Proof of Immortality, VI

[JayUtah]

I've explained over and over again why I don't call it a soul -- I think that would be begging the question.

It still is begging the question. You can't escape that simply by not using the word that refers to the concept you're trying to foist.

I think everyone here thinks that I'm begging the question anyway. Everyone but me.

Yes, you are begging the question, and in you're in deep denial over it. Or more likely, you hope you can get away with it via bluster and gaslighting.

 

[Mojo]

- I've explained over and over again why I don't call it a soul -- I think that would be begging the question.

As long as you are introducing an immaterial entity into your premises you are begging the question. Whatever you call it. It's your use of the concept that means you are begging the question, not the terminology.

- I think everyone here thinks that I'm begging the question anyway.

Yes, you were rumbled very early in the proceedings.

Everyone but me.

As Feynman said, "you are the easiest person to fool".

 

[JayUtah]

Jesse,
- According to Hawking, and others, 'before' the Big Bang, there was a singularity, in which, there were no laws of physics.

In physics there is no "before" the Big Bang. Congratulations on finding another irrelevant point to quibble over. Do you think you can make it last more than a day? Two days?

You missed the operative point entirely: however you want to slice the nuances in understanding of Big Bang cosmology, they apply equally to mountains and to people. You don't get to start the clock in different places so that you can argue the probabilities come up differently.

 

[Jabba]

The point is, the same rules apply to mount Rainier as apply to humans. I notice you ignored my other point.

jond,
- Ultimately, they do (at least in a sense) -- but the rules are ultimately conditional.
- I didn't ignore your second point -- I try to deal with only one point at a time (though, I'm often 'seduced' into dealing with more -- as I am now), and others have a lot of points also.

 

[theprestige]

Robo,
- I've explained over and over again why I don't call it a soul -- I think that would be begging the question.
- I think everyone here thinks that I'm begging the question anyway. Everyone but me.

It's not your terminology that begs the question; it's the form of your argument that begs the question.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[JayUtah]

Ultimately, they do (at least in a sense) -- but the rules are ultimately conditional.

No, they are not. Specifically they are not conditioned upon concepts that don't exist in materialism and for which you seem to demand acceptance without proof. There is no "condition" to the laws of the universe that means you get to treat humans differently than every other product of the material universe.

I try to deal with only one point at a time (though, I'm often 'seduced' into dealing with more -- as I am now), and others have a lot of points also.

No, your wandering from point to point has nothing to do with your critics. Stop blaming them for everything. Further, you have a well-established history of using the "one point at a time" imposition to squelch debate on the parts of your argument you know are problematic but don't seem to want to face. As such, your critics are not especially bound by your desire to set an agenda that avoids testing your argument.

 

[jond]

jond,
- Ultimately, they do (at least in a sense) -- but the rules are ultimately conditional.
- I didn't ignore your second point -- I try to deal with only one point at a time (though, I'm often 'seduced' into dealing with more -- as I am now), and others have a lot of points also.

So deal with it now, then. Because it's the crucial piece that you refuse to address. Which is: under H, the self is an emergent property of a functioning brain, not a separate item.

 

[JesseCuster]

Jesse,
- According to Hawking, and others, 'before' the Big Bang, there was a singularity, in which, there were no laws of physics.

This doesn't help your case at all however.

If there are no laws of physics at the singularity, such that Mount Rainier is incredibly unlikely to happen, then that almost means that you are incredibly unlikely to happen.

If at some point after the singularity, the laws of physics arise such that the universe unfolds with predictable determinism, then Mount Rainier, then you, as part of the universe, will also arise with predictable determinism.

You can't eat your cake and have it too. These arguments about the likelihood of Mount Rainier apply equally

Your only recourse is to try and special plead that humans are special and that while physics might determine 'what' we are, it doesn't determine 'who' we are. Whatever that means. Assuming that the 'who' you're referring to is the same 'self' that we've been discussing, then the laws of nature that give rise to our physical being, also gives rise to our selves, because our selves are emergent properties of our physical beings. So 'who' we are is as much determined by the laws of physics as 'what' we are.

If you want to argue that the laws of physics that give rise to our physical bodies don't give rise to the properties of said physical bodies, then you've got to actually argue that. You can't just assert it as fact (another one of your 'claims') and hope to get away with it. You need to back it up with evidence and a rationale if you want it to be entered into your argument.

So Jabba, do you want to actually argue that the laws of physics gives rise to our bodies but doesn't give rise to properties of our bodies, like selves? You can't just assert that it's true and expect to get away with it, and you've got your work cut out if you're going to try and argue that case.

 

[JesseCuster]

Robo,
- I've explained over and over again why I don't call it a soul -- I think that would be begging the question.

Interesting choice of words. You don't call it a soul because that would be begging the question?

That's almost like an admission that you're question begging, but you're trying to get round it on a technicality by not using the word soul. Well, you can call it a self, a who, or whatever you want, it doesn't cease to be question begging just because you give souls a new name.

 

[Jabba]

I thought we were calculating from the beginning of the universe. P(E|G) would approach 1.00 as the date approached 480,000 BC. Just as P(E|H) would approach 1.00 as the date approached your birth date.

Dave,
- How about this?
- Per usual, I'm saying that this is complicated.
- I'm claiming that P(E|G) for Rainier is not small in the way that matters -- but that, even if it were, Rainier is not set apart from other geological forms in a way that is meaningful re G.

 

[Jabba]

Interesting choice of words. You don't call it a soul because that would be begging the question?

That's almost like an admission that you're question begging, but you're trying to get round it on a technicality by not using the word soul. Well, you can call it a self, a who, or whatever you want, it doesn't cease to be question begging just because you give souls a new name.

- As I see it, "souls" implies immortality; "selves" does not.

 

[JesseCuster]

jond,
- Ultimately, they do (at least in a sense) -- but the rules are ultimately conditional.

And what are those conditions such that the rules apply to Mount Rainier but not to humans?

Explain your reasoning for why these conditions mean that the rules don't apply to humans.

Just stating that humans are conscious, or humans have selves, or whatever, doesn't cut the mustard. You need to explain why that means that the rules then don't apply.

You keep coming up with arguments that, if taken to their logical conclusion, actually state that you are as likely as unlikely as Mount Rainier, that Volkswagens are as immortal as humans, etc. But because your arguments lend themselves to such unwanted conclusion, you keep resorting to special pleading such that humans and those other things are different, so the argument applies to one but not the other.

But you're not explaining why having a self means that your mathematics doesn't result in a conclusion of immortal bananas. Or why you're no more special than a mountain.

You just state that humans have selves and think that somehow solves the problem. And then blame others for not understanding you, or being biased, etc. Instead of just fleshing out an actual argument for why being conscious or having a self matters to your argument.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- How about this?
- Per usual, I'm saying that this is complicated.
- I'm claiming that P(E|G) for Rainier is not small in the way that matters -- but that, even if it were, Rainier is not set apart from other geological forms in a way that is meaningful re G.

Of course it is. Can you identify it by looking at it's unique SHAPE? How about it's sister to the south, Mount St. Helens? How about it's sister further to the south, Mount Hood?

 

[JesseCuster]

Dave,
- How about this?
- Per usual, I'm saying that this is complicated.
- I'm claiming that P(E|G) for Rainier is not small in the way that matters -- but that, even if it were, Rainier is not set apart from other geological forms in a way that is meaningful re G.

What does 'small in the way that matters' mean? Can you expand upon this?

How do you determine in what ways something needs to be set apart from other things in order for it to be 'meaningful'? How do you quantify such a thing? Mount Rainier is unique. No other mountain is exactly like it. No matter occupies the same space as it. Why doesn't that meaningfully set it apart from other mountains? Can you actually explain why instead of simply asserting that it just isn't?

 

[Jabba]

This doesn't help your case at all however.

If there are no laws of physics at the singularity, such that Mount Rainier is incredibly unlikely to happen, then that almost means that you are incredibly unlikely to happen.

If at some point after the singularity, the laws of physics arise such that the universe unfolds with predictable determinism, then Mount Rainier, then you, as part of the universe, will also arise with predictable determinism.

You can't eat your cake and have it too. These arguments about the likelihood of Mount Rainier apply equally...

- One point at a time.
- First of all, I don't know if there is such a thing as "free will" -- but if there is, it doesn't apply to Mt Rainier. If there is such a thing, I assume that it applies only to humans...
- My next premise is that the laws of physics apply to what we are, but if they apply to who we are, we have no idea how they do it, and we're stuck with chance even after the big bang -- i.e., P(E|H)=7X10⁹/10¹⁰⁰.

 

[jond]

- One point at a time.
- First of all, I don't know if there is such a thing as "free will" -- but if there is, it doesn't apply to Mt Rainier. If there is such a thing, I assume that it applies only to humans...
- My next premise is that the laws of physics apply to what we are, but if they apply to who we are, we have no idea how they do it, and we're stuck with chance even after the big bang -- i.e., P(E|H)=7X10⁹/10¹⁰⁰.

- why wouldn't free will apply to dogs?

- no, under materialism (the H you're trying to disprove), the Who is determined by your functioning brain, and every experience you have helps shape your Who. You are correct that we don't yet know how the brain does this, but we certainly know that it is directly involved. Which means that, under H, your Who is exactly the same likelihood as your What.

 

[Jabba]

What does 'small in the way that matters' mean? Can you expand upon this?

How do you determine in what ways something needs to be set apart from other things in order for it to be 'meaningful'? How do you quantify such a thing? Mount Rainier is unique. No other mountain is exactly like it. No matter occupies the same space as it. Why doesn't that meaningfully set it apart from other mountains? Can you actually explain why instead of simply asserting that it just isn't?

Jesse,
- It needs to be set apart from other geological formations re the hypothesis that their shapes are determined by the laws of physics.
- The example of "setting apart" to which I usually refer is when the winner of the lottery happens to be a second cousin to the controller of the lottery. In the case of the lottery, we have evidence that the winner was not the result of the lottery hypothesis -- chance.

 

[godless dave]

- Over and over again, I've tried to communicate this difference I perceive. Again, I seem to be running out of steam re this sub-issue.

Maybe you should try to think through why you perceive a difference and see if maybe you are mistaken.

 

[godless dave]

- As I see it, "souls" implies immortality; "selves" does not.

"Self" the way you've been using it implies immateriality. I don't subscribe to a model where selves are immaterial. Most of the other posters on this thread don't either. You know this because we've discussed it repeatedly.

From your last few posts it seems like you're still trying to disprove (or essentially disprove) a model where selves are immaterial and mortal. Why bother when you already know we don't subscribe to that model?

 

[godless dave]

Of course it is. Can you identify it by looking at it's unique SHAPE? How about it's sister to the south, Mount St. Helens? How about it's sister further to the south, Mount Hood?

Even two identically shaped mountains would be two mountains, not the same mountain in two locations.