Proof of Immortality II

[Slowvehicle]

Umm. Beer!

I know, right?

 

[Butter!]

And yet here is a link that says a beer's container is very important to the finished product. So, not only are you wrong about metaphysics, you're wrong about how beer is made.

In any case, the "container" isn't the analog of the physical body here, it's the ingredients that are being compared to the body. The ingredients, when put together,are beer. The body, when correctly assembled, is sentient.

And I don't even drink.

That's a really excellent point, and worded succinctly and ideally. Cheers!

 

[Jabba]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.
2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".
3. There is no pool (or set) of potential selves.
4. (Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)
5. Therefore, each particular self, in part, comes out of nowhere.
6. IOW, each particular self is "created on the spot" – it has no complete “representation” prior to its inception.
7. That being the case, there is no limit on “who” each new self will be. The possibilities are unbounded -- or infinite.
8. Therefore, while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite.

 

[Mojo]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.
2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".
3. There is no pool (or set) of potential selves.
4. (Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)
5. Therefore, each particular self, in part, comes out of nowhere.
6. IOW, each particular self is "created on the spot" – it has no complete “representation” prior to its inception.
7. That being the case, there is no limit on “who” each new self will be. The possibilities are unbounded -- or infinite.
8. Therefore, while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite.

 

[George]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.
2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".
3. There is no pool (or set) of potential selves.
4. (Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)
5. Therefore, each particular self, in part, comes out of nowhere.
6. IOW, each particular self is "created on the spot" – it has no complete “representation” prior to its inception.
7. That being the case, there is no limit on “who” each new self will be. The possibilities are unbounded -- or infinite.
8. Therefore, while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite.

This is now decidedly embarrassing.

 

[pakeha]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.
2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".[ . . . ]

No, Jabba.
Not "somehow". We know what consciousness is- part of an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

Why do you continue to refer to self as though it were other than part of an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem?

 

[Aepervius]

- Try this for the scientific model.

How about really using the scientific understanding we have now instead of making your own one up ?

Let me guess, this would immediately mean you would "lose", right ? That's why you keep the comedy of trying to make stuff up and call it "scientific model" when it is not ?

1) consciousness, thought, and so forth are an emergent property of the brain
2) the brain is only an assemblage of chemicals, moelcules, cells
3) when your brain die, you have died and that's it.

that is the scientific udnerstanding of today. Anything you want toa dd over that is your OWN claim you would have to demonstrate.

But I don't hold my breath, you would again for 257 pointless page try to rethorically change that to fit your own desire.

 

[abaddon]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.
2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".
3. There is no pool (or set) of potential selves.
4. (Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)
5. Therefore, each particular self, in part, comes out of nowhere.
6. IOW, each particular self is "created on the spot" – it has no complete “representation” prior to its inception.
7. That being the case, there is no limit on “who” each new self will be. The possibilities are unbounded -- or infinite.
8. Therefore, while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite.

Sorry. I don't like baloney. It gives me gas.

 

[Humots]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.
2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".
3. There is no pool (or set) of potential selves.
4. (Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)
5. Therefore, each particular self, in part, comes out of nowhere.
6. IOW, each particular self is "created on the spot" – it has no complete “representation” prior to its inception.
7. That being the case, there is no limit on “who” each new self will be. The possibilities are unbounded -- or infinite.
8. Therefore, while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite.

Words like "somehow" and "nowhere" do not belong in any scientific model.

Jabba, this is not the scientific model. It is entirely your own invention.

 

[abaddon]

- Try this for the scientific model.

OK, sure.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.

Nope, you continue to fail to see emergence, or understand emergence despite all attempts to explain it to you. At this point such refusal can only be understood as willful.

2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".

Assumes facts not in evidence. Each new consciousness is an emergent property of a neurosystem.

3. There is no pool (or set) of potential selves.

Agreed. There is no pool. I find it odd that you expended so much time trying to claim that there was such a pool. Can you explain that? Can you explain what changed your mind?

4. (Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)

Wow. You revert to the baseless claim that you have been unsuccessfully make for two years now, and which nobody but you accepts.

5. Therefore, each particular self, in part, comes out of nowhere.

Non-sequitur. You have simply made a leap of illogic for no reason other than you desire it to be so.

6. IOW, each particular self is "created on the spot" – it has no complete “representation” prior to its inception.

You really do not grok emergence.

7. That being the case, there is no limit on “who” each new self will be. The possibilities are unbounded -- or infinite.

Wrong. They are not infinite, nor can even possibly be infinite. It has been explained to you ad infinitum why this is so. Why is it that you fail to read those posts? It is because you do not like those posts. You will proceed to ignore this post. Because you do not like it.

8. Therefore, while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite.

Your "therefore" does not compute purely because your premises are demonstrably wrong.

ETA: Jabba will ignore this post.

 

[Hokulele]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.
2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".
3. There is no pool (or set) of potential selves.
4. (Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)
5. Therefore, each particular self, in part, comes out of nowhere.
6. IOW, each particular self is "created on the spot" – it has no complete “representation” prior to its inception.
7. That being the case, there is no limit on “who” each new self will be. The possibilities are unbounded -- or infinite.
8. Therefore, while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite.

A self isn't a thing, it is a process.

 

[Giordano]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.
2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".
3. There is no pool (or set) of potential selves.
4. (Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)
5. Therefore, each particular self, in part, comes out of nowhere.
6. IOW, each particular self is "created on the spot" – it has no complete “representation” prior to its inception.
7. That being the case, there is no limit on “who” each new self will be. The possibilities are unbounded -- or infinite.
8. Therefore, while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite.

Wrong, very wrong. Still very wrong for the very same reasons as when you first posted this horrible mis-statement of the scientific model nearly 2 years ago. If you or anyone else following this thread (lurking or participating) still do not know why it is wrong, just read the other posts here. There have been a lot of excellent and different ways of explaining why this is wrong; don't worry that some of the explanations of why it is wrong might have been rebutted by Jabba: he never has even tried.

By the way, if this is the scientific, standard model, then you will have no problem quickly finding citations in scientific review articles or even textbooks that state it. Please post some. I believe this has been requested before, without result. In fact, I believe that you asked outside experts twice about your views, and they each explained your views as stated here are NOT the scientific model.

 

[jond]

Staggering, innit?

 

[Giordano]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.
2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".
3. There is no pool (or set) of potential selves.
4. (Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)
5. Therefore, each particular self, in part, comes out of nowhere.
6. IOW, each particular self is "created on the spot" – it has no complete “representation” prior to its inception.
7. That being the case, there is no limit on “who” each new self will be. The possibilities are unbounded -- or infinite.
8. Therefore, while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite.

I know you want this to be the scientific model, so you can "prove" that it is wrong and substitute your own theory. But it is not the current scientific model, nor does your own theory fit the facts better. Even separate from the facts, your use of "logic" ("therefore, that being the case, which means") is easily proven highly incorrect:

"9. That being the case, unicorns must be invisible."

makes as much logical sense.

 

[jond]

It's almost as if Jabba hasn't read a single post by anyone other than his chosen corrisonents. I can't imagine that this could be the case!

Jabba, have you read any posts other than those by Xtifer or Godless Dave? If not, why not?

 

[Akhenaten]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.
2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".
3. There is no pool (or set) of potential selves.
4. (Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)
5. Therefore, each particular self, in part, comes out of nowhere.
6. IOW, each particular self is "created on the spot" – it has no complete “representation” prior to its inception.
7. That being the case, there is no limit on “who” each new self will be. The possibilities are unbounded -- or infinite.
8. Therefore, while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite.

Why would we try that? It's drivel.

 

[Giordano]

Staggering, innit?

It is certainly an interesting approach to... oh, I don't know what the goal of Jabba's posting style is. The last word? Convincing others by shear repetition rather than by evidence? I just do not know. I would accept if Jabba simply believed in reincarnation, despite what the scientific theory states. Why he would post his views here without proof or evidence, if he seeks to convince others, I do not know. But frankly I don't care.

But for his posts to mis-interpret the scientific model so badly causes me to continue to clarify how science really sees things. I will do so even if Jabba's posts appear completely refractory to these corrections.

 

[jond]

It is certainly an interesting approach to... oh, I don't know what the goal of Jabba's posting style is. The last word? Convincing others by shear repetition rather than by evidence? I just do not know. I would accept if Jabba simply believed in reincarnation, despite what the scientific theory states. Why he would post his views here without proof or evidence, if he seeks to convince others, I do not know. But frankly I don't care.

But for his posts to mis-interpret the scientific model so badly causes me to continue to clarify how science really sees things. I will do so even if Jabba's posts appear completely refractory to these corrections.

Please do, I enjoy and learn from your posts!

 

[godless dave]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.
2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".

#2 is not part of the scientific model, and I don't understand why you think it is.

 

[John Jones]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.
2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".
3. There is no pool (or set) of potential selves.
4. (Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)
5. Therefore, each particular self, in part, comes out of nowhere.
6. IOW, each particular self is "created on the spot" – it has no complete “representation” prior to its inception.
7. That being the case, there is no limit on “who” each new self will be. The possibilities are unbounded -- or infinite.
8. Therefore, while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite.

Citation?