Proof of Immortality, VI

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- I've tried multiple times. That's why I tried to denote self as that which reincarnationists think comes back to life,

Except that's not a definition. There are many types of reincarnationists who believe all manner of things.

What is this "self"? When does it form? Does it change over your lifetime? Does it have likes and dislikes? Does it love individual people? Does it have a memory? Can it be studied or tested?

- How about the barer of consciousness? The 'thing' that recognizes or experiences existence. Whatever it is that is aware.

That's an illusion created by a working neurosystem. It doesn't exist.

 

[abaddon]

LL,
- I've tried multiple times.

And failed dismally at every attempt. Why is it that you are unable to define what ever nonsense?

That's why I tried to denote self as that which reincarnationists think comes back to life, or that which would be looking out two sets of eyes if it were actually duplicated.

Not this crap yet again. Five years of explaining to you why this is flat out wrong and still nothing from you.

At this point, you are claiming that Christianity is fundamentally wrong and Buddhism is correct. Are you sure you want to do that?

- How about the barer of consciousness? The 'thing' that recognizes or experiences existence. Whatever it is that is aware.

That would be a brain process. An entirely material process.

At this point it would not surprise be if you endorsed Sikhism. You simply do not care what belief you endorse even if it conflicts with your own.

And that said, at this point, it is unclear what on earth you really believe. You have endorsed so many conflicting faiths at this point that this whole thread has become a nonsense.

You are so all over the place at this point that nobody can tell what you believe.

Are you a christian? A muslim? a Jain? Evangelical? a JW?, a Mormon? an RCC, something else?

At this point, you have taken all of these positions at various times. What on earth is your actual position? And why is it that you cannot say? Are you ashamed of whatever it is you believe? Do you really need to appeal to non-christian religions? Really?

 

[Belz...]

Only if it has four legs.

- I'll be back.

 

[Belz...]

Toon,
- I don't know if you were being serious or not -- but, that is at least sort of where I think I'm at.
- I perceive the self as something that the vast majority of us take totally for granted when it's really the very last 'thing' we should take for granted. I think that scientifically speaking it's a total miracle. So far, I think it simply defies science.
- I had run into Taoism back in college and sort of fell in love, but hadn't consulted it since, and couldn't remember why I thought so highly of it back then. Thanks for reminding me.

It's amazing that after five years you're still at the starting line.

 

[John Jones]

LL,
- I've tried multiple times. That's why I tried to denote self as that which reincarnationists think comes back to life, or that which would be looking out two sets of eyes if it were actually duplicated.

Actually, you've tried to avoid defining it countless times these 5 years. Vaguely defining it now as something some nebulous groups say means you have nothing but a lame excuse for a definition.

And stop with this 'looking out of two sets of eyes" drivel. That makes no objective sense that you have ever related.

- How about the barer of consciousness? The 'thing' that recognizes or experiences existence. Whatever it is that is aware.

You mean the brain and its emergent properties? That has been cleared up for at least 4 of the last 5 years.

 

[godless dave]

LL,
- I've tried multiple times. That's why I tried to denote self as that which reincarnationists think comes back to life, or that which would be looking out two sets of eyes if it were actually duplicated.
- How about the barer of consciousness? The 'thing' that recognizes or experiences existence. Whatever it is that is aware.

Jabba, you seem to be implying that this:

- How about the barer of consciousness? The 'thing' that recognizes or experiences existence. Whatever it is that is aware.

suggests this:

that which would be looking out two sets of eyes if it were actually duplicated.

Can you explain why the one suggests the other to you?

 

[Toontown]

Actually, what they say is "The Tao that can be described is not the true Tao."

Maybe Jabba has found the true Tao. And can't describe it.

Toon,
- I don't know if you were being serious or not -- but, that is at least sort of where I think I'm at.
- I perceive the self as something that the vast majority of us take totally for granted when it's really the very last 'thing' we should take for granted. I think that scientifically speaking it's a total miracle. So far, I think it simply defies science.
- I had run into Taoism back in college and sort of fell in love, but hadn't consulted it since, and couldn't remember why I thought so highly of it back then. Thanks for reminding me.

We are living in times in which many people, including our president, are bent on having adversarial relationships with facts. We are gathered here today, posting in a forum existing in that world. A forum in which people gather to take issue with beliefs, and yes, even facts.

In these headache-inducing times, I tend to avoid being serious about anything that isn't manifestly evident or at least settled science. For example, I'm dead serious when I say the sun rises in the east.

I recon the Taoist who made that remark was expressing something that is evidenced in the way our brains deal with reality.

Long story short, our entire experience of reality is a simulation, created unconsciously by our brains. For example, when you see the color yellow, that does not mean the light your eyes are detecting is yellow. It means the light has a particular wave length that your brain is wired to simulate as yellow. So yellow is really a distance.

The fact that our brains create these simulations tells me that our conscious minds cannot deal efficiently with reality in it's actual forms. We need simplified simulations of reality.

So, yeah. The Tao that can be described is not the true Tao. I'm serious.

 

[John Jones]

[...]

So, yeah. The Tao that can be described is not the true Tao. I'm serious.

Roll another one,
Just like the other one.
You been holding onto it,
And I sure would like a hit!

Don't bogart that joint my friend,
Pass it over to me!
Don't bogart that joint my friend,
Pass it over to me!

 

[Mojo]

- I perceive the self as something that the vast majority of us take totally for granted when it's really the very last 'thing' we should take for granted. I think that scientifically speaking it's a total miracle. So far, I think it simply defies science.

And once again you are simply begging the question.

 

[Mojo]

- I've tried multiple times. That's why I tried to denote self as that which reincarnationists think comes back to life, or that which would be looking out two sets of eyes if it were actually duplicated.

Jabba, if something has been duplicated, how many of them are there?

 

[Hokulele]

- How about the barer of consciousness? The 'thing' that recognizes or experiences existence. Whatever it is that is aware.

Under materialism, there is no such 'thing'. It is a product of a working brain. Why do you believe it is a thing, and not a process?

 

[zooterkin]

.
- How about the barer of consciousness? The 'thing' that recognizes or experiences existence. Whatever it is that is aware.

Not that one makes much more sense than the other, but do you mean 'barer' or 'bearer'?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba, if something has been duplicated, how many of them are there?

This is really getting crazy. We're essentially at the level of "Jabba do you understand that 1 and 2 aren't the same number?"

 

[The Sparrow]

Well, he is trying to define something into existence, so he can use it in another inference...to PROVE immortality.

 

[zooterkin]

This is really getting crazy. We're essentially at the level of "Jabba do you understand that 1 and 2 aren't the same number?"

Well if they are identical, then they are the same. If they're the same thing, then there's only one of them. Conversely, if they're not the same thing, they must be different, so they're not identical (and that's where the soul is).

Or something.

 

[Mojo]

This is really getting crazy. We're essentially at the level of "Jabba do you understand that 1 and 2 aren't the same number?"

We've been there for quite some time, possibly years, and he has so far posted nothing that suggests that he does. He just avoids the question.

 

[Jabba]

Dave and others,
- Here's what I think. Maybe, this organization will help us to identify our exact disagreements -- which I think would be very useful.

1. According to modern science, we each should have only one finite life to live, at most -- "OOFLam."
2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.
3. Most scientists would include "at most" because they don't think that any of us ever had to exist.
4. Under that hypothesis, my current existence is EXTREMELY unlikely.
5. But here I am!
6. Given the "right" conditions, the fact that I do currently exist is EXTREMELY strong evidence that OOFLam is wrong.
7. Often, however, all of the alternative possible results/events produced by the particular situation are extremely unlikely -- in such a case, the unlikelihood of the particular event produced is not evidence against the hypothesis.
8. In such a case, in order to be evidence against the hypothesis, the particular event needs to be "set apart" from most of the other possible results in a way that is meaningful to the particular hypothesis. A good example is when a lottery is won by the second cousin of the lottery controller.
9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.
10. That is the case.

- I think that we disagree to some extent in regard to #4 (you may not agree with the extent to which I think I am unlikely) and totally in regard to #10 (you figure that I am not meaningfully set apart from most other existing selves.)

 

[godless dave]

Dave and others,
- Here's what I think. Maybe, this organization will help us to identify our exact disagreements -- which I think would be very useful.

1. According to modern science, we each should have only one finite life to live, at most -- "OOFLam."
2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.
3. Most scientists would include "at most" because they don't think that any of us ever had to exist.
4. Under that hypothesis, my current existence is EXTREMELY unlikely.
5. But here I am!
6. Given the "right" conditions, the fact that I do currently exist is EXTREMELY strong evidence that OOFLam is wrong.
7. Often, however, all of the alternative possible results/events produced by the particular situation are extremely unlikely -- in such a case, the unlikelihood of the particular event produced is not evidence against the hypothesis.
8. In such a case, in order to be evidence against the hypothesis, the particular event needs to be "set apart" from most of the other possible results in a way that is meaningful to the particular hypothesis. A good example is when a lottery is won by the second cousin of the lottery controller.
9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.
10. That is the case.

- I think that we disagree to some extent in regard to #4 (you may not agree with the extent to which I think I am unlikely) and totally in regard to #10 (you figure that I am not meaningfully set apart from most other existing selves.)

We also disagree on #6. And also #3 because "at most" is redundant.

But we already all knew all this, so I don't know why you bothered posting it.

You started a discussion on what we all experience that we call the "self". You got several answers. Did you intend to continue that discussion? Are you satisfied that we apparently all have the same experience of a self?

 

[Mojo]

Jabba has also failed to provide any evidence that he is the real Jabba and not one of the infinite number of other potential Jabbas, so #5 is unsupported.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave and others,
- Here's what I think. Maybe, this organization will help us to identify our exact disagreements -- which I think would be very useful.

1. According to modern science, we each should have only one finite life to live, at most -- "OOFLam."
2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.
3. Most scientists would include "at most" because they don't think that any of us ever had to exist.
4. Under that hypothesis, my current existence is EXTREMELY unlikely.
5. But here I am!
6. Given the "right" conditions, the fact that I do currently exist is EXTREMELY strong evidence that OOFLam is wrong.
7. Often, however, all of the alternative possible results/events produced by the particular situation are extremely unlikely -- in such a case, the unlikelihood of the particular event produced is not evidence against the hypothesis.
8. In such a case, in order to be evidence against the hypothesis, the particular event needs to be "set apart" from most of the other possible results in a way that is meaningful to the particular hypothesis. A good example is when a lottery is won by the second cousin of the lottery controller.
9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.
10. That is the case.

- I think that we disagree to some extent in regard to #4 (you may not agree with the extent to which I think I am unlikely) and totally in regard to #10 (you figure that I am not meaningfully set apart from most other existing selves.)

Why not address the innumerable detailed rebuttals you've already gotten? An honest and well-educated claimant would.