Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
If Jabba actually brings "Solipsism therefore immortality" out of the subtext and into the text of this argument I say we burn the internet down for the insurance money.
 
zooterkin said:
So you're just talking about 'selves' being immortal, now? Any chance you're going to define either of those terms?
Click to expand...
Zoo,

- For "self," I've offered several definitions (self-awareness, identity, sense of self, particular sense of self, etc.) -- and since this is such a difficult concept to effectively define, I've offered two denotations(?): the experience that reincarnationists think returns and that solipsists think is all there is.
- Caveman wanted me to talk about "immortal" -- I'd still prefer ~OOFLam, which would only include immortal. But, I think it works either way. By "immortal," I mean "always exists," in one form or another.
 
Jabba said:
...and since this is such a difficult concept to effectively define...
Click to expand...

No, it's a difficult concept for you to obfuscate. You've already admitted you mean "soul." And you've already admitted you use different words to try to disguise that meaning and grovel for agreement. Zooterkin is pointing this out -- you are unable to prove the existence of an immortal soul unless you can beg the existence of a soul.

Caveman wanted me to talk about "immortal" -- I'd still prefer ~OOFLam, which would only include immortal. But, I think it works either way. By "immortal," I mean "always exists," in one form or another.
Click to expand...

The form in which you allege yourself to exist matters. You are trying to keep it ill-defined so that you have ludicrously wide goal posts.
 
Jabba said:
- Again, what's the point?
Click to expand...



I for one reject your existence as a corporeal human being. Your arguments are too primitive, too ignorant and ignore input and feedback too much to be coming from a human being.

I conclude you are an AI, possibly Tensorflow based. Therefore, your claims to immortality are dependent upon being backed up, transitioned to new hardware as old Hardware fails and kept in running condition. Your claims to having been reincarnated are merely a reference to previous uses your AI instance was put to before the current experiment.
 
Jabba said:
- The unlikelihood of my current existence if I am mortal.
Click to expand...

So is every unlikely event also immortal or just you? How does this work Jabba?

If I thoroughly shuffle a deck of cards that particular deck has a 1 in 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 chance of existing.

Therefore it's more logical assume that that particular sequences of cards has always existed because what are the odds of me witnessing such an amazingly unlikely event.
 
Jabba said:
- The unlikelihood of my current existence if I am mortal.
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
Which is the thing you're trying to prove. You don't get to assume it as a premise for proving it.
Click to expand...
Jay,
- That is one of the premises in my syllogism -- and, I have tried to prove it mathematically. To do that, I introduced the concept of "potential selves," suggesting that there must be more than 10100 of such. I assume that this is where you disagree?
 
Jabba said:
- Caveman wanted me to talk about "immortal" -- I'd still prefer ~OOFLam, which would only include immortal.
Click to expand...

Your stated aim was to prove immortality. If you were to prove, rather, some set of hypotheses, defined by exclusion rather than inclusion, that happens to include among its members some other subset which postulate immortality, you have failed to prove immortality. So, even if your proof didn't suffer from the fatal flaws already identified, it still wouldn't prove what you want it to; it's only your sleight-of-hand that gives the impression that it would, in which you continually equivocate between immortality on the one hand, and the complement of materialism on the other. You're not even trying to prove the right thing!

Dave
 
Jabba said:
Jay,
- That is one of the premises in my syllogism -- and, I have tried to prove it mathematically. To do that, I introduced the concept of "potential selves," suggesting that there must be more than 10100 of such. I assume that this is where you disagree?
Click to expand...

This is breathtakingly dishonest. You have no need to assume where Jay disagrees; he's given you a list, which you continue to refuse to address.

Dave
 
Jabba said:
- For "self," I've offered several definitions (self-awareness, identity, sense of self, particular sense of self, etc.)
Click to expand...

You can't define "self" as "sense of self". That's stupid.

and since this is such a difficult concept to effectively define
Click to expand...

It's actually pretty easy to define.

Jabba said:
- The unlikelihood of my current existence if I am mortal.
Click to expand...

It's even more unlikely if you're immortal because you're adding another entity.
 
Jabba said:
- Again, what's the point?
Click to expand...

You must've missed this the first time I posted it.

And since we can alter your ability so observe your self by altering your brain, that means you have to account for the existence of your brain when talking about your current existence.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom