Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
The same reason I provided before that you simply ignored.
Click to expand...

And it's an appropriately "deep" reason. "Life" in Jabba's argument is the sort of cartoon, the version of the concept that we get from certain religious vernaculars. That particular caricature is evident in Jabba's angsty expressions of how life is precious and we shouldn't take it for granted although most do. The strength to abandon that superstitious mode of reasoning and reckon life simply among the other abstract properties of existence is what makes science useful. It's transformative thinking. Sadly, according to Jabba, his critics just don't think "holistically" enough to appreciate his genius. He doesn't seem to realize that his theory is not genius; it's just a rehash of old superstitions. It's the critics who are thinking deeply.
 
The Sparrow said:
OSSoSam ???!!!!???

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I think it really rolls off the tongue.

And to be clear, I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything. I genuinely think that (if we were to agree Jabba's formula worked at all) it would work in both directions. I can make the same argument using the same formula (just swapping H out) to show that Jabba's existence is extremely unlikely and therefore his theory must be wrong.

The fatal flaws with this argument are the same as the ones with Jabba's. Actually if anything this argument is a bit stronger, although since it still contains fatal errors that's not too relevant.

There's nothing that Jabba could logically refute in this that wouldn't also be tearing down his own theorem.
 
Monza said:
I'm preparing my own map of this discussion. It will be complete and presented in a fair and accurate manner. To avoid errors, everyone will be quoted verbatim and these will be presented in strict chronological order. So that everyone will have access, I hope that International Skeptics will host the map. :)
Click to expand...


It's been uploaded and is available on the web to our members at any time. It's our pleasure to host it and we hope it is a success.

(For the sake of server load, we have broken it into six parts.)
 
Jabba said:
js,
Why do you reject it?
Click to expand...

Because after 5 years the only proponent for it (that would be you) is still arguing about the proper procedure for how we're supposed to all agree as to the best way to stack the deck in his favor before he even begins to lay out a possible framework for how he might one day make a point.

Because it's laughable nonsense presenting in the most absolute ponderous, insulting, and rude manner I've ever seen.

Because not only are you trying to argue that 1 = 2 but you're demanding that we all agree, sight unseen, that your arguments are concinving before you present them.

Because you are openly and admittedly fishing for out of context quotes to draft into some crazy fantasy world you want to construct.

Because after five years you still have the utter gal to ask that question.

Take your pick. Or print this post out and fold it into a jaunty hat to wear in a horse-race, none of us care anymore
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
It's been uploaded and is available on the web to our members at any time. It's our pleasure to host it and we hope it is a success.

(For the sake of server load, we have broken it into six parts.)
Click to expand...


Thank you for supporting Effective Useful DebateTM.
 
Jabba said:
- Did you have to exist?
Click to expand...

No. And if I didn't exist, I wouldn't have a sense of self, so I wouldn't be part of the "we each" that has one finite life.


Jabba said:
2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.
Click to expand...

There would be no "I" to have any number of lives.
 
jsfisher said:
The same reason I provided before that you simply ignored. But in the interest of discussion of the point, here is a recap of one of my objections to "1. According to modern science, we each should have Only One Finite Life (at most) – 'OOFLam'."

Science makes no such claim.

'Life' and 'being alive' may be only softly defined, but the important thing is that life and being alive are properties of functioning organisms. Properties, not things, of on-going life processes. Certainly not countable things. It is meaningless to speak of "only one finite life", at most or otherwise. An organism can be alive until it isn't, but at no point is there an 'alive' thing that can be identified and counted.

Life and being alive are emergent properties of a functioning organism, so it is the organism that determines the nature of the life the organism has. Replicate the organism exactly, and you have replicated the life exactly.

Science does not prohibit the exact replication of an organism. It nearly happens every time an amoeba reproduces. For human beings, whether by currently unknown technology or by freakish sequence of natural events, replication remains a possibility.​
Click to expand...

Jabba, it appears that you missed this post which replied to your query.
 
Jabba said:
- Did you have to exist?
Click to expand...
No. If I had never been born, the process in my brain that I call my consciousness would never have existed. The universe would be almost entirely the same with or without me.
 
Jabba said:
- Did you have to exist?
Click to expand...

Very bizarre question.

What or who would create the law behind the "have to".

What would be enforcing or creating said necessity?

Did this banana HAVE TO exist?

[IMGw=640]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Banana-Single.jpg/1200px-Banana-Single.jpg[/IMGw]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jabba said:
- Did you have to exist?
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
No. And if I didn't exist, I wouldn't have a sense of self, so I wouldn't be part of the "we each" that has one finite life...
Click to expand...
- Agreed. You would never have a sense of self, and you wouldn't be part of the "we each" that has one finite life; but, you would be part of the "we each" that has one finite life at most. The combination of your particular sperm cell and ovum that never occurred would still represent a "potential" self -- a potential self that never actualized.
 
Jabba said:
...but, you would be part of the "we each" that has one finite life at most.
Click to expand...

No, you wouldn't.

The combination of your particular sperm cell and ovum that never occurred would still represent a "potential" self -- a potential self that never actualized.
Click to expand...

No, that's not actually a thing. It's nonsense you made up in order to cobble up a Big Denominator.
 
Jabba said:
- Agreed. You would never have a sense of self, and you wouldn't be part of the "we each" that has one finite life; but, you would be part of the "we each" that has one finite life at most. The combination of your particular sperm cell and ovum that never occurred would still represent a "potential" self -- a potential self that never actualized.
Click to expand...

"I" wouldn't be part of anything because there would be no "I". Godless Dave wouldn't even exist as an abstract concept.
 
Jabba said:
The combination of your particular sperm cell and ovum that never occurred would still represent a "potential" self -- a potential self that never actualized.
Click to expand...
You are trying to speak of a potential thing as if it is an actual thing.

I'd like to sell you a potential bridge in Brooklyn.

How many potential bananas are there and WTF does that have to do with real bananas.

Your posts are a *********** joke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom