Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba what do you think science is? You seem to think it is a search for something you can after the fact work backwards into a conclusion you already have.
 
Jabba said:
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?
Click to expand...


Scientists tend only to ask questions that are internally consistent.


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.
Click to expand...



Nobody but you ever agreed that. Virtually every person in this thread over its entire lifetime has repeatedly explained that the "self" is not a thing. It doesn't exist. It's an illusion created by a human neurosystem as an evolutionary solution to the problem of managing large amounts of data.

Virtually every person has agreed that whomever "you" are didn't exist an hour ago and won't exist an hour from. Did the person who was born to your parents all those years ago love your children? Did he like the same food? Did he enjoy the latest Marvel movie? He did not because those things didn't exist back then. *You* are a different person.

For that matter, the person born to your parents weighed about 7 lbs. Even if all 7 lbs. of those molecules are still present in your body, how much of you was actually born? In my case, it's about 3.5%. That's 96.5% of me that is not the product of my parents.


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.
Click to expand...


Jabba, let me ask this again because you just brought it up: Assuming everything you say about potential people were true, how would any of it change if people were immortal? Aren't there still no limitations on the number of different immortal souls possible?

If not, why not?

If so, then isn't the chance you exist still zero whether you're mortal or immortal?


- 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?
Click to expand...


Yes, no, yes. The materialist model believes that every physical factor that has ever happened from the beginning of the universe to now determine the illusion of consciousness that each living human experiences at this moment.
 
Jabba said:
... 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.
Click to expand...
Lies make baby Jesus cry.

Jabba said:
- Does anyone here think they know what I mean by 'brand new," and "out of nowhere and thin air"? ...
-
Click to expand...
What do you mean 'out of nowhere' and thin air?
The sense of self arises from the biological process of the brain.
How is that nowhere or thin air? I thought you were interested in science. :(
 
Jabba said:
What I'm looking for specifically however is, as we have seen, almost impossible to effectively describe.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It's the Christian soul. You really haven't even done much to conceal the fact that that's what you're trying to prove exists. What you've had difficulty doing -- and rightly so -- is concealing that endeavor by vigorous obfuscation and equivocation. Your critics here and elsewhere are well attuned to your verbal shenanigans. In your more honest moments you admit all of this, and tell us you refrain from using the word "soul" because you don't want to be so easily seen to beg the question. But here we are.

I've been claiming that modern science tends to believe that each particular self...
Click to expand...

Modern science does not conceive of the self as particular, divisible, or individual. That's the Christian soul, not science's model of the self.

...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?
Click to expand...

And that's because they're talking about the scientific model of the self, which is vastly different than your thinly-veiled notion of the Christian soul. This is a chronic problem for you. You are intellectually unable to conceive of a model of the self that is even slightly different than the Christian soul. This is one of the main reasons your argument fails. All your attempts to falsify the scientific model have incorrectly assumed it shares most of the properties of the Christian soul. It does not.

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.
Click to expand...

No.

This is a bald-faced lie, Jabba. It's a lie you've told repeatedly, and you have been told in no uncertain terms -- every time you tell it -- that it is a lie. Because of that, we have to conclude it is a deliberate lie that you have no intention whatsoever of stopping telling. Your wanton desire to lie both to and about your critics seems to be why a lot of people consider you beyond salvation.

I haven't found anyone that is studying consciousness talking about that issue.
Click to expand...

Because your model is not an issue in the study of the mind. You are the only one trying to prove the existence of a soul by means of Bayesian statistics. Everyone else is smarter. They're following the evidence, not some last-ditch effort to get attention.

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?
Click to expand...

You mean the religious concepts, and I suspect you can find many religious people who will agree with you. But that, however, is not at all a mathematical proof for immortality. That's not even a rational line of reasoning for immortality.

Also, does anyone here know what modern science thinks about [this issue?
Click to expand...

Modern science has no evidence that your model of the soul is what constitutes the self. Your question presupposes your model is not patently absurd.

What are the physical factors that determine a "who" that can never be recreated?
Click to expand...

The physical factors that determine the self are a functioning brain. There are no other factors. The physical factors cannot be recreated because individual brains cannot be exactly reproduced.
 
JayUtah said:
'

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.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you’re wrong on this. The Christian concept of the soul has nothing to do with an original single consciousness, and there is no suggestion that we each have a bit of Napoleon’s consciousness, both of which ideas have appeared more than once in Jabba’s description of the ‘self’.
 
45 posts touching on the nature of reality (and other tangentially realated concepts) have gone to the place where Derails Go To Die. Whilst any poster is welcome - even encouraged - to discuss the nature of reality, please do so in a thread begun for that purpose, rather than hijacking an existing thread.

This thread is for Jabba's proof of (and ideas about) immortality. Please stay on topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Ok, what Jabba's proof of (and ideas about) immortality could yet be got from these long discussions?
 
zooterkin said:
Actually, I think you’re wrong on this. The Christian concept of the soul has nothing to do with an original single consciousness, and there is no suggestion that we each have a bit of Napoleon’s consciousness, both of which ideas have appeared more than once in Jabba’s description of the ‘self’.
Click to expand...


I would say it's some kind of horribly misunderstood Buddhist concept of the soul. Even then, the Buddhist soul is used to underpin ideas about morality and duty. Jabba's conception doesn't tell us anything about morality. If he reverts to the Christian definition of the soul for moral purposes, then he's made even a bigger mess.

This could all be settled if Jabba would only define those characteristics which he believes souls take from one life to the next. He steadfastly refuses to do so. I think something with zero characteristics also has zero chance of being true.
 
Loss Leader said:
I think something with zero characteristics also has zero chance of being true.
Click to expand...

That depends. Is "having zero characteristics" a characteristic? If no, then the chance is indeed zero since the probability of the empty set is necessarily zero. If yes, then I think you got yourself caught in a paradox (reminiscent of the "interesting number paradox").
 
Last edited:
Consciousness is a processes, not a thing. This has already been discussed multiple times in this thread's 5 year history. The discussion is still there.
 
Jabba, let me offer you some help in your efforts:

Our view of the universe trends towards infinity. By that, I mean the history of science is one of expansiveness, both up and down. We first knew of this planet, then we learned of other planets, like this one, in the solar system, then we knew of this star, then other stars like this one, then other solar systems, then other galaxies, first this universe, now the consensus view is inflation leading to an ensemble of other universes (either infinite, or nearly-infinite). Our horizons continually expand, in both directions: from Hooke observing "cells" in cork to the discovery of atomic nuclei to neutrons/protons/electrons to quarks to whatever the hell dark matter is.

So why should we assume that this lifetime ends at some point? If our observations trend toward infinity, and not limitation, why should we view ourselves any differently? We should take a cue from the universe and assume we're, if not immortal, than not nearly as limited as some people think we are.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
How do you know that?
Click to expand...

How do I know I'm not a philosophical zombie?

And JoeBentley complains about navel-gazing? Sheesh!

Really, now Abaddon. If you don't know you're conscious, I don't know what to tell you. And if wondering if you're a p-zombie is a move your trying to make to refute Jabba, you should hang up your jock.
 
Fudbucker said:
How do I know I'm not a philosophical zombie?
Click to expand...
Can you demonstrate to me that you are not?

Fudbucker said:
And JoeBentley complains about navel-gazing? Sheesh!
Click to expand...
Pot meet kettle.

Fudbucker said:
Really, now Abaddon. If you don't know you're conscious, I don't know what to tell you. And if wondering if you're a p-zombie is a move your trying to make to refute Jabba, you should hang up your jock.
Click to expand...
You are in error. I know that I am conscious, but I have no way to be certain that you or anyone else is.
 
Loss Leader said:
This could all be settled if Jabba would only define those characteristics which he believes souls take from one life to the next. He steadfastly refuses to do so.
Click to expand...


I can't find it at the moment, but I'm sure that Jabba has said that the disembodied "self" has no characteristics of its own, and that all the characteristics of the embodied self are produced by the body. This would mean that however many "potential selves" there are, the result of one of them occupying Jabba's body will be the Jabba that is observed.
 
Last edited:
ETA: Nevermind.

Just read all of the AAH posts by Fudbucker and I'm not interested in continuing the derail.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom