Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[theprestige]

Aren't you getting tired of making stuff up as you go?


I mean, unless you're writing fiction, that is.

Even fiction writers generally try to come up with a coherent narrative and then stay internally consistent with it. Making stuff up as you go is the enemy of a good story.

 

[Jabba]

So is the likelihood of a particular brain existing some number over infinity?

Dave,
- Yes.

 

[godless dave]

So should we doubt the scientific hypothesis explaining the existence of human brains?

 

[Jabba]

So should we doubt the scientific hypothesis explaining the existence of human brains?

Dave,
No. The brain is a pile of parts -- just like Rainier.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
No. The brain is a pile of parts -- just like Rainier.

Then we shouldn't doubt the scientific hypothesis for the existence of your self, since it's the same hypothesis.

 

[JayUtah]

Dave,
- Yes [the probability of a brain existing is a real number divided by infinity, i.e., zero].

Dave,
No. The brain is a pile of parts -- just like Rainier.

This is exactly the fallacy of special pleading. Textbook definition.

Under H the self is identical to consciousness, which is an emergent property of a functioning brain. You've shown no qualitative reason that science should consider anything else. Your "computation" of probability works out the same for H as for ~H, so probability is definitely not a viable factor in your proof.

You're down to simply claiming the soul exists "because."

 

[Jabba]

Then we shouldn't doubt the scientific hypothesis for the existence of your self, since it's the same hypothesis.

Dave,
- No.
- My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- No.
- My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts.

Then you are claiming that your "self" is not an emergent property. Which means you need to demonstrate the existence of this self that exists separate from your brain.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- No.
- My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts.

That doesn't matter. The self comes from the pile of parts. The explanation of where the pile of parts comes from also explains where the self comes from.

 

[abaddon]

Dave,
- No.
- My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts.

An emergent property is not a "pile of parts".

 

[JayUtah]

- My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts.

That is not the scientific hypothesis. The scientific hypothesis is that the self is identical to consciousness, and is an emergent property of the organism -- that "pile of parts."

If even giant red letters can't help you address the blatant straw man, then it's clear this thread is a debate in name only.

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave,
- No.
- My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts.

Awesome, now all you have to do is prove it.

 

[JayUtah]

Awesome, now all you have to do is prove it.

And let's be clear what this means. We're talking about H, the scientific hypothesis.

For some h in ~H, Jabba can invent whatever he wants. His hypothesis varies around the notion that the self is some ineffable aspect or component of the entire person and that it can exist separately from the body and thus persist after death.

But for H, the scientific hypothesis, he can't just make up a bunch of pseudo-philosophical nonsense and expect that to stand. H has to be what skeptics, scientists, etc. actually conclude. You can't tell someone what his belief has to be in order to make it easier for you to refute. That's exactly the straw man fallacy.

Jabba has to show that whatever he says is part of H is actually what scientists theorize, not what he desperately wishes H were.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Hell forget "prove it" show even the tinniest, tiniest, most basic shred of basic evidence for it's bare possibility.

 

[abaddon]

Hell forget "prove it" show even the tinniest, tiniest, most basic shred of basic evidence for it's bare possibility.

Dividing by infinity makes any claim valid, if one is let away with it.

 

[JayUtah]

Hell forget "prove it" show even the tinniest, tiniest, most basic shred of basic evidence for it's bare possibility.

And we're still speaking under the terms of H, so it has to be a shred of evidence for its possibility under the scientific model of consciousness. Not to be pedantic, but Jabba usually gets two or three pages of equivocation out of flip-flopping between talking about his ill-formed claim of an immortal soul and his straw-man foist over the top of the scientific hypothesis.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
No. The brain is a pile of parts -- just like Rainier.

Jabba -

Even this statement is just not true. Mt. Rainier is an emergent property of a functioning ecosystem. Tectonic plates move, water and wind erode surfaces. Animals and birds scatter seeds, plants root, people hike up and down, even worms under the soil turn and soften it. Mt. Rainier looks different today that it did yesterday and even more different than it did thirty years ago. It is not a pile of parts any more or less than you are.

 

[Jabba]

That doesn't matter. The self comes from the pile of parts. The explanation of where the pile of parts comes from also explains where the self comes from.

Dave,
- Would you accept that the self is an emergent property?

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- Would you accept that the self is an emergent property?

Are you about to put words in someone's mouth again?

 

[jond]

Dave,
- Would you accept that the self is an emergent property?

Everyone has been telling you that. The problem is that you don't understand what an emergent property is.