John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
You're laying a foundation for later equivocation.
Proof of Immortality, VI
- Thread starter jond
- Start date
- Status
You're laying a foundation for later equivocation.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Really? How, then, do you imagine the process continues when the elements that give rise to it (the brain) cease functioning?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
So far, you've done no such thing. Instead you've tried to equivocate between "process" and "entity." And as we see below, you're still doing it. If you now want to agree that the self is a process under materialism, that would be great. This isn't a matter of finding consensus and middle ground. Materialism defines the self as a process. You either accurately represent that definition in your proof, or your proof is wrong for that reason. There's no middle ground.
No, you're just doubling-down on begging the question. There can be no process without an instrument to effect that process. In materialism, that instrument is a functioning human brain. In your model it can be whatever you hypothesis, but it then becomes something else you have to prove exists. Trying to tap dance your way around uncomfortable facts in this way doesn't make the argument easier or better. You're still just trying to define self to be the same as soul in all cases.
What's with the post numbers again? Didn't we knock this on the head some time ago?
The self clearly exists, as one of the emergent properties of a functioning brain. The soul is still the thing whose existence you're supposed to be providing evidence for, not assuming. Without it, you don't have immortality (since you don't seem to be talking about corporeal immortality).
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Okay, then what did you mean in the post you wrote six minutes before that when you said:
If the self is a process of a working brain, then it's not countable by counting bodies. "Going 60 mph" isn't countable by counting cars. Any working car can go 60 mph any number of times. Likewise, any working brain can engage in projecting the illusion of self. As the brain changes moment by moment, so does the illusion. It's not the same after the birth of a child. It's not even the same when the brain detects low blood sugar.
You claim that you accept that the self is a process, but you're still treating it like a thing.
I don't believe that you accept it to be a process at all. Otherwise, reformulate your opinions to line up with that.
Last edited:
Jabba,
Do you understand that you cannot simply say you agree with us, co-opt terms you obviously neither understand or agree with, but continue to disagree with us functionally and expect this conversation to advance?
Nor, and more to the point since this is the part you actually care about, will the characters in your stage play give you different performances if you keep giving them the same stage direction over and over.
Do you understand that you cannot simply say you agree with us, co-opt terms you obviously neither understand or agree with, but continue to disagree with us functionally and expect this conversation to advance?
Nor, and more to the point since this is the part you actually care about, will the characters in your stage play give you different performances if you keep giving them the same stage direction over and over.
Belz...
Fiend God
Someone should tell Jabba about split-brain patients. Do they lose their souls and get two new ones?
Already tried. The split-brain, Lobotomies, hemispherectomies, Phineas Gage, brain damage, all been brought up.
Nothing sticks. Nothing even gets acknowledge because it's not in his script.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
If he keeps doing that, it may advance to the point where someone is tricked into agreeing with him. It is the expression of agreement he seems to be after, not progression of analysis in evaluating the proof. As long as one remains focused on the "gotcha!" any number of intermediate failures can be handwaved away as "communication problems" or "still not understanding."
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,078
Yep.
As a mathematician pointed out on the talk page, "guessing" a number from an infinite set is problematic. How, after all, could someone guess a number that requires 10^100 digits to express? The dart example seems less problematic, although I don't think it applies to "souls," which seem to be discrete entities, and hence countable.
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
Jabba I'm sure you just missed my honest and sincere question I posted a few days back but I'll repeat and rephrase it.
You're likely, given your name a fan of sci fi right? Well have you ever seen Star Trek The Next Generation?
You're likely, given your name a fan of sci fi right? Well have you ever seen Star Trek The Next Generation?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- I think that I'm almost up to speed...
- Your question: Why would the number of potential selves have no basic limitation if: time and the right conditions are not infinite?
- I was trying to explain what I meant by basic limitations -- which I claim is the concept that should be considered when considering the likelihood of your existence. Any limitation on the number of potential selves should not be based 'upon what I called "exterior" factors of time and conditions. This will probably require some more discussion.
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
LOL. 5 years have shown you are not interested in changing, developing, learning or growing. Your position has not changed one bit. You're still just trying to squeeze in some sort of concession.
Belz...
Fiend God
All these words and no answer.
Why would the number of potential selves have anything to do with the likelihood of your existence?
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
FIFY
It would be interesting (although I suspect useless in the long run) to learn what you consider "external." External to what? On what criteria?
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Why not? What else would it be based on? What other factors are there?
Last edited:
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba's telegraphing another equivocation.
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
By that logic the dart example is also problematic because it's impossible to have a dart tip with exactly zero area, in practice it will always have a non-zero area. There's always a certain level of abstraction inherent in mathematics, hence why it includes more than just the small finite set of numbers which can be expressed in at most 1e100 digits.
Besides, the same can also be said about the third example, ie "but you can't really toss a coin an infinite number of times". Sorry but that particular objection just seems silly.
True, but it also presupposes knowledge of geometry and the areas of various geometrical shapes, whereas literally anyone without any mathematical knowledge can follow "I'm thinking of a number, guess which one".
Why? If we're going along with this concept of souls of which there are an infinite number of potential ones, then why couldn't they be parameterized by, say, a countably infinite number of binary parameters? Which would make it equivalent to the last example on that wiki page (the "Tossing coins" one).
Discrete doesn't necessarily imply countable, it depends on the topology. For example any uncountable set under the discrete topology is trivially discrete. Then of course you wouldn't be able to define integration over such a set, so it wouldn't be much use in a probability space, but still it's not necessarily true that discrete implies countable.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Certainly it will, since your post merely commits the same error as before. You're once again contriving a bunch of nonsense and trying to pretend it's materialism. "Exterior" to what? What makes it exterior? In statistical reasoning it's very important to be extremely clear about what spaces apply to your reasoning and why they do or don't apply. As it stands, you seem to be arbitrarily trying to include and exclude things from the sample space to make the answer come out the way you want. That seems to me to be one of the easiest ways to lie and cover up that lie with a bunch of pseudo-statistical handwaving.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
- My choice of words proved inadequate.
- A pool of potential selves would be the only intrinsic limitation on the number of actual selves. Any other limitations would be the result of extraneous factors such as time and necessary conditions.
- Since there is no pool of potential selves, there should be no intrinsic limitation on the number of potential selves. And, it's the result of intrinsic limitations that would limit the number of potential selves in the logic of the Bayesian formula.
- Status