Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
SOdhner,
[...]
- To account for the rise in population over the millennia, we have to posit an infinitely divisible pool of consciousness...
Click to expand...

No we don't We just have to discard the notion of souls (or whatever euphemism you are using) - for which you have no evidence anyway.

Jabba said:
- And then, what about other animals, plants and rocks? And then, what about other planets -- or, other universes? What do we have here? Does science really know what it's talking about?
Click to expand...

Do you know what you're talking about?
 
Jabba said:
yes, if everybody else experiences the same kind of sense of self that I experience, we should each have more than one finite life.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside that you didn't follow his argument to its conclusion and are responding only to the part you liked, you still have the problem of equivocating between the experience and the cause. "Experiences the same kind of sense of self that I experience" is just trying (a little more subtly this time) to sneak the soul into E -- again.

Before you can tell everyone your proof is true, you have to show that you've considered seriously in what ways it may not or cannot be true. You can't do that. You refuse to do that. You've admitted you got this idea when you were a teenager and have clung desperately to it ever sense. It's not an argument you arrived at by reasoning, so it's not an argument you can support with reasoning. More specifically and more to the point: you can't demonstrate that you are capable of conceiving of self-awareness as even remotely possibly anything other than your predetermined immortal soul, which skill is absolutely necessary in the method of proof you've chosen, the one in which you have to fairly evaluate P(E|H). You give evidence that you're literally incapable of imagining how you might be wrong. Tell us again how much more advanced a thinker you must be than your critics?

Sadly now it seems you're projecting onto your critics the denial you've exhibited in roundly ignoring the refutation of your proof. These refutations require you to think outside the bounds of your own theory, something you are increasingly demonstrating you just can't do.

To account for the rise in population over the millennia, we have to posit an infinitely divisible pool of consciousness.
Click to expand...

This is arithmetically incompatible in several ways from your previous claims.

First and most glaring -- you're now considering "consciousness" to be not a set of discrete items (which you needed in order to give rise to your Big Denominator), but rather a substance that can be divided infinitely in order to produce a greater number of allegedly countable objects. That means the number of "potential selves" is not already infinite -- as you claimed -- but instead keeps increasing. You specifically say it has to keep pace with a finite number of incarnations over time. Population is not infinite, nor -- more appropriately -- has ever been infinite. I suppose it would be too much to ask you to specifically repudiate your previous argument based on abstract potentiality in favor of this new theory of a big pile of cookie dough consciousness from which you can slice as many cookies as you need over time.

Honestly, Jabba, you're clearly just making up all this crap as you go, without thinking through whether it helps your case or even makes a lick of sense. And you have the temerity to suggest that your critics are adopting a weak, denial-based rejection of this rather obvious navel-gazing.

Does science really know what it's talking about?
Click to expand...

Yes. And unlike your beliefs, it actually has testable evidence to back up its statements. The problem is that you don't know what science is talking about and are apparently not interested in extending your grasp to understand it.
 
godless dave said:
Science isn't the one positing an infinitely divisible pool of consciousness.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- Some credible scientists are. Try Robert Lanza of Biocentrism, and Beyond Biocentrism. Quantum mechanics is taking us into some strange places.
 
SOdhner said:
Okay it looks like you stopped reading before points 4 and 5...
Click to expand...
- No -- I did read 4 & 5, and even thought that I understood what you were saying. Unfortunately, I don't understand why you think I didn't.
 
SOdhner said:
...
If your argument is based on objective stuff like you say it is, then everyone could make the argument for themselves. I could make your exact same argument, but say that it's about "SOdhner" existing rather than"Jabba". You've provided no reason why it would be valid for YOUR existence but not for someone else's. So then if everyone can make the argument, no specific person is needed. If you, Jabba, did NOT exist then I, SOdhner, could still make the same argument...
Click to expand...
- Yeah.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Some credible scientists are. Try Robert Lanza of Biocentrism, and Beyond Biocentrism. Quantum mechanics is taking us into some strange places.
Click to expand...

Lanza's idea of biocentrism places biology above the other sciences. Have you got any evidence that anything he does supports the crap you post here?

And don't even talk to me about quantum mechanics. I studied that a little in university.

Every crackpot out there puts the word 'quantum' in front of the name of his favorite woo (like quantum dowsing) because they think it makes them look profound and spooky.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- No -- I did read 4 & 5, and even thought that I understood what you were saying. Unfortunately, I don't understand why you think I didn't.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is your entire argumentative line of reasoning is absolute bunk started with a false pretense and you'll be dropping it with an apology? I think we agree that nothing you've said has been a valid argument for anything.
 
Jabba said:
...
- To account for the rise in population over the millennia, we have to posit an infinitely divisible pool of consciousness...
- And then, what about other animals, plants and rocks? And then, what about other planets -- or, other universes? What do we have here? Does science really know what it's talking about?
Click to expand...
SOdhner said:
...
You're getting deep into the weeds there, that's all stuff we could talk about AFTER we establish your premise.
Click to expand...
- To the first sentence, I should have added that more than one of us was Napoleon.
- In the second paragraph, I'm just suggesting how little that science is really sure of.
 
Jabba said:
- I think I agree.
Click to expand...

Okay cool. So then the problem with your argument is that it doesn't matter which "potential self" becomes an "actual self". If anyone exists at all, then your argument applies.

Take that to the next logical step. Why just humans? While they couldn't be expected to actually formulate your argument themselves, any animal would still be covered by it. After all, if it is based in the objective logic you say it is then it applies equally to all things. A gorilla wouldn't understand your argument but that doesn't mean it wouldn't still be true for a gorilla.

Then take it to the next step. Why just animals? If all we're talking about is how likely something is to exist, then it applies to other things as well, right?

So your argument becomes: If anything exists, I'm immortal.
 
Jabba said:
- [...]
- In the second paragraph, I'm just suggesting how little that science is really sure of.
Click to expand...

I've heard it a thousand times: "Science doesn't have all the answers, therefore my woo-woo crackpot idea is as valid as any in science. "

You're really going down that road, aren't you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom