Proof of Immortality II

[John Jones]

- Do any of you who agreed with #1, disagree with #2?

1. Once I die, there is no bio-chemical recipe, which followed, would bring ME back to life.
2. That being the case, there is no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to ME. That is, following my recipe would produce an identical me, but would not reproduce ME.

No one has agreed with your # 1.

STOP TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN OTHER PEOPLE'S MOUTHS!

 

[Loss Leader]

NEVER USE COMIC SANS FOR ANYTHING. EVER.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Do any of you who agreed with #1, disagree with #2?

1. Once I die, there is no bio-chemical recipe, which followed, would bring ME back to life.
2. That being the case, there is no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to ME. That is, following my recipe would produce an identical me, but would not reproduce ME.

Good Evening, Mr. Savage.

I must demur. Your question, as posed, does not admit of an answer; it is, as posted, nonsense.

Sorry.

 

[Jabba]

- Ok. One step at a time.
1. Once I die, there is no bio-chemical recipe, which followed, would bring ME back to life.
- Anyone disagree with that?

- Do any of you who agreed with #1, disagree with #2?
1. Once I die, there is no bio-chemical recipe, which followed, would bring ME back to life.
2. That being the case, there is no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to ME. That is, following my recipe would produce an identical me, but would not reproduce ME.

We've already been through this, Jabba.
What makes you you is that the "recipe" was followed at a particular time and place. That doesn't mean there is a 1/infinity likelihood of you existing.

Dave,
- OK... You're saying that if you were somehow able to follow my biochemical recipe at the same time and place that it was followed before, you could bring ME back to life?

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- OK... You're saying that if you were somehow able to follow my biochemical recipe at the same time and place that it was followed before, you could bring ME back to life?

How did you get that interpretation from what godless Dave wrote? Duplicity? He wrote nothing about bringing you back to life.

 

[pakeha]

Dave,
- OK... You're saying that if you were somehow able to follow my biochemical recipe at the same time and place that it was followed before, you could bring ME back to life?

No, Jabba, not at all.
Remember what ME is, after all?
It's an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- OK... You're saying that if you were somehow able to follow my biochemical recipe at the same time and place that it was followed before, you could bring ME back to life?

Good Mornnig, Mr. Savage.

That is not what goddlessdave said; nor may it honestly be implied from what goddlessdave did say.

"You" are an emergent property of your neurosystem.

 

[Jabba]

160

"Astronomically small" is an understatement which conveys no understanding except an understanding of how blithely "but it is greater than zero" is subsequently stated.1/infinity does not equal zero. Rather, zero is the limit of x as x approaches infinity. But that limit can never be reached, because x can never reach infinity.
Therefore, 1/infinity cannot be equal to 0, but can be approximated to 0 for some practical purposes. The proof is 1/infinity, which is essentially a division of 1 into infinitely many parts. That infinity of parts, when summed, must equal 1, not 0. You can't make the 1 simply disappear by dividing it into any number of parts. Division is not subtraction. 1/infinity is not 1-1.
http://www.mathsisfun.com/calculus/limits-infinity.html
Jabba's original argument was that his conditional perspective is so immensely unlikely under strict materialism as to rule out strict materialism as the sole accounting for his conditional perspective. I actually agree with this part, with the caveat that it is very unlikely that any of us understand all the metaphysical implications of strict materialism.
I don't know what Jabba is heading for now. I don't agree with the immortal soul business, which I consider an unnecessary violation of Occam's Razor.
At any rate, Jabba-as-an-immortal-soul does not account for Jabba's conditional perspective either. How many possible souls are there? Infinity? Well, those odds don't look good for any particular one graduating from the ranks of the merely hypothetically possible.
In sum, I don't think either strict materialism or the immortal soul hypothesis comes anywhere near accounting for Jabba's conditional perspective.

Toon,
- I largely agree.
- I’m not back up to speed on the limits thing, but as to our issue, I would say something like zero is the limit of Y as X approaches infinity in the formula Y = 1/X… Hopefully, that’s close enough to the official verbiage in order to make sense.
- After that, all I’m really saying for sure is that the materialistic model of my existence (that I would exist for only one finite lifetime at most) is wrong -- or at least, misleading (Maybe, “now” isn’t what we think it is. Or maybe, life is like Groundhog Day, the movie, except the day doesn’t change as it’s repeated, and our particular movie is simply rewound and repeated over and over and over again…). Some sort of immortality seems the most likely alternative.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- OK... You're saying that if you were somehow able to follow my biochemical recipe at the same time and place that it was followed before...

If you tried, you would find that that particular bit of spacetime was already occupied. The phenomena that occurred there and then resulted in your consciousness. An exact repetition of those phenomena (were such a thing possible) would produce an exact replica of your consciousness. But it wouldn't bring you back to life; it would produce another entity identical to you.

...you could bring ME back to life?

There's no way that what Dave has written could be interpreted as saying that.

 

[Mojo]

After that, all I’m really saying for sure is that the materialistic model of my existence (that I would exist for only one finite lifetime at most) is wrong -- or at least, misleading

But you have provided no evidence or coherent argument that this is the case. Instead, you have repeatedly tried to insert the concept of the soul into your premises, and tried to use it to falsify the "materialistic model".

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]After that, all I’m really saying for sure is that the materialistic model of my existence (that I would exist for only one finite lifetime at most) is wrong -- or at least, misleading (Maybe, “now” isn’t what we think it is. Or maybe, life is like Groundhog Day, the movie, except the day doesn’t change as it’s repeated, and our particular movie is simply rewound and repeated over and over and over again…). Some sort of immortality seems the most likely alternative.

No, Jabba.
You're still struggling against the reality of how I is defined.
In light of how I is defined, how can you imagine immortality in any form is possible?

 

[Giordano]

160


- I’m not back up to speed on the limits thing...

I thought you had a certificate from college in statistics? And you have to be brought up to speed on limits, but your posts intend to use statistics to prove that we are reincarnated? No wonder you have had such a problem. Perhaps if you were willing to take the advice of people active in math and statistics it might be easier. But from what I can tell, your "formula" remains unchanged despite the errors being pointed out to you by those much more current on statistics.

Another point about math here: you are not writing the original formula: you are putting in real values into a pre-existing formula. 1/infinity is not a real value. In fact, I am not sure that even 1/x=0 is the limit as x approaches infinity makes this a real value, but I am happy to be corrected. In any case, x by no means approaches infinity under the SM as others here have told you.

 

[John Jones]

160

[...]
- After that, all I’m really saying for sure is that the materialistic model of my existence (that I would exist for only one finite lifetime at most) is wrong -- or at least, misleading (Maybe, “now” isn’t what we think it is. Or maybe, life is like Groundhog Day, the movie, except the day doesn’t change as it’s repeated, and our particular movie is simply rewound and repeated over and over and over again…). Some sort of immortality seems the most likely alternative.

Yet you have provided no logic, evidence, or probabilities that this is actually the case.

 

[Giordano]

160

- After that, all I’m really saying for sure is that the materialistic model of my existence (that I would exist for only one finite lifetime at most) is wrong -- or at least, misleading (Maybe, “now” isn’t what we think it is. Or maybe, life is like Groundhog Day, the movie, except the day doesn’t change as it’s repeated, and our particular movie is simply rewound and repeated over and over and over again…). Some sort of immortality seems the most likely alternative.

Fine: you can believe this if you wish. But you said that you would use Bayesian statistics to prove this. Are you now admitting that this conclusion is one that just makes sense to you (given your lack of knowledge of what the SM says) and makes you fell better, and that you can't use statistics to prove it?

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- OK... You're saying that if you were somehow able to follow my biochemical recipe at the same time and place that it was followed before, you could bring ME back to life?

So you can't even distort someone's answer to what you want it to say anymore: you have to completely ignore their answer and make up and answer out of whole cloth? Sad.

No, as others have posted, Godless Dave did not say this at all, in any way.

Further, if you took the slight time to read the other posts, including mine, your question would have been answered. So it is not a real question: one that you would care about the answer. It is only strategy to get a few people into a rhetorical trap of your own design. So again, what is the point? Godless Dave clearly doesn't believe what you claim, and you are not even attempting to convince him and a others by presenting evidence and proof.

So, let's again try focusing on a point crucial for your theory: who here thinks that our self or our identity (use any of Jabba's words for it), does not require the continued function of our physical brain to exist?

 

[John Jones]

So you can't even distort someone's answer to what you want it to say anymore: you have to completely ignore their answer and make up and answer out of whole cloth? Sad.

No, as others have posted, Godless Dave did not say this at all, in any way.

Further, if you took the slight time to read the other posts, including mine, your question would have been answered. So it is not a real question: one that you would care about the answer. It is only strategy to get a few people into a rhetorical trap of your own design. So again, what is the point? Godless Dave clearly doesn't believe what you claim, and you are not even attempting to convince him and a others by presenting evidence and proof.

So, let's again try focusing on a point crucial for your theory: who here thinks that our self or our identity (use any of Jabba's words for it), does not require the continued function of our physical brain to exist?

Not I.

 

[abaddon]

So, let's again try focusing on a point crucial for your theory: who here thinks that our self or our identity (use any of Jabba's words for it), does not require the continued function of our physical brain to exist?

Not me.

 

[pakeha]

Nor I.

 

[George]

Nope.

 

[Loss Leader]

Some sort of immortality seems the most likely alternative.

I think you're using the word "likely" wrong.