Proof of Immortality, VII

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by godless dave

It's not "my" way. It's the scientific model of human consciousness. It's not something I just made up.

Okay we say that but we've been tricked into a level, tone, and language that... well says that's not true.

By letting the very concept of "Materialism" become such a talking point that we keep coming back to we have presented "Reality is a thing" as just another opinion we're defending.

Again we've let Jabba and a handful of pedantic hangers on goad us into a in a discussion where "Reality exists" is just another subjective POV.

Again we need to stop letting Jabba and the varsity pedantic run in squad force us into an argument where we can't use reality as a valid concept.

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Re #1: Can you replace "selves" with "self-awarenesses"

No. You may not.

Jabba I know you are totally beyond understanding how rude you are being but no. You have to address your opponents arguments, not the arguments you wish they had made because that makes your job easier.

Again Jabba we're not actors in your play. Our job here is not to make your arguing your nonsense as easy on you as possible.

It's frustrating enough when you are discussing something with someone that thinks the only way to argue with someone is to trick them into a "gotcha." It's even worse when the person sucks at it.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Ah, you forget the claimed army of silent, lurking supporters Jabba claims to have. What effect will this have on those?

I guess we'll just have to sing the Marseillaise.

Ok I'll stop with the Casablanca references.

[SOdhner]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Jabba I know you are totally beyond understanding how rude you are being but no. You have to address your opponents arguments, not the arguments you wish they had made because that makes your job easier.

I'll have to agree that it's extremely rude.

It's disrespectful of the time and effort everyone has put into addressing this topic that Jabba asked for input on.

[The Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I guess we'll just have to sing the Marseillaise.

Ok I'll stop with the Casablanca references.

No, please continue. Not much else worthwhile is going on in this thread

[Filippo Lippi]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Ah, you forget the claimed army of silent, lurking supporters Jabba claims to have. What effect will this have on those?

It's an army of one thousand Jabba clones and Jabba can see through all one thousand pairs of eyes, all reading this thread. He'd have them register and post their support, but, unfortunately, they share his email address.

[The Sparrow]

Jabba...

“You know how you sound…? Like a man who’s trying to convince himself of something he doesn’t believe in his heart.”

/Casablanca

[Belz...]

I think deep down, jabba's a rank sentimentalist.

[The Sparrow]

Jabba

"it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you’ll understand that.”

In other words, the universe doesn't care about your childish desire to never die.

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Up to this point, we agree, especially the last statement.

And this is where we disagree. Putting myself in the same place, I see no reason to be shocked that I exist rather than someone very much like me but in some significant ways different.

Assuming the prevailing materialistic explanation of your existence:

You shouldn't see any reason to be shocked that you exist rather than someone else. You should, however, be shocked that you exist at all.

You should not, however, be shocked that other equally unlikely things exist, unless the existence of the universe shocks you.

The fact that one of those immensely unlikely things is "you" gives you a specific perspective, which gives rise to probabilistic significance.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Suppose you were transported to an alternate universe where the only difference was, say, that I preferred cheddar to other kinds of cheese; would that be a more, less, or equally likely probability universe than the one we live in?

If you don't think your specific body is the only one that could be you, then you are repeatable, therefore immortal in a sense.

If you do think that body is the only body that could be you, then the probability of an alternate universe in which you exist is zero. That specific body is part of this universe and no other.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I would submit that it would be roughly the same probability, therefore there is no particular reason why one should have been preferred over another.

See above. The probability that your specific body could be in another place, time, or universe is zero. A specific body is part and parcel of the specific universe that gave rise to it.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

By extension, none of the other possible variations on who I could have been are particularly more or less likely, so there's no reason to be surprised that I ended up as this particular "me."

If other bodies can be "you", then you can exist more than once. If we are part of an eternally inflating multiverse, as existing theory suggests, then you would be essentially immortal - again, if other bodies can be "you".

If you believe no other body could ever be "you", then you should be shocked that "you" exist at all.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

That, I think, is the gist of what Jabba is trying to get at with his infinite pool of potential selves; the question of "Why did I end up as this specific self?" The answer to this is, quite simply, "Why not?"

Dave

If you believe that, then you are flirting with immortality yourself.

[Monza]

I thought I made a good analogy (as did many others) quite a while ago when we were talking about VWs. (As an aside, we've gone through VWs, Mt. Rainier, bread...) I mentioned a famous VW named Herbie. This vehicle was driven by actor Dean Jones through the streets of Monte Carlo and immortalized on film. If that VW were parked at an auto show, many people would take pictures of it, want to touch it, and tell their friends they saw it.*

An exact duplicate of this VW would not be treated the same, assuming that it was known that this was a duplicate. If someone said they had a replica of Herbie, it would not garner the same level of excitement. Yet if you put these two vehicles next to each other, no one would be able to tell one from the other. So what makes the original Herbie VW so special? Simply human sentimentality. There is no other difference, by definition of this thought experiment. If the two vehicles were moved around and no one was keeping track of which was the original, then we could never know. This information would be lost forever. The original Herbie would have lost its sentimentality. People could take their picture with either Herbie and it wouldn't matter with which one.

It is the same for human brains. Jabba is stuck on the fact the the copy wouldn't be him and that is the difference. But by definition, the copy is thinking the same thing. Neither Jabba nor the copy would know which one they were. As they each moved on with their lives, no one would ever know. There would be two Jabbas, each as valid as the other. The copy would be every bit Jabba as the other one. He doesn't understand that the copy would have independent thoughts in his (the copy's) head thinking, "I'm Jabba. I'm meeeeeee. The other guy is a copy. I'm different."

In every duplication thought experiment we have brought up, Jabba continues with his assertion that the difference is that the first one was the fiiiiiiiirst one and that this it is significant.







* Some time ago I read about someone saying that we place undue importance on people and objects that are on TV. As an example, a grapefruit is benign and doesn't hold much interest for people in general. But if we broadcast a live image of this grapefruit for 30 minutes a day and called it The Grapefruit Show, people would place importance on it. The grapefruit could be taken on a national tour and people would see it and say excitedly, "That's the grapefruit from TV!"

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by godless dave

1) I could but it wouldn't make a difference.



2) You can't find anything on Google supporting the claim that the scientific explanation for consciousness is that it arises from a living brain?

3) What about the books on consciousness you read?

Dave,
- Re #1: OK.
- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.
- Re #3: The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Jabba

The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!

Read better books.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Jabba

I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.

That's because, as we have repeatedly been telling you, such individualized specificity of the process as you propose it is not a concept in the scientific model. Now do you believe us?

Quote:

The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!

Name the books.

All the books you've cited before on various subjects related to this debate have been "woo" books, so we don't trust that you've done actual scientific homework.

[jond]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- Re #1: OK.
- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.
- Re #3: The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!

The mystery is HOW the brain does it, not whether or not it does. But you ignore that like you ignore everything you find inconvenient.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- Re #1: OK.
- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.

That's because it's an idiotic application of the word "specific" to what you've called a process. I think you agree with me on that.

Quote:

- Re #3: The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!

Maybe you should falsify the materialist model as it's given rather than one you dishonestly create?

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.

Jabba -

I know exactly how you feel. I can't find anything on Google discussing how butterflies operate forklifts. Nobody talks about forklift operation by BUTTERFLIES.

[ferd burfle]

Originally Posted by Jabba

But also, as noted previously, I'm happy to treat it your way -- that your particular self-awareness was determined by your particular sperm and ovum and...

Nice one, Jabba, you almost slipped this one by by avoiding use of “agree” in any of its forms! But you couldn’t get it past Jay.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

That's your way, not our way. You're constantly trying to introduce inappropriate terminology like "particular" and "specific" to beg the notion that self-awareness is an entity.

And had I not been one the other side of the world, sleeping, I would have busted you on it. The main reason I’ve followed this thread is to play spot-the-fallacy. These days it’s become more a game of spot-the-dishonesty.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

The typo didn't help. Should be "winnings".

Great flick.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- No -- but, the only differences (I think) would be time, space and specific atoms.

- The new brain would be different in all those respects -- but, it would also be different in its emergent property of self-awareness (a different specific self-awareness), even though there would be no difference in the chemistry of the two brains. The bread involves nothing analogous to your self-awareness.

- But also, as noted previously, I'm happy to treat it your way -- that your particular self-awareness was determined by your particular sperm and ovum and the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self-awareness is still something like 1/10¹⁰⁰.

Stop straw manning, equivocating, and pulling numbers out of your nether regions. Five years of this is too much.

[JoeMorgue]

I'd love to get an answer out of Jabba as to what he can possibly get out of this discussion.

Even if we all just magically start agreeing with him, even if his goal is to just quote mine us for his "roadmap" nonsense.

Even if this is trolling it's weird.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by Jabba

[...]
- Re #2: I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I can't find anything on Google making that claim.

I can't find anything on Google supporting your claims about immortality. /thread.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.

Of course if you look for something no one is arguing for, you won't find anything.

You continue to substitute your own words and concepts for those of people who are arguing with you here. Why do you do that, if not to deliberatey misrepresent?

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Ah, you forget the claimed army of silent, lurking supporters Jabba claims to have. What effect will this have on those?

Oh yeah. That army of lurkers. What ever happened to them?

Curley? Larry? Moe? Sing out!

[JoeMorgue]

There I guess that solves that.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Toontown

You shouldn't see any reason to be shocked that you exist rather than someone else. You should, however, be shocked that you exist at all.

No, I shouldn't; that would be a prima facie example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. But in any case that's irrelevant, because it's not Jabba's argument; his entire "infinite pool of selves" concept is intended to address the fact that he exists rather than someone else.

Originally Posted by Toontown

The fact that one of those immensely unlikely things is "you" gives you a specific perspective, which gives rise to probabilistic significance.

No, it doesn't. To go back to your Putin analogy, "People whom Vladimir Putin want dead" is an a priori specification, and "people who are me" an a posteriori specification, when discussing the probability of there being a person who is me. Probabilistic significance requires an a priori specification.

Originally Posted by Toontown

If you don't think your specific body is the only one that could be you, then you are repeatable, therefore immortal in a sense.

And this is stretching definitions beyond breaking point. "Immortal" does not mean "capable of being reproduced," it means that the process of the self does not terminate. If your argument is based on redefining words then it's no more valid than if you redefined "Immortal" to mean "a pale shade of purple grey."

Dave

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Jabba

...
- Re #3: The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!

Yeah! Reader's Digest, which books and volumes?

Do you think we're that gullible?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- Re #1: OK.
- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.
- Re #3: The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!

Remember: the "books on consciousness" Jabba has read seem to be books like the one he references here.

[sackett]

Jabba,* you're reduced to saying, "I claim that my claim is true because I claim that it's a true claim." I can't see much future in that.

* Kumar calls you Jebba. Don't put up with that!

[Jabba]

- So anyway.
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination. Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.
2. Though, I still don't accept that model myself.
3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property, what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness -- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME (my particular self-awareness). Where did I come from?

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- So anyway.
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination.

No it doesn't.

Quote:

Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.

No it isn't.

Quote:

2. Though, I still don't accept that model myself.

Nobody cares what you do or don't accept.

Quote:

3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property, what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness

What seems to you and what is actually the case are two very different things.

Quote:

-- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME (my particular self-awareness).

Quote:

Where did I come from?

If by "I" you mean your consciousness, it's an emergent property of your brain.

[jond]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- So anyway.
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination. Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.
2. Though, I still don't accept that model myself.
3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property, what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness -- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME (my particular self-awareness). Where did I come from?

You simply refuse to understand the concept of a process, don’t you?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Jabba

I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination.

Do you really think we're not going to immediately see the straw man? Do you really think your critics are that stupid or inattentive? Even worse, this particular straw man has already been repudiated. You have to use the materialist model as it is already formulated, not as you redefine it.

Quote:

Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.

No, you've proven no such thing. In fact, you haven't even offered a single numerical rationale for this number. You clearly just pulled it out of your kiester. No one is under any obligation to agree that this is the correct numerical value, or even that a probability-only argument determines whether something can or did happen.

Quote:

Though, I still don't accept that model myself.

And this reveals just how little you really know about statistical inference. You don't have to believe it. You only have to assert it arguendo for determining P(E|H). You also get to assert ~H arguendo when you're determining P(E|~H), assuming you ever get that far. In that case it won't matter that your critics don't believe ~H. Again, your argument is not broken according to some easily-corrected detail. Your argument is broken right down to your ability to formulate a statistical inference correctly.

Quote:

that a certain physical state produces (or "receives")...

NO

Entities don't "receive" properties. That's not what it means to be a property.

Quote:

...which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness...

No. Properties are not discrete entities.

Quote:

Where did I come from?

Ambiguous language. You suggest there is a metaphysical "you" that must be explained. Under materialism, all that is you is produced by the matter of your organism. You seem to think it would never be possible to have more than one you. Under materialism that's not a constraint. Every instance of your organism would be an instance of you.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- So anyway.
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness

And if you had honestly stopped here, you would have been fine.

Quote:

that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination. Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.

But you keep dishonestly adding foolishness such as the above.

Quote:

2. Though, I still don't accept that model myself.

You have to treat it as if it is correct if that's the model you're trying to falsify. Nobody really cares whether you accept it or not.

Quote:

3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property

No, that's just stupid. The materialist model sees the sense of self as an emergent property. You still want to treat it as a separate thing. It only "seems" like it's closer to the materialist model because you've dishonestly tacked on a bunch of crap that doesn't belong to the materialist model.

Quote:

what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness

No, you're trotting out your immortal lie again. You will always be called on it so you may as well stop doing it. You don't need to try to redefine the materialist model to include a soul.

Quote:

-- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME MY SOUL (my particular self-awareness).

Why do you persist in your immortal lie of referring to what's you've called a process as "particular"?

Quote:

Where did I come from?

Ask an eight year old. They likely will be able to tell you.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- So anyway.
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination.

Yes, we are all aware that you are fully prepared to lie about the materialist model of consciousness if you think it will help your argument. It doesn't because everyone knows it's a lie.

Quote:

Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.

Unsupported, and probably irrelevant.

Quote:

2. Though, I still don't accept that model myself.

Nor does anyone else, because it's a strawman that you have made up.

Quote:

3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property, what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness -- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME (my particular self-awareness).

That's "being described as that model" by nobody but you, because it's a lie you have made up.

Quote:

Where did I come from?

Doesn't it say on your birth certificate?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- So anyway.

Oh stop it with the cutesy poo passive aggressiveness. You haven't earned it.

Quote:

I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination. Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.

No one cares Jabba. You're speaking jibberish with no structure. It doesn't matter what you claim to accept or not you're just gonna jabber absurdisms over and over.

Quote:

Though, I still don't accept that model myself.

And a thousand of the greatest writers writing for a thousand years in a dozen language could not describe how little that matters. You simply have not shown a strong enough intellectual grasp on... well anything for your opinion as to a concept's validity to mean diddlysquat. You're a parrot squawking at episode of Cosmo.

You, and I don't me a generic "you" I mean you specifically, not accepting something counts for absolutely nothing. You don't accept that process exist and that 1 and 2 aren't the same number.

Quote:

3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property, what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness -- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME (my particular self-awareness). Where did I come from?

Jabba no one cares anymore. No one is going to waste time trying to explain toddler level concepts to you.

At this point Jabba just accept that the most basic concepts of how the universe works are too complicated for you to understand.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- So anyway.

"So anyway"? Could you more blatantly say that you're ignoring what everyone is telling you? For someone who accused others of being rude, you're being downright insulting to your critics.

Quote:

1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination.

That's not the materialist model.

Quote:

Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.

PROVE IT.

[JimOfAllTrades]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Where did I come from?

You are the music playing on the orchestra of your body and brain, the result of a program running on your organic computer, a process that is self aware when it's running, thinks it's continuous but isn't.

Your self awareness isn't a thing at all. Like music or the output of a computer program it is the result of a process wholly dependent on the physical things that generate it. The orchestra doesn't "receive" the music from anywhere when it starts playing, and the music doesn't continue when the orchestra stops playing.

According to materialism, "You" are a process. An incredibly complex intermittently self-aware process, but nonetheless just a process that is completely generated by and dependent on your body and brain.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades

You are the music playing on the orchestra of your body and brain, the result of a program running on your organic computer, a process that is self aware when it's running, thinks it's continuous but isn't.

Your self awareness isn't a thing at all. Like music or the output of a computer program it is the result of a process wholly dependent on the physical things that generate it. The orchestra doesn't "receive" the music from anywhere when it starts playing, and the music doesn't continue when the orchestra stops playing.

According to materialism, "You" are a process. An incredibly complex intermittently self-aware process, but nonetheless just a process that is completely generated by and dependent on your body and brain.

Don't expect Jabba to understand that; it's essential to his argument that he doesn't.

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

No, I shouldn't; that would be a prima facie example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. But in any case that's irrelevant, because it's not Jabba's argument; his entire "infinite pool of selves" concept is intended to address the fact that he exists rather than someone else.

No it wouldn't. I think you're trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Back when all the smart people believed the earth was the entire universe (because the earth was all they could see), I might have said, "Not likely. It is unlikely that all we can see just happens to coincide with all that exists. Plus, it is too ludicrously unlikely that a universe consisting of one little planet would have produced sentient life. There must be very, very many planets."

The smart people were wrong back then, but I would have been right.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

No, it doesn't. To go back to your Putin analogy, "People whom Vladimir Putin want dead" is an a priori specification, and "people who are me" an a posteriori specification, when discussing the probability of there being a person who is me. Probabilistic significance requires an a priori specification.

Oh. Like "bodies that could be you" is an a priori specification, and "the body that is you" is a posterior specification?

Back when all the smart people believed the planets in the Sol system were the only planets that existed (because the bodies in the solar system were the only things they could see that moved), I might have said, "Not likely. It is unlikely that all we can see that moves just happens to coincide with all that exists. Plus, it is too ludicrously unlikely that a universe consisting of one paltry little collection of planets would have produced sentient life. There must be very, very many planets."

The smart people were wrong back then, but I would have been right.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

And this is stretching definitions beyond breaking point. "Immortal" does not mean "capable of being reproduced," it means that the process of the self does not terminate. If your argument is based on redefining words then it's no more valid than if you redefined "Immortal" to mean "a pale shade of purple grey."

Dave

I don't mind stretching that definition beyond the breaking point. It needs to be stretched beyond the breaking point. It is inadequate.

[SOdhner]

I'm sure it would violate the membership agreement, but I suspect I could make a bot that posts like Jabba. Give it some talking points, teach it to randomly quote people and then ask variations on the same questions with a few words from the other people's posts spliced in mindlessly...

Originally Posted by JABBABOT

- Okay so you agree that the process/entity/<VAR%> is attached to a specific <RAND (sperm-ova,brain,person)> then, correct?