Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[JayUtah]

- You guys are fast!

Your story hasn't changed. It's just as wrong now as it was four years ago. Since you're making the same mistakes over and over again, it doesn't take long to identify and respond to them. Haven't you figured out that your argument is so stale your critics can predict what part of it will come next?

 

[jond]

- You guys are fast!

And you still refuse to read and/or comprehend any posts that point out the obvious flaws in your reasoning.

 

[JayUtah]

And you still refuse to read and/or comprehend any posts that point out the obvious flaws in your reasoning.

I'm still trying to figure out how he can devote, as he says, "2-3 hours a day" to this forum and yet still produce so very little -- and what he produces is just repetition. I certainly don't have multiple hours a day to devote to posting here.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Just that in the case of the flames, the only difference between the two would be their times of existence.

Really? The exact shape of each lick of flame would be identical? The exact way the flame dances would be identical? Each would burn for exactly the same amount of time? The temperature at the edges of the flame would be exactly the same?

It puts me in mind of a poem:

A funny creature is the flea.
You cannot tell the he from she.
But he can tell,
And so can she.

Just because you don't appreciate the differences between the two flames doesn't mean the differences aren't observable. Likewise, you don't appreciate the differences between Jabba and Jabba 40 years ago. But those differences exist and can be observed.

 

[Mojo]

- For the moment, I'm just trying to show that the potential number of selves is infinite -- and that if so, the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- is virtually zero.

Jabba, in the hypothesis you are trying to disprove, your consciousness at any particular time is not a thing, it is just whatever your brain is doing at that time. If your H includes selves as things, you are arguing against a strawman, and therefore your 'proof' fails.

This has been pointed out to you many times, and yet you persist in including selves as things in your H.

 

[abaddon]

I'm still trying to figure out how he can devote, as he says, "2-3 hours a day" to this forum and yet still produce so very little -- and what he produces is just repetition.

Yep, all he can come up with is a whole new form of words saying exactly the same thing, and the inevitable "so you agree" nonsense

I certainly don't have multiple hours a day to devote to posting here.

I kinda do. Recompile this and reinstall that, there is a lot of slack time in there. Meh. It is dull. Such is life.

 

[The Sparrow]

Really? The exact shape of each lick of flame would be identical? The exact way the flame dances would be identical? Each would burn for exactly the same amount of time? The temperature at the edges of the flame would be exactly the same?

It puts me in mind of a poem:

A funny creature is the flea.
You cannot tell the he from she.
But he can tell,
And so can she.

Just because you don't appreciate the differences between the two flames doesn't mean the differences aren't observable. Likewise, you don't appreciate the differences between Jabba and Jabba 40 years ago. But those differences exist and can be observed.

mmm I like that. One of the flames might be carried to a different room where an open window causes a breeze to flutter it and slightly accelerate its burning for a while.
There's poetry in that too!

 

[John Jones]

[...]
- For the moment, I'm just trying to show that the potential number of selves is infinite -- and that if so, the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- is virtually zero.

You have been trying to show that for nearly 5 years with no success at all. Not for the moment, but for 5 years!

Why aren't you starting to feel ashamed after all these years of complete and utter failure?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

"Never mind the quality, feel the width"

 

[John Jones]

jabba, I know you're watching. Have you got a fresh rejoinder?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

shhh... he's counting "going 60 mphs"

 

[Loss Leader]

jabba, I know you're watching. Have you got a fresh rejoinder?

I have to admit that every time I see this thread fall off my front page or go more than a day without a new post, I become unreasonably happy. I think maybe Jabba saw the futility and fallacy of his argument. Maybe he just turned off his computer and went for a walk. Maybe we'll just never hear from him again.

He always comes back, though. And the wheel goes 'round.

 

[Jabba]

- Sorry. I got caught up in too many things...

- So, my premises and conclusions:
1. There is such a "thing" (or process, or property) as potential "selves."
2. A self is a particular awareness.
3. There is an infinite number of potential selves, but a finite number of current selves..
4. Therefore, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self/awareness -- given OOFLam -- is virtually zero.
5. (Just like the likelihood of you winning an infinite lottery.)
6. But, you do currently exist!
7. Therefore, OOFLam is probably wrong.

- I'll gradually fill in the blanks.

 

[Hokulele]

Your very first premise is wrong, so there really is no need to go further. There are no blanks to fill.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Sorry. I got caught up in too many things...

- So, my premises and conclusions:
1. There is such a "thing" (or process, or property) as potential "selves."

2. A self is a particular awareness.
3. There is an infinite number of potential selves, but a finite number of current selves..
4. Therefore, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self/awareness -- given OOFLam -- is virtually zero.
5. (Just like the likelihood of you winning an infinite lottery.)
6. But, you do currently exist!
7. Therefore, OOFLam is probably wrong.

- I'll gradually fill in the blanks.

Your first premise is infirm, and invalidates all that follows

 

[Filippo Lippi]

- Sorry. I got caught up in too many things...

- So, my premises and conclusions:
1. There is such a "thing" (or process, or property) as potential "selves."
2. A self is a particular awareness.
3. There is an infinite number of potential selves, but a finite number of current selves..
4. Therefore, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self/awareness -- given OOFLam -- is virtually zero.
5. (Just like the likelihood of you winning an infinite lottery.)
6. But, you do currently exist!
7. Therefore, OOFLam is probably wrong.

- I'll gradually fill in the blanks.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

 

[John Jones]

- Sorry. I got caught up in too many things...

- So, my premises and conclusions:
1. There is such a "thing" (or process, or property) as potential "selves."
2. A self is a particular awareness.
3. There is an infinite number of potential selves, but a finite number of current selves..
4. Therefore, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self/awareness -- given OOFLam -- is virtually zero.
5. (Just like the likelihood of you winning an infinite lottery.)
6. But, you do currently exist!
7. Therefore, OOFLam is probably wrong.

- I'll gradually fill in the blanks.

The fringe reset again. I shoulda known that's what you were doing.

 

[HighRiser]

- Sorry. I got caught up in too many things...

- So, my premises and conclusions:
1. There is such a "thing" (or process, or property) as potential "selves."
2. A self is a particular awareness.
3. There is an infinite number of potential selves, but a finite number of current selves..
4. Therefore, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self/awareness -- given OOFLam -- is virtually zero.
5. (Just like the likelihood of you winning an infinite lottery.)
6. But, you do currently exist!
7. Therefore, OOFLam is probably wrong.

- I'll gradually fill in the blanks.

Are you ever going to support any of your premises well enough for anyone but yourself to draw a positive conclusion from them?

I ask because as well as I can remember, you've never done anything like it. Could you link to an example of yourself filling in a blank?

Have you had a chance to educate yourself on emergent properties like conciousnesses or, "going 60 mph"?

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, we were in the middle of a discussion.

They wouldn't be two different flames?



And the only difference between the two selves would be their times of existence.



Isn't the potential number of flames infinite? For that matter, isn't the potential number of matches infinite?

 

[The Sparrow]

How many "going 60mph" are there

We can't move onto a new reset until we've resolved that question. - Effective debate.