Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[jond]

Which, in all fairness, is something he's admitted having done before. I sense we're in the same dregs as the Shroud of Turin thread, where he conceded years ago that he had lost the actual debate. He spent all the rest of his time trying to argue that his critics had won unfairly.

Yeah, that's what happens when you don't let him win by arguing his straw man position. Meanies, all of us.

 

[godless dave]

This is completely incorrect. We do not have a consciousness (thing), we experience consciousness (process). The "number of selves" is a meaningless statement.

I've been using it to mean "number of living brains". I don't disagree with your first part, but I do think there's a way of looking at selves as things.

It doesn't help Jabba's argument though.

 

[Loss Leader]

We would produce a different consciousness/awareness.

Consciousness is not a countable thing. It is a process.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

 

[Mojo]

How many going 60mph are there?

- To me, one's self need not be equated with soul.

But that is clearly what you are doing, whatever term you use for the concept. The "self", as you use the term, is indistinguishable from the concept of the soul. Even if you call it an observer, an operator, or whatever. How would you distinguish them?

Remember, under your own rules you have to address the question about how many going 60mph there are first.

 

[jond]

I've been using it to mean "number of living brains". I don't disagree with your first part, but I do think there's a way of looking at selves as things.

It doesn't help Jabba's argument though.

The problem is that Jabba doesn't equate it as number of living brains. He insists there's something else. He refuses to even acknowledge all the times we've pointed out that the number of selves is exactly the same as the number of bodies/brains.

 

[Jabba]

Because two is more than one.

If you can understand the concept of two identical organisms, then you should be able to understand the concept of two identical "selves".




Neither would the number of bodies. Or the number of anything else. The limit would be the amount of matter in the universe and the ability to rearrange that matter.

How many going 60mph are there?

- IOW, the number of potential particular consciousnesses is infinite if matter can keep being recycled.

 

[godless dave]

- IOW, the number of potential particular consciousnesses is infinite if matter can keep being recycled.

As is the number of particular brains, bodies, banana, planets, stars, and literally everything else.

(Not really because of entropy and heat death but we don't need to worry about that for another 100 billion years or so).

 

[JayUtah]

- IOW, the number of potential particular consciousnesses is infinite if matter can keep being recycled.

Consciousness is a process. It is not a countable set of things. Godless dave may not be respecting the difference between the countability of objects that exhibit a property and the notion of the property itself being countable, but that's the important failure in your argument. You want to divide the practical number of exhibitors by the "potential" number of such exhibitors. There is no such ratio.

And you know it.

You've been asked to comment on the countability of a property that, as stated, cannot be conflated with the countability of objects having the property. You will not answer, which leads us to conclude you realize full well what that answer would mean to your argument.

 

[theprestige]

- IOW, the number of potential particular consciousnesses is infinite if matter can keep being recycled.

Under H, consciousness is a process, not a thing. There is no number of particular consciousnesses, potential or otherwise, under H.

How many "going 60mph" are there?

 

[Jabba]

As is the number of particular brains, bodies, banana, planets, stars, and literally everything else.

(Not really because of entropy and heat death but we don't need to worry about that for another 100 billion years or so).

Dave,
- Is there some reason to think that it won't start all over again after 100 billion years or so? Remember, I'm claiming that there must be an infinity of potential different particular awarenesses/consciousnesses.
- And then, how many universes are there?

 

[Loss Leader]

- IOW, the number of potential particular consciousnesses is infinite if matter can keep being recycled.

No, no, no. Consciousness cannot be numbered. It is not the same as "number of people" just like "going 60 mph" is not the same as "number of cars."

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

How is your consciousness today different from your consciousness 30 years ago. Did they love the same people, eat the same foods, remember Y2k the same way? Consciousness is a process. Understand that.

 

[jsfisher]

Dave,
- Is there some reason to think that it won't start all over again after 100 billion years or so? Remember, I'm claiming that there must be an infinity of potential different particular awarenesses/consciousnesses.
- And then, how many universes are there?

Find yourself in a corner, so you change the subject as radically as possible?

This does not speak well for your position on immortality nor your so-called effective debate approach. Are you abandoning both?

 

[JayUtah]

Dave,
- Is there some reason to think that it won't start all over again after 100 billion years or so? Remember, I'm claiming that there must be an infinity of potential different particular awarenesses/consciousnesses.
- And then, how many universes are there?

No, you're struggling to find the Big Denominator. Now that it's clear you can't number "potential selves," you're scrambling around to find some other cosmological or mystical nonsense that you can pretend has "a finity fings" so you can divide "dis many fings" by it and get zero.

Do you really think after four years we're not onto you?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Is there some reason to think that it won't start all over again after 100 billion years or so?

Nothing in known physics allows for entropy to be reversed.

Remember, I'm claiming that there must be an infinity of potential different particular awarenesses/consciousnesses.

Even if there is that doesn't help your argument one iota. There are an infinity of potential different bananas. Yet there is a banana on my desk. That's because the number of potential anything over all time is not relevant to the likelihood of one individual thing existing at one particular time.

- And then, how many universes are there?

One that we know of, and if there are others, we don't know of any way events in one universe can affect another.

 

[The Sparrow]

....There are an infinity of potential different bananas. Yet there is a banana on my desk. That's because the number of potential anything over all time is not relevant to the likelihood of one individual thing existing at one particular time.
....

This!!!!!


and

How many going 60 mph are there?

 

[fibbermcgee]

Jabba, my late Mother in law had Alzheimer's. She had six daughters and did not know any of them. Her view of herself was practically non existent. Was her "self" corrupted by a disease that robbed her brain of memory?

 

[Loss Leader]

- And then, how many universes are there?

This doesn't help you. What is the chance that the one universe you inhabit will be the one you find yourself inhabiting?

But you're changing the subject.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

 

[theprestige]

Dave,
- Is there some reason to think that it won't start all over again after 100 billion years or so? Remember, I'm claiming that there must be an infinity of potential different particular awarenesses/consciousnesses.
- And then, how many universes are there?

Better yet: How many "going 60mph" are there?

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Is there some reason to think that it won't start all over again after 100 billion years or so? Remember, I'm claiming that there must be an infinity of potential different particular awarenesses/consciousnesses.
- And then, how many universes are there?

Nothing in known physics allows for entropy to be reversed.


Even if there is that doesn't help your argument one iota. There are an infinity of potential different bananas. Yet there is a banana on my desk. That's because the number of potential anything over all time is not relevant to the likelihood of one individual thing existing at one particular time.



One that we know of, and if there are others, we don't know of any way events in one universe can affect another.

Dave,
- What will physics say about that in 100 billion years

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- What will physics say about that in 100 billion years

Probably nothing because there will be no living things left to think about physics.

How is that relevant to anything? Even if there are an infinite number of potential selves, the number of potential anything over all time is not relevant to the likelihood of one individual thing existing at one particular time.