Proof of Immortality II

[Giordano]

xt,

This is the least of your problems, but do you think you need to further abbreviate a name that is only 5 letters long?

 

[Giordano]

-Such, however, would not be the case with a perfect biochemical replica of a "self." The two selves would have different observers (SELVES). In that sense, they would not be identical.
- IOW, there would be an aspect of the new self that is not identical to that aspect in the old self.

Wrong. Please read the other posts to find out why. You have been trying to convince us of this theory of yours for almost 2 years and everyone here has disagreed, repeatedly. It is not a lack of understanding of your theory on our part, we just think you are wrong (including Godless Dave and xtifir from what I can tell). Your only hope is to provide undisputed evidence supporting you theory. Not adding, leaving out, or changing a word. Now would be a good time.

 

[Akhenaten]

I thought observer was a synonym for SELF.

That was last week.

Why can't two SELVES be identical?

I'm not sure if this is the same question that you're asking, but I'd like to know why Jabba thinks two (or more) souls can't be identical.

 

[sackett]

Veuve Cliquot, or maybe Deutz

This wins one entire internets. Logically.

Watch your inbox.

:

Thank you kindly.

But now I want to hear from Jabba. Yes, I do. I want to hear him trace his thinking from premise to conclusion, or vice versa. I want him to do that clearly and concisely.

I want rainwater to turn into champagne, come to that.

 

[Mojo]

What sense is that? Why can't two observers be identical?

- The observers (selves) would have different SELVES. They could be identical except for their SELVES.

That doesn't answer Dave's question; it's just a restatement of your unsupported claim.

 

[Mojo]

Do YOU really think you're explaining anything here? If I look up SELF in the dictionary am I going to find a completely different definition from the one that's given for self?

It's like the distinction between names written in ALLCAPS and names written in lower case in FOTL mythology: the SELF is a fiction that Jabba has made up to support his argument, while the self (more properly written "s:elf" or "observer of the self family") is a real phenomenon produced by flesh and blood.

 

[pakeha]

xt,
- I think the answer is that each new batch of consciousness automatically, intrinsically, inherently takes on, or brings with it, a particular SELF. Such is not the case for batches of ale. The two identical batches of ale would be independent of their containers (and the containers independent of their particular batches), and totally identical.

No, Jabba.
Conscious is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem, not something that comes in batches.

- The observers (selves) would have different SELVES. They could be identical except for their SELVES. The batches of brown ale would be totally identical.

Not SELF, Jabba, rather sense of self.
As you know, that's an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

 

[Jabba]

- The observers (selves) would have different SELVES. They could be identical except for their SELVES. The batches of brown ale would be totally identical.

You're confusing two different meanings of "different" here. Different as in not sharing identity vs. different as in not having the same features.
The SELVES are distinct, but have the same features. The beers are distinct, but have the same features. There is no difference in the way they're different from each other. Each is distinct, but isomorphic (to throw in some random technical jargon). The SELF is just as much "totally identical" as the beer, and just as much not "totally identical", depending on whether you're referring to identity or form.

xt,

- I'm having trouble keeping up with just you and Dave even, and have to choose very carefully my next sub-sub-issues to address...

- I'm claiming that there IS a difference in the way that the two sets (consciousness v beer) of original v replica are different from each other. Each new batch of consciousness would automatically, intrinsically, inherently take on, or bring with it, a PARTICULAR self. Such is not the case for batches of beer and their particular containers. The two containers of beer would be independent of their batches.

 

[John Jones]

xt,

- I'm having trouble keeping up with just you and Dave even, and have to choose very carefully my next sub-sub-issues to address...

You only post twice a day,and you can't keep up with 2 posters? You're ignoring every comment from those not on your LCP list, for FSM's sake!

Your time-wasting sub-sub issues have gotten you nowhere in nearly two years.

- I'm claiming that there IS a difference in the way that the two sets (consciousness v beer) of original v replica are different from each other. Each new batch of consciousness would automatically, intrinsically, inherently take on, or bring with it, a PARTICULAR self. Such is not the case for batches of beer and their particular containers. The two containers of beer would be independent of their batches.

The burden or proof is on you to support this claim with something. Logical arguments would help. So would empirical evidence.

Got any of that stuff?

 

[HighRiser]

xt,

- I'm having trouble keeping up with just you and Dave even, and have to choose very carefully my next sub-sub-issues to address...

- I'm claiming that there IS a difference in the way that the two sets (consciousness v beer) of original v replica are different from each other. Each new batch of consciousness would automatically, intrinsically, inherently take on, or bring with it, a PARTICULAR self. Such is not the case for batches of beer and their particular containers. The two containers of beer would be independent of their batches.

We know that's what you're claiming. The thing is; you don't go any further than claiming such things. You don't support your claims, or offer up the reasoning that led you to believe your claims, or present evidence that would substantiate your claims.


I don't understand why you expect to influence anyone's belief system by repeatedly stating and restating unsubstantiated claims. Claims that even you can't define.

 

[Giordano]

xt,


- I'm claiming that there IS a difference in the way that the two sets (consciousness v beer) of original v replica are different from each other. Each new batch of consciousness would automatically, intrinsically, inherently take on, or bring with it, a PARTICULAR self. Such is not the case for batches of beer and their particular containers. The two containers of beer would be independent of their batches.

We know what you are claiming, You are wrong. To find out why, just read the other posts on this thread. Simply re-iterating your beliefs in spite of these unanimous corrections and disagreements doesn't help you at all: presenting evidence and proof that favors your theories and negates the critiques would.

 

[Giordano]

xt,

- I'm having trouble keeping up with just you and Dave even, and have to choose very carefully my next sub-sub-issues to address...

Perhaps your self-imposed highly restricted debating style (limited participants and sub-sub issues that never get to the central question) is not an effective approach after all?

Perhaps you should consider that you are really doing a disservice for your position to post as you do, and that perhaps you should consider switching to a different thread that might be less demanding of your time and effort?

 

[godless dave]

- I'm claiming that there IS a difference in the way that the two sets (consciousness v beer) of original v replica are different from each other. Each new batch of consciousness would automatically, intrinsically, inherently take on, or bring with it, a PARTICULAR self. Such is not the case for batches of beer and their particular containers. The two containers of beer would be independent of their batches.

To save time, I'll take this as answering my question.

Jabba, is this claim based on the scientific model of consciousness?

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]- I'm claiming that there IS a difference in the way that the two sets (consciousness v beer) of original v replica are different from each other. Each new batch of consciousness would automatically, intrinsically, inherently take on, or bring with it, a PARTICULAR self. Such is not the case for batches of beer and their particular containers. The two containers of beer would be independent of their batches.

No, Jabba.
Consciousness doesn't bring or take on particular selves.
A sense of self is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

 

[Giordano]

- I'm claiming that there IS a difference in the way that the two sets (consciousness v beer) of original v replica are different from each other. Each new batch of consciousness would automatically, intrinsically, inherently take on, or bring with it, a PARTICULAR self. Such is not the case for batches of beer and their particular containers. The two containers of beer would be independent of their batches.

I think you should examine what your purpose is here. If it is to convert others, than simply restating and restating your own beliefs in the absence of additional evidence will not work at all. That is true even if your statement represents your own beliefs, and not the SM. If it is just your own theory, and you hope to convince others, then argue effectively why your theory is true. If it is your view of the SM, than you are very wrong. Do you have another purpose for posting this endlessly in the absence of explaining why you are right?

 

[Slowvehicle]

xt,

- I'm having trouble keeping up with just you and Dave even, and have to choose very carefully my next sub-sub-issues to address...

- I'm claiming that there IS a difference in the way that the two sets (consciousness v beer) of original v replica are different from each other. Each new batch of consciousness would automatically, intrinsically, inherently take on, or bring with it, a PARTICULAR self. Such is not the case for batches of beer and their particular containers. The two containers of beer would be independent of their batches.

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage, and Happy Independence Day!

You are working 'way too hard to defend a "difference" that cannot be demonstrated. If the worts are as identical as the neurosystems you have been hypothesizing, the resultant beers will be as identical to each other as the resultant consciousnesses.

Any chance you might just drop this, and get on with your evidence for the existence of the "soul" and it's "immortality"?

Any chance you might even acknowledge that such has been asked of you, multiple times, by multiple posters?

 

[xtifr]

- I'm claiming that there IS a difference in the way that the two sets (consciousness v beer) of original v replica are different from each other. Each new batch of consciousness would automatically, intrinsically, inherently take on, or bring with it, a PARTICULAR self. Such is not the case for batches of beer and their particular containers. The two containers of beer would be independent of their batches.

Again, you're welcome to that belief, but there is nothing in the scientific model that would support such a claim. Therefore you cannot claim it's part of the scientific model. Especially not when your goal is to debunk the scientific model.

What the rest of us are trying to explain to you may be more clear if you consider legs and running, rather than beer and...whatever. Contrariwise, if you want to convince us, you're much more likely to succeed if you can make your argument work with running, and not just beer. So you might want to focus on that. It'll help everyone on both sides.

Running is a property of legs, just as SELF is a property of the brain (in the scientific model). It may not be an emergent property, and it may not have the self-reflective features of consciousness, but nothing in science says that being emergent or self-reflective makes a property independent of the thing it's a property of!

If you want us to accept that SELF is independent of the brain, you have to show how and why. Repeated, unsupported assertions are not an argument.

ETA: So far, your arguments haven't even convinced me about beer, let alone running.

 

[George]

xt,

- I'm having trouble keeping up with just you and Dave even, and have to choose very carefully my next sub-sub-issues to address...

By way of an experiment why not choose an issue at random. It's unlikely in the extreme the outcome will be any less incomprehensible.

And btw, I for one welcome the reintroduction of your sub-sub-sub malarkey.
In the past It has severed you well as a distraction, I found it most entertaining.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I'm claiming that there IS a difference in the way that the two sets (consciousness v beer) of original v replica are different from each other. Each new batch of consciousness would automatically, intrinsically, inherently take on, or bring with it, a PARTICULAR self. Such is not the case for batches of beer and their particular containers. The two containers of beer would be independent of their batches.

Jabba -

This is only because you don't know much about beer.

To a true connoisseur of fermented beverages, each batch of beer store in each type of container is distinguishable and distinct. To a professional, ridiculously small things such as humidity can affect the taste of beer, as can the type of soil the grains were grown in.

To an expert on people, each individual is easily distinguished from every other. But, to someone who is not an expert - a deer or a snake, perhaps - all people look as similar as two bottles of beer.

In any case, the bottle is not analogous to the body in this example. The ingredients are to the beer as the makeup of the brain is to consciousness.

You're comparing the wrong things and you're doing it badly.

 

[John Jones]

Umm. Beer!