Proof of Immortality, VI

[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 it includes an identity?

- You and I are two of the identities.

 

[jond]

- You and I are two of the identities.

Your brain generates that identity while it is functioning normally. When it stops functioning it stops generating that identity. That’s how processes work.

 

[godless dave]

- You and I are two of the identities.

We're two different people, but it seems to me that identity is something people assign to things, not a property things have.

 

[JayUtah]

- You and I are two of the identities.

That's because you're two different entities. You both have a sense of self. The notion of whether that's the "same" sense of self is simply inoperative in materialism because the sense of self is a property, not an entity. If I'm going down the freeway neck-and-neck with another car, we both exhibit the property of "going 60 mph." Does that mean we're exhibiting the same "going 60 mph" or different "going 60 mph?"

I feel this has been explained to you enough times in enough ways. Your inability to understand what it means to be a property seems fairly intentional at this point. But no, there's no magical tap dance of words you can do that makes a property seem like a discrete entity for purposes of countability.

 

[John Jones]

- You and I are two of the identities.

I wish you would produce evidence of immortality or shut up.

 

[The Sparrow]

....Before the big bang, what are the odds that reality would ultimately produce me?

Said the puddle of water to the hole it was in.

 

[Belz...]

- Again, something difficult to express effectively.

No, it really isn't. Everybody understand exactly what you mean, and what everyone means.

- Determinism only makes sure that before the big bang, nothing was determined.

No, it makes sure that after the big band, EVERYTHING was determined. There is no random chance involved in your existence, ergo your calculation of the odds is irrelevant, on top of being invalid and unsound.

 

[JayUtah]

Before the big bang, what are the odds that reality would ultimately produce me?

In astrophysics there is no "before the Big Bang."

 

[godless dave]

- 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.

It comes out of the cells your brain is made of. Those are made out of matter which mostly comes from the food you eat (and food your mother ate).

 

[Garrette]

No, it really isn't. Everybody understand exactly what you mean, and what everyone means.



No, it makes sure that after the big band, EVERYTHING was determined. There is no random chance involved in your existence, ergo your calculation of the odds is irrelevant, on top of being invalid and unsound.

It's true. Once Benny Goodman hit the stage Delta Blues, Elvis, Dylan, Pink Floyd, Marley, Elvis (the Costello one), and even Eminem were unavoidable.

 

[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.

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...

Sodhner,
- I'm not looking at whether or not a soul exists under materialism. I'm claiming that a self exists under materialism, and I'm arguing that materialism is wrong about the self's mortality.

 

[Belz...]

Sodhner,
- I'm not looking at whether or not a soul exists under materialism. I'm claiming that a self exists under materialism, and I'm arguing that materialism is wrong about the self's mortality.

Who do you think you're fooling, here?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sodhner,
- I'm not looking at whether or not a soul exists under materialism. I'm claiming that a self exists under materialism, and I'm arguing that materialism is wrong about the self's mortality.

YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED THAT YOU THINK YOUR "SELF" IS A SOUL!

What are you doing? Who are you talking to?

 

[John Jones]

Sodhner,
- I'm not looking at whether or not a soul exists under materialism. I'm claiming that a self exists under materialism, and I'm arguing that materialism is wrong about the self's mortality.

STOP TELLING US WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING, AND START PROVIDING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

Your claims and arguments these last 5 years are worthless. You have demonstrated neither evidence nor compelling argument to support them.

[...] materialism is wrong about the self's mortality.

You've had 5 years to start proving this. Why have you never made any attempt to do it?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba is waiting for us to have the "Doctor House in the cafeteria / Star Trek character talks to the bartender" moment where all the nonsensical stuff he's been saying suddenly "clicks" for us for no reason.

Again he's not making an argument, he's writing a story. He's waiting for his "students" to have the big "Eureka" moment because that's how it happens in the movies.

 

[John Jones]

But Jabba hasn't gained a 'student' in all these years with one possible exception -- whose name rhymes with Vixen. She can't make a decent argument of Jabba's ideas any better than Jabba can.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not looking at whether or not a soul exists under materialism. I'm claiming that a self exists under materialism...

Materialism already has a definition for the self. You're trying to rewrite it to make it look like a soul, rather than using the definition that's already there, and you've essentially admitted that's what you're doing.

... and I'm arguing that materialism is wrong about the self's mortality.

You don't get to argue that materialism is wrong as a premise of reckoning P(E|H). In fact you have to take it as if it were axiomatically true, including its propositions about the duration of the sense of self. Under materialism the sense of self is an emergent property of the physical organism. As with all emergent properties, it endures only as long as the organism endures -- by definition. You don't get to say, "Well, I don't agree with that" and make up something on your own.

This is what we're talking about when we say you don't have the faintest idea how to properly formulate a statistical inference. How many statisticians have to detail your ignorance before you will take heed and stop blaming your critics or the situation for the effects of that ignorance?

It's extremely annoying to your critics that you have now blatantly confessed to arguing a straw man. They realize this is immediately fatal to your argument. But you will carry on as if nothing has happened. You have been given so many opportunities to prove you're not just an attention-seeking crackpot. Why do you always fail them?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sodhner,
- I'm not looking at whether or not a soul exists under materialism. I'm claiming that a self exists under materialism, and I'm arguing that materialism is wrong about the self's mortality.

That's about as nonsensical as anything else you've said. Why are you talking about the self as being mortal or immortal as if it were a thing? The self, as you've agreed, is a process. Is going 60 mph immortal?

You've been admonished numerous times about dishonestly switching the two.

 

[Loss Leader]

- 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 many universes were there before this one?

Assume that the chance that a universe would produce your physical body is 1 in 8.6*10⁹⁸. This may be the 8.61*10⁹⁸ universe. You don't know and you can't know.

In any case, the odds of you finding yourself in a universe where you exist are 1 in 1.

Your understanding of probability is desperately wrong.

 

[abaddon]

- 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.

Really? Are you suggesting that we can therefore replace all of your claims over the past 5 years of an "infinite pool of selves" with "no pool of selves at all". That is your new claim?