Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion - Page 10

Loss Leader · 8th March 2017, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Jabba

330

Jabba, I will assume that your answer is, "I agree that immortality cannot be proven, shown to be likely, or even shown to be possible. I further agree that my personal faith does not constitute a logical argument of any sort. Also, I am a 'cooking magazine' or internet poster."

Argumemnon · 8th March 2017, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Jabba

330

331Dave,

- So, I will assume that your answer is, "Yes. There is a 'thing,' or process, that is exhibited in me that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of me." That will be my first premise in arguing for an infinity of potential selves. I'll call this process a "particular self-awareness."

STOP DOING THAT.

Garrette · 8th March 2017, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Toontown

False on two counts. Read the thread.

1. I've never said Jabba given H is impossible. I've stated the obvious, that the prior odds against Jabba given H were giganogargantuan. You've even conceded this yourself, in what was apparently a previous incarnation.

2. I've assumed nothing. I have numerous posts supporting #3. I do not need or intend to write a book about it every time I point it out.

I have read it, and your protestations do not change my interpretation. Bear in mind that I am not trying to be combative here; I find your posts interesting and frequently informative. But in this instance you seem to be equivocating the gigano odds with impossible but backing off when called on it.

Jabba · 9th March 2017, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by godless dave

A perfect copy of me would exhibit a perfect copy of that process.

Dave,
- But in an earlier dialog,
232

Originally Posted by godless dave

...
In scientific models for consciousness, it is exactly as traceable as the cause and effect that led to a particular brain existing, because they are the same thing. My particular brain can never exist again. If you somehow made an exact copy of my brain, It would exhibit an exact copy of my consciousness.

236

Originally Posted by Jabba

- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.

239

Originally Posted by godless dave

For exactly the same reason it wouldn't be my particular brain. It would be a copy...

- IOW,
- There is something different about this perfect copy. A different kind of 'thing' -- but different, nevertheless.

jond · 9th March 2017, 06:47 AM

As has been pointed out (and ignored) an infinite number of times in this infinite thread: there would, in your impossible duplication scenario, be TWO Jabbas. Count them. Both would think they are Jabba, as they've had all the same experiences up to the point of duplication. After which they would diverge.

Godless Dave, I'm sure will be along to correct you as well. And you will, once again, misrepresent what he says. It's almost like we've seen this movie before.

godless dave · 9th March 2017, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- But in an earlier dialog,
232

236

239- IOW,
- There is something different about this perfect copy. A different kind of 'thing' -- but different, nevertheless.

It's "different" in the way your second can of soup is different from your first can of soup. They're identical but they're not the same can of soup.

Garrette · 9th March 2017, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by jond

As has been pointed out (and ignored) an infinite number of times in this infinite thread: there would, in your impossible duplication scenario, be TWO Jabbas. Count them. Both would think they are Jabba, as they've had all the same experiences up to the point of duplication. After which they would diverge.

Godless Dave, I'm sure will be along to correct you as well. And you will, once again, misrepresent what he says. It's almost like we've seen this movie before.

On the assumption that there ever will be getting Jabba to recognize his errors, this isn't the way. The crux now is his continued conflation of thing and process as demonstrated in the post you quoted and as repeated every time he writes a variation of "a thing, or process."

That difference and continued conflation are what need to be hammered on. The recent near agreement to stick with "how many going 60 miles per hour are there" was the right tack.

Slowvehicle · 9th March 2017, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Garrette

On the assumption that there ever will be getting Jabba to recognize his errors, this isn't the way. The crux now is his continued conflation of thing and process as demonstrated in the post you quoted and as repeated every time he writes a variation of "a thing, or process."

That difference and continued conflation are what need to be hammered on. The recent near agreement to stick with "how many going 60 miles per hour are there" was the right tack.

Was that question ever addressed?

Garrette · 9th March 2017, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

Was that question ever addressed?

Of course. I counted all of the goings-of-60-miles-per-hour and placed that same number of jelly beans in a large glass jar. Guess the amount and win a prize.

Slowvehicle · 9th March 2017, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Garrette

Of course. I counted all of the goings-of-60-miles-per-hour and placed that same number of jelly beans in a large glass jar. Guess the amount and win a prize.

ummm..."all of them"?

Slowvehicle · 9th March 2017, 07:30 AM

No, wait!

FOUR.

Garrette · 9th March 2017, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

ummm..."all of them"?

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

No, wait!

FOUR.

Don't be silly. There can't be four alls of them.

JayUtah · 9th March 2017, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

But in an earlier dialog,...

You've been told flat-out by the person you're attempting to coerce into agreement that he doesn't agree with you. It doesn't get any more authoritative than that. You're wrong -- deal with it.

Quote:

IOW,

No, not "in other words." In Dave's words. Stop rewriting people's posts to make it seem like they agree with you.

Quote:

There is something different about this perfect copy. A different kind of 'thing' -- but different, nevertheless.

No.

You're trying to conflate "separate" with "different." Dave and others have told you several times that under the scientific hypothesis the copies would be indistinguishable. You're simply playing your typical word games to try to insinuate otherwise.

Slowvehicle · 9th March 2017, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by Garrette

Don't be silly. There can't be four alls of them.

IOW, you agree with me that I am right, right?

Where's my prize?

Garrette · 9th March 2017, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

IOW, you agree with me that I am right, right?

Where's my prize?

For a broad definition of agree and a broader definition of right. In my own way, I am making immortality great again.

jond · 9th March 2017, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Garrette

On the assumption that there ever will be getting Jabba to recognize his errors, this isn't the way. The crux now is his continued conflation of thing and process as demonstrated in the post you quoted and as repeated every time he writes a variation of "a thing, or process."

That difference and continued conflation are what need to be hammered on. The recent near agreement to stick with "how many going 60 miles per hour are there" was the right tack.

There's that. OTOH, I wouldn't make the assumption that Jabba will ever recognize his errors at this point. Especially as he has ignored every attempt at differentiating "thing" and "process", and likely always will.

Slowvehicle · 9th March 2017, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Garrette

For a broad definition of agree and a broader definition of right. In my own way, I am making immortality great again.

My prize? My yuge prize?

Garrette · 9th March 2017, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

My prize? My yuge prize?

This bit of infinite wisdom, Bayes-friendly.

Dancing David · 9th March 2017, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- But in an earlier dialog,
232

236

239- IOW,
- There is something different about this perfect copy. A different kind of 'thing' -- but different, nevertheless.

How many 'going sixty' are there Jabba

Loss Leader · 9th March 2017, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by godless dave

It's "different" in the way your second can of soup is different from your first can of soup. They're identical but they're not the same can of soup.

And now I want soup. Well ... "soup" or Amy Adams.

JoeBentley · 9th March 2017, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

There is something different about this perfect copy. A different kind of 'thing' -- but different, nevertheless.

Jabba is this a game to you? Are you just intentionally ignoring people until finally one of them snaps and tells you off so you can walk away the moral victor?

JayUtah · 9th March 2017, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Jabba is this a game to you? Are you just intentionally ignoring people until finally one of them snaps and tells you off so you can walk away the moral victor?

Yes.

In his prior threads he has made exactly that argument. He has interpreted the flounces of frustrated critics as victories for him. In his interpretation he has expertly confounded his critics and they don't wish to debate him anymore, hence he must be right.

This is why I keep asking Jabba why he thinks any serious critic should engage him. He addresses only those people who defer to him, and answers only those posts that seem to agree with him. He rudely ignores anyone he thinks is "unfriendly" or writes posts that are too long or too complicated for him to read. When he's not berating his critics for being too "analytical" to understand the inherent beauty and truth of his arguments, he's trying various linguistic swindles to trick people into seeming to agree with him.

No serious critic should be obliged to wallow in that. If one leaves, Jabba considers it's only because the critic was defeated. If one never engages, Jabba considers it's because he knows he will lose. It's the same hamster wheel that so many fringe arguments fall into. Jabba simply does not put on the table the hypothesis that he may be wrong.

MRC_Hans · 9th March 2017, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Jabba

- So, I will assume that your answer is, "Yes. There is a 'thing,' or process, that is exhibited in me that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of me." That will be my first premise in arguing for an infinity of potential selves. I'll call this process a "particular self-awareness."

Whatever Dave might say, this is false. A perfect copy would exhibit an identical process.

Quote:

- I will also use this premise to try to explain the difference between you (or me) and Mt Rainier -- the basic idea being that your particular self-awareness is not at all cause and effect traceable and is therefore infinitely unlikely according to Bayesian statistics. Whereas, Mt Rainier is quite traceable.

False. The self-awareness is cause and effect traceable.

Quote:

- In my next post -- with a little bit of luck -- I'll try again to explain why the combining of one of Dad's sperm cells with one of Cleopatra's ova (and numerous other current impossibilities) does represent a potential self.

It will need more than a little bit of luck. An impossible combination is not a potential combination: If you don't play the lottery, you are not a potential winner.

Hans

MRC_Hans · 9th March 2017, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- But in an earlier dialog,
232

236

239- IOW,
- There is something different about this perfect copy. A different kind of 'thing' -- but different, nevertheless.

No. There is nothing different about a perfect copy. But it is not the same copy.

Hans

godless dave · 9th March 2017, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Whatever Dave might say, this is false. A perfect copy would exhibit an identical process.

In fact, that's what I said.

JayUtah · 9th March 2017, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

No. There is nothing different about a perfect copy. But it is not the same copy.

Hans

Indeed, Jabba is equivocating between "different" (separate) and "different" (non-identical). His critics know very clearly which one they intend when they talk about an identical process being exhibited by an identical copy. But because Jabba is also conflating "process" and "thing" he doesn't grasp that "separate" has no meaning for processes.

The Sparrow · 9th March 2017, 03:46 PM

It's a little bit like an obsessed stalker. The woman says to his face, no, I hate you, I will never ever want anything to do with you ever. Then the stalker tells himself, well that one time 6 months ago, she took 2 extra seconds to hang up the phone, that must mean she loves me.

MRC_Hans · 9th March 2017, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Indeed, Jabba is equivocating between "different" (separate) and "different" (non-identical). His critics know very clearly which one they intend when they talk about an identical process being exhibited by an identical copy. But because Jabba is also conflating "process" and "thing" he doesn't grasp that "separate" has no meaning for processes.

Oh, he understands very well. He just chooses to ignore it to keep his boat floating. There is no limit to the dishonesty.

Hans

MRC_Hans · 9th March 2017, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by godless dave

In fact, that's what I said.

That's what I read you saying, also. But ... well ...

Hans

caveman1917 · 9th March 2017, 04:51 PM

Is a car a "thing" or an "emergent property"? When you get down to it, the only "things" are elementary particles. A car is then an emergent property of a set of things (elementary particles) with specific relations between them (ie relative position, energy, etc).

JoeBentley · 10th March 2017, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Is a car a "thing" or an "emergent property"? When you get down to it, the only "things" are elementary particles. A car is then an emergent property of a set of things (elementary particles) with specific relations between them (ie relative position, energy, etc).

No, no, no we are not going down this road again.

This is another "Gotcha" that gets dropped into esoteric discussions; that a "thing" isn't a "thing" if it can be separated into smaller discreet "things" and that science is somehow admitting something if it discusses "things" which are collective.

Yes "Joe Bentley" both the organic entity and the ongoing conscious process can be separated into smaller unique conceptual ideas, which in turn can broken down into smaller conceptual ideas for many, many layers.

But that doesn't mean "Joe Bentley" isn't a thing we can talk about. A collective thing is still a thing. But some reason Woo Slingers and Woo Apologist just latch onto this idea as if it proves or means something. At no point in the rule or spirit of scientific thinking does looking at a collective thing or collective process become invalid or unreasonable.

And yet again for the umpteenth time this is all semantics. Our language developed to discuss things on a practical, real world, day to day level. "Joe Bentley" is a concept because the ongoing process of consciousness inhabiting this organic entity is just a useful concept to apply a label to in everyday life. The mitochondria in my cells don't give a toss about "Joe Bentley" and neither does the ongoing heat death of the universe but my mortgage company does. It matters to me on the level I operate and I am 100% perfectly okay with that.

Me acknowledging that the concept of "me" is just a handy shorthand for the level of the universe I operate on most of the time isn't some admission of anything sinister or backhanded. It just is.

You don't have to embrace Woo to talk about things other then subatomic particles and energy transfer.

Jabba · 10th March 2017, 09:26 AM

232

Originally Posted by godless dave

...
In scientific models for consciousness, it is exactly as traceable as the cause and effect that led to a particular brain existing, because they are the same thing. My particular brain can never exist again. If you somehow made an exact copy of my brain, It would exhibit an exact copy of my consciousness.

236

Originally Posted by Jabba

- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.

239

Originally Posted by godless dave

For exactly the same reason it wouldn't be my particular brain. It would be a copy.
If two separate brains could produce the same self-awareness that would mean the scientific explanation for self-awareness is wrong.

Dave,
- In the above, you seem to be agreeing with me that a perfect copy of your brain would not exhibit your "particular self-awareness." Am I misunderstanding?

JoeBentley · 10th March 2017, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

232In the above, you seem to be agreeing with me that a perfect copy of your brain would not exhibit your "particular self-awareness." Am I misunderstanding?

No you are not misunderstanding. You are purposely, intentionally, dishonestly, and insultingly misconstruing.

godless dave · 10th March 2017, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

232

236

239Dave,
- In the above, you seem to be agreeing with me that a perfect copy of your brain would not exhibit your "particular self-awareness." Am I misunderstanding?

Would a perfect copy of my brain be my brain?

No, it wouldn't.

And for exactly the same reason, a copy of my self-awareness would not be my self-awareness. Because two is more than one.

JayUtah · 10th March 2017, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

In the above, you seem to be agreeing with me that a perfect copy of your brain would not exhibit your "particular self-awareness." Am I misunderstanding?

Yes. In the scientific model there is no such thing as a "particular self-awareness." Self-awareness is a property, not a thing or set of things. A property is not discretely quantizable, or discrete at all.

As I told you before and must tell you again (and again and again and again), your misunderstanding is really that you are trying to foist onto the scientific model a notion that is an entirely different kind of concept from what the model actually holds. Your misunderstanding is at a very, very fundamental level.

But it appears you're not ready to discuss that level of error. You're still stuck on trying to trick Dave into seeming to agree with you, or pretend he already has.

Jabba · 10th March 2017, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by godless dave

Would a perfect copy of my brain be my brain?

Dave,
- No.
- But mostly, I'm trying to see if I can use "particular self-awareness" for referring to what's missing in the copy. Can I?

godless dave · 10th March 2017, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- No.
- But mostly, I'm trying to see if I can use "particular self-awareness" for referring to what's missing in the copy. Can I?

No, because it's no more "missing" than any other part of the original. You could just as accurately say the original brain is missing, because a copy is separate from the original. It would be misleading to single out one part of the copy and say "This is different from the original" when everything about the copy is separate from the original.

JoeBentley · 10th March 2017, 10:12 AM

Oh for the love of...

Attempt 456th to explain this in a way you'll understand.

A person is two things, both a physical biological entity and an ongoing neurological process that is dependent on the biological entity. The "mind" is a process that the "brain" creates.

The "mind" process is continually and constantly changing to account for outside influences and stimulus. Your mind is not the same as it was 5 minutes ago, to say nothing of 5 days, 5 weeks, 5 months or 5 years. It's a process. This has been explained to you more times then is necessary.

If you could somehow split this process into two identical processes they would be different but identical process until outside stimuli changed them.

So if some magical duplication ray hit you and split you into two identical "Jabbas" each Jabba would be no more or less the "real" Jabba then the other since there is no "One True" Jabba but each Jabba would immediately start differing as they experienced new stimuli.

So the "Is it the same" pleading is meaningless, a semantic distinction without difference.

theprestige · 10th March 2017, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- No.
- But mostly, I'm trying to see if I can use "particular self-awareness" for referring to what's missing in the copy. Can I?

Nothing is missing from the copy. The brain is there. The process is there. It's all there. Nothing is missing.

"Something is missing" is the proposition you are trying to prove. You can't prove it by assuming it's true. Four years ago, I would have thought your argument was ignorant. Now I just assume it's dishonest.

JayUtah · 10th March 2017, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

But mostly, I'm trying to see if I can use "particular self-awareness" for referring to what's missing in the copy. Can I?

No. Under the scientific model there's nothing missing in the copy. If the brain is copied exactly, then all the properties of the copy will manifest exactly in the copy, subject of course to subsequent dispersion since part of the process that creates the sense of self is the response to ongoing stimulus. This ongoing response property seems to stick in your craw, and you don't seem to want to answer any questions about it. Perhaps that's because it tends to undermine your notion of the sense of self-awareness as a "thing" that can have an existence -- however abstract -- apart from the organism that exhibits it.

But in any case you're still conflating "different" (separate) with "different" (non-identical). Until you clear that up and start using more precise terminology you're going to continue "misunderstanding." As this problematic equivocation has now been explained to you at least twice, is there an ETA for when you'll start paying attention to it?

8th March 2017, 12:47 PM	#361
Loss Leader Would Be Ringing (if a bell) Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 22,649	Originally Posted by Jabba 330 Jabba, I will assume that your answer is, "I agree that immortality cannot be proven, shown to be likely, or even shown to be possible. I further agree that my personal faith does not constitute a logical argument of any sort. Also, I am a 'cooking magazine' or internet poster."
	__________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. S^t L. Leader

8th March 2017, 01:01 PM	#362
Argumemnon World Maker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the thick of things Posts: 62,125	Originally Posted by Jabba 330 331Dave, - So, I will assume that your answer is, "Yes. There is a 'thing,' or process, that is exhibited in me that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of me." That will be my first premise in arguing for an infinity of potential selves. I'll call this process a "particular self-awareness." STOP DOING THAT.
	__________________ "So let it be written. So let it be done."

8th March 2017, 02:51 PM	#363
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 14,504	Originally Posted by Toontown False on two counts. Read the thread. 1. I've never said Jabba given H is impossible. I've stated the obvious, that the prior odds against Jabba given H were giganogargantuan. You've even conceded this yourself, in what was apparently a previous incarnation. 2. I've assumed nothing. I have numerous posts supporting #3. I do not need or intend to write a book about it every time I point it out. I have read it, and your protestations do not change my interpretation. Bear in mind that I am not trying to be combative here; I find your posts interesting and frequently informative. But in this instance you seem to be equivocating the gigano odds with impossible but backing off when called on it.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

9th March 2017, 06:14 AM	#364
Jabba Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,500	Originally Posted by godless dave A perfect copy of me would exhibit a perfect copy of that process. Dave, - But in an earlier dialog, 232 Originally Posted by godless dave ... In scientific models for consciousness, it is exactly as traceable as the cause and effect that led to a particular brain existing, because they are the same thing. My particular brain can never exist again. If you somehow made an exact copy of my brain, It would exhibit an exact copy of my consciousness. 236 Originally Posted by Jabba - But, it wouldn't exhibit *your particular self-awareness. "You"* would not be reincarnated. 239 Originally Posted by godless dave For exactly the same reason it wouldn't be my particular brain. It would be a copy... - IOW, - There is something different about this perfect copy. A different kind of 'thing' -- but different, nevertheless.
Jabba Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,500	__________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor

9th March 2017, 06:47 AM	#365
jond Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,738	As has been pointed out (and ignored) an infinite number of times in this infinite thread: there would, in your impossible duplication scenario, be TWO Jabbas. Count them. Both would think they are Jabba, as they've had all the same experiences up to the point of duplication. After which they would diverge. Godless Dave, I'm sure will be along to correct you as well. And you will, once again, misrepresent what he says. It's almost like we've seen this movie before.
jond Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,738

9th March 2017, 07:14 AM	#366
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,802	Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - But in an earlier dialog, 232 236 239- IOW, - There is something different about this perfect copy. A different kind of 'thing' -- but different, nevertheless. It's "different" in the way your second can of soup is different from your first can of soup. They're identical but they're not the same can of soup.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

9th March 2017, 07:15 AM	#367
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 14,504	Originally Posted by jond As has been pointed out (and ignored) an infinite number of times in this infinite thread: there would, in your impossible duplication scenario, be TWO Jabbas. Count them. Both would think they are Jabba, as they've had all the same experiences up to the point of duplication. After which they would diverge. Godless Dave, I'm sure will be along to correct you as well. And you will, once again, misrepresent what he says. It's almost like we've seen this movie before. On the assumption that there ever will be getting Jabba to recognize his errors, this isn't the way. The crux now is his continued conflation of thing and process as demonstrated in the post you quoted and as repeated every time he writes a variation of "a thing, or process." That difference and continued conflation are what need to be hammered on. The recent near agreement to stick with "how many going 60 miles per hour are there" was the right tack.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

9th March 2017, 07:26 AM	#368
Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls... Posts: 17,348	Originally Posted by Garrette On the assumption that there ever will be getting Jabba to recognize his errors, this isn't the way. The crux now is his continued conflation of thing and process as demonstrated in the post you quoted and as repeated every time he writes a variation of "a thing, or process." That difference and continued conflation are what need to be hammered on. The recent near agreement to stick with "how many going 60 miles per hour are there" was the right tack. Was that question ever addressed?
	__________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

9th March 2017, 07:29 AM	#369
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 14,504	Originally Posted by Slowvehicle Was that question ever addressed? Of course. I counted all of the goings-of-60-miles-per-hour and placed that same number of jelly beans in a large glass jar. Guess the amount and win a prize.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

9th March 2017, 07:29 AM	#370
Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls... Posts: 17,348	Originally Posted by Garrette Of course. I counted all of the goings-of-60-miles-per-hour and placed that same number of jelly beans in a large glass jar. Guess the amount and win a prize. ummm..."all of them"?
	__________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

9th March 2017, 07:30 AM	#371
Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls... Posts: 17,348	No, wait! FOUR.
	__________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

9th March 2017, 07:33 AM	#372
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 14,504	Originally Posted by Slowvehicle ummm..."all of them"? Originally Posted by Slowvehicle No, wait! FOUR. Don't be silly. There can't be four alls of them.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

9th March 2017, 07:36 AM	#373
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 13,052	Originally Posted by Jabba But in an earlier dialog,... You've been told flat-out by the person you're attempting to coerce into agreement that he doesn't agree with you. It doesn't get any more authoritative than that. You're wrong -- deal with it. Quote: IOW, No, not "in other words." In Dave's words. Stop rewriting people's posts to make it seem like they agree with you. Quote: There is something different about this perfect copy. A different kind of 'thing' -- but different, nevertheless. No. You're trying to conflate "separate" with "different." Dave and others have told you several times that under the scientific hypothesis the copies would be indistinguishable. You're simply playing your typical word games to try to insinuate otherwise.

9th March 2017, 07:38 AM	#374
Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls... Posts: 17,348	Originally Posted by Garrette Don't be silly. There can't be four alls of them. IOW, you agree with me that I am right, right? Where's my prize?
	__________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

9th March 2017, 08:06 AM	#375
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 14,504	Originally Posted by Slowvehicle IOW, you agree with me that I am right, right? Where's my prize? For a broad definition of agree and a broader definition of right. In my own way, I am making immortality great again.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

9th March 2017, 08:23 AM	#376
jond Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,738	Originally Posted by Garrette On the assumption that there ever will be getting Jabba to recognize his errors, this isn't the way. The crux now is his continued conflation of thing and process as demonstrated in the post you quoted and as repeated every time he writes a variation of "a thing, or process." That difference and continued conflation are what need to be hammered on. The recent near agreement to stick with "how many going 60 miles per hour are there" was the right tack. There's that. OTOH, I wouldn't make the assumption that Jabba will ever recognize his errors at this point. Especially as he has ignored every attempt at differentiating "thing" and "process", and likely always will.
jond Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,738

9th March 2017, 08:25 AM	#377
Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls... Posts: 17,348	Originally Posted by Garrette For a broad definition of agree and a broader definition of right. In my own way, I am making immortality great again. My prize? My yuge prize?
	__________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

9th March 2017, 08:45 AM	#378
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 14,504	Originally Posted by Slowvehicle My prize? My yuge prize? This bit of infinite wisdom, Bayes-friendly.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

9th March 2017, 09:03 AM	#379
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 38,332	Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - But in an earlier dialog, 232 236 239- IOW, - There is something different about this perfect copy. A different kind of 'thing' -- but different, nevertheless. How many 'going sixty' are there Jabba
	__________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

9th March 2017, 10:42 AM	#380
Loss Leader Would Be Ringing (if a bell) Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 22,649	Originally Posted by godless dave It's "different" in the way your second can of soup is different from your first can of soup. They're identical but they're not the same can of soup. And now I want soup. Well ... "soup" or Amy Adams.
	__________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. S^t L. Leader

9th March 2017, 10:52 AM	#381
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 6,749	Originally Posted by Jabba There is something different about this perfect copy. A different kind of 'thing' -- but different, nevertheless. Jabba is this a game to you? Are you just intentionally ignoring people until finally one of them snaps and tells you off so you can walk away the moral victor?
	__________________ Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

9th March 2017, 11:07 AM	#382
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 13,052	Originally Posted by JoeBentley Jabba is this a game to you? Are you just intentionally ignoring people until finally one of them snaps and tells you off so you can walk away the moral victor? Yes. In his prior threads he has made exactly that argument. He has interpreted the flounces of frustrated critics as victories for him. In his interpretation he has expertly confounded his critics and they don't wish to debate him anymore, hence he must be right. This is why I keep asking Jabba why he thinks any serious critic should engage him. He addresses only those people who defer to him, and answers only those posts that seem to agree with him. He rudely ignores anyone he thinks is "unfriendly" or writes posts that are too long or too complicated for him to read. When he's not berating his critics for being too "analytical" to understand the inherent beauty and truth of his arguments, he's trying various linguistic swindles to trick people into seeming to agree with him. No serious critic should be obliged to wallow in that. If one leaves, Jabba considers it's only because the critic was defeated. If one never engages, Jabba considers it's because he knows he will lose. It's the same hamster wheel that so many fringe arguments fall into. Jabba simply does not put on the table the hypothesis that he may be wrong.

9th March 2017, 01:13 PM	#383
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 19,741	Originally Posted by Jabba - So, I will assume that your answer is, "Yes. There is a 'thing,' or process, that is exhibited in me that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of me." That will be my first premise in arguing for an infinity of potential selves. I'll call this process a "particular self-awareness." Whatever Dave might say, this is false. A perfect copy would exhibit an identical process. Quote: - I will also use this premise to try to explain the difference between you (or me) and Mt Rainier -- the basic idea being that your particular self-awareness is not at all cause and effect traceable and is therefore infinitely unlikely according to Bayesian statistics. Whereas, Mt Rainier is quite traceable. False. The self-awareness is cause and effect traceable. Quote: - In my next post -- with a little bit of luck -- I'll try again to explain why the combining of one of Dad's sperm cells with one of Cleopatra's ova (and numerous other current impossibilities) does represent a potential self. It will need more than a little bit of luck. An impossible combination is not a potential combination: If you don't play the lottery, you are not a potential winner. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

9th March 2017, 01:15 PM	#384
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 19,741	Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - But in an earlier dialog, 232 236 239- IOW, - There is something different about this perfect copy. A different kind of 'thing' -- but different, nevertheless. No. There is nothing different about a perfect copy. But it is not the same copy. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

9th March 2017, 01:18 PM	#385
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,802	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Whatever Dave might say, this is false. A perfect copy would exhibit an identical process. In fact, that's what I said.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

9th March 2017, 01:49 PM	#386
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 13,052	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans No. There is nothing different about a perfect copy. But it is not the same copy. Hans Indeed, Jabba is equivocating between "different" (separate) and "different" (non-identical). His critics know very clearly which one they intend when they talk about an identical process being exhibited by an identical copy. But because Jabba is also conflating "process" and "thing" he doesn't grasp that "separate" has no meaning for processes.

9th March 2017, 03:46 PM	#387
The Sparrow Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Central Canada Posts: 856	It's a little bit like an obsessed stalker. The woman says to his face, no, I hate you, I will never ever want anything to do with you ever. Then the stalker tells himself, well that one time 6 months ago, she took 2 extra seconds to hang up the phone, that must mean she loves me.

9th March 2017, 03:49 PM	#388
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 19,741	Originally Posted by JayUtah Indeed, Jabba is equivocating between "different" (separate) and "different" (non-identical). His critics know very clearly which one they intend when they talk about an identical process being exhibited by an identical copy. But because Jabba is also conflating "process" and "thing" he doesn't grasp that "separate" has no meaning for processes. Oh, he understands very well. He just chooses to ignore it to keep his boat floating. There is no limit to the dishonesty. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

9th March 2017, 03:50 PM	#389
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 19,741	Originally Posted by godless dave In fact, that's what I said. That's what I read you saying, also. But ... well ... Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

9th March 2017, 04:51 PM	#390
caveman1917 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,299	Is a car a "thing" or an "emergent property"? When you get down to it, the only "things" are elementary particles. A car is then an emergent property of a set of things (elementary particles) with specific relations between them (ie relative position, energy, etc).
caveman1917 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 4,299	__________________ "Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos "We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons "Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

10th March 2017, 01:12 AM	#391
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 6,749	Originally Posted by caveman1917 Is a car a "thing" or an "emergent property"? When you get down to it, the only "things" are elementary particles. A car is then an emergent property of a set of things (elementary particles) with specific relations between them (ie relative position, energy, etc). No, no, no we are not going down this road again. This is another "Gotcha" that gets dropped into esoteric discussions; that a "thing" isn't a "thing" if it can be separated into smaller discreet "things" and that science is somehow admitting something if it discusses "things" which are collective. Yes "Joe Bentley" both the organic entity and the ongoing conscious process can be separated into smaller unique conceptual ideas, which in turn can broken down into smaller conceptual ideas for many, many layers. But that doesn't mean "Joe Bentley" isn't a thing we can talk about. A collective thing is still a thing. But some reason Woo Slingers and Woo Apologist just latch onto this idea as if it proves or means something. At no point in the rule or spirit of scientific thinking does looking at a collective thing or collective process become invalid or unreasonable. And yet again for the umpteenth time this is all semantics. Our language developed to discuss things on a practical, real world, day to day level. "Joe Bentley" is a concept because the ongoing process of consciousness inhabiting this organic entity is just a useful concept to apply a label to in everyday life. The mitochondria in my cells don't give a toss about "Joe Bentley" and neither does the ongoing heat death of the universe but my mortgage company does. It matters to me on the level I operate and I am 100% perfectly okay with that. Me acknowledging that the concept of "me" is just a handy shorthand for the level of the universe I operate on most of the time isn't some admission of anything sinister or backhanded. It just is. You don't have to embrace Woo to talk about things other then subatomic particles and energy transfer.
	__________________ Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

10th March 2017, 09:26 AM	#392
Jabba Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,500	232 Originally Posted by godless dave ... In scientific models for consciousness, it is exactly as traceable as the cause and effect that led to a particular brain existing, because they are the same thing. My particular brain can never exist again. If you somehow made an exact copy of my brain, It would exhibit an exact copy of my consciousness. 236 Originally Posted by Jabba - But, it wouldn't exhibit *your particular self-awareness. "You"* would not be reincarnated. 239 Originally Posted by godless dave For exactly the same reason it wouldn't be my particular brain. It would be a copy. If two separate brains could produce the same self-awareness that would mean the scientific explanation for self-awareness is wrong. Dave, - In the above, you seem to be agreeing with me that a perfect copy of your brain would not exhibit your "particular self-awareness." Am I misunderstanding?
Jabba Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,500	__________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor Last edited by Jabba; 10th March 2017 at 09:33 AM.

10th March 2017, 09:35 AM	#393
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 6,749	Originally Posted by Jabba 232In the above, you seem to be agreeing with me that a perfect copy of your brain would not exhibit your "particular self-awareness." Am I misunderstanding? No you are not misunderstanding. You are purposely, intentionally, dishonestly, and insultingly misconstruing.
	__________________ Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

10th March 2017, 09:36 AM	#394
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,802	Originally Posted by Jabba 232 236 239Dave, - In the above, you seem to be agreeing with me that a perfect copy of your brain would not exhibit your "particular self-awareness." Am I misunderstanding? Would a perfect copy of my brain be my brain? No, it wouldn't. And for exactly the same reason, a copy of my self-awareness would not be my self-awareness. Because two is more than one.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm Last edited by godless dave; 10th March 2017 at 09:44 AM. Reason: save time

10th March 2017, 09:43 AM	#395
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 13,052	Originally Posted by Jabba In the above, you seem to be agreeing with me that a perfect copy of your brain would not exhibit your "particular self-awareness." Am I misunderstanding? Yes. In the scientific model there is no such thing as a "particular self-awareness." Self-awareness is a property, not a thing or set of things. A property is not discretely quantizable, or discrete at all. As I told you before and must tell you again (and again and again and again), your misunderstanding is really that you are trying to foist onto the scientific model a notion that is an entirely different kind of concept from what the model actually holds. Your misunderstanding is at a very, very fundamental level. But it appears you're not ready to discuss that level of error. You're still stuck on trying to trick Dave into seeming to agree with you, or pretend he already has.