Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
jond said:
-Odd. Earlier you agreed that the likelihood of Mount Rainer was every bit as unlikely as you. Perhaps you might make up your mind?

-Yes. Who we are is the result of ongoing processes in our brains (which is the what). The "what" and "who" are equally likely because "who" is a result of the functioning of "what" and not a separate entity.
Click to expand...
Jond,
- (Somewhere) I did say that Rainier was also extremely unlikely. Hopefully, I qualified that with "starting from the singularity," or something to that effect. Once we get into real time, the laws of physics take over, and the results favor whatever we know... Hopefully that communicates what I mean...
 
Jabba said:
- If we start from the beginning of the universe and the laws of physics are in place, I would assume that the exact shape of Mt Rainier has a likelihood of almost 1.00 -- except, perhaps, for where humans are involved (I'm allowing for the possibility of free will where humans are involved). We're pretty sure about the laws of physics, and have no reason to suspect that they haven't been completely applied in regard to Rainier.
- I'm accepting that the laws of physics determine what we humans are, but not who we are -- or at least, if they do determine who we are, we have no idea how they do it...
- Do you know what I mean when I try to distinguish between what we are and who we are?
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
No. I have no idea what you mean.
Click to expand...
- Over and over again, I've tried to communicate this difference I perceive. Again, I seem to be running out of steam re this sub-issue.
 
Jabba said:
- Over and over again, I've tried to communicate this difference I perceive. Again, I seem to be running out of steam re this sub-issue.
Click to expand...

It might be easier if you just call it a soul. Everyone already knows that's what you're talking about. An honest and well-educated claimant would do so.
 
Jabba said:
- If we start from the beginning of the universe and the laws of physics are in place, I would assume that the exact shape of Mt Rainier has a likelihood of almost 1.00
Click to expand...
Jabba said:
(Somewhere) I did say that Rainier was also extremely unlikely. Hopefully, I qualified that with "starting from the singularity," or something to that effect.
Click to expand...


Um, ok. It's your thread.
 
Jabba said:
- Over and over again, I've tried to communicate this difference I perceive.
Click to expand...

You've done no such thing. At best, and even this is being massively generous, none of your "arguments" have managed to rise above a special pleading "If you agree I am right I am right" level.

And I agree with RoboTimbo. Just call it a soul Jabba. A magical soul that God puts in you. We all know that's what you are talking about.
 
Jabba said:
I did say that Rainier was also extremely unlikely. Hopefully, I qualified that with "starting from the singularity," or something to that effect. Once we get into real time, the laws of physics take over, and the results favor whatever we know... Hopefully that communicates what I mean...
Click to expand...

Okay. So just leave that part out when you "massage" your "roadmap" to dishonestly present it as a win somewhere else.

Either you care about this discussion here in and of itself or you don't.

You can't hand wring over saving face here if you're just going to rewrite it for another audience.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Once we get into real time, the laws of physics take over, and the results favor whatever we know... Hopefully that communicates what I mean...
Click to expand...
No, that doesn't communicate what you mean. At least not to me.

It's meaningless vague. 'The results favour what we know' I've no idea what that means.

Can you explain, in your own words, what happens between the 'singularity' and 'getting into real time' that changes the odds of the likelihood of Mount Rainier such that they go from being incredibly small to being certain?

What is 'real time'? When does it start? Why does it make such a drastic difference to the odds of Mount Rainier forming? Things must have gone from non-deterministic at the singularity such that there could have been a huge amount of ways the universe could have unfolded, the formation of Mount Rainier being astronomically unlikely, to being deterministic such that the formation of Mount Rainier became an inevitability at some point. Please explain this.

I suspect you're just making it up.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Jond,
- (Somewhere) I did say that Rainier was also extremely unlikely. Hopefully, I qualified that with "starting from the singularity," or something to that effect. Once we get into real time, the laws of physics take over, and the results favor whatever we know... Hopefully that communicates what I mean...
Click to expand...

The point is, the same rules apply to mount Rainier as apply to humans. I notice you ignored my other point.
 
Jabba said:
- I'm accepting that the laws of physics determine what we humans are, but not who we are -- or at least, if they do determine who we are, we have no idea how they do it...
- Do you know what I mean when I try to distinguish between what we are and who we are?
Click to expand...
So you know what you mean? Is so, why don't you explain what you mean, instead of speaking in riddles so that you can them blame your opponents for not knowing what you mean?

What is the 'who' that you're referring to and why don't the laws of physics determine it? What does determine it instead of the laws of physics and how do you know this?
 
Jabba said:
- Over and over again, I've tried to communicate this difference I perceive. Again, I seem to be running out of steam re this sub-issue.
Click to expand...

Maybe the problem is that you are wrong, not that you can't communicate it properly?
 
Jabba said:
- Do you know what I mean when I try to distinguish between what we are and who we are?
Click to expand...
Yes, you see a distinction between your physical body (including your brain)and the thing that thinks of itself as "me" (your self-awareness, consciousness, soul - it doesn't matter what you call it). We do understand you, but we also understand that the latter is an emergent property of the former, not a separate distinct entity. The probability of it coming into existence is therefore no different to the probability of the body that gives rise to it coming into existence. For some reason you seem unable to grasp this.
 
Pixel42 said:
Yes, you see a distinction between your physical body (including your brain)and the thing that thinks of itself as "me" (your self-awareness, consciousness, soul - it doesn't matter what you call it). We do understand you, but we also understand that the latter is an emergent property of the former, not a separate distinct entity. The probability of it coming into existence is therefore no different to the probability of the body that gives rise to it coming into existence. For some reason you seem unable to grasp this.
Click to expand...


It is essential to Jabba that he fails to grasp this, because anyone who does grasp it can see that Jabba's argument has fallen apart.
 
Jabba said:
(Somewhere) I did say that Rainier was also extremely unlikely. Hopefully, I qualified that with "starting from the singularity," or something to that effect.
Click to expand...

What you tried to do was start the clock differently for mountains than for humans. You admitted that the "laws of physics" applied in both cases, but that we should only count from a certain point when discussing mountains. You either start the clock from the same point in both cases, or it's not a valid comparison.

Once we get into real time, the laws of physics take over, and the results favor whatever we know... Hopefully that communicates what I mean...
Click to expand...

It looks to me like you mean to invent new laws of nature in your favor just like you tried to invent your own mathematics to get around division by infinity. If by "the laws of physics" you mean the observable behavior of the physical universe, why, that applies equally to mountains as to humans. This is the point you refuse to concede about materialism. When reckoning P(E|H), you must reason as if H were true.

Jabba said:
- Over and over again, I've tried to communicate this difference I perceive. Again, I seem to be running out of steam re this sub-issue.
Click to expand...

You're not having "communication problems." You're getting caught once again trying to foist the universal notion of a soul so that you can argue materialism can't explain it. The only reason you're not using the word "soul" is in the desperate hope someone will bite and think you're talking about something that arises in materialism. The "communication problem" -- if there is one -- is that you can't perceive that your critics are not the blithering idiots you take them for, who can easily recognize blatantly circular reasoning.

Knock off the faux hand-wringing. Knock off the gaslighting. Knock off the special pleading. It's so very insulting when you treat other grown adults this way.
 
RoboTimbo said:
It might be easier if you just call it a soul. Everyone already knows that's what you're talking about. An honest and well-educated claimant would do so.
Click to expand...
Robo,
- I've explained over and over again why I don't call it a soul -- I think that would be begging the question.
- I think everyone here thinks that I'm begging the question anyway. Everyone but me.
 
JesseCuster said:
No, that doesn't communicate what you mean. At least not to me.

It's meaningless vague. 'The results favour what we know' I've no idea what that means.

Can you explain, in your own words, what happens between the 'singularity' and 'getting into real time' that changes the odds of the likelihood of Mount Rainier such that they go from being incredibly small to being certain?
What is 'real time'? When does it start? Why does it make such a drastic difference to the odds of Mount Rainier forming? Things must have gone from non-deterministic at the singularity such that there could have been a huge amount of ways the universe could have unfolded, the formation of Mount Rainier being astronomically unlikely, to being deterministic such that the formation of Mount Rainier became an inevitability at some point. Please explain this.

I suspect you're just making it up.
Click to expand...
Jesse,
- According to Hawking, and others, 'before' the Big Bang, there was a singularity, in which, there were no laws of physics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom