Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave Rogers said:
And here we go round again...

Dave
Click to expand...

Round round right round.

VUR8wuL.gif


5LlwT9w.gif
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Again, this seems to me a failure to communicate.
- The current existence of my self is the "E" in my formula.
- My claim is that reincarnationists and materialists are referring to the same experience/process when they speak of the "self." They just disagree about the nature of this experience/process. Their models differ.
- Where in my formulation do I misrepresent the materialist model?
Click to expand...

You continue to consider the self to be a separate entity, whereas in the materialist model it is a process in a functioning brain.

- In H, your existence is explained by the existence of your body.
- In ~H, your existence is explained by the existence of your body and the existence of a soul.

It is impossible for ~H to be more likely than H. The only way for you to make ~H more likely is to continue to insist that in H the self is a separate entity from your brain.
 
Jabba said:
- This seems to be at least one of our points of communication failure. You accept that your particular sense of self would not be brought back to life by the perfect copy. So, in that sense, I'm saying that the new self would not be you. Also in that sense, I'm saying that we wouldn't have any idea who the new self would be.
- We seem to be passing in the night re "in that sense"...
Click to expand...

*Grabs you by shirt collar and screams it into your face* THERE IS NOT SUCH THING AS A "PARTICULAR SENSE OF SELF" NOBODY HAS AGREED TO IT BECAUSE NOBODY EXCEPTS IT AS VALID.

That's just another codeword for "soul" you're lying about other people agreeing to.

Stop lying.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Again, this seems to me a failure to communicate.
Click to expand...


No, it's either a failure to comprehend, or a failure to be honest, on your part.

- The current existence of my self is the "E" in my formula.
- My claim is that reincarnationists and materialists are referring to the same experience/process when they speak of the "self." They just disagree about the nature of this experience/process. Their models differ.
- Where in my formulation do I misrepresent the materialist model?
Click to expand...


When you include souls in it. As you have been told many times by many posters.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- This seems to be at least one of our points of communication failure. You accept that your particular sense of self would not be brought back to life by the perfect copy. So, in that sense, I'm saying that the new self would not be you. Also in that sense, I'm saying that we wouldn't have any idea who the new self would be.
- We seem to be passing in the night re "in that sense"...
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Monza,
- Does my last post to Dave help?
Click to expand...


Hi Jabba. No, it doesn't help.

Making a copy of you doesn't bring you "back" to life. Making a copy brings another you "into" life. The copy is you; it is just another you. That is, it is a copy. There are now two yous. There is no "seeing out two sets of eyes" or anything like that. There are literally two separate Jabbas.

If this is hard to picture (i.e. the concept of two yous), imagine a time machine. You step into the machine and go back to the year 2016. Since Jabba previously existed in 2016, there are now two Jabbas in 2016: the original 2016 Jabba and the time-travelling 2018 Jabba. They each act independently (they can't see out of each others eyes), they each have their own internal thoughts, they each share the exact same memories prior to 2016, and they each are (by every definition of the word) you.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Again, this seems to me a failure to communicate.
Click to expand...
No, it's your failure to be honest.

- The current existence of my self is the "E" in my formula.
- My claim is that reincarnationists and materialists are referring to the same experience/process when they speak of the "self."
Click to expand...
The materialist process doesn't care what reincarnationists think. They aren't referring to the process, nor are you. That's your JILpu (Jabba Immmortal Lie per usual). You're wanting to conflate a process with a thing and cram a soul into the materialist model.

They just disagree about the nature of this experience/process. Their models differ.
Click to expand...
Then why bring it up? Processes don't reincarnate.

- Where in my formulation do I misrepresent the materialist model?
Click to expand...
Every word you've spoken misrepresents the materialist model. You don't get to speak for it and you don't get to paste a soul onto it.
 
Jabba said:
- This seems to be at least one of our points of communication failure. You accept that your particular sense of self would not be brought back to life by the perfect copy. So, in that sense, I'm saying that the new self would not be you. Also in that sense, I'm saying that we wouldn't have any idea who the new self would be.
Click to expand...
No. Everyone is telling you that you are flat out wrong. The second self would be identical in every way. After the point of duplication, original Jabba and copy Jabba would diverge because after the point of duplication both Jabba's would diverge from an identical starting point since Jabba and copy Jabba could not by definition have the same experience. This is definitional since they would be two distinct entities.

Additionally, copy Jabba would bet separate and distinct to original Jabba at the moment of copying, obviously, yet also a distinct identical copy. At that moment, nobody would be brought "back to life". Two Identical Jabbas would exist at that point in time. At that point in time, there would be no difference. No ressurection involved, just a perfect copy. Nobody, not even you could tell the difference. After that point, original Jabba and copy Jabba would inevitably diverge and be different thereafter. This is not a rocket magic concept.

Jabba said:
- We seem to be passing in the night re "in that sense"...
Click to expand...
Well, no. You simply ignore everyone. That makes it easy to pass in the night if one simply ignores whoever it is one happens to pass.
 
Jabba said:
Again, this seems to me a failure to communicate.
Click to expand...

No, it's simply your unwillingness to listen to anyone but yourself and your unwillingness to represent your critics honestly. It's no more mysterious than that. You lie easily and repeatedly, and then try to blame the consequences of those lies on everyone else.

The current existence of my self is the "E" in my formula.
Click to expand...

You equivocate "my self" to mean an immortal soul. You define (by bluster and fiat) that self, even under materialism, to somehow magically have the very properties you need in order for materialism to fail to explain it according to your predetermined method: reckoning P(E|materialism) to be very small. You do this even when it is patiently explained to you several times that the definitions in materialism do not allow for your peculiar, private definition of "my self."

Moreover, you seem to think you're getting away with this obvious equivocation. But you aren't, and lately it's causing you to fray at the edges. When people repeatedly remind you that you're misrepresenting materialism, you frantically try to turn it back on them and blame them for "not understanding" or for somehow wasting your time with sophistry when you're convinced you're right. The "communication problem" is one-hundred-percent your fault. You stubbornly refuse to listen.

You have already conceded that your argument fails irretrievably at the high level, so whining about your critics and their mean-spirited refusal to let you equivocate around one of those major problems is just comical. You're simply begging to be declared the winner despite admitting defeat. One of the fatal flaws you admit you can't deal with says that you don't know what the parts of a statistical inference are and what role they play in a proper formulation of the inference. Another related flaw says you don't know how to formulate an inference properly. Your posts are still the best evidence of this, in how you manipulate E (rather ham-fistedly) to include theories and not just observation. You are quite obviously trying to sneak your "soul" portrayal in through the back door by making its key elements part of E, the data, that both hypotheses have to explain. You will always get caught when you try to do this. If you can't see why doing what you're doing is not proper inferential technique, then you simply don't have the brains to have this debate.

My claim is that reincarnationists and materialists are referring to the same experience/process...
Click to expand...

No, putting slashes between dissimilar words does not allow you to equivocate between the concepts they represent. What you are claiming as "the self" under materialism isn't anything close to what it really is under materialism. Not even close. Nor do you have the slightest idea what reincarnationists actually believe, nor have you displayed the slightest interest in finding out. You seem to have plenty of time to read popular woo written by physicists, but you won't actually research the facts you invoke to try to rehabilitate your argument.

Where in my formulation do I misrepresent the materialist model?
Click to expand...

As if you need to be told another several dozen times. You've been told exactly where you misrepresent the materialist model. You've been told it several times in several ways by several people. I told you specifically yesterday; you don't get to complain that I'm laying too much of a burden on you, then the next day complain because you think your critics haven't made their case. That's being deliberately rude. Your conscious misrepresentation of the materialist model is one of the major fatal flaws you admit you have no answer for. You simply refuse to read the corrections and incorporate them honestly into your argument. Then you have the arrogance to blame it on "failure to communicate" rather than your own obvious stubbornness and dishonesty.
 
Jabba said:
This seems to be at least one of our points of communication failure.
Click to expand...

No, it's one of the places where you frantically try to equivocate between what godless dave says and what you desperately need everyone to think he means.

You accept that your particular sense of self would not be brought back to life by the perfect copy. So, in that sense, I'm saying that the new self would not be you.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly the opposite of what godless dave has been saying for months.

First, no one agrees to your "brought back to life" vagary. I assume you keep using it despite requests to the contrary only because you know it irritates your critics.

Godless dave has been meticulous in defining his distinction between one "sense of self" and another as purely numerical. Two organisms instead of one, albeit identical in every detectable way. That godless dave allows you to get away with "particularity" in describing the sense of self is, in my opinion, unfortunate. But he is being careful about he uses those terms, so I don't disagree. You are not being careful. You are being deliberately ambiguous, and you are trying to rewrite godless dave's posts to make them seem as ambiguous as you need in order to make your equivocations seem plausible.

Godless dave has meticulously gone on from the "particular in number only" explanation -- every time -- to point out that the equivalence of all the properties of those organisms is a foregone conclusion under the materialist hypothesis. It cannot possibly be otherwise in materialism. He has specifically maintained the distinction in definitions that you are trying so feverishly to undo every time you quote him. He has painstakingly explained that mere numerical distinction under materialism does not require also the qualitative dissimilarity you're trying to equivocate from it. He has specifically and repeatedly drawn your attention to the error you're making, but you simply continue to make it and blame others for the consequence.

Also in that sense, I'm saying that we wouldn't have any idea who the new self would be.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Godless dave has said repeatedly (and correctly) that the materialist model dictates the emergence of properties solely as a function of the material. Not only would we be able to predict who the new self would be under materialism, it is a hard-and-fast rule (indeed, the central concept of the model) that reproducing an object exactly must reproduce all its displayed properties with equivalent exactitude. There can be no property under materialism that is not a product of some material process in the object, therefore there is no property that can differ between a copy and the original if the material does not differ.

Your unwillingness to accept this as the proper formulation of materialism is entirely your problem -- more likely your deliberate dishonesty -- not any "failure to communicate."

We seem to be passing in the night re "in that sense"...
Click to expand...

No, you're simply trying to gaslight people into believing godless dave didn't say what he really said, several times, clearly and distinctly, with special attention to correcting the error you insist on making.
 
Jabba said:
Does my last post to Dave help?
Click to expand...

Only to cement the judgment among many here that you're deliberately lying in order to perpetuate a debate you've all but admitted having lost, with no goal in mind other than to save face at others' expense.

Your post to godless dave simply tells the same lie you've been telling for months, if not years. It attempts the same equivocation you always drag out when responding to him, blurring the lines he has carefully and repeatedly drawn for you, and claiming agreement that has been specifically disavowed.

What's substantially different in today's recitation of your ongoing lie is that you've admitted you can't fix your argument at the most fundamental level, hence all this niggling about materialism has been revealed as pointless distraction. Having frantically tried to poison my well, as you've done a couple times previously, you're back to babbling incoherently about some inconsequential sub-sub-sub-sub-issue. Maybe you're doing it in the hopes of distracting from your admission that your proof can't possibly go anywhere regardless of how many sub-issues you obsess over. Maybe you think that you can secure some pyrrhic gotcha!-level win over some miniscule irrelevant point, and that this will be enough to convince you that you're ever so much smarter than those godless atheist skeptics you told everyone you were going to go give what-for. Whatever the reason, it's clearly not to have a serious debate.

You and I both know that your proof has failed. The difference is that I'm the one being honest about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom