Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
#2. I assume that the self is a "process" -- but, I don't see that as a problem for my argument...
- Even if the self is an "illusion" or "delusion," I don't see that as a problem.
- I don't know how this affects my argument, but I also see the self as an "experience."
Click to expand...

You forgot to say you'll be back.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Good questions. Hate to say it -- and link you to my campaign -- but this is a way to begin the "map" I want to develop.
- My thinking:
#1.1. Consciousness must be what we call an "emergent property."
#1.2. Consciousness must, somehow, result from a functioning brain, but it could result from other "things," -- it could even be that everything is conscious, just that a functioning brain is the only thing (we're aware of) that can express it.
#1.3. Then, there is the issue of how it results from whatever. The brain could be a receiver of something non-physical, rather than a producer of something entirely physical.

- I'll be back.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
#2. I assume that the self is a "process" -- but, I don't see that as a problem for my argument...
- Even if the self is an "illusion" or "delusion," I don't see that as a problem.
- I don't know how this affects my argument, but I also see the self as an "experience."
Click to expand...

This drivel is supposed to constitute "proof of immortality?"
 
Jabba said:
#2. I assume that the self is a "process" -- but, I don't see that as a problem for my argument...
- Even if the self is an "illusion" or "delusion," I don't see that as a problem.
- I don't know how this affects my argument, but I also see the self as an "experience."
Click to expand...

If the self is a process, what happens when the brain driving it stops? The process stops. Can you give an example of a process that continues when the parts driving the process cease functioning?
 
Jabba said:
#2. I assume that the self is a "process" -- but, I don't see that as a problem for my argument...
- Even if the self is an "illusion" or "delusion," I don't see that as a problem.
- I don't know how this affects my argument, but I also see the self as an "experience."
Click to expand...

Really? If the self is an illusion, then your entire argument collapses.
 
Jabba said:
#2. I assume that the self is a "process" -- but, I don't see that as a problem for my argument...
Click to expand...

To avoid the appearance of equivocation, please describe the process you understand to result in consciousness in detail. It must somehow be different than the process put forward under H, where there is no need for or indication of "souls" or "potential selves." Bonus credibility points for showing specifically where it is different.
 
Jabba said:
I assume that the self is a "process" -- but, I don't see that as a problem for my argument...
Click to expand...

That's because in your argument you don't correctly distinguish between a property and an entity.

Even if the self is an "illusion" or "delusion," I don't see that as a problem.
Click to expand...

None of your critics is calling it either of those things.

I don't know how this affects my argument, but I also see the self as an "experience."
Click to expand...

Which is just yet another word you've conflated with "entity" because you keep trying to count it and to insinuate it exists separately from the organism. None of that has anything to do with H.
 
Jabba, given that you've moved on to Agatha's point #2, does this mean you refuse to address the issues with your response to #1?
 
Jabba said:
#2. I assume that the self is a "process" -- but, I don't see that as a problem for my argument...
- Even if the self is an "illusion" or "delusion," I don't see that as a problem.
- I don't know how this affects my argument, but I also see the self as an "experience."
Click to expand...

You do realise that you are supposed to be filling in the second column, not putting the first one in your own words?
 
Jabba said:
#2. I assume that the self is a "process" -- but, I don't see that as a problem for my argument...
Click to expand...

Then you need to look closer.

- Even if the self is an "illusion" or "delusion," I don't see that as a problem.
Click to expand...

Then you are being intentionally obtuse.

- I don't know how this affects my argument, but I also see the self as an "experience."
Click to expand...

You could call it that, and it pretty much demolishes your argument.

Hans
 
caveman1917 said:
What's been said here is that if the probability of us existing were zero (when you have an infinite sample space of "potential selves") then we wouldn't exist. This is simply false, a probability of zero does not imply an impossibility. It's not just false really, it's silly if you think about it.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm trying to think about it and it doesn't seem silly to me. It seems self-evident that if there is no probability of something happening (zero probability) then it's what we often call "impossible" or "not possible".

I don't see how the wiki makes that any clearer, hence my saying "...and sound argument" to go with it.


It's not beneath my contempt to explain it. I saw no need to, as the wiki article seems pretty clear to me.
Click to expand...
I don't, and perhaps others don't, find the wiki to be clear. I took a first year logic course or two, but it was so long ago, I might as well have never taken the class(es) in the first place.


Learn what exactly? There's nothing wrong with being combative, btw, just be able to back it up when you do.
Click to expand...
Learn what the error is and why it's in error.

As I just said above, it actually seems clear to me that when something has a probability of zero, then it's impossible. From what I can gather you're saying is that a probability of zero still means that it's possible to occur. I don't understand that and that's what I'm asking for clarification.




zooterkin said:
You do realise that you are supposed to be filling in the second column, not putting the first one in your own words?
Click to expand...
Looks like he filled in that #2 slot at least (the italicized portion of the table).

Under H | Under Jabba's ~H
Consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain | Consciousness is ???
The self is a process | The self is a process and an experience
The self is always changing | ???
'Who' you are us determined by your DNA plus the sum of all experiences | 'Who' you are is determined by ???
We have no existence prior to conception | We are immortal in the sense that ???
We have no existence post-death | We are immortal in the sense that ???
The odds of each of our current existences is 1 | The odds of each of our current existences is ???
 
Jabba said:
- I shouldn't exist right now unless I have more than one, finite life or, not everything is physical.
Click to expand...
.
Argumemnon said:
Nonsense. You have provided no reason for us to accept this other than your say-so.
Click to expand...
Argumemnon,
- Yes I have.
- The reason I've provided is that if I have only one, finite life to live at most (or, if everything is physical), the likelihood of me being here right now is some number over infinity (or, virtually zero). That I am here right now is therefore significant evidence that I have more than one finite life to live at most (or, that not everything is physical).
- I think that you just don't accept my reason, or reasoning -- and, I just need to do a better job of supporting my reason...
- I think that this general area of the argument is where I should focus. This general area involves my validity as a target and the likelihood of my current existence being some number over infinity.
- I'll be back.
 
Jabba said:
.Argumemnon,
- Yes I have.
- The reason I've provided is that if I have only one, finite life to live at most (or, if everything is physical), the likelihood of me being here right now is some number over infinity (or, virtually zero). That I am here right now is therefore significant evidence that I have more than one finite life to live at most (or, that not everything is physical).
- I think that you just don't accept my reason, or reasoning -- and, I just need to do a better job of supporting my reason...
- I think that this general area of the argument is where I should focus. This general area involves my validity as a target and the likelihood of my current existence being some number over infinity.
- I'll be back.
Click to expand...

Jabba -

I'm confused. Assume we have a universe that is capable of supporting life. Why are we so surprised when a specific member of some species arises? Since some member was going to live, isn't the chance of it happening closer to 1 than 0?
 
Jabba said:
.Argumemnon,
- Yes I have.
- The reason I've provided is that if I have only one, finite life to live at most (or, if everything is physical), the likelihood of me being here right now is some number over infinity (or, virtually zero). That I am here right now is therefore significant evidence that I have more than one finite life to live at most (or, that not everything is physical).
- I think that you just don't accept my reason, or reasoning -- and, I just need to do a better job of supporting my reason...
- I think that this general area of the argument is where I should focus. This general area involves my validity as a target and the likelihood of my current existence being some number over infinity.
- I'll be back.
Click to expand...

But you keep ignoring the fact that your one finite life is far more likely than your brain existing and you having an immortal soul and the soul finding a way to interface with your brain.
 
Jabba said:
.Argumemnon,
- I think that this general area of the argument is where I should focus. This general area involves my validity as a target and the likelihood of my current existence being some number over infinity.
- I'll be back.
Click to expand...

Why not respond to the many posts that address your points in Agatha's charts instead? The real problem has nothing to do with some number over infinity, it is that your H includes something that is not in the scientific model. Until you sort that out, your statistical efforts are both meaningless and wrong.
 
Jabba said:
I think that you just don't accept my reason, or reasoning
Click to expand...
Correct.

And our reasons for not accepting it have been explained to you in excruciating detail in the simplest possible terms. You have never rebutted any of them, you simply ignore them and repeat your argument over and over again as if it had not been completely demolished.

I just need to do a better job of supporting my reason...
Click to expand...
WE UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING. You have done the best job that can be done to support it. You have failed to convince anyone because your reasoning is fundamentally flawed in several ways.

I think that this general area of the argument is where I should focus.
Click to expand...
What you should focus on is trying to understand our reasoning, and then either rebut it (as we have rebutted yours) or accept it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom