume Dave Rogers has said this in a typeface large enough to preclude your selective attention. You may not rewrite materialism to make it easier for you to refute.

I represent the materialist model by OOFLam and the likelihood of your current existence under that model.

You misrepresent the materialist model by just making up a bunch of stuff and calling it materialism. When reckoning P(E|H) you must consider H as it is actually formulated. You don't own H. It's not yours to speculate around. You may not rewrite it at will to suit your attempts to falsify it.

As I have written many times, and as I have outlined here as fatal flaws #1 and #3, you simply have no idea how to properly formulate a statistical inference. Had you done what I've asked you many times to do and take an hour or so to address briefly each of these fatal flaws (or shown your utter inability to do that), your critics would not have to waste their time with an obviously incompetent attempt at proof. Your proof is not broken merely in some irrelevant nuance or by some niggling detail. Your proof is broken at the fundamental level of understanding how math works.

You're wrong and you know you're wrong, as evidenced by your assiduous avoidance of a comprehensive rebuttal to your claims. Please concede the debate and apologize for wasting your critics' time.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm saying that what I'm calling the self would be different in the copy in the same way that a new loaf of bread would be different than the original -- except that the new self is the result of an emergent property that has no analog in the new loaf of bread.

But you're trying to have your bread and eat it too. The point of the bread loaf analogy was to illustrate how materialism actually works, not to provide a new framework for you to speculate around and abuse pronouns. The analogy shows that under materialism, emergent properties such as "smells like bread" must be present any time the material composition is present. Once again you're trying to violate materialism by saying humans are different from bread in that they have a soul and bread does not.

In materialism, all that is attributable to humans is a product of the material that makes up the human organism. All of it. There is no magical component or effect that somehow won't be reproduced in a perfect copy. It is the same for bread; all properties of bread would be present in any copy of the loaf -- to wit, one that is made from the same recipe. The analogy was meant to teach you, and all you have demonstrated is your unwillingness to learn.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Lying about materialism is fine, it's a lie for Jesus

 

[JayUtah]

Lying about materialism is fine, it's a lie for Jesus

Nothing so noble. It's a lie toward the greater glory of Jabba, the master of Effective Debate^TM and the Confounder of the Godless Atheists who masquerade as skeptics. In his less guarded moments Jabba confesses he thinks he can do this where notables like Aristotle and Plato failed because they didn't have statistical inference at their disposal. I can excuse quite a bit of behavior from people who propose to give glory to some imaginary deity (and who accidentally do lots of practical good words in the process). But I can't abide someone who wantonly lies simply to embiggen his sense of self worth.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

If god cared, he'd have proven himself long before now