Proof of Immortality, VI

[jt512]

<deleted>

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Still just trying to establish exactly where we diverge. I think you agree that the new brain would not bring you back to life. If so, doesn't that mean that the new self would not be you?

I already said it wouldn't be me. It would be an exact copy if me. It would be exactly like me in every respect. Just like the second load of bread would be exactly like the first loaf of bread. It would be identical to me.

Where we diverge is that you are using a different definition for the word "identical" when it's applied to selves than when applied to everything else. You seem to be implying that if two selves were identical then they would really be the same self in two locations.

- I thought you had, but I wasn't sure, and figured that asking would be quicker than trying to track it down.
- I see what you mean about "identical." How about if I just say that the two selves are different -- in that the second self would not be you?

So it's different in the same way the second body would be different from the first body. So you could trace the cause and effect.

Dave,
- What I'm trying to do right now is get us on the same page as to just how unlikely you and I are -- given OOFLam.
- As there is no pool of potential bodies, there is no basic limitation on the number of potential bodies. I assume that the same is true for potential selves.
- By "no basic limitation," I mean that to the extent that time and the right conditions are infinite, so are the potential number of "different" bodies and selves. If time and the right conditions are not infinite, chances are that you would never exist, let alone that "now" would be the time you exist.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Dave,
- What I'm trying to do right now is get us on the same page as to just how unlikely you and I are -- given OOFLam.

*Very slowly* We do not accept OOFLam as valid concept, therefore we will not "get on the same page." This is more "If you agree to agree with me you will agree with me" nonsense.

 

[Jabba]

So, the argument as it stands is:

1. The odds of Jabba's soul existing is essentially zero under materialism (true!)
2. And yet, Jabba is pretty sure it exists.
3. Therefore, materialism is false.
4. Since materialism is false, Jabba's specific theory must be true.

I don't know why we're getting off on all sorts of other tangents, the above is far more concise than most versions that Jabba posts. It still has several fatal flaws, but it has *less* than Jabba's long version so it's a move in the right direction...

SOdhner.
- I basically agree with #s 1, 2 and 3 -- though as usual, I would rather use "self" than "soul" as I think that using "soul" begs the question. Would you accept #1 as true if it referred to "self" instead of "soul"?
- If we can get past that issue, I'll move on to #4.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba you do realize what when you OPENLY ADMIT THAT YOU ARE JUST CHANGING THE WORD it still begs the same question right?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave,
- What I'm trying to do right now is get us on the same page as to just how unlikely you and I are -- given OOFLam.

And there we go, straight back to the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Roll a dice 100 times, and whatever outcome you get will have a probability that's got thirty zeroes after the decimal point; but that doesn't mean you didn't roll it, because every other possibility is just as unlikely, and you had to roll something.

Dave

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave,
- What I'm trying to do right now is get us on the same page as to just how unlikely you and I are -- given OOFLam.
- As there is no pool of potential bodies, there is no basic limitation on the number of potential bodies. I assume that the same is true for potential selves.

And by "selves", you mean the process of a functioning organism, right? You've admitted previously that it is a process, not an entity. You don't want to dishonestly backslide now and switch to pretending it's an entity, do you?

- By "no basic limitation," I mean that to the extent that time and the right conditions are infinite, so are the potential number of "different" bodies and selves.

So you're saying that bodies and their processes are potentially infinite in number just as the number of farts and their innate process of having smell. And? Are you claiming that farts have a soul?

If time and the right conditions are not infinite, chances are that you would never exist, let alone that "now" would be the time you exist.

Which tells us nothing and gets you no closer to proving immortality or souls.

 

[John Jones]

*Very slowly* We do not accept OOFLam as valid concept, therefore we will not "get on the same page." This is more "If you agree to agree with me you will agree with me" nonsense.

This.

 

[RoboTimbo]

SOdhner.
- I basically agree with #s 1, 2 and 3 -- though as usual, I would rather use "self" than "soul" as I think that using "soul" begs the question. Would you accept #1 as true if it referred to "self" instead of "soul"?

Thank you for admitting that you are overtly and knowingly begging the question.

- If we can get past that issue, I'll move on to #4.

We won't be getting past that issue.

 

[jond]

SOdhner.
- I basically agree with #s 1, 2 and 3 -- though as usual, I would rather use "self" than "soul" as I think that using "soul" begs the question. Would you accept #1 as true if it referred to "self" instead of "soul"?
- If we can get past that issue, I'll move on to #4.

Self is a process, soul is a thing. They are not the same.

 

[JayUtah]

What I'm trying to do right now is get us on the same page...

Clearly not. Dave and others spelled out their position with brilliant specificity, but you insisted on vague phrases like "...bring ME back to life," and then spent a day and a half trying to pretend Dave had agreed to that. This is the same tedious game you've played for five years. You are not trying to get everyone on the same page. You're trying to insist we all come en masse to yours, so that you can simply define yourself to have won the debate against those godless atheists.

And you know your argument fails spectacularly anyway. There's no "getting on the same page" that fixes that. You're stalling.

...as to just how unlikely you and I are -- given OOFLam.

"OOFLAM" is something you made up, Jabba. It's a contrived straw man.

As there is no pool of potential bodies, there is no basic limitation on the number of potential bodies. I assume that the same is true for potential selves.

In materialism there is no difference between "self" and "body." The sense of self is a property of the body. Any time you have a viable body, it exhibits the property of a sense of self. The sense of self is not discrete under materialism. It's not a thing.

 

[jond]

OOFLam has no bearing on the likelihood of your body existing.

 

[JayUtah]

...though as usual, I would rather use "self" than "soul" as I think that using "soul" begs the question.

"Soul" does beg the question, and the concept you're trying to foist is the soul. You've changed the name without changing the concept. And since it's the concept, not the name, that begs the question, this is tantamount to admitting that's what you're doing. Since you know you're begging the question, your task then becomes convincing a thinking person to engage with you. You're lying to yourself and others, and trying to blame those others for your failure to convince anyone with your proof.

As has been patiently explained to you several times, you're trying to attach all the theorized concepts of a soul -- which you disingenuously and equivocally rename the "self" -- to E, the data. And then you're trying to make H explain it. The data, E, are that a living person experiences consciously a sense of self. Your "I'm immortal" theory has one explanation for how that comes about. Materialism has a completely different explanation for how that comes about. You're trying to reckon the likelihood ratio for those explanations, but you can only make the answer come out the way you want by fudging the data.

This is made worse by your admission a few years ago that you had already worked out what the numbers needed to be and were just looking for a post-justification rationale for it. Really, Jabba, when you admit you're begging the question and you admit you're backfilling to a conclusion you've already drawn, you don't get blame your failure on your critics. You're just very, very poor at debate and critical thinking.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
If time and the right conditions are not infinite, chances are that you would never exist,

I don't see how that follows at all.

let alone that "now" would be the time you exist.

This doesn't make sense. "Now" is the only time I could exist. My existence depends on my parents' existence. Their existence depends on their parents' existence.

 

[John Jones]

SOdhner.
- I basically agree with #s 1, 2 and 3 -- though as usual, I would rather use "self" than "soul" as I think that using "soul" begs the question. Would you accept #1 as true if it referred to "self" instead of "soul"?
- If we can get past that issue, I'll move on to #4.

Nobody with any brains is gong to get past your admission that you're using one word as a synonym for another to avoid a logical fallacy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba why not just redefine "I lost the argument" into "I won the argument" and be done with it? Since you care so little about what anyone is actually saying or arguing what's the point?

I'm being 100% serious Jabba. Why not just ignore everything and up and declare yourself the winner?

If you don't actually care what anyone has to say what are you still listening?

 

[Monza]

Dave,
- What I'm trying to do right now is get us on the same page as to just how unlikely you and I are -- given OOFLam.

Why is this important? Astonishingly unlikely things happen all the time. You can even guarantee a highly unlikely event to take place. For example, what are the odds of winning a fair coin flip 10 times in a row? Isn't this very unlikely? Yet, you can guarantee it will happen. Just get 1024 people to pair off and have a single elimination tournament. By definition, the winner will have won a fair coin toss 10 times in a row.

What are the odds that a pocket full of sand thrown to the ground will be arranged as they fall? What are the odds of a deck of cards being in the order they fall after a shuffle?

 

[SOdhner]

- I basically agree with #s 1, 2 and 3 -- though as usual, I would rather use "self" than "soul" as I think that using "soul" begs the question. Would you accept #1 as true if it referred to "self" instead of "soul"?

I don't see why you would want to use a less precise term. You're clearly referring to a soul. I guess I could get behind it if you want to give it a new and unique word to avoid confusion like "Jabbasoul" or something, but then you'd still need to define it and, lets' be honest, the definition is "soul" so why don't we just call it a soul?

The underlying problem is that, as stated in #1 of my summary, you're looking at whether or not a soul exists under materialism and we actually all agree that it doesn't! If you really did just call it a soul and then say "Under materialism, that's not a thing that exists!" we would all totally be on the same page - and that's what you keep saying you want.

Of course then you'd have to deal with the fact that you *feeling* like you have a soul isn't evidence for one, you *feeling* like science must be wrong isn't evidence that it is, you *feeling* like this should make sense in a mathematical model doesn't mean that it does...

 

[Belz...]

As there is no pool of potential bodies there is no basic limitation on the number of potential bodies. I assume that the same is true for potential selves.

Have you now changed your mind on the pool of potential selves?

By your logic, there's also a number of potential apples, but somehow I'm sure you don't argue that apples are immortal.

Frankly, you don't seem to understand your own argument.

 

[The Sparrow]

....
By your logic, there's also a number of potential apples, but somehow I'm sure you don't argue that apples are immortal......

Don't waste your breath. The immortal bananas thing was bought up 1000 posts ago and many times since then. All ignored in the name of 'effective debate'.