Proof of Immortality II

[jond]

It's a little more complicated than that. We don't know what dark matter is, or dark energy, or how to integrate general relativity with quantum mechanics.

We do know, however, that none of this affects our everyday lives. We know that there is no reincarnation, no afterlife of any kind. Quite apart from the problem that your argument is invalid and unsound in a quite surprising number of ways, we know for a fact that what you are arguing for is entirely impossible.

Jabba: I know you probably won't read this, and you probably didn't (and won't) watch the video, but you really do need to. It explains clearly why we know there isn't some other force that we don't know about yet that is somehow effecting our brains to produce consciousness. Really, it's all over. There is no point in continuing your thought experiments that have no basis in reality. Watch the video, please.

 

[Jabba]

Formula for ME

Jabba, if I have a recipe for banana bread, can I use it to bake the same loaf twice? Or am I limited to baking separate, identical loaves?

Dave,
- So, you're agreeing with me -- there is no physical formula for the same me.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy,
- If we were somehow able to recreate the history of your brain, would we create the "same you," or just an "identical you"?

The question is meaningless. It is, by definition, impossible to recreate the history of anything.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- So, you're agreeing with me -- there is no physical formula for the same me.

I'm not saying that at all. The physical formula for "the same me" is the formula that produced you.

Like I said, the only way to create the "same you" is to reanimate your corpse. That's because one item cannot be two items.

Does each individual loaf of banana bread made from the same recipe have a 1/∞ likelihood of existing?

 

[Pixel42]

Dave,
- So, you're agreeing with me -- there is no physical formula for the same me.

Is there a recipe for the banana loaf baked this morning?

Is there a recipe for the same banana loaf?

 

[Monza]

Dave,
- So, you're agreeing with me -- there is no physical formula for the same me.

But how is that any different than any two identical objects? I have a cell phone sitting in front of me. There is no physical formula for the same cell phone. Sure, there are plenty of identical cell phones. But this is the only one that is this one. So what?

Ultimately, you are trying to make a distinction between an object and another identical object. Of course, this one object is this one object, and the identical object is a another object. If there is an exact copy of Jabba's brain, it is still Jabba only it is another Jabba from you. Two identical brains are identical, but there are still two of them.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- So, you're agreeing with me -- there is no physical formula for the same me.

I don't think so. I think we have explained that there is a physical formula for you, just like a physical formula for the Mona Lisa, which can produce absolutely identical "yous" and paintings such that one could never tell the difference if they were mixed up. There would be two identical "yous" and two Mona Lisas, and if you lost track you could never tell the difference (of course it would be in practice impossible to make identical objects, to the atom, using correct methods). No "non-physical "bar-coding." For all intents and purposes they are the "same" you by most definitions if one couldn't mark the originals to tell them apart. But no two objects can be the "same" object, as repeatedly explained here. Dave, what do you think?

 

[godless dave]

I don't think so. I think we have explained that there is a physical formula for you, just like a physical formula for the Mona Lisa, which can produce absolutely identical "yous" and paintings such that one could never tell the difference if they were mixed up. There would be two identical "yous" and two Mona Lisas, and if you lost track you could never tell the difference (of course it would be in practice impossible to make identical objects, to the atom, using correct methods). No "non-physical "bar-coding." For all intents and purposes they are the "same" you by most definitions if one couldn't mark the originals to tell them apart. But no two objects can be the "same" object, as repeatedly explained here. Dave, what do you think?

I agree. It is physically impossible for two objects to be the same object.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It is to be wondered, with the split and the rename, if the discussion might be limited to considering proof of immortality, with much less focus on whether two separate-but-identical things are the same thing, or two things...

 

[Loss Leader]

It is to be wondered, with the split and the rename, if the discussion might be limited to considering proof of immortality, with much less focus on whether two separate-but-identical things are the same thing, or two things...

One need not wonder at all. The topic and scope of this thread is exactly the same as part I, the only change being that you don't have to wait for 7,000 posts to load. As to whether two of the same thing are two of the same thing, the moderating team has no position.

Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[pakeha]

Pixy,
- If we were somehow able to recreate the history of your brain, would we create the "same you," or just an "identical you"?

The question is meaningless. It is, by definition, impossible to recreate the history of anything.

Not only that, but Jabba is sidestepping the core issue.
There is no me, there is a sense of self.
And the sense of self is.....?

Yes!
An emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- Would this "self" be the "same self," or just an identical self?

You have repeatedly been told this, by multiple posters. It would be a second self, identical (at that particular moment) to the first one. If you have two identical items, then there are two of them, not one.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, what "specifies" a particular self is that the "recipe" was followed at that time and place. My father's sperm met my mother's egg at a particular time. That event and the events that followed are what specifies me.

 

[Jabba]

1. We’ve been talking about two different kinds of “self.” There is 1) the self that is all the person’s characteristics -- and then, there is 2) the SELF that is the person’s self-awareness.
2. We accept that could we perfectly replicate a person’s brain, we could replicate the person’s self – but, not the person’s SELF.
3. IOW, there is no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular SELF.
4. And, while we can safely say that a self is defined by its brain, we cannot safely say the same about a SELF.
5. Bio-chemically speaking, a SELF comes out of nowhere…

6. And, if bio-chemistry is all we can call on to define a SELF, there is no pre-existing, exclusive recipe for a particular SELF.
7. And, even if time and space are finite, a new SELF is brand new, and does not come from a pre-existing pool (limited by the number of possible recipes) of potential SELVES.
8. And, while the number of actual SELVES possible in a finite universe would be finite, the number of potential SELVES would be infinite.

 

[godless dave]

1. We’ve been talking about two different kinds of “self.” There is 1) the self that is all the person’s characteristics -- and then, there is 2) the SELF that is the person’s self-awareness.

Isn't the self-awareness one of those characteristics?

2. We accept that could we perfectly replicate a person’s brain, we could replicate the person’s self – but, not the person’s SELF.

Why not? Self-awareness is something the brain does. We even have a general idea which parts of the brain do it.

3. IOW, there is no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular SELF.
4. And, while we can safely say that a self is defined by its brain, we cannot safely say the same about a SELF.

Why not?

5. Bio-chemically speaking, a SELF comes out of nowhere…

No, it happens inside a brain.

6. And, if bio-chemistry is all we can call on to define a SELF, there is no pre-existing, exclusive recipe for a particular SELF.

Sure there is.

7. And, even if time and space are finite, a new SELF is brand new, and does not come from a pre-existing pool (limited by the number of possible recipes) of potential SELVES.

It's limited by what is required to create one. Two people with the right DNA have to have sex resulting in pregnancy.

8. And, while the number of actual SELVES possible in a finite universe would be finite, the number of potential SELVES would be infinite.

What's the difference between possible and potential?

 

[xtifr]

1. We’ve been talking about two different kinds of “self.” There is 1) the self that is all the person’s characteristics -- and then, there is 2) the SELF that is the person’s self-awareness.

Those are not two different things. The latter is a subset of the former.

2. We accept that could we perfectly replicate a person’s brain, we could replicate the person’s self – but, not the person’s SELF.

Yes it would replicate the SELF. Note that word replicate. That implies a new, separate, distinct thing. A replica is not the same as the original, even if it's identical. The SELF, the self, the brain, and even the left big toe of the copy would all be separate and distinct from the original's.

The copy may be identical to the original, but it's still made from a completely different set of atoms!

3. IOW, there is no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular SELF.

The same argument can be made about the left big toe. And lower-case self. A perfect copy's toe will not be the same toe, even though it's bio-chemically identical to the original's toe, because it's made of different atoms. So there is no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular toe.

4. And, while we can safely say that a self is defined by its brain, we cannot safely say the same about a SELF.

Yes you can, because what you're calling a SELF is a subset of the self, and everything you're claiming about the SELF applies to the self. And the brain. And the toe.

5. Bio-chemically speaking, a SELF comes out of nowhere…

No more than the toe does. Make a perfect copy, and suddenly you have a whole new toe! Wow, what a miracle! Toes must be eternal and non-physical!

Sorry, this argument doesn't come close to making sense.

 

[Slowvehicle]

1. We’ve been talking about two different kinds of “self.” There is 1) the self that is all the person’s characteristics -- and then, there is 2) the SELF that is the person’s self-awareness.

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage!

Unless you are referencing a different thread than this one, I must demur--No, "we" have not "been talking about" two different kinds of "self", and this has been pointed out to you, repeatedly.

Self-awareness is an emergent property of a neurosystem functioning at a particular level of complexity.

2. We accept that could we perfectly replicate a person’s brain, we could replicate the person’s self – but, not the person’s SELF.

In this particular case, who do you think "we" is? Might you support this claim with posts that demonstrate this supposed agreement?
(please do not just ask the question again--you are making a positive claim, here, and ought to be able to support it from what has already been said.

I, for one, and not part of the "we" you say agrees with your claim, as I have told you repeatedly.

3. IOW, there is no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular SELF.

The 'self', that is, the consciousness, is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystems. Two identical neurosystems, in identical situations, were such a thing even theoretically possible, would give rise to identical emergent consciousnesses--right up to the instant that any kind of divergence took place.

4. And, while we can safely say that a self is defined by its brain, we cannot safely say the same about a SELF.

As far as a reading of the thread allows, this appears to be your unique claim. Who, again,is "we"?

5. Bio-chemically speaking, a SELF comes out of nowhere…

Multiple posters, multiple times, have objected to this formulation. For the record, I do so object, again.

6. And, if bio-chemistry is all we can call on to define a SELF, there is no pre-existing, exclusive recipe for a particular SELF.

Given that you start with a contrafactual hypothetical, this statement is unsupportable.

7. And, even if time and space are finite, a new SELF is brand new, and does not come from a pre-existing pool (limited by the number of possible recipes) of potential SELVES.

A bit of a non sequitur; the utter lack of a "pool of souls" has nothing to do with the finite nature of time and space,but with the fact that consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

8. And, while the number of actual SELVES possible in a finite universe would be finite, the number of potential SELVES would be infinite.

You are still, after all that, simply assuming your consequent, and asserting its truth based upon your assumption.

Any hope of you simply presenting your evidence of the existence of the "soul", and its "immortality"?

 

[Agatha]

1. We’ve been talking about two different kinds of “self.” There is 1) the self that is all the person’s characteristics -- and then, there is 2) the SELF that is the person’s self-awareness.

No. It's all the same self. The characteristics and the self-awareness are indivisible.

2. We accept that could we perfectly replicate a person’s brain, we could replicate the person’s self – but, not the person’s SELF.

Nope, we don't accept that. You might, but you would be mistaken.

3. IOW, there is no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular SELF.

No.

4. And, while we can safely say that a self is defined by its brain, we cannot safely say the same about a SELF.

Nonsense.

5. Bio-chemically speaking, a SELF comes out of nowhere…

No, a self/SELF/sElF/SeLf is the consciousness which is an emergent property (or process) of a functioning neurosystem.

6. And, if bio-chemistry is all we can call on to define a SELF, there is no pre-existing, exclusive recipe for a particular SELF.

If my grandmother had wheels, she'd have been a bus. Since your first clause is incorrect, the rest fails.

7. And, even if time and space are finite, a new SELF is brand new, and does not come from a pre-existing pool (limited by the number of possible recipes) of potential SELVES.

There is no freakin' pool.

8. And, while the number of actual SELVES possible in a finite universe would be finite, the number of potential SELVES would be infinite.

No. Just no.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Nay Sayer,
- Your statement suggests that we humans are pretty close to understanding and explaining everything -- that we're not missing anything important. Is that what you believe?

How in any sense does my comment suggest that at all?

 

[pakeha]

1. We’ve been talking about two different kinds of “self.” There is 1) the self that is all the person’s characteristics -- and then, there is 2) the SELF that is the person’s self-awareness.
2. We accept that could we perfectly replicate a person’s brain, we could replicate the person’s self – but, not the person’s SELF.
3. IOW, there is no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular SELF.
4. And, while we can safely say that a self is defined by its brain, we cannot safely say the same about a SELF.
5. Bio-chemically speaking, a SELF comes out of nowhere…

6. And, if bio-chemistry is all we can call on to define a SELF, there is no pre-existing, exclusive recipe for a particular SELF.
7. And, even if time and space are finite, a new SELF is brand new, and does not come from a pre-existing pool (limited by the number of possible recipes) of potential SELVES.
8. And, while the number of actual SELVES possible in a finite universe would be finite, the number of potential SELVES would be infinite.

Jabba, why are you ignoring the definition of a sense of self?
Why attempt to construct a premise around a false definition of a sense of self?
Remember?

The sense of self is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.