iyo, what %age of ppl will consider this a sound sufficient full satisfactory proof of immortality?

Question

the same thing in the same time period cannot both change and completely not change - therefore if x changes and y does not change in the same time period, we can conclude certainly that x and y are not the same thing - the body [and personality moods memory knowledge] change during life, but that invisible nonthing you nonetheless easily identify as you, your self, does not change - the body can lose limbs and the self is not diminished, the self is still full self - therefore the body and the self are different things not the same thing - all bodies are subject to constant change [spinning of electrons, jigging around of atoms], therefore the self is not a body, the self is a bodiless changeless invisible [non]thing
[the self is also featureless partless characterless formless sizeless placeless [altho it seems to be associated with the body's place bc we are constantly experiencing world thru body senses] timeless [because changeless] ie, = energy singularity infinity worldseed]

Answer 1

Wow, that is very interesting, and sounds correct. But I find one flaw in it, you assume that people do have a self, that people have a soul. But there is no proof or good argument for it, or against it. But I do like the logic of this argument, it is very good!

Answer 2

I disagree with your conclusion regarding the "invisible nonthing." In man, the invisible is actually the substance of the man, and is changing from learned lessons in life, and keeps changing until there is no more need to change. Changes in the body are do to thought, some conscious and some not. You have to think of running before the body can run for you. Here, it appears that the "self" is the body as well, for without the self, the body is nothing, no smile, no tear, nothing. So I do not see proof of immortality in the "seeming self" that appears now, because "self" includes a physical form which is not immortal.

Answer 3

umm.. people do change their images of themselves, so that premise is wrong. And bodies can lose an arm and you are still yourself, but if you lose a frontal lobe, then you would not be recognizable as yourself. So, your 'self' is in fact connected with a physical part of your body. So that premise is wrong, also.
So, there is no evidence - at least you didnt supply any - that any self exists apart from the body. So, the premise that we are immortal is certainly not supported in any way by these rather trivial and faulty arguments.

Nice thinking with you. :)