Proof of Immortality III

[gabeygoat]

- "Self" is a particular consciousness, My "self" is my particular consciousness. Your "self" is your particular consciousness.
- To be "re-aware" would be for a particular consciousness (like me, or like you) to become conscious again after death (not after sleep).

Have you experienced "re-awareness?"

 

[zooterkin]

bu?

When you have a feeling that you've drunk something before.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

bu?

"Deja bu" is when you suddenly become aware that you've read this damned ************ argument a dozen times before

 

[Mojo]

- Still not sure we're talking about the same "self."
- The characteristics of the self I'm talking about do change over time, but the self, itself, doesn't. I do change over time, but it's still me.
.- You change over time, but it's still you. It's the same awareness.
- Does the self you're talking about at least appear to stay the same over time?

No. As you say above, it changes. It seems to be the same self only because it seems to have continuity with your selves at earlier times.

- So, nothing could make the self become re-aware?

Correct. There wouldn't even be the illusion of continuity.

 

[Jabba]

- It would appear that
1) a certain chemistry produces what we call "life,"
2) at least some life produces (or transmits) what we call consciousness,
3) consciousness inherently (or intrinsically) involves what we call a "self"
4) and this self appears to continue existing until the death of the body (that carries the life and self)
5) at which time, the self ceases to exist -- never to return...
- That's the "self" I'm trying to talk about.

 

[zooterkin]

- It would appear that
1) a certain chemistry produces what we call "life,"
2) at least some life produces (or transmits) what we call consciousness,
3) consciousness inherently (or intrinsically) involves what we call a "self"
4) and this self appears to continue existing until the death of the body (that carries the life and self)
5) at which time, the self ceases to exist -- never to return...
- That's the "self" I'm trying to talk about.

No, you're not, you're talking about a self that doesn't cease to exist upon the death of the body producing it.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

- It would appear that
1) a certain chemistry produces what we call "life,"
2) at least some life produces (or transmits) what we call consciousness,
3) consciousness inherently (or intrinsically) involves what we call a "self"
4) and this self appears to continue existing until the death of the body (that carries the life and self)
5) at which time, the self ceases to exist -- never to return...
- That's the "self" I'm trying to talk about.

It's the "self" you're trying to refute with wishful thinking and numbers you've made up to ensure your desired result

 

[MRC_Hans]

- It would appear that
1) a certain chemistry produces what we call "life,"
2) at least some life produces (or transmits) what we call consciousness,
3) consciousness inherently (or intrinsically) involves what we call a "self"
4) and this self appears to continue existing until the death of the body (that carries the life and self)
5) at which time, the self ceases to exist -- never to return...
- That's the "self" I'm trying to talk about.

1-3: Agreed with the reservation that the self is not a seperate entity, just a function.

4) The self exists as long as the body is alive and reasonably functional.

5) That follows from items 1-4.

Hans

 

[Garrette]

- It would appear that
1) a certain chemistry produces what we call "life,"
2) at least some life produces (or transmits) what we call consciousness,
3) consciousness inherently (or intrinsically) involves what we call a "self"
4) and this self appears to continue existing until the death of the body (that carries the life and self)
5) at which time, the self ceases to exist -- never to return...
- That's the "self" I'm trying to talk about.

1-3: Agreed with the reservation that the self is not a seperate entity, just a function.

4) The self exists as long as the body is alive and reasonably functional.

5) That follows from items 1-4.

Hans

I think you're falling into his trap, and it is a trap (and a dishonest one at that, just like all his previous attempts).

#3 is his insertion of the soul by sneaking in a distinction between consciousness and self when there is no reason to think such distinction exists.

 

[Mojo]

- It would appear that
1) a certain chemistry produces what we call "life,"
2) at least some life produces (or transmits) what we call consciousness,
3) consciousness inherently (or intrinsically) involves what we call a "self"
4) and this self appears to continue existing until the death of the body (that carries the life and self)
5) at which time, the self ceases to exist -- never to return...
- That's the "self" I'm trying to talk about.

3) Nope. "Consciousness" and "self" are just different terms for the same phenomenon. You're trying to beg the question by asserting that the "self" is a separate entity.

Also, inserting "transmits" in 2) looks suspiciously like yet another attempt to beg the question.

 

[JayUtah]

That's the "self" I'm trying to talk about.

No.

As with all your other arguments in this forum, you're trying to equivocate among similar concepts to create the illusion that your beliefs are supported by evidence that applies to a completely different concept. Since four years has demonstrated your inability to devise any argument, for any proposition, that does not come down to wordplay and question-begging, please just stop.

 

[Monza]

Also, inserting "transmits" in 2) looks suspiciously like yet another attempt to beg the question.

Agreed. Otherwise what is it transmitting to? Is there a receiver?

 

[Jabba]

No, you're not, you're talking about a self that doesn't cease to exist upon the death of the body producing it.

Zoo,
- I'm trying to show that the self described above does not (as it would appear) cease, to never return.

 

[Jabba]

- There is a phenomenon we call "consciousness." Then, there are NUMEROUS specific examples of consciousness, and we call them "selves."

 

[John Jones]

Zoo,
- I'm trying to show that the self described above does not (as it would appear) cease, to never return.

You're not even hitting around that target.

 

[John Jones]

- There is a phenomenon we call "consciousness." Then, there are NUMEROUS specific examples of consciousness, and we call them "selves."

Let it go. You've been trying to prove something for 4 years, and you are no closer today than you were 4 years ago

 

[theprestige]

- There is a phenomenon we call "consciousness." Then, there are NUMEROUS specific examples of consciousness, and we call them "selves."

This almost sounds like the beginning of an interesting train of thought. Four years ago, had this been the opening paragraph of the first post in a new thread, I would have been interested enough to keep reading.

 

[Jabba]

Agreed. Otherwise what is it transmitting to? Is there a receiver?

Monza,
- Interesting.
- Superficially, at least, I should say, instead, that our brains are the receivers of what consciousness transmits...

 

[Jabba]

- I'm suggesting that our brains do not produce the consciousness, they receive it as a self...

 

[I Am The Scum]

- I'm suggesting that our brains do not produce the consciousness, they receive it as a self...

Are you even trying to make sense any more? Consciousness is not a substance floating through the air, waiting to be snatched up by brains, like butterflies in a net.