Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[JayUtah]

...when other opponents do provide specifics and are less impugning.

Let me add one thing. In your rush to vilify me and claim that I don't cooperate with your purported endeavors to stay on top of the debate, you've overlooked this post. And when I say you've overlooked it, I mean I've written probably a dozen slight variations on this same post in the past few months. How many times must a critic write the same post answering the same questions in the same way before you take notice? In how many ways must he sugar-coat the facts in order to seem "friendly" enough for you? It really is time for you to stop blaming your critics for your inability to prove what you said you could prove.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Argumemnon,
- All you need do is indicate which point you wish me to address first.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

Perhaps you might start by presenting all of your actual, practical, objective, empirical, non-anecdotal evidence for the existence of a "soul", to say nothing of its "immortality".

I remain, civilly yours &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- So, I'll try harder to ignore you.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

You may not be aware of it, but this statement is actually as rude as you wrongly accuse me of being...

I remain, determinedly civilly yours &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I'm friendly to anyone who is somewhat friendly to me. I just try to ignore people who aren't.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

I wonder if you realize how transparently untrue this is.

Might I implore you, meekly humbly, and gently implore you, to present any actual evidence (practical, empirical, objective, &ct) you have of the existence of a "soul", and of its "immortality"?

I remain, bruxingly yours &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

JayUtah has been EXCEPTIONALLY patient with you, addressing your points and claims with an ENORMOUS amount of poise and detail over the years, only to be RUDELY ignored by you at every turn. Your threat of ignoring him now rings hollow, since you've done nothing but that for years.

Jay's been your best option for learning something in all of your threads, and you've done nothing but being insulting by dismissing his best efforts to educate you as to the nature of your errors. You don't get to call him unfriendly.

At least JayUtah is in good company...

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Lately, I've been responding to all your posts. Give me a post about the subject of this thread, and I'll try to answer it too.

My Esteemed Mr. Savage:

Might you be so kind as to present your actual, practical, empirical, non-anecdotal evidence of the existence of a "soul" and of its immortality?

I remain, patiently yours &ct

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Take a look. Jay Utah has been exceptionally unfriendly to me, and I keep giving him another chance...

My Dear, Dear, Mr. Savage:

Disagreeing with your unsupported assertions is not "unfriendly". JayUtah has been (and others have been) exceeding polite in dealing with your trifling ways.

Might I humbly request that you simply lay aside your hurt feelings, and begin to address actual questions?

I remain, over five years and more, yours &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Argumemnon,
- I have tried to address this numerous times. For some reason, it doesn't easily communicate.
- Maybe, it's just me -- but maybe, it's like calculus or factor analysis, and does not easily communicate.
- Whatever, I'll try again -- but, it won't be fast.

My Cherished Mr. Savage:

The reason your attempt to finesse using "infinity" as an actual number "is not easy to communicate" is that the attempt does violence to the very nature of the concept of infinity.

It is not that your efforts are not comprehensible, nor comprehended, but that they are wrong.

I remain, boundedly yours &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Could be that "insult" is the wrong word. Could be that a claim shouldn't be considered an insult if it's true. And you guys believe that every thing that Jay says is true .<snip>

My Dearly Best M.r Savage:

This is an example of you putting words in others' mouths...I believe no such thing, nor have I ever made that claim...

I remain, adamantly yours &ct.

 

[Belz...]

- Could be that "insult" is the wrong word. Could be that a claim shouldn't be considered an insult if it's true.

Irrelevant. It's not insulting to be told that you're wrong, especially when it's been demonstrated.

And you guys believe that every thing that Jay says is true.

Well, here you go: there's an example of you putting words in people's mouths.

- So, I'll switch over to "impugn." I claim that Jay is constantly impugning me.

How about you focus on your argument and those of your adversaries, rather than turn this into a match of who insulted who?

- I also claim that to have effective debate, the opponents should not impugn each other.

Your idea of effective debate is terrible.

 

[Jabba]

Why did you change your mind on this point? You've been touting the existing of an infinite amount of potential selves for a long time. It's the basis for the infinity in the denominator of your odds - each new self in a body is plucked from this infinite pool of selves according to you and thus your chances of existing in a body are something in infinity (at least as far as I can gather from your posts).

Why the sudden change?

Jesse,
- It appears to be a change, but really isn't.
- I claim there to be an infinity of potential selves, and at some point, I probably suggested there to be an infinite pool of potential selves, but I have never claimed there to be a 'plain' pool of potential selves, as that would imply a limited pool -- which is not what I believe.

 

[jond]

Jesse,
- It appears to be a change, but really isn't.
- I claim there to be an infinity of potential selves, and at some point, I probably suggested there to be an infinite pool of potential selves, but I have never claimed there to be a 'plain' pool of potential selves, as that would imply a limited pool -- which is not what I believe.

Which means that a self, to you, is an entity which exists separately from the brain. Thus, to you, it cannot be an emergent property of the brain. Which is precisely where you diverge from the scientific position.

 

[Mojo]

- Could be that "insult" is the wrong word. Could be that a claim shouldn't be considered an insult if it's true. And you guys believe that every thing that Jay says is true.
- So, I'll switch over to "impugn." I claim that Jay is constantly impugning me.
- I also claim that to have effective debate, the opponents should not impugn each other. Obviously, they're going to argue that their opponents are wrong, but the "nastier" they are to each other, the more difficult actually "getting somewhere" will be...
- It seems to me that the world keeps getting more and more dangerous, and that we humans desperately need a way to express our disagreements in a friendly way. That may be impossible -- but, I think that we desperately need to study that possibility...

- So starting with the latest chapter of the "immortality" issue, here are a few of Jay's post that make it hard for me to respond in a friendly way.






- Some of Jay's post are short, but many are quite long; I have numerous other opponents to try to answer; I can only fly low and slow; Jay keeps impugning me; and, as I keep telling him that I will try to answer his questions and objections if he could reiterate them, one at a time, he just tells me to look them up myself, when other opponents do provide specifics and are less impugning.
- Some more.

Jabba, if you had just quoted the posts of Jay's that you quoted here, they would have had spaces where quotations from your posts that he was replying to appeared in his posts. For some reason you have edited out the spaces, leaving Jay's posts, as you have quoted them, looking like uninterrupted extended rants. This was not how they originally appeared.

Why did you do that?

 

[JayUtah]

I claim there to be an infinity of potential selves...

Under H there isn't. Therefore such a concept does not bear on P(E|H).

...and at some point, I probably suggested there to be an infinite pool of potential selves

Word games. If you propose to enumerate them, then words like "set," "pool," "collection," "trove," and hundreds of others that form collective labels apply.

but I have never claimed there to be a 'plain' pool of potential selves, as that would imply a limited pool...

More word games. Do you think sets are limited to finite membership?

...which is not what I believe.

We know what you believe. It simply has no relevance to H and thus none also to P(E|H). Formulate and corral the soul any way you want for ~H, but when reckoning P(E|H) you don't get to add your own accessories to make a straw man.

 

[JayUtah]

It appears to be a change, but really isn't.

Unfortunately it might as well be, because you equivocated to what argument it was a premise. What you meant to say was that you didn't believe the number of potential selves -- souls -- was finite. What your readers heard was that you don't believe there are potential selves. Now that your critics have readily agreed to the latter, you will want to transform it into the former. This is exactly the same error you made when looking at godless dave's post about reincarnationists and what they believe. He acknolwedged that they believe in something, and you took it wrongly to mean that he agreed reincarnationists believed the same thing as he.

Please use precise language.

 

[godless dave]

There are an infinite number of potential selves in exactly the same way as there are an infinite number of potential Volkswagens. And just as the number of potential Volkswagens has no bearing on the likelihood of a specific Volkswagen existing, the number of potential selves has no bearing on the likelihood of a specific self existing.

Remember, we're talking about H, the model where selves are physical.

 

[Mojo]

- Here's my thinking on the matter.
1. There is no pool of potential selves.

True, because there is no such thing as a "self" in the way you are using the term. Consciousness is something the brain does, not a discrete thing.

2. A certain physical situation brings about a bit of consciousness.

Nope, consciousness is a process, not a substance that you can have a discrete bit of.

3. Each bit of consciousness "feels" a particular sense of self.

No, the "sense of self" is just part of consciousness.

4. Scientifically speaking, this new sense of self is "brand" new -- no one else has ever had this particular sense of self, and no one else ever will.

Scientifically speaking, consciousness is not a constant thing. It is a process, and continually changes. The consciousness you have now is not the same as the consciousness you had yesterday, or the consciousness you will have in five minutes (or even 5 seconds) time. You have an illusion of continuity, that's all.

So yes, nobody has ever had a "self" exactly like the one you have at this particular moment, including you; five minutes ago, you did not have a self exactly like the one you have now. But, "scientifically speaking", if an exact replica of your brain as it is at this moment could be produced, it would, momentarily,* produce a consciousness exactly like the one you have at this moment.

5. IOW, each new bit of consciousness sprouts a brand new particular sense of self.

No, the "sense of self" is just part of consciousness, not a separate entity.

6. ISOW, there is no limit on the number of different senses of self.

Consciousnesses are not things.

6. There is no limit on new bits of consciousness.

Consciousness is not something you can have a "bit" of.


*The is the English usage of the word "momentarily", not the American usage.

 

[JesseCuster]

Jesse,
- It appears to be a change, but really isn't.
- I claim there to be an infinity of potential selves, and at some point, I probably suggested there to be an infinite pool of potential selves, but I have never claimed there to be a 'plain' pool of potential selves, as that would imply a limited pool -- which is not what I believe.

1. What, exactly, is a potential self?

2. In what form does it exist?

3. Why do you think it exists?

4. Do things in general exist in potential form before they actually exist, or are selves some sort of exception?

5. If the answer to question 4 is that things in general do exist in potentiality, then does your reasoning that selves are immortal extend to everything else?

 

[Mojo]

1. What, exactly, is a potential self?

2. In what form does it exist?

3. Why do you think it exists?

4. Do things in general exist in potential form before they actually exist, or are selves some sort of exception?

5. If the answer to question 4 is that things in general do exist in potentiality, then does your reasoning that selves are immortal extend to everything else?

And also, Jabba:

Why do you think there would be a difference between you and a perfect copy of you, and what would that difference be?

 

[surreptitious57]

Why do you think there would be a difference between you and a perfect copy of you and what would that difference be?

Assuming co existence it would be occupying separate points in spacetime and therefore having different frames of reference
Something mono zygotic twins [ which are the closest example of a carbon copy that exists in actual reality ] also experience