Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Toontown said:
There is no "point", utility has nothing to do with it, but there is a living "you", and that's something, and something is more than nothing.
Click to expand...


Define the word "you" in such a way that it is logically consistent with reincarnation yet somehow untestable.

I don't think it's possible. The way Jabba has defined it is completely lacking in characteristics.
 
Filippo Lippi said:
As with the shroud, Jabba is creating a massive, daunting thread he can point as proof that his nonsense is actually a hot topic of debate. What else explains his MO?
Click to expand...

Actually, all the rest of us are creating the massive, daunting thread. Jabba just throws in a sentence or two now and then.
 
Jabba said:
LL,

Re #1. Yeah. That is not the hyper-coincident regarding "right now". One hyper-coincident is that "now" happens to be 2017 (Gregorian) when time would seem to have existed for at least 14 billion years -- what's the likelihood that now happens to be within the hundred years that I might have?

Re #2. My best guess at this point is that we all came from the same beginning consciousness, and were all one, then.
Click to expand...

Might that mean there are only a finite number of potential selves, then? Unless you are dividing one an infinite number of times.
 
Toontown said:
Well...I suppose consciousness would be what is immortal about that.
Click to expand...
What part of it. What specifically?
Sitting here, conscious. So is my wife. What would be continued in immortality that made the 2nd consciousness less different than the difference between my and my wife's consciousness?


Toontown said:
So? You don't know your future now. Does that make "now" useless?

Are you like, "Well, crap. I don't know what is going to happen next, and I've forgotten everything that happened when I was 3. This sucks, so I don't even care anymore."
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you are going on about emotional meaning and value. The original point is that if memory and experience etc. are scrubbed, then what characteristics does immortality have that non immortality doesn't. Why would immortality be a good thing, and for whom?

Toontown said:
I'm not particularly interested in carrying the memory that I died before. But I sympathize with your need to know that.
Click to expand...
My need? Where did you get that? What about the memory that you lived before? Without that, how do would know you were in fact immortal? How would the 2nd immortal incarnation be different for the subject than instead being a brand new instance?

Toontown said:
Existence is indistinguishable from nonexistence?
Click to expand...
Who said that?

Toontown said:
Only if you're nonexistent.
Click to expand...
Ummm, sure, ok. Oranges are orange too.
 
Last edited:
The Sparrow said:
What part of it. What specifically?
Sitting here, conscious. So is my wife. What would be continued in immortality that made the 2nd consciousness less different than the difference between my and my wife's consciousness?
Click to expand...

Nothing would be continued. Just as nothing was continued when you were born. Your current existence shows that no continuation from some previous something was required for "you" to exist.

The Sparrow said:
I don't understand why you are going on about emotional meaning and value.
Click to expand...

Read your own words that I responded to.

The Sparrow said:
My need? Where did you get that? What about the memory that you lived before? Without that, how do would know you were in fact immortal?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't, unless you figured it out somehow. I don't think knowing would be a prerequisite.

The Sparrow said:
Who said that?
Click to expand...

I did. Trying to figure out what you were talking about.

The Sparrow said:
Ummm, sure, ok. Oranges are orange too.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is pretty tautological that the experience of sentience is distinguishable from no sentient experience. Unless you ain't got no sentient experience.
 
Jabba said:
LL,

Re #1. Yeah. That is not the hyper-coincident regarding "right now". One hyper-coincident is that "now" happens to be 2017 (Gregorian) when time would seem to have existed for at least 14 billion years -- what's the likelihood that now happens to be within the hundred years that I might have?
Click to expand...


The chances are pretty good. The only time that you can contemplate your existence is "now". That "now" will always fall within the 100 or so years that you have, regardless of where that falls in the 14 billion years. There's a name for this and you know what it is.

In the meantime....
 
We're not even at that level.

Jabba's gun is still dissembled and unloaded in a locked carry case in the truck of his car. He's circling nothing on the side of the barn, claiming there's clusters of bullets holes where there are none.

If he were to miss the barn entirely he'd only be closer to achieving Texas Sharpshooter Status. Because at least at that point he'd have taken a shot at something.
 
What are the odds that the bullet hole would exist at this precise time? It must have existed for all time.
 
Potential bullet holes, or hypothetical bh's? bh or ~bh? oobham? bh that can be called the bh is not the true bh? If I call it bs instead, doesn't that prove my argument? I really really want that bh to be there,

SO IT IS AND THAT'S MY BEST GUESS! BLEEAGH!
 
- I'm currentlylooking for the scientific explanation for what I'm calling the "self." Apparently, science is learning a lot these days about its biology.
- https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/01/consciousness-eight-questions-science is a little old, but got me started.
- What I'm looking for specifically however is, as we have seen, almost impossible to effectively describe. I've been claiming that modern science tends to believe that each particular self can exist for only one finite time, but no one in the field seems to be asking the question about the "self" that I first raised: would your self exist if your parents had never met? Here, we all agreed that it would not; but, we have also agreed (I think) that if we could create a brain with your DNA, we would not bring your particular self back to life. IOW, your particular self must be a brand new creation -- "out of thin air" so to speak -- and, if one self can be created out of thin air, there should be no limitation on the number of different selves possible. "You" must have come out of nowhere! So, how unlikely are you? I haven't found anyone that is studying consciousness talking about that issue.
- Does anyone here think they know what I mean by 'brand new," and "out of nowhere and thin air"? If so, does anyone agree with me?
- Also, does anyone here know what modern science thinks about this issue? What are the physical factors that determine a "who" that can never be recreated? I think that Toon incorporates time.
-
 
Jabba said:
- I'm currentlylooking for the scientific explanation for what I'm calling the "self."
Click to expand...
'

What you are calling the self is pretty much the soul as described in Christian theology. There is no scientific basis for it. What science calls the self is a process exhibited by a functioning brain. It is an emergent property. Because it is a property, not an entity, it doesn't have discrete or separate existence. Because it is emergent, it does not reduce as we pare away the understanding of the brain.

This is the state of affairs as it has been for the past five years, and the state of affairs as it has been explained to you by everyone you've consulted who has knowledge of the subject. The problem with your argument is that you're trying to shoehorn the dissimilar concept of the self as neuroscience understands it into your Christian notion of an immortal soul, generally by means of deliberate equivocations and misrepresentations.

It hasn't been sucessful for the past five years. It will not suddenly succeed just because you decided to revisit it on this fine fall afternoon.
 
Jabba said:
- no one in the field seems to be asking the question about the "self" that I first raised: would your self exist if your parents had never met?
Click to expand...
The people researching the nature of consciousness tend to be pretty smart, so I expect that's why they aren't asking such an incredibly stupid question.
 
Jabba said:
- I'm currently looking for the scientific explanation for what I'm calling the "self."
[....]
-
Click to expand...

Don't waste five more years of our time. What you are looking for is a "sciency"
justification of your hope for immortality, which will never be forthcoming.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- I'm currentlylooking for the scientific explanation for what I'm calling the "self." Apparently, science is learning a lot these days about its biology.
- https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/01/consciousness-eight-questions-science is a little old, but got me started.
- What I'm looking for specifically however is, as we have seen, almost impossible to effectively describe. I've been claiming that modern science tends to believe that each particular self can exist for only one finite time, but no one in the field seems to be asking the question about the "self" that I first raised: would your self exist if your parents had never met? Here, we all agreed that it would not; but, we have also agreed (I think) that if we could create a brain with your DNA, we would not bring your particular self back to life. IOW, your particular self must be a brand new creation -- "out of thin air" so to speak -- and, if one self can be created out of thin air, there should be no limitation on the number of different selves possible. "You" must have come out of nowhere! So, how unlikely are you? I haven't found anyone that is studying consciousness talking about that issue.
- Does anyone here think they know what I mean by 'brand new," and "out of nowhere and thin air"? If so, does anyone agree with me?
- Also, does anyone here know what modern science thinks about this issue? What are the physical factors that determine a "who" that can never be recreated? I think that Toon incorporates time.
-
Click to expand...

Wait, now you’re back to pretending you’re not talking about a soul? Please make up your mind.
 
Oh, and Jabba, if you were seriously interested in the current scientific understanding of consciousness and how the self emerges, why do you refuse to read any of the books that have been recommended many times in this thread? Oh, wait, I know: it’s because you’re only interested in things that you think reinforce your view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom