Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[JoeMorgue]

Why would you say that?

Fletcher: Your honor I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!

I think that about sums it up.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Dave,
- I would say that your sense of self is different -- it is not the result of your chemistry. There is nothing about the banana that isn't reproducible, but your sense of self is not at all reproducible.

Of course you would say that. All you need to do now is prove it.

It is different because of the soul ... and as it is different ... it must exist that soul!

It's circular Jabbastic thinking. Let's see how he now waltzes us into the V reincarnation of this thread, in what he believes to be this:

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I would say that your sense of self is different -- it is not the result of your chemistry. There is nothing about the banana that isn't reproducible, but your sense of self is not at all reproducible.

Then you're not talking about H. Under H my self is the result of my chemistry, and is in principle reproducible just as much as the banana is, as we just discussed a few posts back. To reproduce is to make a copy. Making a copy of the banana would result in a second banana identical to, but separate from, the first. Making a copy of my body would result in a second body, with a sense of self, identical to but separate from the first.

Under H, everything about the sense of self depends on the physical body. That's why H results in each of us having one finite life, no more and no less.

 

[Jabba]

And the exact could be said for every banana that has existed and will exist.
OR any other fruit for that matter. I also don't get how he gets from one to the other. Once again, it is texas sharpshooter. Jabba's existence is not a target. It was not a target before he existed.

Jabba you are just repeating the same thing over and over again using slightly different words, and you aren't addressing or even reading the problems with it. Do you think after the 1000th time this strategy will work?
This particular iteration of the thread has over 2700 posts, and not a thing has changed or moved since the start of it.

It would be the Texas sharpshooter fallacy if Jabba were using anything like the actual odds of a specific individual existing under the scientific understanding of biology. But he doesn't even get that far: he uses some number where the numerator is, for some reason, the number of people alive now and the denominator is the number of possible human beings in the entire lifespan of the universe. The latter is based on his claim that each person's sense of self comes from nowhere, rather than being the result of biological processes.

Dave and Sparrow,
- Again, there is an aspect of a person (the sense of self) that is not reproducible. I assume that there is no such aspect in a banana.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- I would say that your sense of self is different -- it is not the result of your chemistry. There is nothing about the banana that isn't reproducible, but your sense of self is not at all reproducible.

That's because it's a process, not a thing. The same yellow of a banana couldn't be reproduced either.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Dave and Sparrow,
- Again, there is an aspect of a person (the sense of self) that is not reproducible. I assume that there is no such aspect in a banana.

Again you can't just keep stating this over and over as if it were true.

 

[JayUtah]

I would say that your sense of self is different -- it is not the result of your chemistry.

First, "of your chemistry" is a recurring straw man in your argument. The sense of self is an emergent property of a functioning brain an nervous system. There are many more components and effects there than mere "chemistry."

Second, you haven't shown how a sense of self is different than any other property. You're trying to show that a soul exists so that you can say life isn't vested in the organism. You're trying to show that there exists something in the organism, as formulated H in science, that can't be produced by the organism. Simply declaring that it must exist is as circular as reasoning can get.

There is nothing about the banana that isn't reproducible, but your sense of self is not at all reproducible.

Where to begin? You talk about "your" sense of self. There is only "the" sense of self, the emergent property of a functioning brain. You continue to use language that incorrectly describes the conditions under H, and which reinforces your error that the sense of self under H is a countable "thing." You need to divest yourself of that misconception.

No two bananas are exactly alike. Yet two bananas are each expressions of the emergent property of bananahood. There is no element of that property that does not derive from the processes of growing a banana. Similarly there is no element of the self that does not derive from the process of growing a human being.

Finally, you misunderstood what the banana example does to your argument. You want to say there is an infinite number of Potential Selves, so that you can get your Big Denominator, wave the Bayesian wand, and conjure yourself up a "virtually zero" likelihood of you existing without a soul. Accordingly, there must be an infinite number of Potential Bananas, therefore no single banana has a non-zero likelihood of existing. In fact your fallacy holds for all X. There is an infinite number of Potential X, therefore no X can possibly exist.

I'm sure you'll try again to point out that Xes and bananas are different from selves. That's the problem. Your argument holds only for selves because you beg the question of what a self is. You simply define it to be fundamentally identical to the soul you're trying to prove. The sense of self under H is no different from bananahood or X-hood or any other emergent property. It doesn't come in distinct quantities. There is no such thing as a "potential" self that you can count. Your argument is simply numerically wrong.

 

[John Jones]

Truly Effective Debate.

 

[Pixel42]

Dave,
- I would say that your sense of self is different -- it is not the result of your chemistry. There is nothing about the banana that isn't reproducible, but your sense of self is not at all reproducible.

Dave and Sparrow,
- Again, there is an aspect of a person (the sense of self) that is not reproducible. I assume that there is no such aspect in a banana.

Jabba the mistakes you are making have been explained to you patiently, in detail. and in the simplest possible terms, many many times. Why are you simply repeating them as if it was the first time you'd ever made them? Go back and read the responses you got any of the previous times you posted the same faulty arguments, and this time try to understand them.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I would say that your sense of self is different -- it is not the result of your chemistry. There is nothing about the banana that isn't reproducible, but your sense of self is not at all reproducible.

You would (and frequently do) say any manner of things, but you don't provide any evidence and scarcely any logic.

 

[Mojo]

Dave and Sparrow,
- Again, there is an aspect of a person (the sense of self) that is not reproducible. I assume that there is no such aspect in a banana.

You're just repeating your claim, and providing nothing whatsoever to support it.

Fail.

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave and Sparrow,
- Again, there is an aspect of a person (the sense of self) that is not reproducible. I assume that there is no such aspect in a banana.

You're just saying the same thing with more emotional insistence.
I asked for proof, or even evidence.

 

[Hokulele]

Dave and Sparrow,
- Again, there is an aspect of a person (the sense of self) that is not reproducible. I assume that there is no such aspect in a banana.

Wrong and wrong. Why do you claim a sense of self is not reproducible? It is reproduced every time you lose and regain consciousness.

 

[Jabba]

Dave and Sparrow,
- Again, there is an aspect of a person (the sense of self) that is not reproducible. I assume that there is no such aspect in a banana.

You're just saying the same thing with more emotional insistence.
I asked for proof, or even evidence.

Sparrow,
- Are you asking for evidence that there is an aspect of a person that cannot be reproduced -- or, are you asking for evidence that there is no such aspect in a banana?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Sparrow,
- Are you asking for evidence that there is an aspect of a person that cannot be reproduced -- or, are you asking for evidence that there is no such aspect in a banana?

As if you didn't realize any piece of evidence from you would be a complete novelty here.

«Are you asking the first 50% of a piece of evidence or are you asking the last 50% of it? Or is it the 50% in the middle?»

«if you want all the words in that piece of evidence starting with an a, press 9 ... you pressed "human have souls and souls are immortal" ... thank you, have a nice day! .... [TONE]»

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sparrow,
- Are you asking for evidence that there is an aspect of a person that cannot be reproduced -- or, are you asking for evidence that there is no such aspect in a banana?

Either. Or. Both. Doesn't matter because there's zero chance you'll provide it.

I could ask you for next week's lottery numbers for all the difference it's gonna make.

 

[abaddon]

Wrong and wrong. Why do you claim a sense of self is not reproducible? It is reproduced every time you lose and regain consciousness.

No idea. Go under general anaesthetic and the light bulb is simply switched off. Weird experience but there you are. Odd as the sensation (of lack thereof) if consciousness can clearly be eliminated by drugs interacting with a brain, clearly, a brain has something to do with it.

Jabba claims that something is external. Were that true, we would have evidence of it. Not I, nor anyone I know has had any such experience.

This is, of course, why Jabba gloms onto the NDE/OOBE experiences. It is all he has.

There are two points to make here.

Anyone in a position to require such a thing is having serious drug regimes. One might as well ask a heroin addict to interpret the bible, or Harry Potter, or whatever.

Second, I have been that soldier more than once. So have my long deceased parents. It is very strange to observe, utterly confusing at the start, hallucinogenetic even.

When one comes out of it, one can acknowledge that one was spaced out on drugs, which is reasonable. Or one could claim that they had a divine revelation, which is not.

It might be that Jabba's claim is true, I have no idea. Maybe he really is 70+ and never underwent any surgery ever. Maybe he has never experienced having his consciousness being switched off at will.

It matters not. The important question is that if I were to anaesthetise anyone , that's it. It is a purely physical function.

 

[Jabba]

Wrong and wrong. Why do you claim a sense of self is not reproducible? It is reproduced every time you lose and regain consciousness.

Hokulele,
- My claim is that a human has an aspect that cannot be reproduced chemically (the particular sense of self)-- but that a banana doesn't. And, by having such an aspect, the likelihood of the particular human existing at any particular time is virtually zero -- but, not so the banana. The human has an identity, a self -- the banana does not.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Hokulele,
- My claim is that a human has an aspect that cannot be reproduced chemically (the sense of self)-- but that a banana doesn't. And, by having such an aspect, the likelihood of the particular human existing at any particular time is virtually zero -- but, not so the banana. The human has an identity, a self -- the banana does not.

Jesus Christ it's like having a discussion with that guy from Memento

How is that after 5 years you are still literally at the exact starting point?

WE ALL KNOW WHAT YOUR CLAIM IS JABBA!

Your claim is wrong. You have failed to support it. Stop just making it over and over.

 

[JayUtah]

Sparrow,
- Are you asking for evidence that there is an aspect of a person that cannot be reproduced -- or, are you asking for evidence that there is no such aspect in a banana?

Actual evidence of any part of your claim would be a pleasant surprise. You are claiming there exists a unique entity that transcends the physical organism and can thus be termed immortal. You have provided no evidence that any such thing exists. The closest you've come is to attribute various extraordinary anecdotes to it. Under H, a human being has no more mystique than a banana, in terms of how they come into existence and how that existence gives rise to certain emergent properties in each case. Necessarily under H, if you reproduce that existence you reproduce the properties, emergent or otherwise. Your only response is merely a bare assertion to the contrary. You simply declare a human being has some irreproducible "thing," and that there are an infinite number of "potential" such things. This is your QED, so you don't get to simply declare it to be so and call it done. That's what you need to prove, not a stepping-stone on the way to proving it.