Proof of Immortality, VI

[jond]

- Try this. Is there any limitation on who would be the first actual self?

Wait, I thought you agreed that the self is a process, not a thing?

 

[JayUtah]

Well, he did say it wasn't a bread loaf, so now we just have to convince him that PROPERTY is part of the set ~BREADLOAF. Now I'm just waiting for the self to be defined as a three-legged table with a 13th century tablecloth on it.

 

[jond]

Well, he did say it wasn't a bread loaf, so now we just have to convince him that PROPERTY is part of the set ~BREADLOAF. Now I'm just waiting for the self to be defined as a three-legged table with a 13th century tablecloth on it.

A dog, then?

 

[Jabba]

- Try this. Is there any limitation on who would be the first actual self?

The conditions under which the first hominid with the necessary level of consciousness and self-awareness was born.

Dave,
- Here, I'm trying to communicate a concept that occurs to me but that I've never heard anyone else address. Maybe, I just didn't recognize it at the time, or maybe it's just an illusion of my own. If it's an illusion, I can't seem to shake it. It keeps coming back.
- And then, there's math. How far up on the current mathematical tower can you get before getting sick to your stomach? Where does it quit communicating to you? Where do you begin to lose your hold?
- Here, I'm trying to describe part of my personal tower (whether rational or not) of metaphysics.

- Anyway, that's my claim. I claim that if there is no limited pool of potential whatevers -- but there are, in fact, some whatevers -- there has to be an unlimited pool of them.
- So far, I think that it's some organic state that produces a bit of consciousness, which inherently brings with it, or creates, a brand new self. If the self is a "process" and cannot be considered a "thing," it's still a process that includes its very own "identity." If unimpeded by a limited pool of potential identities, the number of potential selves must be unlimited.
- Surely, this won't communicate either, but -- just maybe -- it'll get things started.

 

[Loss Leader]

I claim that if there is no limited pool of potential whatevers -- but there are, in fact, some whatevers -- there has to be an unlimited pool of them.

Jabba -

What's the difference between mortal and immortal souls, then, in terms of chance? By your definitions, the chance of any given mortal soul coming about is 1/inf. but the chance of any given immortal soul is still 1/inf. They're both zero. How does this concept help you advance any argument for immortality.

- Surely, this won't communicate either, but -- just maybe -- it'll get things started.

Once again, you've communicated your position very clearly. But it hasn't changed in years. There is nothing to "get started" because you haven't started anew. You just continue to ignore any rational attempt to define the illusion of self as a process and blithely plow on pretending each person has a unique soul (in order to prove that each person has a unique soul, no less).

 

[Pixel42]

I claim that if there is no limited pool of potential whatevers -- but there are, in fact, some whatevers -- there has to be an unlimited pool of them.

Wrong, for the reasons that have been explained ad nauseum.

Surely, this won't communicate either, but -- just maybe -- it'll get things started.

It got things started and finished 5 years ago. You stated your misconception, it was perfectly clear what you were saying and why it was a misconception, and several people took the time to explain this to you in the simplest possible terms.

And yet here we are, 5 years later, and you are still stating exactly the same misconception and pretending that the only reason we don't agree with it is that we don't understand it.

 

[The Sparrow]

... -- just maybe -- it'll get things started.

Seriously.


You have once again just repeated the same 'concepts' from 5 years ago.

It's like saying, even though a car is going 60 mph, that 'state' of being 'going 60 mph' is a thing that is coming from an infinite pool of 'being in the state of going 60 mph'.

See how silly that sounds? Or have you stopped reading already?

 

[Belz...]

- Here, I'm trying to communicate a concept that occurs to me but that I've never heard anyone else address.

Hilarious.

- And then, there's math.

There's no math. Your formula doesn't actually represent anything, the numbers you plug into it are pulled out of your ass, and the axioms are all wrong.

I claim that

STOP IT.

if there is no limited pool of potential whatevers -- but there are, in fact, some whatevers -- there has to be an unlimited pool of them.

You have yet to show that there's a pool at all. You then have to show that it'S relevant to your argument in any way.

The universe is deterministic. Also, your "self" arises from a biological body, so that's TWO reasons why your assumptions are worthless and irrelevant.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- Here, I'm trying to communicate a concept that occurs to me but that I've never heard anyone else address. Maybe, I just didn't recognize it at the time, or maybe it's just an illusion of my own. If it's an illusion, I can't seem to shake it. It keeps coming back.
- And then, there's math. How far up on the current mathematical tower can you get before getting sick to your stomach? Where does it quit communicating to you? Where do you begin to lose your hold?
- Here, I'm trying to describe part of my personal tower (whether rational or not) of metaphysics.

- Anyway, that's my claim. I claim that if there is no limited pool of potential whatevers -- but there are, in fact, some whatevers -- there has to be an unlimited pool of them.
- So far, I think that it's some organic state that produces a bit of consciousness, which inherently brings with it, or creates, a brand new self. If the self is a "process" and cannot be considered a "thing," it's still a process that includes its very own "identity." If unimpeded by a limited pool of potential identities, the number of potential selves must be unlimited.
- Surely, this won't communicate either, but -- just maybe -- it'll get things started.

- May I, once again, suggest reading some of the books recommended to you on this thread? Ramachandran covers a fair bit of the evolution of consciousness in his book "The Tell Tale Brain".

- There is no pool (limited or unlimited) of whatevers. The self is a process, generated by the functioning brain. Your self is the only self it could be, it's not a thing that comes from a pool (limited or unlimited). A process does not, cannot come from a pool of whatevers.

– It doesn't INCLUDE "identity", it GENERATES it while it is operational. When not operational, it ceases generating it. This really isn't a hard concept to understand, unless you are continuing to view the self as a separate thing (which you obviously are).

 

[wea]

...a concept that occurs to me but that I've never heard anyone else address ... metaphysics... that's my claim... blah blah

this is nothing new. Tractatus 7.1 diffusely answers it

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- Here, I'm trying to communicate a concept that occurs to me but that I've never heard anyone else address. [...]

You haven't heard it because you don't listen to anybody.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave,
- Here, I'm trying to communicate a concept that occurs to me but that I've never heard anyone else address. Maybe, I just didn't recognize it at the time, or maybe it's just an illusion of my own. If it's an illusion, I can't seem to shake it. It keeps coming back.

Yes, you're trying to communicate the existence of a soul. We get it.

- And then, there's math. How far up on the current mathematical tower can you get before getting sick to your stomach? Where does it quit communicating to you? Where do you begin to lose your hold?

...the hell?

- Here, I'm trying to describe part of my personal tower (whether rational or not) of metaphysics.

You don't understand metaphysics.

Maybe it would help if you tell us what your claim is again.

- Anyway, that's my claim. I claim that

LOL.

if there is no limited pool of potential whatevers -- but there are, in fact, some whatevers -- there has to be an unlimited pool of them.

And "whatevers" include farts and Volkswagens. Are you also claiming that farts and Volkswagens have souls?

- So far, I think that it's some organic state that produces a bit of consciousness, which inherently brings with it, or creates, a brand new self.

Just as each new fart brings with it a brand new smell. Or did you mean "soul"?

If the self is a "process" and cannot be considered a "thing," it's still a process that includes its very own "identity."

No, that's just you trying to dishonestly make a process be a thing. You were admonished for it multiple times already. You still won't get away with it.

If unimpeded by a limited pool of potential identities, the number of potential selves must be unlimited.

Just as the number of potential farts and potential Volkswagens is unlimited.

- Surely, this won't communicate either, but -- just maybe -- it'll get things started.

It communicates just as it has for years, you just aren't clever enough to obfuscate it properly.

 

[godless dave]

- Anyway, that's my claim. I claim that if there is no limited pool of potential whatevers -- but there are, in fact, some whatevers -- there has to be an unlimited pool of them.

Why do you think there's any kind of pool?

- So far, I think that it's some organic state that produces a bit of consciousness, which inherently brings with it, or creates, a brand new self. If the self is a "process" and cannot be considered a "thing," it's still a process that includes its very own "identity."

Why do you think it includes an identity?

 

[Belz...]

The weird thing is that even if there is an unlimited pool of "selves" or bodies, it has no bearing on the odds because for all jabba knows the process is entirely deterministic anyway.

 

[JayUtah]

Here, I'm trying to communicate a concept that occurs to me but that I've never heard anyone else address.

I promise you much has been written on the soul.

And then, there's math. How far up on the current mathematical tower can you get before getting sick to your stomach? Where does it quit communicating to you? Where do you begin to lose your hold?

In your case, right on the ground floor. You really don't get math, Jabba. You don't know what it's for. You don't know how properly to make it do what it can do. No, you're not entirely mathematically illiterate, but you really don't know what you're doing when it comes to formulating a statistical inference. Your problem is that you think everyone else must have as hard a time with math as you do. They don't. But because you think you're no worse off than anyone else, you're using math to shroud a deeper deception. Your argument is blatantly wrong from its very foundation, but you hope to throw a lot of pseudo-mathematical mumbo jumbo around it and maybe -- just maybe -- convince one person that you're not a total crackpot.

Here, I'm trying to describe part of my personal tower (whether rational or not) of metaphysics.

No, Jabba, this isn't a personal journey of discovery. This is you trying every trick in the book to create the illusion that you're smarter than those godless atheists you told people you were going to give what-for.

I claim that if there is no limited pool of potential whatevers -- but there are, in fact, some whatevers -- there has to be an unlimited pool of them.

You can "claim" all you want, but none of it is materialism. You're not reckoning P(E|H). You're reckoning P(E|some crap I keep making up on the fly).

So far, I think that it's some organic state that produces a bit of consciousness, which inherently brings with it, or creates, a brand new self.

Not of by "self" you mean some kind of separate entity. In materialism the organic state produces consciousness. That is the self under materialism. It doesn't somehow give rise to another thing that's just today's placeholder in your argument for "soul."

If the self is a "process" and cannot be considered a "thing," it's still a process that includes its very own "identity."

No. Wrapping quotes around words doesn't make them mean what you need them to any more than underlining them. Entities have identities that arises from discretization. A property does not because it cannot be discretized.

Surely, this won't communicate either, but -- just maybe -- it'll get things started.

They got started a long time ago and finished a short time after that, when it became apparent that your argument simply commits a bunch of fairly obvious errors. The remaining five years in which you're trying to "communicate" and "get things started" is just you refusing to face facts.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Here, I'm trying to communicate a concept that occurs to me but that I've never heard anyone else address. Maybe, I just didn't recognize it at the time, or maybe it's just an illusion of my own. If it's an illusion, I can't seem to shake it. It keeps coming back.
- And then, there's math. How far up on the current mathematical tower can you get before getting sick to your stomach? Where does it quit communicating to you? Where do you begin to lose your hold?
- Here, I'm trying to describe part of my personal tower (whether rational or not) of metaphysics.

- Anyway, that's my claim. I claim that if there is no limited pool of potential whatevers -- but there are, in fact, some whatevers -- there has to be an unlimited pool of them.- So far, I think that it's some organic state that produces a bit of consciousness, which inherently brings with it, or creates, a brand new self. If the self is a "process" and cannot be considered a "thing," it's still a process that includes its very own "identity." If unimpeded by a limited pool of potential identities, the number of potential selves must be unlimited.
- Surely, this won't communicate either, but -- just maybe -- it'll get things started.

Why do you think there's any kind of pool?...

- Again, something difficult to express effectively. To me, at least, "pool" at least implies a limitation, so an ''unlimited" pool really means no pool. And, in that case the whatever comes out of nowhere.

 

[jond]

- Again, something difficult to express effectively. To me, at least, "pool" at least implies a limitation, so an ''unlimited" pool really means no pool. And, in that case the whatever comes out of nowhere.

A pool implies that there are entities which would be selected from it. Processes don’t happen that way.

 

[Mojo]

- Again, something difficult to express effectively. To me, at least, "pool" at least implies a limitation, so an ''unlimited" pool really means no pool. And, in that case the whatever comes out of nowhere.

Not under the model you claim to be trying to disprove.

 

[Jabba]

The weird thing is that even if there is an unlimited pool of "selves" or bodies, it has no bearing on the odds because for all jabba knows the process is entirely deterministic anyway.

Argumemnon,
- Determinism only makes sure that before the big bang, nothing was determined. Before the big bang, what are the odds that reality would ultimately produce me?

 

[Mojo]

Argumemnon,
- Determinism only makes sure that before the big bang, nothing was determined. Before the big bang, what are the odds that reality would ultimately produce me?

How would your possession of an immortal soul change the odds of the observed event of your existence?