Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I doubt this will help, but just in case -- in OOFLam I'm not really referring to "people" -- I'm referring to "selves" or "souls."
Click to expand...


There is no distinction; the "self" is just a property of the person. It has no separate existence. When a person dies their consciousness dies with them.
 
Tale said:
Am I building a strawman, or do I sense a Ship of Theseus argument here for souls? The continuity through change somehow means immortality.

The flaw in that should be obvious, if so. The ship did not exist prior to being built and once destroyed all considerations for whether it's the same ship become moot. It stops being a ship. Birth and death.
Click to expand...


All this talk of strawmen, persons, and maritime vessels, not to mention berth, could lead Jabba to incorporate FOTL reasoning into his argument.
 
Mojo said:
All this talk of strawmen, persons, and maritime vessels, not to mention berth, could lead Jabba to incorporate FOTL reasoning into his argument.
Click to expand...

But what about the strawself? Is that the same as a potential strawperson?
 
Jabba said:
Dave and Agatha,
- I don't understand your reluctance to accept the relevance of potential selves (or "souls," minus any implication of immortality) in our issue here.
- "Likelihood" intrinsically involves potential occurrences...
Click to expand...

A "potential" something is anything that could happen. Why do you find it relevant?

Hans
 
Jabba said:
.
- The concept that I've been talking about is the self that seems to continue the same for a lifetime -- the "thing," the "entity" or "process," that seems to remember the experiences and changes "it" has lived through. Is that a concept, possibly null, that you can recognize?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing. The self is continuous, but it is not the same. It is like a river. In a minute, the river looks the same, but it is not quite the same.

You are not the same before and after you decided to ignore this post.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
A "potential" something is anything that could happen.
Click to expand...

Which, in fringe-speke, could also mean something that's merely not proven to be impossible. This is why most fringe arguments -- like this one -- focus so closely on lowering the standard of proof so that whatever they have will squeak through.
 
Jabba said:
- The concept that I've been talking about is the self that seems to continue the same for a lifetime -- the "thing," the "entity" or "process," that seems to remember the experiences and changes "it" has lived through. Is that a concept, possibly null, that you can recognize?
Click to expand...


Jabba -

Hope you are having a great day!

Don't you see that in one sentence you've managed to completely confuse two separate concepts? You call the self both an entity and a process. It is not both things.


Just about everyone here agrees with the highlighted words. "Person" or "Self" is a convenient word for the very complicated process of a bunch of cells, working in unison with some other symbiotic species, in a generalized area of a couple square feet. The self/soul/person is the continuing process of all those parts, influenced by all manner of input. I am the four year-old Loss Leader only in that I have some of his memories. I have none of his thoughts or opinions (with the exception of thoughts about my sister of whom I was not in favor of in 1974 and remain unconvinced in 2016).

But you've thrown in the words in red - thing, entity - which are the exact opposite of the definition of a person/soul/self. We are not static things. There is no essential "Loss Leader-ness" that could have been pulled from my four year-old body and matched identically to my 45 year-old shambling wreck of a near-corpse.

Generously, you appear confused about this. The cynic might accuse you of trying to weasel in your "entity" concept so as to make your argument true by definition. Please try to understand this.
 
JayUtah said:
Which, in fringe-speke, could also mean something that's merely not proven to be impossible. This is why most fringe arguments -- like this one -- focus so closely on lowering the standard of proof so that whatever they have will squeak through.
Click to expand...


Jay,

-My point is, that I have good reason to believe that there are dancing elephants in my bathroom.

-I know that I'm right because, according to PoeIMB, it's not 100% impossible for there to be dancing elephants in my bathroom.

-I've seen a drawing of an elephant.

-When you say "lowering the standard of proof" are you agreeing with me that I have dancing elephants in my bathroom?
 
Also, he only called them dancing elephants, rather than pirouetting pachyderms, or grey things with four legs and large ears.*



*If you want ComfySlippers to present his evidence for the dancing elephants, you must first accept that it is not impossible that he has grey things with four legs and large ears in his bathroom.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Also, he only called them dancing elephants, rather than pirouetting pachyderms, or grey things with four legs and large ears.*



*If you want ComfySlippers to present his evidence for the dancing elephants, you must first accept that it is not impossible that he has grey things with four legs and large ears in his bathroom.
Click to expand...

Four legs and large ears? They must be dogs.
 
MRC_Hans said:
There is no such thing. The self is continuous, but it is not the same. It is like a river. In a minute, the river looks the same, but it is not quite the same.

You are not the same before and after you decided to ignore this post.

Hans
Click to expand...

"You cannot step in the same river twice"
 
ComfySlippers said:
Jay,

-My point is, that I have good reason to believe that there are dancing elephants in my bathroom.

-I know that I'm right because, according to PoeIMB, it's not 100% impossible for there to be dancing elephants in my bathroom.

-I've seen a drawing of an elephant.

-When you say "lowering the standard of proof" are you agreeing with me that I have dancing elephants in my bathroom?
Click to expand...

You're being ridiculous. So ridiculous in fact you couldn't possibly have come up with the idea of dancing bathroom elephants by yourself.

The dancing bathroom elephants must have put that idea in your head.
 
JayUtah said:
I have a bathroom full of potential dancing elephants.
Click to expand...


Hi Jay,

- Would you agree that "potential" multiplied by probability, divided by doughnuts and minus 2 circuses equals DancingElephants?

- Could it be true that if a sponge had four legs and was grey, it's highly likely to be an elephant?

- If so, I think I can mathematically prove that I have Dancing Elephants in my bathroom.

- I need to formulate a debating technique using the Rules of Sawdust.

- I'll be back.
 
Loss Leader said:
Jabba -

Hope you are having a great day!

Don't you see that in one sentence you've managed to completely confuse two separate concepts? You call the self both an entity and a process. It is not both things.


Just about everyone here agrees with the highlighted words. "Person" or "Self" is a convenient word for the very complicated process of a bunch of cells, working in unison with some other symbiotic species, in a generalized area of a couple square feet. The self/soul/person is the continuing process of all those parts, influenced by all manner of input. I am the four year-old Loss Leader only in that I have some of his memories. I have none of his thoughts or opinions (with the exception of thoughts about my sister of whom I was not in favor of in 1974 and remain unconvinced in 2016).

But you've thrown in the words in red - thing, entity - which are the exact opposite of the definition of a person/soul/self. We are not static things. There is no essential "Loss Leader-ness" that could have been pulled from my four year-old body and matched identically to my 45 year-old shambling wreck of a near-corpse.

Generously, you appear confused about this. The cynic might accuse you of trying to weasel in your "entity" concept so as to make your argument true by definition. Please try to understand this.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this most eloquent post. Too bad it will be ignored!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom