Proof of Immortality III

[Loss Leader]

Thanks for this most eloquent post. Too bad it will be ignored!

Thanks for the compliment. There are too many great explanations in here to count ... not that they count for anything.

 

[jond]

Thanks for the compliment. There are too many great explanations in here to count ... not that they count for anything.

You're welcome. There is much to be learned here, and it's thanks to this thread that I read Ramachandran and Kean. Fascinating reads!

 

[MRC_Hans]

"You cannot step in the same river twice"

Exactly.

 

[Jabba]

- Wouldn't a sperm cell and ovum represent a potential person?

If someone knew both of my parents they could imagine that they might have a child together, and might imagine what that child might be like based on the heritable characteristics of each of my parents. You could do that with any two people who were alive and of reproductive age at the same time. But when I'm talking about "people" I'm talking about people who exist, not potential people that we can imagine.

Jabba, the "at most" thing is really tangential to the point I was making, which is that your formula depends on the existence of souls.

I suspect that most people who believe in souls already believe that souls can live on after the death of the physical body, so I'm not clear who your formula is trying to convince.

Dave and Agatha,
- I don't understand your reluctance to accept the relevance of potential selves (or "souls," minus any implication of immortality) in our issue here.
- "Likelihood" intrinsically involves potential occurrences...

Maybe, but potential selves are not relevant to the statement "people have one finite life".

Dave,
- I doubt this will help, but just in case -- in OOFLam I'm not really referring to "people" -- I'm referring to "selves" or "souls."

My point is the same. Selves have one finite life. Potential selves aren't selves.

Remember that my statement that you initially questioned was about what model of consciousness I subscribe to, and it's one that doesn't include souls.

Dave,
- I think that what you are referring to was my attempt to make sure that we were talking about the same concept -- not the concept to which you subscribe. In all that, I accepted that real concepts can refer to null classes...
- The concept that I've been talking about is the self that seems to continue the same for a lifetime -- the "thing," the "entity" or "process," that seems to remember the experiences and changes "it" has lived through. Is that a concept, possibly null, that you can recognize?

We've already established that I recognize that concept, and that I believe it to be entirely physical.

Dave,
- But, the self I'm talking about (if it exists) is most certainly immaterial, and scientists can't begin to predict who it will be.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- But, the self I'm talking about (if it exists) is most certainly immaterial, and scientists can't begin to predict who it will be.

That's because the self you're talking about doesn't exist, according to science. Loss Leader summed it up perfectly, you might do well to read it. Then read it again until you understand.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- But, the self I'm talking about (if it exists) is most certainly immaterial, and scientists can't begin to predict who it will be.

Then you're talking about something I don't believe exists. You're talking about a soul. And as I said earlier:

I suspect that most people who believe in souls already believe that souls can live on after the death of the physical body, so I'm not clear who your formula is trying to convince.

 

[Agatha]

Dave,
- But, the self I'm talking about (if it exists) is most certainly immaterial, and scientists can't begin to predict who it will be.

Then you are not talking about the scientific model. Your whole argument is premised on you "essentially" disproving the scientific model, but in order for such an argument to be taken seriously you do at least need to be attacking the scientific model, not some confused mish-mash of science and woo.

I don't believe such a thing as an "immaterial self" exists. The self or the consciousness is a process of the brain, which goes on throughout life but ceases on death. The only entity involved is the animal which includes the brain.

If you want to discuss an immaterial self which seems to most closely resemble what some religions call a soul, then you are in the realms of faith, not science.

 

[JayUtah]

But, the self I'm talking about (if it exists) is most certainly immaterial

Because you wave your hands and declare it thus. You cannot show any evidence that the self you're talking about exists. You just wish it into being and declare that it has exactly the properties you need in order for your beliefs to hold.

...and scientists can't begin to predict who it will be.

Because you wave your hands and declare it thus. You have no idea what proof means.

 

[Mojo]

- But, the self I'm talking about (if it exists) is most certainly immaterial, and scientists can't begin to predict who it will be.

They don't predict "who" it will be because there is no evidence that this immaterial "self" (please be honest and call it the soul) exists.

The consciousness produced by a functioning human body is just that: a human consciousness.

Your argument at this point is equivalent to you saying that you are taking about an imaginary friend and scientists cannot predict its name.

 

[godless dave]

Your argument at this point is equivalent to you saying that you are taking about an imaginary friend and scientists cannot predict its name.

And therefore, science is wrong about it being imaginary.

 

[Loss Leader]

The only entity involved is the animal which includes the brain.

And I wouldn't even go that far. I think a person includes the 3 pounds of symbiotic creatures hitching a ride. After all, if you were to remove all the bacteria in my gut, I promise my mood and priorities would change rapidly.

And then I'd remember that time I was rushed to the hospital because I couldn't digest food. And then that memory would become part of "Loss Leader" - a part that neve existed before and could not be inferred from my genome.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- But, the self I'm talking about (if it exists) is most certainly immaterial, and scientists can't begin to predict who it will be.

Then you're talking about something I don't believe exists...

...
I don't believe such a thing as an "immaterial self" exists...

- Do you guys think that it's possible that an immaterial self exists?

 

[JayUtah]

After all, if you were to remove all the bacteria in my gut...

Oh, I thought you were talking about midi-chlorians. After all, there's as much evidence in favor of Force ghosts as there is for Jabba's "immaterial self."

 

[JayUtah]

- Do you guys think that it's possible that an immaterial self exists?

Standard Jabba tactic of softening the question and begging for agreement. This has never worked. Why do you keep trying?

Your hypothesis is that an immaterial self does exist. You have the burden to prove it does, if you want it to have any more strength than a hypothesis.

 

[Tale]

- Do you guys think that it's possible that an immaterial self exists?

Virtually anything is possible, at least in vague terms. It's possible that little green men live on the moon and they're really good at hiding when we look.

Whether it's particularly reasonable possibility is a whole other matter. A far more important one.

 

[godless dave]

- Do you guys think that it's possible that an immaterial self exists?

No. But just like everything I think I know, I could be wrong. You're welcome to try to convince me an immaterial self exists.

 

[Jabba]

Virtually anything is possible, at least in vague terms. It's possible that little green men live on the moon and they're really good at hiding when we look.

Whether it's particularly reasonable possibility is a whole other matter. A far more important one.

Tale,
- Is it reasonably possible that immaterial selves exist?

 

[theprestige]

- Do you guys think that it's possible that an immaterial self exists?

The whole point of this thread, the only reason we're here at all, is to see if you can prove that it does. We got as far as stipulating mere possibility in the OP.

We're way beyond that now--or would be, if you could actually get from stipulating mere possibility to proving actual existence.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Tale,
- Is it reasonably possible that immaterial selves exist?

Can we start a list of the undefined weasel words that Jabba employs?

Self
Who
Reasonably possible

 

[JayUtah]

Tale,
- Is it reasonably possible that immaterial selves exist?

Second deployment in the same day of this standard tactic. Jabba, please do not beg the question.

Your hypothesis is that immaterial selves exist. It would be reasonable to believe that if you could show a rational reason to believe it -- i.e., evidence. If you cannot give a rational reason, then it is not reasonable to believe it exists.

Weasel words such as "possible that it exists" or "potentially exist" simply beg the reader to lower his standard of proof so that your mere belief can clear it. Do not disrespect your critics by asking them to do this.