Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Belz...]

Dave,
- I'm thinking that our basic dispute has to do with something raised in the distant past (January), when I claimed that there was an aspect of our beings for which we don't have a clue as to its causation.

If January's the distant past, the beginning of this thread must be positively ancient to you.

- But anyway, when the sperm and ovum that made me came together, they produced something amazing -- awareness!

You know what else is amazing? Fingers, but I don't see you arguing that fingers are supernatural.

That's why I claim that my likelihood of current existence is analogous to my likelihood of winning the lottery

You know, when someone says "that's why", it usually follows an actual argument.

- So anyway, H doesn't allow for such an aspect, and under H,we can only have one finite existence, and the likelihood of that existence being right now is extremely small, and in fact, only 7 billion over infinity.

No, no it isn't. You can't just divide the current number of people by infinity, both of which you pulled out of your ass, and make a meaningful statement from that. Jay has been telling you this for YEARS.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I'm thinking that our basic dispute has to do with something raised in the distant past (January), when I claimed that there was an aspect of our beings for which we don't have a clue as to its causation.


Proof of Immortality, the IV league, #3498
Originally Posted by Jabba
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?

Originally Posted by godless dave
The problem is that H includes no such aspect. Under H, the what is the who.

- But anyway, when the sperm and ovum that made me came together, they produced something amazing -- awareness! It would seem that awareness naturally 'takes on' a "self," an "identity," the 'thing' that reincarnationists believe keeps returning to life -- specific self awareness. It is this "who" for whom I claim that we don't have a clue, that we can't reproduce, and that the likelihood of whom has to be assigned to chance -- not to chemistry. That's why I claim that my likelihood of current existence is analogous to my likelihood of winning the lottery, and why that likelihood is something over infinity, and why the same logic is not applicable to a blade of grass.

I know you're claiming that. Under H, such a thing does not exist:

- So anyway, H doesn't allow for such an aspect,

Which is why that aspect is not considered in P(E|H).

and under H,we can only have one finite existence, and the likelihood of that existence being right now is extremely small, and in fact, only 7 billion over infinity.

7 billion over infinity isn't "extremely small", it's an odd way of saying "zero".

Under H, neither the number of people alive now nor the number of potential people over all time is relevant to P(E|H). P(E|H) is based on the likelihood of each event that ultimately resulted in my existence, just as it would be for a mountain or a blade of grass.

Because, like you said, H doesn't include any aspect of the self the likelihood of which has to be assigned to chance.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm thinking that our basic dispute has to do with something raised in the distant past (January)...

Why are you "thinking" this? This is not some epiphany you yourself, through diligent research and introspection, have now suddenly arrived at. This is literally what everyone has been telling you several times a day for the past several months. Not only are you trying to script the other side of the debate, you're writing a part for yourself that means you're the only one who can stumble upon these gems of wisdom.

I struggle to find any evidence that you are connected to this discussion beyond some sort of cross between verbal masturbation and performance art. Thus I renew my request for you to give a reason why any serious critic should pay the slightest attention to you. Yes, the basic dispute is -- and has always been -- that you are trying to attach to H something that doesn't belong there. You don't need to begin every day by repeating that this is what you've "discovered."

But anyway, when the sperm and ovum that made me came together, they produced something amazing -- awareness!

No. "Amazing" is your subjective response. Subjective emotional reactions are not part of H.

It would seem that awareness naturally 'takes on' a "self," an "identity," the 'thing' that reincarnationists believe keeps returning to life -- specific self awareness.

No. Under H awareness is not a separate "thing" that inhabits the organism, or that the organism acquires from some outside source, or that has any sort of existence apart from the organism such that it could persist. Awareness is a property of the organism. Where there is an organism, the property is exhibited. It is meaningless to discuss the existence -- much less the countable existence -- of a property without the object that it's a property of.

It is this "who" for whom I claim that we don't have a clue, that we can't reproduce, and that the likelihood of whom has to be assigned to chance -- not to chemistry.

Good for you. There are no such concepts in H. Quit trying to stick them onto it.

Under H your awareness is a product of the physical organism. It is a process of a functioning nervous system. Under H any time the organism can be reproduced exactly, the awareness -- and all other properties of the organism -- will be reproduced exactly the same. Under H there is no provision to limit the exhibited properties to "chemistry." A number of initial and ongoing conditions contribute to the property of awareness. Any time those conditions can be duplicated, the property of awareness is identically duplicated.

You have been asked several times to provide evidence for the aspect of the self that you say cannot be produced as a property of the physical organism. You admit you cannot provide any, and fall back on insisting that science must still accommodate the possibility of such an aspect.

The answer, simply, is no.

That's why I claim that my likelihood of current existence is analogous to my likelihood of winning the lottery...

And that's why your analogy of winning the lottery does not properly describe H. Once again -- and it's not like you haven't been warned countless times against this -- you are inventing something and trying to attach it to H for the sole purposes of claiming H doesn't thoroughly explain it. That is a textbook example of a straw-man argument.

So anyway, H doesn't allow for such an aspect...

H doesn't need your newly-minted aspect because it accounts for the sense of self in a completely different way. Because that way does not lead to your predetermined number for P(E|H), you simply choose to ignore it and propose something else you just made up.

Please at least pretend to pay attention. Your audience grows so very weary of each day bringing only a new way for you to try to foist your straw man.

 

[JayUtah]

Which is why that aspect is not considered in P(E|H).

Jabba is begging you to put the cart before the horse as he does. H does not include any such aspect as he has formulated, but he desperately wants you to agree that it should. He wants to skip over the whole proof process and beg you to agree with the conclusion that since H doesn't include the aspects he says it should, it cannot be correct.

 

[jond]

Why are you "thinking" this? This is not some epiphany you yourself, through diligent research and introspection, have now suddenly arrived at. This is literally what everyone has been telling you several times a day for the past several months. Not only are you trying to script the other side of the debate, you're writing a part for yourself that means you're the only one who can stumble upon these gems of wisdom.

I struggle to find any evidence that you are connected to this discussion beyond some sort of cross between verbal masturbation and performance art. Thus I renew my request for you to give a reason why any serious critic should pay the slightest attention to you. Yes, the basic dispute is -- and has always been -- that you are trying to attach to H something that doesn't belong there. You don't need to begin every day by repeating that this is what you've "discovered."



No. "Amazing" is your subjective response. Subjective emotional reactions are not part of H.



No. Under H awareness is not a separate "thing" that inhabits the organism, or that the organism acquires from some outside source, or that has any sort of existence apart from the organism such that it could persist. Awareness is a property of the organism. Where there is an organism, the property is exhibited. It is meaningless to discuss the existence -- much less the countable existence -- of a property without the object that it's a property of.



Good for you. There are no such concepts in H. Quit trying to stick them onto it.

Under H your awareness is a product of the physical organism. It is a process of a functioning nervous system. Under H any time the organism can be reproduced exactly, the awareness -- and all other properties of the organism -- will be reproduced exactly the same. Under H there is no provision to limit the exhibited properties to "chemistry." A number of initial and ongoing conditions contribute to the property of awareness. Any time those conditions can be duplicated, the property of awareness is identically duplicated.

You have been asked several times to provide evidence for the aspect of the self that you say cannot be produced as a property of the physical organism. You admit you cannot provide any, and fall back on insisting that science must still accommodate the possibility of such an aspect.

The answer, simply, is no.



And that's why your analogy of winning the lottery does not properly describe H. Once again -- and it's not like you haven't been warned countless times against this -- you are inventing something and trying to attach it to H for the sole purposes of claiming H doesn't thoroughly explain it. That is a textbook example of a straw-man argument.



H doesn't need your newly-minted aspect because it accounts for the sense of self in a completely different way. Because that way does not lead to your predetermined number for P(E|H), you simply choose to ignore it and propose something else you just made up.

Please at least pretend to pay attention. Your audience grows so very weary of each day bringing only a new way for you to try to foist your straw man.

Quoted for Jabba's benefit. Because he won't read it, even though he needs to.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- So anyway, H doesn't allow for such an aspect, and under H,we can only have one finite existence, and the likelihood of that existence being right now is extremely small, and in fact, only 7 billion over infinity.

How do potential existences influence the chance of YOUR existence?

Hans

 

[Jabba]

...Under H, neither the number of people alive now nor the number of potential people over all time is relevant to P(E|H). P(E|H) is based on the likelihood of each event that ultimately resulted in my existence, just as it would be for a mountain or a blade of grass.

Because, like you said, H doesn't include any aspect of the self the likelihood of which has to be assigned to chance.

Dave,
- Do you believe that you recognize the aspect of self -- the concept -- that reincarnationists think returns?

 

[Belz...]

Dave,
- Do you believe that you recognize the aspect of self -- the concept -- that reincarnationists think returns?

What does that even mean?

How about you acknowledge what other posters are telling you instead of acting as if you don't see it because of your nonsensical "effective debate" theory which, as you've amply shown, is anything but effective?

 

[ferd burfle]

Dave,
- Do you believe that you recognize the aspect of self -- the concept -- that reincarnationists think returns?

Begging for agreement using weasel-words. Sad!

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- Do you believe that you recognize the aspect of self -- the concept -- that reincarnationists think returns?

Jabba -

What do you recognize as the aspect of self that reincarnationists think returns?

You're never answered this.

What are the characteristics of that self? How do they manifest themselves in different bodies? What memories does such a self keep? Which foods does the self like - the ones from childhood, adulthood, middle age? What knowledge does the self maintain?

How can you ask anyone to believe a concept that you won't even define?

 

[JayUtah]

Do you believe that you recognize the aspect of self -- the concept -- that reincarnationists think returns?

Weasel words, groping for the semblance of agreement.

No, I don't believe I recognize the sense of self in the same way you do. Which is to say, I know I have a sense of self and I surmise you do too. But I don't pile all sorts of mysticism and subjective melodrama on top of it as you do. Science successfully correlated that sense of self to the operation of a functioning nervous system, which I possess. If you or the "reincarnationists" want to build a religion out of nothing but trumped-up euphoria and an irrational fear of death, be my guest. Just don't pretend there's anything objective -- and certainly nothing mathematical -- about it. And kindly don't insult me several times a day by asking me simply to agree that you're right. You're not.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Do you believe that you recognize the aspect of self -- the concept -- that reincarnationists think returns?

I understand the concept of a soul. I also think I understand that when people who believe in reincarnation talk about what gets reincarnated, many of them are referring to a concept that corresponds with the parts of the brain that undergo subjective experiences and have a sense of personal identity; what Freud called the ego.

 

[Loss Leader]

and have a sense of personal identity;

But how is that personal identity defined? I identify myself as a father because I have two children. Twenty years ago, I thought my primary purpose on earth was to lie to women. Which one is me? Which survives reincarnation? I can't stand the thought of a glass of milk, it makes me sick for two days. But twenty years ago, I could drink a jug of milk a day. If I'm reincarnated, what of my identity survives?

It has to have a definition in order to exist.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- I'm thinking that our basic dispute has to do with something raised in the distant past (January), when I claimed that there was an aspect of our beings for which we don't have a clue as to its causation.


Proof of Immortality, the IV league, #3498
Originally Posted by Jabba
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?

Originally Posted by godless dave
The problem is that H includes no such aspect. Under H, the what is the who.

- But anyway, when the sperm and ovum that made me came together, they produced something amazing -- awareness! It would seem that awareness naturally 'takes on' a "self," an "identity," the 'thing' that reincarnationists believe keeps returning to life -- specific self awareness. It is this "who" for whom I claim that we don't have a clue, that we can't reproduce, and that the likelihood of whom has to be assigned to chance -- not to chemistry. That's why I claim that my likelihood of current existence is analogous to my likelihood of winning the lottery, and why that likelihood is something over infinity, and why the same logic is not applicable to a blade of grass.

- So anyway, H doesn't allow for such an aspect, and under H,we can only have one finite existence, and the likelihood of that existence being right now is extremely small, and in fact, only 7 billion over infinity.

Jabba.
- What you are arguing here is that if immaterial souls exist the likelihood of your current existence is zero.

 

[Jabba]

I understand the concept of a soul. I also think I understand that when people who believe in reincarnation talk about what gets reincarnated, many of them are referring to a concept that corresponds with the parts of the brain that undergo subjective experiences and have a sense of personal identity; what Freud called the ego.

- Is this aspect chemically reproducible?

 

[Belz...]

- Is this aspect chemically reproducible?

 

[godless dave]

- Is this aspect chemically reproducible?

This aspect doesn't exist under H. You acknowledged that earlier.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Is this aspect chemically reproducible?

Why don't you tell us what we're gonna to say and whether or not we agree with you since apparently to you you don't actually need other people to have another half of a conversation.

You'll just lie and put words in our mouths anyway.

 

[Belz...]

Why don't you tell us what we're gonna to say and whether or not we agree with you since apparently to you you don't actually need other people to have another half of a conversation.

You'll just lie and put words in our mouths anyway.

Anyway, it seems like you agree with me that fairies have butterly wings, per ~F.

 

[JayUtah]

- Is this aspect chemically reproducible?

"Chemically reproducible" is a straw man, as you've been patiently instructed several times. You're trying to reduce the factors that operate under H to what to others would appear to be comical simplicity so you can pretend they can't possibly produce something as magical and amazing as --- "OMG Awareness!!!!!!!" In case it's not obvious after several years, it's a transparent ploy.

In any case, when godless dave opines that the obsolete psychology term ego describes what reincarnationists believe persists after death, he's not admitting it's a true concept. And he's certainly not saying it's something that has any part of H. Stop jumping the gun, Jabba. By now you should be well aware that simply asking -- at every step in the argument -- whether some concept that's being discussed helps your case will not get you the answer you desperately want. Try to approach the debate with more sophistication than my dog exhibits when he thinks I'm holding a treat.