Proof of Immortality II

[JoeMorgue]

What if this thing was impossible was possible, therefore Woo, therefore immortality.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, human DNA has a finite number of base pairs, and therefore a finite number of possible combinations. It doesn't matter who the DNA comes from, it doesn't matter who their parents were, it still has to be one of that finite number of possibilities.

Mojo,
- I'm operating under the assumption that replicating the DNA would not replicate the person -- in the sense that replicating my DNA would not bring ME back to life.

 

[Jabba]

And you're wrong, and every single person who responded to that post pointed out that you're wrong...

xt,
- They claimed I was wrong.

 

[zooterkin]

Mojo,
- I'm operating under the assumption that replicating the DNA would not replicate the person -- in the sense that replicating my DNA would not bring ME back to life.

Is there anything that would bring YOU back to life?

 

[Jabba]

1536

…Note, however, that my "every permutation of every particle throughout the habitable section of spacetime" includes many completely impossible arrangements. I'm willing to ignore the impossibility of some of those arrangements, but I'm not willing to accept that the number of potential consciousnesses is larger than that, because it would be even more ridiculous to do `so…

xt,
- Try this on for size. What if the denominator includes all the potential combinations from the first set of potential combinations?

 

[zooterkin]

1536xt,
- Try this on for size. What if the denominator includes all the potential combinations from the first set of potential combinations?

You tell us.

It's still not infinite.

 

[Jabba]

…No, that's just the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy again. As Giordano so aptly put it…

- At least in a sense, for me, that’s the main issue here -- and the one that I will now try to address. Which number replaces P(me|A)? Is it the likelihood of ME currently existing – or, is it the likelihood of someone/anyone currently existing?
- In order for the answer to be the former requires that I be someone “special” – such as the one being circled before the shot was fired.
- I’ll be back.

 

[Jabba]

1536xt,
- Try this on for size. What if the denominator includes all the potential combinations from the first set of potential combinations?

You tell us.
It's still not infinite.

Zoo,
- But, if we need to count that first level of potential persons, how about the next level? And, the next?

 

[Aepervius]

Zoo,
- But, if we need to count that first level of potential persons, how about the next level? And, the next?

Jabba, after having asked that question hundred of time and getting the same answer, when will you learn to accept it ?

 

[Mojo]

But, if we need to count that first level of potential persons, how about the next level? And, the next?

Jabba, you can't get to infinity by adding finite numbers together.

 

[Agatha]

- Would you accept that such a hypothetical person would be a “potential” person in a sense?

No. There is no intersection between the set of "impossible" things and the set of "potential" things. The word 'potential' includes 'possible' as part of the definition.

Infinity is not a really big number, made of lots and lots of smaller finite numbers added together. It's a concept. Any finite number, even a gigantonormous one, is infinitely far away from infinity.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, you can't get to infinity by adding finite numbers together.

- But Mojo, what if you can add finite numbers together infinitely?

 

[Jabba]

No. There is no intersection between the set of "impossible" things and the set of "potential" things. The word 'potential' includes 'possible' as part of the definition...

Agatha,
- But, what about things that are impossible under the wrong circumstances, but possible under the right circumstances?

 

[abaddon]

This is descending into farce even further if that were possible.

 

[Slowvehicle]

xt,
- They claimed I was wrong.

...and you have done nothing, in two years, to even begin to refute that claim.

Further, you have done nothing, in any way at all, to even begin to justify your claim that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"...

 

[Akhenaten]

- Would you accept that such a hypothetical person would be a “potential” person in a sense?

What the hell is this nonsense all about?

Are we now conducting the World Wide Weasel Wording championship or someting?

I seem to have missed the memo.

 

[Jabba]

...and you have done nothing, in two years, to even begin to refute that claim.

Further, you have done nothing, in any way at all, to even begin to justify your claim that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"...

Slowvehicle,
- But I never claim to have pointed out things to you guys. I admit that my claims are only claims.
- I've avoided using the word "soul" because it begs the question. I've quit trying to "essentially prove" immortality, and am currently trying to essentially disprove the scientific consensus that each self has only one finite life to live (at most).
- The main points are that (1) I had tried to justify my claim of immortality, but began to recognize that my real claim was that the scientific consensus in this case is wrong, and (2) personally, I think that I have begun to justify my claim (for anyone of your apparent intelligence that is not also a committed skeptic).

 

[Agatha]

Agatha,
- But, what about things that are impossible under the wrong circumstances, but possible under the right circumstances?

What about them?

I can't throw a 24 on one conventional six-sided die. But if I get four dice, I can throw 24. If I'm calculating the probability or likelihood of throwing various numbers on one die, I don't need to factor in any numbers other than 1-6 inclusive. If I'm doing the same calculation for four dice, I look at the likelihoods of ending up with 4-24 inclusive, but I don't factor in any numbers other than those.

The parameters of the scenario - the real world/scientific model in your immortality calculation, and the numbers of dice I use in my calculation - are what determines what is possible/potential and included, and what is impossible and therefore has no bearing on a calculation.

You are 'testing' the scientific model (I use this phrase because it's what you used) and so you can only include what is possible within that model. There is a finite number of combinations of base pairs, not all of which will result in humans. Matter and time are finite. Most importantly, consciousness and the illusion of a continuous sense of self are not tangible or fungible things, they are emergent processes which occur within a living brain. Switch off the brain via death and the processes cease. The consciousness is not a thing which goes somewhere, it's a process that stops.

When someone stops running, the 'running' doesn't go somewhere else or enter another person's legs, because running is a process, not a thing. The running ceases when the person stands still. Consciousness is a process which ceases when a person dies.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- But I never claim to have pointed out things to you guys. I admit that my claims are only claims.
- I've avoided using the word "soul" because it begs the question. I've quit trying to "essentially prove" immortality, and am currently trying to essentially disprove the scientific consensus that each self has only one finite life to live (at most).
- The main points are that (1) I had tried to justify my claim of immortality, but began to recognize that my real claim was that the scientific consensus in this case is wrong, and (2) personally, I think that I have begun to justify my claim (for anyone of your apparent intelligence that is not also a committed skeptic).

I wonder what motivated you to respond to this post, out of my literally hundreds of others?

You are, and have been, trying to "essentially prove" that there "really is" a "soul", and that it "really is" "immortal" by (as I have said before) trying to find a way to describe reality such that you can claim that what really is is less likely than the existence of an incorporeal, "immortal" "soul". All without admitting it.

Instead, why not start at the other end?

What makes you think the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?

 

[Loss Leader]

personally, I think that I have begun to justify my claim (for anyone of your apparent intelligence that is not also a committed skeptic).

How all-consumingly rude. First of all, you assume that there is a position called "committed skeptic" that simply rules things out no matter what words are said to them. As a lawyer, I care very much about facts, what they preponderate, and what it means when statements are irreconcileable.

Second, you assume that everyone in this thread but you shares the same background as "committed skeptics." We do not. We are all of various age, religions, locations, cultures, education and experience. When we come together on a topic, it's not because we're all in the same room conferring with each other.

In fact, one of the great weaknesses of your so-called effective debate is that you assume that there are two sides that caucus before coming together to slowly talk past each other. There is no consensus. We do not communicate with each other behind the scenes.

I object to your ideas because they make no sense. If they made sense, I'd agree with you. But they do not. They are a confusion of illogical and contradictory nonsense that add up to nothing. It's not my position as a committed skeptic that tells me this. Quite the opposite: it's my understanding of this that, in a small way, makes me a skeptic.

There is no such number as infinity. You cannot get to it by counting. If you count finite numbers for an infinite time, you would have infinity - BUT that infinity comes from you having introduced infinity into your calculation. It does not come from the sum of the finite numbers.

There are not infinite possible people. Impossible people are not possible people. You have shown nothing. You are wrong.