Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- This is where chemistry loses control, and we have so much trouble communicating. While your chemistry could theoretically reproduce an identical you, it couldn't reproduce you. Scientifically speaking, therefore, you can exist only once in all of infinity. That your time would happen to be the 21st century, Gregorian speaking, is an all too amazing coincident. Which would be more probable, your current existence given only one existence for all infinity, or ~OOFLam given your current existence?
- I think there's more to it (re Mt Rainier) -- but again, one step at a time

Please consider addressing the question:

"How many 'going 60 mph' are there?"

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- This is where chemistry loses control, and we have so much trouble communicating. While your chemistry could theoretically reproduce an identical you, it couldn't reproduce you. Scientifically speaking, therefore, you can exist only once in all of infinity. [...]

You have no qualifications to define the limits and control of chemistry. I can't see any qualifications allowing you to speak on behalf of any discipline of science whatsoever.

You tried this before -- calling scientists incompetent and dishonest.

I know you saw my rejoinder years ago because you complained about your remarks being characterized as scurrilous and mean-spirited.

This characterization of your remarks stands, in case you were wondering.

This is not directed at you personally, but at your five years of utterly incompetent discussion.

 

[The Sparrow]

Why don't you explain exactly how this is different than a banana?

Each banana is unique and there are infinite possible bananas, therefore any given banana can't exist according to you.

Someone said so eloquently about 50 posts back - just because there can be infinite variations of something, that doesn't mean any particular instance of that thing can't exist.

We have bananas!
I have a banana right here.

So, maybe we have 2 questions going right now:

How many "going 60 mph" are there?
If there are infinite possible bananas, how is it that we have actual bananas?

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- In a sense, the likelihood of an individual banana currently existing is probably (at least virtually) one. I doubt that there is anything mysterious about a banana, other than life itself.

Is the likelihood of an individual banana existing virtually zero? After all, we have an infinity of potential bananas…

Dave,
- I must admit that I'm still confused -- though, I'm still sure I'm right...
- I guess that my basic problem still has to do with the definition of "who." I'm claiming that while we can estimate the characteristics of the person coming out fairly well -- through science -- there is an aspect of the person coming out (their "identity"?) for which we don't have a clue. And, according to science, this who can never exist again. This person can never be reincarnated. Neither you nor I can ever be reincarnated. We can only exist once at most.
- That's how a banana has us beat. There is no such aspect to a banana.
- How's that?

 

[MikeG]

....... Neither you nor I can ever be reincarnated. We can only exist once at most.
- That's how a banana has us beat. There is no such aspect to a banana.....

Seriously? 'Bananas can be reincarnated' is some sort of argument is it?

 

[Jabba]

3421

How is this different than a banana?
Why? What's so special about the 21st Century?

Dave,
- Out of all time, it happens that we both do exist, and that's when we're both doing it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- I must admit that I'm still confused -- though, I'm still sure I'm right...
- I guess that my basic problem still has to do with the definition of "who." I'm claiming that while we can estimate the characteristics of the person coming out fairly well -- through science -- there is an aspect of the person coming out (their "identity"?) for which we don't have a clue. And, according to science, this who can never exist again. This person can never be reincarnated. Neither you nor I can ever be reincarnated. We can only exist once at most.
- That's how a banana has us beat. There is no such aspect to a banana.
- How's that?

How's that? That's nonsense, that's how.

You are confusing the claims. The H claim, the materialistic, scientific, claim, the one you are trying to disprove, is that there is no such additional aspect peculiar to a human. The identity (or whatever you will chose to call it next time) of a human is, except perhaps for complexity, no different from the identity of a snowflake, a banana, or Mt. Rainer.

The ~H claim, on the other hand, YOUR claim, is that there is such a thing, and it somehow changes the probability of your existence.

Hans

 

[JayUtah]

I must admit that I'm still confused -- though, I'm still sure I'm right...

No, logically you can't be both. And in fact, you're neither. The pattern by which you evade the hard questions suggests you know exactly what's wrong with your argument, and you're trying to steer the discussion away from it. You already admit to ignoring posters whose posts you say are too complicated. And we can be certain on this point that you're absolutely wrong because you're back to trying to paste concepts onto H that it doesn't have. That's a non-starter.

I guess that my basic problem still has to do with the definition of "who."

Yippee! Yet another new word for "soul." Have you figured out that this endless equivocation never works?

I'm claiming that while we can estimate the characteristics of the person coming out fairly well -- through science -- there is an aspect of the person coming out (their "identity"?) for which we don't have a clue.

No, that is not the scientific model. Once again you're trying to warp H so that it seems dualistic. You already plied the notion that science can't detect your precious soul, but that it somehow must exist anyway. That's exactly what it means to beg the question.

And, according to science, this who can never exist again.

No, not according to science -- according to you. You've been told the scientific basis for the sense of self. You just choose to believe it must be something different. And you're still trying to wedge your argument into the notion of simple cardinality as opposed to identity. We already went through that. Granted, you ignored it then just as you're ignoring it now. But you have already been refuted on this point whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

That's how a banana has us beat. There is no such aspect to a banana. How's that?

Same question you've been begging for years. People are "somehow" different than inanimate objects in that they have something that vaguely resembles a soul. You're assuming your desired conclusion as a premise. You're supposed to be supplying a mathematical proof that this "aspect" exists. You obviously can't, and now you're trying to beg the question by liberally sprinkling the word "scientifically" amidst your half-baked pseudo-mystical nonsense.

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- I must admit that I'm still confused -- though, I'm still sure I'm right...
- I guess that my basic problem still has to do with the definition of "who." I'm claiming that while we can estimate the characteristics of the person coming out fairly well -- through science -- there is an aspect of the person coming out (their "identity"?) for which we don't have a clue. And, according to science, this who can never exist again. This person can never be reincarnated. Neither you nor I can ever be reincarnated. We can only exist once at most.
- That's how a banana has us beat. There is no such aspect to a banana.
- How's that?

There is no aspect. It is not a thing. You have been deluded into an unfounded belief in such a thing, as has been pointed out innumerable times already.

 

[MRC_Hans]

3421Dave,
- Out of all time, it happens that we both do exist, and that's when we're both doing it.

If we didn't all exist at this time, we would not be discussing this, would we?

Hans

 

[JayUtah]

3421Dave,
- Out of all time, it happens that we both do exist, and that's when we're both doing it.

And there's the Texas sharpshooter fallacy again. You're drawing the target around a certain spot on the barn because "it happens" that's where your bullets hit.

 

[jond]

Dave,
-- there is an aspect of the person coming out (their "identity"?) for which we don't have a clue.

We have a very good clue. Their identity is a process, formed from every experience the person has over the course of their life. That you refuse to even consider this is your problem, and yours alone.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I must admit that I'm still confused -- though, I'm still sure I'm right...
- I guess that my basic problem still has to do with the definition of "who." I'm claiming that while we can estimate the characteristics of the person coming out fairly well -- through science -- there is an aspect of the person coming out (their "identity"?) for which we don't have a clue. And, according to science, this who can never exist again. This person can never be reincarnated. Neither you nor I can ever be reincarnated. We can only exist once at most.
- That's how a banana has us beat. There is no such aspect to a banana.
- How's that?

The problem is that H includes no such aspect. Under H, the what is the who.

 

[godless dave]

3421Dave,
- Out of all time, it happens that we both do exist, and that's when we're both doing it.

How is that a coincidence?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- I must admit that I'm still confused -- though, I'm still sure I'm right...
- I guess that my basic problem still has to do with the definition of "who." I'm claiming that while we can estimate the characteristics of the person coming out fairly well -- through science -- there is an aspect of the person coming out (their "identity"?) for which we don't have a clue. And, according to science, this who can never exist again. This person can never be reincarnated. Neither you nor I can ever be reincarnated. We can only exist once at most.
- That's how a banana has us beat. There is no such aspect to a banana.
- How's that?

How can a banana be "reincarnated"?

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

 

[Slowvehicle]

3421Dave,
- Out of all time, it happens that we both do exist, and that's when we're both doing it.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

 

[caveman1917]

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

|{x | x is going 60 mph}|

 

[theprestige]

Dave,
- I must admit that I'm still confused -- though, I'm still sure I'm right...
- I guess that my basic problem still has to do with the definition of "who." I'm claiming that while we can estimate the characteristics of the person coming out fairly well -- through science -- there is an aspect of the person coming out (their "identity"?) for which we don't have a clue. And, according to science, this who can never exist again. This person can never be reincarnated. Neither you nor I can ever be reincarnated. We can only exist once at most.
- That's how a banana has us beat. There is no such aspect to a banana.
- How's that?

There's no such aspect to the sense of self, either.

How many "going 60mph" are there?

How many "flavor of a banana" are there?

How many "sense of self" are there?

 

[Hokulele]

|{x | x is going 60 mph}|

That's how many things are going 60 mph. This has been pointed out to you previously. Since going 60 mph is a property, not a thing, it is uncountable.

It is supposed to be a nonsense question, in a vain attempt to point out to Jabba his fundamental mistake.

 

[caveman1917]

That's how many things are going 60 mph. This has been pointed out to you previously. Since going 60 mph is a property, not a thing, it is uncountable.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

It is supposed to be a nonsense question, in a vain attempt to point out to Jabba his fundamental mistake.

It's not a nonsense question, it's a straightforward question with a straightforward answer, just like:

How many apples are there?

|{x | x is apple}|

You just don't like the answer because you need it to be a nonsense question for your argument to work.