Proof of Immortality II

[Jabba]

Yes.

- So Dave, I think we're stuck...

 

[godless dave]

- So Dave, I think we're stuck...

Only because you refuse to face reality.

 

[Jabba]

Only because you refuse to face reality.

- I disagree.

 

[godless dave]

- I disagree.

That's nice.

You've had almost two years to present some kind of credible evidence that some aspect of a human mind can exist without a physical brain, and so far haven't presented any.

 

[Jabba]

No you can't. Not one eminent scientist or philosopher has gone sufficiently emeritus to make the mistake that you are making. The error is that fundamental.

- I disagree.
- But for the moment, at least, I'd like to find out if anyone here thinks that the claim that I cannot not exist is a possibility, and discuss that possibility with that person.

 

[godless dave]

If the universe is entirely deterministic, which it may very well be, then you could not have not existed.

 

[Aepervius]

- So Dave, I think we're stuck...

We have known you are stuck in your reasonning for months (isn't it years by now?).
On our side we are not really stuck.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- I disagree.

And you know what Jabba... that doesn't flippin' matter!

Reality doesn't give one short toss whether you agree with it or not.

You are both wrong and in denial. Period.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

- Is it possible that I existed as something other than a homo sapien, or any other life-form, or matter in general?

Only in the sense that it's possible monkeys will fly out of my butt. If you have any actual evidence for immortality, or even souls, maybe you can strengthen the odds to "vanishingly unlikely". But then, you've been going for years without supplying any such evidence.

The problem, as I see it, is that you're talking at cross purposes with Dave because of your desperation to twist words and even reality to fit your preferred conclusions. Your epistemologies are in conflict. You're right in a very narrow sense that your immortality hasn't been comprehensively ruled out, but only because of that tricky conundrum of proving a negative. However, you've provided no reason to give the idea the time of day, whether that might be some indication that souls exist, a finding that suggests life after death or the existence of a spiritual realm, or even a coherent, testable hypothesis. There is therefore no reason to take it seriously.

You're effectively hanging your argument on a claim that Sagan's Dragon is currently pouring tea for the Invisible Pink Unicorn out of Russell's Teapot, and we can't prove that he isn't. You're technically right on the last part, but only at the expense of every last shred of dignity and credibility you might have had left.

 

[Humots]

- I can, but it's not worth the effort. We'd get into a new argument about their credibility, or what they meant, etc.
- Whatever, do you think that current evidence eliminates the possibility that my "self" cannot not exist? If so, I think that I should just agree to disagree.

- Does anyone on this forum believe that current evidence does not allow us to eliminate the possibility that I cannot not exist?

If I have parsed this sequence of "not allow/eliminate/cannot not" correctly, then no, I do not believe this.

The current evidence does not support the possibility that you cannot not exist.

The current evidence does not suggest the possibility that you cannot not exist.

The current evidence is that you did not exist previously, exist now, and will at some future time cease to exist.

Note: NDEs, OBEs, visions, and religious revelations are not evidence in this context.

You are committing the common error of making a claim and demanding that unless it be dis-proven to your satisfaction, it must be true.

Does anyone on this forum believe that current evidence does not allow us to eliminate the possibility that Jabba cannot not owe me one thousand dollars?

Paypal accepted.

 

[John Jones]

- Not, according to Bayes, when my current existence is added to the formula.

Not according to anything you've demonstrated.

 

[Mojo]

- I'll try the simple answer. My current existence has a bearing upon whether I cannot not exist. It has no bearing upon rice pudding.

I see you've substituted "has a bearing upon" for "allows for". Your current existence has a bearing on whether you currently exist, in that it establishes that you exist. It has a bearing on whether you cannot exist, in that it establishes that you exist. But it doesn't establish that there are no times in the past at which you didn't exist, or that there are no times in the future when you will not exist.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Is it possible that I existed as something other than a homo sapien, or any other life-form, or matter in general?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

Would but there were a way to compel your attention to a post and compel your answer.

This "question" of yours is the height of sophsitic silliness, gien that you ave not, not once, even begun to reliably indicate what you mean by "I" in the "question".

The "I" most would mean by that is, in fact, the consciousness that is an emergent property of your neurosystem. Since your neurosystem is a contingent occurrence, the "I" to which an informed thinker would refer in your "question" could only exist as that particular neurosystem exists.

What is it, then, that you claim is "I" in your "question"?

What characteristics do you claim for the "I" you wish were "immortal"?

What evidence do you offer that the "I" exists, except as an emergent property of the neurosystem?

What evidence do you offer than any of that implies, or produces, or refers to, "immortality"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I can, but it's not worth the effort. We'd get into a new argument about their credibility, or what they meant, etc.
- Whatever, do you think that current evidence eliminates the possibility that my "self" cannot not exist? If so, I think that I should just agree to disagree.

- Does anyone on this forum believe that current evidence does not allow us to eliminate the possibility that I cannot not exist?

[/thread]

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Is there evidence that rules out the possibility of such a thing?

You tried this same dishonesty in the Divine Dinner Draperies threads.

Your claim; your onus.

 

[Mojo]

- Do you know that I didn't exist all those 13.5 billion years?

In the absence of any evidence that you are 13.5 billion years old, and the large amount of evidence that human lifespan is, at most, about a century, it is reasonable to assume that you didn't.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Does my current existence allow for the possibility that I always exist?

- Does anyone on this forum believe that current evidence does not allow us to eliminate the possibility that I cannot not exist?

- Is there evidence that rules out the possibility of such a thing?

The evidence we have rules out the necessity of your existence. We have evidence that the human mind is a product of a physical working brain. We have evidence that a human being cannot live past the age of 120 or so (as the DNA finally gets too damaged to replicate). We have evidence that millions of sperm vie for one egg and it is not (as mistakenly thought), the fastest sperm. We have evidence that the entire history of human evolution is about 2.5 million years long. We have no evidence for ghosts or reincarnation.

The evidence at hand indicates that this is a universe in which it is possible for you to be born, live about a 100 years, and die. And that's what happened. No alternate theory need be explored.

 

[godless dave]

If the universe is entirely deterministic, which it may very well be, then you could not have not existed.

Let me rephrase that. If the universe is entirely deterministic, then it was inevitable that you would be born when you did and live the for amount of time you will live.

Obviously, you didn't exist before you were born, and won't exist after you die.

 

[dlorde]

... the physical constants of our universe suggest something “paranormal”(?) about our universe…

If you're referring to the 'Fine Tuning' problem, your favourite probability theory says otherwise: Elliot Sober’s Objection to the Fine-Tuning Argument

And then, there’s the Anthropic Principle…

You might also be interested in this: The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism.

 

[HighRiser]

- Just in case it isn't obvious why my claim is analogous to the Anthropic Principle. Both claim that 1) what we observe is highly unlikely under the current scientific understanding, 2) the particular "observation" can be set apart from the NUMEROUS other possible, similar observations and 3) they are both set apart due to our ability to observe. I'll probably have to work on that...

- Note that if there really is something extremely unlikely about our universe regarding life, my existence becomes much more unlikely than what I have argued so far. Not only does my current existence require an unimaginably large number of specific events to have occurred since the Big Bang, there had to be a Big Bang and there had to be the highly unlikely Anthropic Principle at work as well.

I responded to this with:

Where is it said that what we observe is highly unlikely?
How does the likelihood of what's observed affect the observation?
Why do non-existing observations make any difference?
What is set apart from what in what way?



This doesn't sound like WAP to me.

Then you said:

- Could be that I didn't express my claim above -- about the Anthropic Principle -- well enough to be understood. But otherwise, why would you say that the Anthropic Principle is not something that is "at work"?
- Maybe, I just misunderstood what you were saying, and that you just meant that there really is not something extremely unlikely about our universe regarding life?

But the Anthropic Principle is not at work. It is simply an unfalsifiable idea that philosophers have been kicking around for thousands of years.

- I disagree.
- But for the moment, at least, I'd like to find out if anyone here thinks that the claim that I cannot not exist is a possibility, and discuss that possibility with that person.

I don't think your claim has any merit, and that's what I am trying to do. That's also what I've been trying to do in the other questions that I've posed without response.