Proof of Immortality, VII

[jond]

- Here, the new sense of self would be different in that regard -- and, we have no way of predicting "who" it will be instead.

Complete and utter nonsense. The new self will be exactly the same as the old self up to the moment of duplication. They will both self identify as Jabba. The only difference is their space time coordinates, just as two loaves of bread.

 

[jond]

And Jabba, why do you insist on trotting out the same long destroyed arguments as though we haven’t already done them to death? You’ve agreed that the materialistic hypothesis is that the self is a process in the brain. That means that you need a second element in addition to your body to get to immortality. It is impossible for both unlikely events to be more likely than your body alone. Surrender, Jabba. You have lost.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba -
You claim to understand that the sense of self is a process. Then you type two sentences that show you clearly fail to understand any such thing.
There is no "ME" to duplicate and there is no "new sense of self." The illusion of "you" is a momentary thing that is constantly changing. The person inhabiting your body right now is less like "you" from 10 minutes ago than a clone would be...

LL,
- Here's my previous answer to that objection.

I would just say that the existence of your 'self' occurs for a short moment and that there is a string of 'selves' all generated and ending in your body moment to moment.

David,
- I would say that the string of selves has a certain continuity (an 'identity' of sorts) that according to materialism would discontinue at death of the body, never to exist again.

- Given that meaning of 'self,' what numbers would you insert for P(H), P(~H), P(E|H) & P(E|~H)?

 

[jond]

LL,
- Here's my previous answer to that objection.

So you acknowledge that the only way for you to be immortal is to have another entity in addition to your body?

 

[Jabba]

IN WHAT REGARD?

You just said "It would be different" YET FRICKIN' AGAIN.

EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE.

Joe,
- Look at that post. I said, "In that regard, it would be different." and, I was referring to what Godless Dave had just said.

 

[Jabba]

So you acknowledge that the only way for you to be immortal is to have another entity in addition to your body?

- Yes.

 

[jond]

Joe,
- Look at that post. I said, "In that regard, it would be different." and, I was referring to what Godless Dave had just said.

And you continue to be just as wrong as every other time you've said it.

 

[jond]

- Yes.

Then you understand that no matter what number you assign to the likelihood of your body existing, it is guaranteed to be the same or more likely than your body and a soul existing?

 

[RoboTimbo]

- Here, the new sense of self would be different in that regard

Different in what way? This requires a substantive answer, Jabba.

-- and, we have no way of predicting "who" it will be instead.

Define "who". Your JIL (Jabba Immortal Lie) of bait and switching words at your convenience won't be allowed, as you've been told. Until you define your terms, you are wrong.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Joe,
- Look at that post. I said, "In that regard, it would be different." and, I was referring to what Godless Dave had just said.

So by "different", you mean separate and distinct? As in 1+1=2?

You won't be allowed later to change that to mean qualitatively different. If you try to bait and switch the definition, you will be called on that lie.

Now that you've admitted that the two Jabbas would be two separate and distinct and yet identical Jabbas, what did you mean when you said you wouldn't be able to predict "who" it would be? You've just admitted that it would be Jabba.

Thank you for your admission. You don't seem to have anywhere to go from here.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Joe,
- Look at that post. I said, "In that regard, it would be different." and, I was referring to what Godless Dave had just said.

Jabba you're a grown man. Act like it.

You know damn well the difference between "different" and "distinct." Stop acting like you can't.

We all know what you actually mean, the second Jabba wouldn't be the "real" Jabba because God didn't put a soul in the second one.

 

[John Jones]

Agatha,
- But, I routinely ultimately changed my mind about that particular logic, and my ever-changing new syllogism does not rest upon calculating that way.

Yes it does

 

[John Jones]

- Yes.

Provide evidence supporting that 'yes', or as per usual, STFU.

 

[JayUtah]

Agatha,
- But, I ultimately changed my mind about that particular logic, and my new syllogism does not rest upon calculating that way.

Yes it does. It exactly does.

 

[JayUtah]

- Yes.

You do realize that's impossible under materialism. You do realize that you just admitted to adding something to materialism it does not have, and that this addition is required in order for your falsifying argument to work. You realize you just lost the debate.

 

[JayUtah]

- Here, the new sense of self would be different in that regard -- and, we have no way of predicting "who" it will be instead.

More attempted proof by punctuation. Putting "who" in quotes doesn't suddenly endow it with the ineffable something that you depend on to make your argument work. Under materialism the copy must exhibit all the properties of the original. That's essentially the definition of materialism. When people accuse you of making up your own definitions for things, this is what they're talking about. Materialism already means something. You don't get to change what it means in order to make it something you can refute.

I'm giving you until the first of the year to address the list of fatal flaws in the manner I have instructed you. Then I'll consider myself justified in reporting that you have admitted you are unable or unwilling to do it.

 

[godless dave]

- Here, the new sense of self would be different in that regard -- and, we have no way of predicting "who" it will be instead.

This is an example of misrepresenting the materialist hypothesis.

If we can make an exact copy of something that means we can predict everything about the copy. The fact that the copy is separate from the original - inherent in the word "copy" - does not change this.

 

[Mojo]

This is an example of misrepresenting the materialist hypothesis.

If we can make an exact copy of something that means we can predict everything about the copy. The fact that the copy is separate from the original - inherent in the word "copy" - does not change this.

If the only way Jabba can disprove materialism is by misrepresenting it by inserting unique souls into it, then he isn't disproving materialism.

The only hypothesis his argument can possibly disprove is the one that he is actually using as H; and that seems to be the hypothesis that he has an immaterial soul.

I don't see how that can possibly help him prove immortality.

 

[Belz...]

- Here, the new sense of self would be different in that regard

That isn't "different" in any way.

- Yes.

And do you realise that the odds of your body existing AND your soul existing are smaller than only the body existing?

 

[Mojo]

And do you realise that the odds of your body existing AND your soul existing are smaller than only the body existing?

Yes, he does, so he gets around that by making up different numbers to use when he's considering his preferred hypothesis.