Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Loss Leader]

You could pick up any random object or pick any random process and go "Since this exist now it most have always existed and will always exist" and that's wrong.

Except for Natalie Portman and the original cast of E.R.

 

[Jabba]

- Trying to re-group and present my premises for your objections:

1. There is such a ‘thing’ (process?) as consciousness.
2. Consciousness naturally brings with it a “self” (or, “sense of self”).
3. “Self” being the experience that reincarnationists believe returns to life.

4. There is such a thing as a potential selves – before we are conceived, we are potential selves.
5. There must be an infinity of potential selves.
6. Scientifically speaking, each self can have only one finite life -- at most.

7. Scientifically speaking, the likelihood of my current existence must be about 7 billion over infinity (there being about 7 billion humans currently existing on the earth).
8. In other words, the likelihood of my current existence – given the scientific hypothesis -- is virtually zero…
9. My current existence is therefore evidence that the scientific hypothesis is wrong.

10. But that’s actually quite simplistic…
11. What if other things -- or empty space -- have/has consciousness? What if there are more universes or dimensions? What if time isn’t what we think it is? What if science is only at the beginning?
12. My current existence seems pretty fertile in light of what we know and don’t know.
13. I’ll be back. I’ve got a lot of spaces to fill and miles to go.

- I'm trying to develop a map.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You need to stop conflating thing and process. Seriously, this has been pointed out a lot. Do you not understand why this is a problem?

 

[Hokulele]

1, 2, and 3 are all wrong. Seeing as how your fundamental premises are wrong, there is no point in going further.

 

[godless dave]

Our objections are the same as they've always been.

 

[John Jones]

- Trying to re-group and present my premises for your objections:

1. There is such a ‘thing’ (process?) as consciousness.
2. Consciousness naturally brings with it a “self” (or, “sense of self”).
3. “Self” being the experience that reincarnationists believe returns to life.

4. There is such a thing as a potential selves – before we are conceived, we are potential selves.
5. There must be an infinity of potential selves.
6. Scientifically speaking, each self can have only one finite life -- at most.

7. Scientifically speaking, the likelihood of my current existence must be about 7 billion over infinity (there being about 7 billion humans currently existing on the earth).
8. In other words, the likelihood of my current existence – given the scientific hypothesis -- is virtually zero…
9. My current existence is therefore evidence that the scientific hypothesis is wrong.

10. But that’s actually quite simplistic…
11. What if other things -- or empty space -- have/has consciousness? What if there are more universes or dimensions? What if time isn’t what we think it is? What if science is only at the beginning?
12. My current existence seems pretty fertile in light of what we know and don’t know.
13. I’ll be back. I’ve got a lot of spaces to fill and miles to go.

- I'm trying to develop a map.

Starting the day off with a fringe reset. How droll.

 

[jond]

Rather than trying to make a map, I would suggest that you should read and try to understand all the replies that have thoroughly answered you.

 

[Hokulele]

Rather than trying to make a map, I would suggest that you should read and try to understand all the replies that have thoroughly answered you.

It's like Jabba is trying to create a map of the best way to get from South Station in Boston, MA to Times Square in New York City, but is insisting people start on Pluto.

 

[Agatha]

- Trying to re-group and present my premises for your objections:

1. There is such a ‘thing’ (process?) as consciousness.

No, it's not a thing. It's a process that arises from a functioning neurosystem, an emergent property.

2. Consciousness naturally brings with it a “self” (or, “sense of self”).

No. The sense of self is an integral part of the process of consciousness, not something tacked onto it or brought along with it.

3. “Self” being the experience that reincarnationists believe returns to life.

No. The 'self' is not an 'experience'. Nor does what reincarnationists believe have any impact on H.

I'll address your later points in a subsequent post.

 

[jond]

It's like Jabba is trying to create a map of the best way to get from South Station in Boston, MA to Times Square in New York City, but is insisting people start on Pluto.

Weird, I'm going to South Station today, but starting at PDX.

 

[Belz...]

- Trying to re-group and present my premises for your objections:

1. There is such a ‘thing’ (process?) as consciousness.
2. Consciousness naturally brings with it a “self” (or, “sense of self”).
3. “Self” being the experience that reincarnationists believe returns to life.

4. There is such a thing as a potential selves – before we are conceived, we are potential selves.
5. There must be an infinity of potential selves.
6. Scientifically speaking, each self can have only one finite life -- at most.

7. Scientifically speaking, the likelihood of my current existence must be about 7 billion over infinity (there being about 7 billion humans currently existing on the earth).
8. In other words, the likelihood of my current existence – given the scientific hypothesis -- is virtually zero…
9. My current existence is therefore evidence that the scientific hypothesis is wrong.

10. But that’s actually quite simplistic…
11. What if other things -- or empty space -- have/has consciousness? What if there are more universes or dimensions? What if time isn’t what we think it is? What if science is only at the beginning?
12. My current existence seems pretty fertile in light of what we know and don’t know.
13. I’ll be back. I’ve got a lot of spaces to fill and miles to go.

- I'm trying to develop a map.

Your map is all over the place. You're mixing up things together for no reason. 3, for instance, has no place here. And 13 isn't even part of your argument.

4-5 are completely unwarranted. They are irrelevant. There is no such thing as a "potential self". 6-10 are therefore pointless.

11: Why does this matter? We have to deal with what we know, not what we can make up.

12 is meaningless.

 

[Hokulele]

Weird, I'm going to South Station today, but starting at PDX.

Well, according to PartSkeptic, this is proof we live in a simulated universe!

 

[JayUtah]

Trying to re-group and present my premises for your objections:

That's all you do, every day. If you ever want to move beyond first principles, you need to start paying attention to the objections you were already given and addressing them rather that just starting from Square One every single day for years on end.

There is such a ‘thing’ (process?) as consciousness.

Under H consciousness is a process, not a thing. You've been warned countless times against trying to conflate them if you're talking about H.

Consciousness naturally brings with it a “self” (or, “sense of self”).

Under H "consciousness" and "self" and "sense of self" are just different words for the same phenomenon. The separation or distinction you allude to here is not a part of H. "Consciousness" emphasizes its nature as an ongoing process. "Sense of self" emphasizes the product of that process as an emergent property.

“Self” being the experience that reincarnationists believe returns to life.

"Experience" under H is just another word for the phenomenon you mention in the previous section. When speaking about H, what reincarnationists may or may not believe is irrelevant.

There is such a thing as a potential selves – before we are conceived, we are potential selves.

There is no such concept in H.

There must be an infinity of potential selves.

Not applicable under H.

Scientifically speaking, each self can have only one finite life -- at most.

A consequence of the materialist hypothesis is that life is singular and finite, yes.

Scientifically speaking, the likelihood of my current existence must be about 7 billion over infinity (there being about 7 billion humans currently existing on the earth).

In the strongest possible terms, no. The materialist hypothesis embodies none of the nonsense you are invoking to cobble up this division.

In other words, the likelihood of my current existence – given the scientific hypothesis -- is virtually zero…

No. Division by infinity, where it is defined, is defined as zero, not "virtually zero."

My current existence is therefore evidence that the scientific hypothesis is wrong.

No, because your formulation of the materialist hypothesis is a straw man.

But that’s actually quite simplistic…

Both simplistic and wrong.

What if other things -- or empty space -- have/has consciousness?

The materialist hypothesis allows for entities other than humans to exhibit the emergent property of consciousness.

What if science is only at the beginning?

Vaguely disparaging science doesn't fix the problems in your argument.

My current existence seems pretty fertile in light of what we know and don’t know.

What we know on the basis of well-developed evidence is that the sense of self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. You speculate that it is something else, but you cannot prove it.

I'm trying to develop a map.

Nonsense. You're trying to prolong a discussion you lost long ago by simply stonewalling against criticism. The post I just finished writing is identical to three or four posts I've already written for your behalf. There is no further need for you to solicit objections. You've made the same statements over and over again for years, paying not the slightest attention to your critics' objections. It is silly to believe you will suddenly start doing so.

 

[JesseCuster]

4. There is such a thing as a potential selves – before we are conceived, we are potential selves.
5. There must be an infinity of potential selves.

These 2 make no sense, but your entire claim revolves around them because this is where the magical infinity denominator comes from.

1. Does every existing X have a 'potential X' before it comes into existence? Are there currently in existence potential bananas, potential haircuts, potential new Fast and the Furious sequels, potential first female POTUS, potential top grossing movies of 2018, etc. in existence right now?

2. If the answer to 1. is yes, then does that mean that haircuts and top grossing movies of 2018 are immortal because the odds of them existing are thus something/infinity and thus they can't exist the way we think they do and must thus be something special and immortal? If the answer is no, then why should selves have potentials in existence before actual existence when other things don't?

3. In what form does a potential self exist before it actually comes into existence? Or to put it another way, what exactly is a 'potential self'?

4. Why do you think there are infinite potential selves and not a finite number of them?

Your argument is pinned on the existence of this vague idea of an infinity of potential selves, but can you explain what it means and how you know it actually exists, before you can use it as a basis to calculate any sort of odds?

 

[Mojo]

- Trying to re-group...

Reset ahoy!

...and present my premises for your objections:

Why? You haven't taken the slightest bit of notice of all the well-reasoned objections that have already been presented.

1. There is such a ‘thing’ (process?) as consciousness.

A process, not a thing.

2. Consciousness naturally brings with it a “self” (or, “sense of self”).

Unsupported assertion. Under The materialist hypothesis you are trying to disprove the "sense of self" is just part of consciousness, not something separate from it as you are implying.

There's really no point in carrying on any further down your list until you are prepared to either provide evidence for these assertions or concede that they are unsupported.

3. “Self” being the experience that reincarnationists believe returns to life.

Just call it the soul; we all know that's what you mean. Including you.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jabba]

No, it's not a thing. It's a process that arises from a functioning neurosystem, an emergent property.
No. The sense of self is an integral part of the process of consciousness, not something tacked onto it or brought along with it.
No. The 'self' is not an 'experience'. Nor does what reincarnationists believe have any impact on H.

I'll address your later points in a subsequent post.

Agatha,
- In my opinion, your objections should be duly noted, but not too much worried about... Consciousness is just a difficult topic to discuss agreeably.
- For instance, the word "thing" doesn't necessarily denote an object. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thing.

 

[JesseCuster]

- For instance, the word "thing" doesn't necessarily denote an object. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thing.

But you are very insistent not to use the same terminology as everyone else.

Calling it a thing allows it to be treated it as if it were some sort of independent object, and not the emergent property that it is.

 

[JayUtah]

In my opinion, your objections should be duly noted, but not too much worried about...

No, it should be duly noted and you should worry about it extensively because your critics unanimously have to keep reminding you of the straw man you're trying to attack.

Consciousness is just a difficult topic to discuss agreeably.

It's perfectly ripe for congenial discussion as long as you pay attention to the other side of the debate. The overwhelming majority of the rancor here stems from you deliberately ignoring the objections you pretend to solicit.

For instance, the word "thing" doesn't necessarily denote an object.

It does when your particular equivocation pits it against process, which is what consciousness is under H. Your critics patiently and consistently remind you what the self is under H, and you repeatedly insist on trying to put different words in their mouths. It is clear in your argument that you intend "thing" to mean an entity. It's the foundation of your claim.

Under H the self is not an entity, and kindly stop deliberately obfuscating that issue.

 

[Jabba]

Reset ahoy!
Why? You haven't taken the slightest bit of notice of all the well-reasoned objections that have already been presented. A process, not a thing.
Unsupported assertion. Under The materialist hypothesis you are trying to disprove the "sense of self" is just part of consciousness, not something separate from it as you are implying.
There's really no point in carrying on any further down your list until you are prepared to either provide evidence for these assertions or concede that they are unsupported.
Just call it the soul; we all know that's what you mean. Including you.

Mojo,
- I disagree that they have been well-reasoned -- and, I've responded to as many as I've had time to. Many of them take some serious thought.
- For whatever reasons, we humans often come to opinions that we can't quickly support. Sometimes we're wrong; but many times, we're right.

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, I'm curious about your 1 in 7 billion idea. Leaving aside that it's nonsense for many reasons (not least of which is that your 'self' is in part a product of your unique DNA which you got from your parents), why did you choose 1 in 7 billion? It is the approximate number of people existing on the earth right now, but why do you choose the present time and not the approximate number of people existing on earth at the time of your birth or your conception?

I was born in 1963, and there were approximately 3.2bn people living at that time. I gather from your posts that you are a little older than I am; in 1950 there were only 2.5bn people for example.

Can you please explain why you chose 7 billion?