Proof of Immortality II

[Hokulele]

- so you agree with me about our basic disagreement?

Yes, but the root of the disagreement isn't what you think it is. I believe the main problem is that you are still thinking of "you" or your "self" or your "sense of self" as an object. A noun. A thing with a continuous history. You believe that this "you" is what sets you apart. It is what most people and most cultures call a "soul".

So, the basic root of the disagreement is that you believe in souls, and I don't.

Show me evidence of such a thing, and we may have something interesting to discuss. Fail to do so, and this is just another random set of assertions with no factual basis.

 

[Loss Leader]

- But, I don't. I am special compared to all the things that are not conscious.

Only from your perspective. You have yet to show: a) why anyone but you should think you're special; b) why "consciousness" confers some special trait when it is nothing but an illusion of running processes; or c) whether your ideas are broadly applicable or only applicable to you from your perspective.

LL,
- So, you agree about what our basic disagreement is.

Hardly. There is literally not a step in your logic that I agree with:

1. I disagree that you have defined human consciousness correctly.

2. I disagree that consciousness is a "special" state different from rocks or motorcycles.

3. I disagree that your existence is new information, as required by Bayes Theorum.

4. I disagree that the universe could definitely be said to be random.

5. I disagree that your existence is inconsistent with the known workings of the universe.

6. I disagree that odds can be calculated from one data point (or that you have more than one data point).

7. I disagree that you have properly defined ~A.

8. I disagree that you can compute the chance that "immortality" is the most likely ~A.

9. I disagree that "immortality" as you use it is even possible.

10. I disagree that there is any evidence at all that human life is anything but finite, because you have not even shown the possibility of a soul.

11. I disagree that general derision is somehow an indication of the truth or nobility of your quest.

There are more, I'm sure.

- I understand that this sounds crazy, but like Sherlock Holmes used to say...

Sherlock Holmes said the unlikely had to be true only if you'd eliminated every other possibility.

In your case, your existence is entirely consistent with the way the universe is generally understood to work. So, you haven't eliminated that possibility.

 

[Pixel42]

Pixel,
- Yeah.

So it's as we've always said: we understand you fine, we just don't agree with you. Because you are fundamentally mistaken. The fact you still don't grasp the nature of your error, despite having it repeatedly and patiently explained to you in the simplest possible terms for the last two years, is your problem not ours.

 

[Giordano]

- But, I don't. I am special compared to all the things that are not conscious.

Oh, thanks for pointing that out. So you are special compared to the billions and billions of conscious things out there: bugs, mice, humans, lions, bears, etc. Does that make it better (see below)?

 

[Giordano]

- At this point I think that you guys just don't understand what I'm trying to say, and basically agree with me re our basic difference.

You tried that before, and we have noted that we understand what you are trying to say, and the problem is that what you are trying to say is wrong. We have provided evidence why it is wrong, to which you haven't replied. You have even contacted University professors and searched the web yourself, and all of these sources have told you you are wrong.

If somehow you think that we just don't understand what you are trying to say, after two years, why do you think you will figure out how to say it now? Perhaps you don't even know what you are trying to say (see below). Why don't you figure it out yourself before trying to explain it to us?

 

[Mojo]

At this point I think that you guys just don't understand what I'm trying to say, and basically agree with me re our basic difference.

I'm not sure whether you mean that the "guys" have now come down on your side of the "basic disagreement", or whether you mean that they agree with you about what the subject of the disagreement is, but you're clearly wrong either way.

 

[Nonpareil]

My claim: there must be a bucket of infinitely divisible consciousness that we conscious beings all come from. That there are many more of us now than there used to be, just means that more than one of us was Napoleon.

Complete and utter nonsense. Unfounded nonsense, to boot.

And getting back to the Texas sharpshooter issue: the likelihood of conscious life forming at any specific point in space and time is very low, but the odds of conscious life forming at a point of space and time is, given the sheer size of the universe, essentially one.

So you're still committing that same fallacy.

 

[Giordano]

- out there somewhere.
- My claim: there must be a bucket of infinitely divisible consciousness that we conscious beings all come from. That there are many more of us now than there used to be, just means that more than one of us was Napoleon.

You denied the existence of a pool of souls before on this forum. So now it is a "Bucket O' Souls" not a "Pool of souls"? But I even anticipated this argument in a post just a few pages back, but don't you realize this makes your argument even worse? If souls come from a bucket of infinite possible souls, then you have even more problems in your mathematical prove than with the scientific model. Why did you get your particular soul if there are an "infinity" of possible souls (big bucket?) with which you may have been supplied? Isn't the fundamental Bayes equation the same in both cases? At least in the SM, you were restricted to the possible consciousnesses that might have emerged from combinations of your parents gametes.

Further, given there aren't any T. rex around anymore, your post indicates that one's soul might be returned to the mass of souls in the bucket and never used again, or used as part of some other creature's soul. Do you realize that this means that your soul may be returned to the bucket and left there, or used in part to create the soul of a Dung beetle? Is this what you find reassuring? That you will live again, in a bucket of uncounted billions of other merged consciousnesses including those of rats and bugs (which is not reincarnation but a messy form of afterlife), or rolling dung?

I prefer the SM view: my DNA and part of what I tell them will live on as my children, and the other parts of me will rot and will be recycled as parts of the living things around me. That is more than good enough.

 

[Giordano]

- John, here I was just trying to nail down our basic disagreement. It seems as if I have succeeded.

Yep. Actually this was already achieved shortly after you OP'ed two years ago. Therefore now would be an excellent time to present evidence for your model, or at least tell us what traits we possess will be reincarnated by your model.

 

[Giordano]

- I understand that this sounds crazy, but like Sherlock Holmes used to say...

Why don't you complete the quote? Or did you realize (as others here) that the actual quote only makes your claim seem even more unfounded?

Again: did you renegotiate the number of posts that you are allowed by your wife? I thought you were limited to 2 a day. Or are you using up potential future posts by posting so often now? I guess if you become a Dung Beetle in your future life, you will not be posting much then (hard to work the keyboard), so you might as well now.

 

[Giordano]

It is crazy of me to argue against a "theory" when the individual who created it doesn't even know exactly what is their theory, nor have they thought about in advance the obvious repercussions of that theory. So given Jabba's "theory" continues to morph and there are obvious self-inconsistencies in it (as well as it being contrary to reality) perhaps Jabba should just formulate a consistent theory and think about its repercussions first, before posting. If he hopes to convince anyone here, that is.

 

[HighRiser]

- at this point, all I'm trying to do is identify our basic disagreement -- what I think is our basic disagreement.
- At this point I think that you guys just don't understand what I'm trying to say, and basically agree with me re our basic difference.

I think our basic disagreement arises from your obtuse refusal to support your premise with anything other than "I just think this is the way it is" and NOTHING more. There was a brief attempt to introduce subjective anecdotes about NDE which you seemingly dropped like a hot potato when you evidently realised that was a blind alley. Although you never, that I recall, have conceded a point. This is what your Effective Debate model revolves around, yes? Never making or conceding a point.

As far as what you are trying to say goes; You've only stated an unsupported premise and never supported or defended your position. Never. Ever. In two years.

I have no concept of why you expect anyone to accept a bald assertion as self-evident truth.








.

 

[carlitos]

- But, I don't. I am special compared to all the things that are not conscious.

Jabba - More special than a passed-out frat boy.
Jabba - More special than someone getting dental surgery.
Jabba - More special than carlitos for a couple hours per day.


That is a pretty low bar that you have cleared.

 

[Giordano]

Effective Debate: "You and I disagree!"

I'll provide evidence for this in my next post. Oh, who am I kidding? No I won't.

 

[Tinyal]

This nonsense from Jabba (about a divisible pool of consciousness) has been around for a long time. I recall from back in my teenage years (before I had much practice with critical thinking) bouncing around reading stuff from Gurdjieff and Blavatsky - I'm sure I read something about 4000 some odd souls being the only real ones, and everyone else was either fake/automatons, or waiting for one of the original souls to 'pop in' and activate...

It's all very colorful gibberish, based on nothing other than lack of knowledge of what a process is - couple that with an older mans very real fear of personal extinction - what you end up with can't be debated logically.

I understand what Jabba is feeling - he just refuses to accept reality. I've been there/done that - still do, on (hopefully) rare occasions.

My feelings - his fears - don't matter at all, of course. Perhaps we can convince him to write a book (if it's good, it'll be around long after he's gone - simulated life after death!) - or put his energy into helping to create the Singularity - at least that would be far more entertaining.

Back to our regularly scheduled beating-head-against-wall displays

 

[Mojo]

You denied the existence of a pool of souls before on this forum. So now it is a "Bucket O' Souls" not a "Pool of souls"?

This looks to me to be a different concept from Jabba's "pool of souls". The "pool" seemed to be a pool of distinct an separate souls, some of which might at some point be lucky enough to get a body; the "Bucket O' Souls" idea looks as if he's claiming that there is some sort of single universal consciousness, parts of which are sometimes sent off in individual bodies, only to return to the bucket and merge with the contents when the body dies (this is clearly implied by Jabba's comment that it "means that more than one of us was Napoleon").

ETA: as well as meaning that "more than one of us was Napoleon", it would also mean that those of us who were born after 1945 were Hitler. Is Jabba trying to set up a Godwin?

 

[Giordano]

I may be one of the immortals! Doomed to be reincarnated endlessly on this Earth to battle the evil forces (vampires? werewolves? Daleks?). I may be doomed to watch the not special, other people who are my friends grow old and die while I live forever unless someone releases me from this curse.

But then, that is not the way to bet, is it?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Not surprising, but I figured it was best to at least make an effort. I have this horrible tendency to believe that even the most stubbornly ignorant can be educated.

and you people just keep letting me down

Welcome to the background radiation of my experience here, and in Shroud^TM and Son-of-Shroud^TM...

 

[Jabba]

- in the following attempt at a syllogism, Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are the best I can do at expressing why I think that I am special, or that I should be set apart, and deserve such a small likelihood of existing. For now, that's probably the best that I can do.

1. I, in one form or the other (thing, process or illusion), am the only thing that I know exists.
2. Also, I am the only eyes on the universe that I have.
3. Consequently, if I never existed it would be as if nothing ever existed...

4. Given A, the likelihood of me ever existing is something like 1/10⁸⁰!.
5. Whereas, the prior probability of A being incorrect is something like 1%, or better.
6. So, in the Bayesian formula, the likelihood of me ever existing, given A, is much smaller than the prior probability of A being incorrect.
7. In other words, I am either unimaginably lucky or A is incorrect.

8. In still other words, given me, it is much more probable that A is incorrect then that A is correct

 

[Slowvehicle]

- at this point, all I'm trying to do is identify our basic disagreement -- what I think is our basic disagreement.
- At this point I think that you guys just don't understand what I'm trying to say, and basically agree with me re our basic difference.

Our "basic difference", that is, yours and mine, is that, no matter how many times I have politely asked, or suggested, it; you have not even begun to pretend to attempt to start to try to present any evidence at all that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal".

(Which does not even begin to address your pervasive rudeness.)