Proof of Immortality II

[Mojo]

I'm claiming that ~A has mathematical restrictions that can be expressed more explicitly than "anything and everything that is not A."

And you're still wrong.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- My claim is that I am "lucky" whereas trebor's rock is not.

No, your claim is that immortality is a thing.

Still, I'm interested to hear more about this luck theory.

How is it measured and are other rocks luckier than trebor's? Are other Star Wars characters less lucky than Jabba?

How do trees fare?

- I am lucky in that I am aware. Trevor's rock is probably not aware.

Trebor's rock, on the other hand . . .

Ironic lack of awareness is ironic.

And, you gotta be aware in order to be lucky.

When was this rule established and by whom?

What is the reasoning which underlies it?

- This truth sounds irrelevant, but it’s actually crucial.

To call it irrelevant is to get way ahead of yourself.

You haven't yet established that it's even a truth.

Existence has no meaning to the rock, but it does to me – and I assume, it does to you as well…

Now we're heading for Irrelevance City, but I'd still like an explanation of why awareness is a prerequisite for luckiness.

- I think that this is the crucial area of my claim, and I haven't expressed it properly until, hopefully, now.

Not even now.

It isn't that I am not just someone/anyone. It's that I am not just something/anything-- I am aware. That's why I can be lucky, and that's what sets me apart from everything else (that is not aware).

No matter how many times and with whatever emphasis you repeat this bare assertion, without some kind of explanation it remains as meaningless as your claim of immortality for that-which-cannot-be-named.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Try this. I am either TREMENDOUSLY “lucky” – or, there is a better (more probable) explanation. Is it more probable that I am TREMENDOUSLY lucky than that there is a more probable explanation?

- I.e., is it more probable that “A” is not correct?

I'm sure I'd be better able to answer this question were I to be provided with an explanation of where "luckiness" is best inserted into Bayes' formula.

 

[Akhenaten]

- A long time ago, on Part I of this thread, we had discussions about what ~A would include. The following is about the last thing I said about ~A in Part I (http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=9833235&highlight=complement#post9833235) - I'm claiming that ~A has mathematical restrictions that can be expressed more explicitly than "anything and everything that is not A." I expressed ~A as "given that I currently exist, my existence will be either continuous, or more than once, or (somehow) both. I'm claiming that in mathematics, the possibilities are limited and identifiable.

You were wrong and it was pointed out to you in no uncertain terms exactly why.

~A is not some Jabba-defined subset of everything other than A; it's everything that's not A, including stuff that's unimaginable to Jabba.

 

[Akhenaten]

What is the probability of the existence of the ant that just ran away from my descending foot? Are ants immortal?

No, they're just really lucky.

Or at least, the aware ones are.

If you happen to catch them unawares then their luck (and consequent mortality) is dramatically reduced.

 

[Giordano]

Actually, Trevor's rock is very lucky. It is on a nice climate-controlled desk and appreciated by a human being. So many rocks are out there in the cold or the heat, and no one cares about them.

 

[zooterkin]

Dave,
- My claim is that I am "lucky" whereas trebor's rock is not.
- I am lucky in that I am aware. Trevor's rock is probably not aware. And, you gotta be aware in order to be lucky.
- This truth sounds irrelevant, but it’s actually crucial. Existence has no meaning to the rock, but it does to me – and I assume, it does to you as well…



- I think that this is the crucial area of my claim, and I haven't expressed it properly until, hopefully, now. It isn't that I am not just someone/anyone. It's that I am not just something/anything-- I am aware. That's why I can be lucky, and that's what sets me apart from everything else (that is not aware).

You've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

 

[Akhenaten]

- I just want to show how unlikely it is that I would exist for only one, finite, life.

Ambitions ≠ capabilities.

 

[carlitos]

You've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

It was all I could do not to type that. Did I fire six shots or only five?

Fun fact - Dirty Harry with subtitles on Mexicana Airlines was "Harry Sucio."

 

[Pup]

I think we're getting somewhere. If consciousness is required for immortality, well, dead people aren't conscious. So if folks would just stop losing consciousness when their hearts and brainwaves stop, they could be immortal.

 

[Loss Leader]

I think we're getting somewhere. If consciousness is required for immortality, well, dead people aren't conscious. So if folks would just stop losing consciousness when their hearts and brainwaves stop, they could be immortal.

You're not wrong. Jabba has simply devalued the concept of immortality to be "that which I perceive." Under that definition, each of us is immortal from our own frame of reference.

It's a silly theory, but it's internally consistent.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I think we're getting somewhere. If consciousness is required for immortality, well, dead people aren't conscious. So if folks would just stop losing consciousness when their hearts and brainwaves stop, they could be immortal.

This winz onez interwebz.

Watch your inbox.

[/thread]

 

[carlitos]

Anyone remember the movie Flatliners? They got reincarnated a course of times each.

 

[pakeha]

- I just want to show how unlikely it is that I would exist for only one, finite, life.

Given that your sense of self is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem, how can you possibly exist for more than one, finite life?
Are you saying neurosystems don't cease to function upon death?

- I'm saying that anyone else should suspect that they are immortal, and that if I am indeed conscious, I am immortal also. I say "suspect" because "more than once" does not necessitate immortality.

Could you explain how consciousness implies objective rather than merely subjective immortality?

When we are born, we cry that we are come to this great stage of fools.

- King Lear​

Thanks for giving the thread two examples of immortality- the Bard himself and your Majesty's posts.

Actually, Trevor's rock is very lucky. It is on a nice climate-controlled desk and appreciated by a human being. So many rocks are out there in the cold or the heat, and no one cares about them.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

You're still trying to answer a question other than the one I asked. What are the odds that the person in the room will see their name on the top face of the die?

Assuming for the sake of charity that there's a misunderstanding here, rather than deliberate evasion, it's probably because as a person outside the room we would instinctively know that the odds of our name coming up are very small. That's forming a barrier to communication, so I'd reformulate the hypothetical with a sci-fi feel a little more like this:

There is a very large group of people (as many as you want) in a massive room, all of them being put (separately) into suspended animation while the Gamesmaster rolls a die on which everyone's name appears once and once only. Whenever a name comes up, the Gamesmaster will take that person out of suspended animation and roll again. A given person, X, is brought out of suspended animation and confirms for himself that the die is showing his name. He feels as if he only just went in, but as he was in suspended animation, he can't tell whether he was in for 5 seconds or a million years. Should he be surprised at being revived? If so, why?

 

[George]

Actually, Trevor's rock is very lucky. It is on a nice climate-controlled desk and appreciated by a human being. So many rocks are out there in the cold or the heat, and no one cares about them.

Remember rocks aren't just for Christmas! You see them all over the place, no sense of belonging or hope. I suppose a few lucky ones are crushed to make concrete for houses and factories thereby instilling a feeling of oneness with mankind.

 

[Giordano]

I worry about all the rocks that are given away as Christmas gifts, but then are unloved by their recipients and are eventually hidden away on the back of a shelf. How sad to think that they can only dream of being adopted by a geologist, or made into kitchen counters.

 

[Pup]

Fake, but funny. All rocks go to heaven, at least.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/dogheaven.asp

 

[tsig]

I worry about all the rocks that are given away as Christmas gifts, but then are unloved by their recipients and are eventually hidden away on the back of a shelf. How sad to think that they can only dream of being adopted by a geologist, or made into kitchen counters.

Why yes, I once had a pet rock, but after much reflection I returned it to the wild where it can enjoy the sun and rain and run free down the hill.

 

[HighRiser]

I've had people tell me my head is full of rocks... I don't know what they mean.

Do kidney stones go to heaven?