Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- They do not apply to immaterial things -- which would seem to be a requirement if OOFLam is not true -- and specifically, we have no idea what physical laws determine a specific immaterial self. If we were able to recreate a specific DNA, would the same self appear?
Click to expand...
A. There is no such thing as an immaterial self. If I'm wrong, provide evidence. Otherwise I'll believe the evidence at hand, which is that the soul is a process of a functioning body.

B. The same indeterminacy that keeps an exact copy of you from arising keeps a copy of the mountain from springing up as well. The same lava and winds could create the same rocks. The same tectonics and gravity could be at work. We still wouldn't get an exact copy of the mountain. There are uncounted forces acting on each molecule of mountain, the smallest change of which could cause a cascade of larger shifts. That's just like waking up ten minutes late and missing breakfast may put you in a different mood for the rest of the day.
 
Jabba said:
They do not apply to immaterial things...
Click to expand...

You have shown no evidence of a connection between materiality and the persistence of any formulation of a "self." You are the one offering to prove immortality mathematically. It is up to you to formulate the various portions of your argument such that they attain mathematical rigor. Merely supposing that whatever you need to exist in order to prove your point must therefore exist and have the required properties is not only circular reasoning, it fails to achieve mathematical rigor in any way.

...which would seem to be a requirement if OOFLam is not true -- and specifically, we have no idea what physical laws determine a specific immaterial self.
Click to expand...

You give no evidence of any formulation or aspect of "self" that isn't explained via ordinary natural law. In fact your argument is based entirely on this ongoing assumption that the "self" must lie -- for whatever reason -- outside nature. You cannot use such a premise to prove the "self" is immaterial. It's a circular argument.

If we were able to recreate a specific DNA, would the same self appear?
Click to expand...

Straw man. Your critics are not claiming the self arises from DNA alone. And you're still stuck in the wrong-headed notion of working probabilities according to a preselected individual. If we were able to recreate a particular set of geological initial conditions, would Mt. Ranier still appear right down to the last detail? If not, does that mean Mt. Ranier must rely upon immaterial properties in order to appear today as it does?
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- They do not apply to immaterial things -- which would seem to be a requirement if OOFLam is not true -- and specifically, we have no idea what physical laws determine a specific immaterial self.
Click to expand...
You haven't shown that there is such a thing as an "immaterial self". Consciousness - the self - is an emergent process, not an entity.

Before you can claim that the fundamental laws of the universe don't apply to something, you first need to show that the 'something' exists.

Jabba said:
If we were able to recreate a specific DNA, would the same self appear?
Click to expand...
No. You can rely on the answer to this being no just by considering identical (monozygotic) twins. They share the same DNA, but they neither share nor possess the same consciousnesses. Their separate selves are not identical, because consciousness is an emergent process which is shaped by much more than just DNA.

Every tiny thing that has happened from the moment of conception to the present moment and beyond shapes our consciousnesses, and it is impossible for two people to share the exact same history. Even if they are conjoined, they don't share the exact same space. We did go through this previously in the thread.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- They do not apply to immaterial things -- which would seem to be a requirement if OOFLam is not true -- and specifically, we have no idea what physical laws determine a specific immaterial self.
Click to expand...

OOFLam not being true is on the other side of the equation.

I thought we were talking about the likelihood of a particular self existing if OOFLam is true.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- They do not apply to immaterial things -- which would seem to be a requirement if OOFLam is not true -- and specifically, we have no idea what physical laws determine a specific immaterial self. If we were able to recreate a specific DNA, would the same self appear?
Click to expand...
Agatha said:
1) You haven't shown that there is such a thing as an "immaterial self".
2) Consciousness - the self - is an emergent process, 3) not an entity.

4) Before you can claim that the fundamental laws of the universe don't apply to something, you first need to show that the 'something' exists...
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- Your first 4 Q/C's are all I can handle for the moment.
1) Correct.
2) Are you implying a difference between "emergent process" and "emergent property"?
3) Who (besides Susan Blackmore) says?
4) In this case, I need only support the reasonable possibility that something exists.
 
Jabba said:
Are you implying a difference between "emergent process" and "emergent property"?
Click to expand...

Why don't you use the words she used? A process is not an entity. "Property" wasn't part of her post. You're looking at a set of phenomena and imagining that they form the properties of some entity whose existence you're trying to invent.

3) Who (besides Susan Blackmore) says?
Click to expand...

Why did you quote Agatha, but reformat her post so that we can't make head or tail out of what you think you're trying to answer? Do not rewrite your opponents' statements. There's no "3)" in your quote, and we can't tell what you think is "3)" in Agatha's post. Your answer doesn't reference a question.

In this case, I need only support the reasonable possibility that something exists.
Click to expand...

No. First -- and we've been telling you this for years -- you cannot simply suppose that something exists and has exactly the properties you need for your beliefs to be true. That's just wishful thinking. Begging your critics to agree that it's reasonable is, well, begging the question. Second, you must prove it exists. You said you could prove immortality mathematically, not suppose it pseudomathematically. Third, your attempt at proof is the same false dilemma as always: you're trying to prove the existence of something you call a soul by means of a handwaving pseudo-numerical claim that not-soul is improbable.
 
Jabba said:
4) In this case, I need only support the reasonable possibility that something exists.
Click to expand...


No. The laws governing matter are utterly inconsistent with your ideas. You must show that they aren't necessarily true in order for there to be a non-zero chance of your theory. If yours is possible, let alone probable, then matter cannot interact as we understand it to.

By the way, you're looking very thin in those pants. I hope you're enjoying time with the grandchildren. You deserve it.
 
JayUtah said:
Why did you quote Agatha, but reformat her post so that we can't make head or tail out of what you think you're trying to answer? Do not rewrite your opponents' statements. There's no "3)" in your quote, and we can't tell what you think is "3)" in Agatha's post. Your answer doesn't reference a question.
Click to expand...

Psst. Number 3 is hidden at the end of number 2. I missed it, too, the first several times I read the post.
 
Jabba said:
Your first 4 Q/C's are all I can handle for the moment.
Click to expand...

1. Can you please for the love of Tiny Tim just call them "statement" or "ideas?" You haven't created some new magical way of looking at arguments that needs it's own terms.
2. Stop it with the flustered old man "I can't keep track of the impossibly confabulated argument I'm creating" shtick.

In this case, I need only support the reasonable possibility that something exists.
Click to expand...

THAT'S NOT HOW REALITY WORKS!

And "support a reasonable possibility?" Jabba you left that a half decade and 50 nested special pleadings ago.
 
jsfisher said:
Psst. Number 3 is hidden at the end of number 2. I missed it, too, the first several times I read the post.
Click to expand...

Yep, you're right -- there it is. I guess the lesson is that if you're going to wholesale rewrite someone else's post and attribute it to them in a quote-block, do it right.

Even worse, the answer Jabba gave still makes no sense.
 
JoeBentley said:
THAT'S NOT HOW REALITY WORKS!
Click to expand...

It is, however, how practically every fringe argument works. The prevailing or scientifically supported view is attacked according to one standard of proof that requires it to be nearly unassailable, then the desired belief is put forward as only needing to be "merely possible" in order for it to take over as the prevailing view "fails." This is how UFO enthusiasts "prove" that sightings are space aliens, how conspiracy theorists "prove" a second JFK gunman, and how Truthers "prove" explosives in the tower. Fundamentally it's just a poorly disguised attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Jabba says he is a special snowflake, much too improbable for science to describe. Therefore we "must" be immortal ... somehow ... because it's conceivable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JayUtah said:
It is, however, how practically every fringe argument works. The prevailing or scientifically supported view is attacked according to one standard of proof that requires it to be nearly unassailable, then the desired belief is put forward as only needing to be "merely possible" in order for it to take over as the prevailing view "fails." This is how UFO enthusiasts "prove" that sightings are space aliens, how conspiracy theorists "prove" a second JFK gunman, and how Truthers "prove" explosives in the tower. Fundamentally it's just a poorly disguised attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Click to expand...


There's also a false dilemma involved. Here, Jabba is claiming that because mortality is part of the prevailing 'scientific model', if he can disprove that model he will prove immortality. He's conveniently ignoring the fact that there may be other models in which he is not immortal.

Jabba says he is a special snowflake, much too improbable for science to describe. Therefore we "must" be immortal ... somehow ... because it's conceivable.
Click to expand...


Where this argument leads, or at least would lead if it were valid, is not immortality but design. There's no reason to suppose that he would be immortal if his existence was part of some celestial plan; a designer could just as easily have designed him with a single finite lifespan. Indeed, more easily, because the designer wouldn't have to worry about designing Jabba an immortal soul.
 
Agatha said:
I answered before you added the final sentence, Jabba; I don't agree that your interlocutors here are biased, unless you class requiring evidence before accepting something as true as a 'bias'. Recent posts to you have all said the same thing - that the fundamental laws that govern the universe apply equally to living and non-living things. You only need to make one reply either acknowledging this, or refuting it with evidence.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Agatha,
- They do not apply to immaterial things -- which would seem to be a requirement if OOFLam is not true -- and specifically, we have no idea what physical laws determine a specific immaterial self. If we were able to recreate a specific DNA, would the same self appear?
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
OOFLam not being true is on the other side of the equation.

I thought we were talking about the likelihood of a particular self existing if OOFLam is true.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- Unfortunately, I don't understand the implication of your first statement. I'm thinking that the cause of your implication not being recognized might be the ambiguity of the "requirement" in my first statement. The requirement referred to is that the "thing" being referred to (self) is immaterial.
- And, we are talking about the likelihood of a particular self existing if OOFLam is true.
 
And that is what makes this thread extra bizarre: Jabba is, in vain, trying to present an argument that doesn't even support his claim.

Hans
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Unfortunately, I don't understand the implication of your first statement. I'm thinking that the cause of your implication not being recognized might be the ambiguity of the "requirement" in my first statement. The requirement referred to is that the "thing" being referred to (self) is immaterial.
- And, we are talking about the likelihood of a particular self existing if OOFLam is true.
Click to expand...

Under OOFLam the self is material.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom