Proof of Immortality II

[Giordano]

It's almost as if Jabba hasn't read a single post by anyone other than his chosen corrisonents. I can't imagine that this could be the case!

Jabba, have you read any posts other than those by Xtifer or Godless Dave? If not, why not?

A good question, but one might even ask if Jabba has even read, and thought about, posts from xtifr or Godless Dave. Although I think the other posters here have provided additional perspectives, these two MFPs have certainly explained the problems with Jabba's views of the SM, but with zero resulting change in Jabba's theories. I notice that Jabba quotes posts (other than his own: he is fond of his own posts) only to twist them, or to ask questions apparently hoping that the post doesn't really mean what it says (sometimes he will do this multiple times, apparently hoping for a different answer).

So I will state again, if Jabba ignores most of the posters here, in practice or formally, he is only avoiding seeing some highly relevant information. Also, everyone else here can see these posts, even if they are on ignore for Jabba, so the major flaws in his theory are highlighted, and never rebutted by him.

Given Jabba likes the courtroom approach for finding "truth:" is it a good idea for a defense attorney to ignore (or to leave the room altogether during) the points made by the prosecutor?

 

[Butter!]

Say, it just occurred to me to ask - Jabba, why does this matter again? Like, at all?

Looking forward to your answer!

 

[John Jones]

Say, it just occurred to me to ask - Jabba, why does this matter again? Like, at all?

Looking forward to your answer!

He doesn't want to die. Convincing someone else that immortality is real would bolster his confidence in immortality.

 

[abaddon]

He doesn't want to die. Convincing someone else that immortality is real would bolster his confidence in immortality.

I am not convinced of that, but am leaning that way. All of this seems an elaborate attempt to deny impending death.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.

NO

2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".

NO

3. There is no pool (or set) of potential selves.

YES (there is no "pool")

4. (Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)

meaningless

5. Therefore, each particular self, in part, comes out of nowhere.

NO

6. IOW, each particular self is "created on the spot" – it has no complete “representation” prior to its inception.

meaningless

7. That being the case, there is no limit on “who” each new self will be. The possibilities are unbounded -- or infinite.

NO (for one thing, that is not "the case")

8. Therefore, while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite.

NO

None of this represents our current understanding of consciousness as an emergent property of a neurosystem...

 

[John Jones]

I am not convinced of that, but am leaning that way. All of this seems an elaborate attempt to deny impending death.

It is admittedly 1/2 speculation on my part.

I really don't know why he keeps going at it - he's not exactly crowning himself with laurels.

 

[Butter!]

But his definition of "Self" and conceptual gymnastics regarding what actually constitutes "living on" are so convoluted at this point, I'm not convinced it would really count as not dying in the literal sense. Even if it weren't malarkey, I mean.

That's why I'm wondering. Jabba? This seems really important to you. You're pouring massive reserves of energy into debating and varying it. Why is that? What are the stakes, as you see them?

 

[Mojo]

But his definition of "Self" and conceptual gymnastics regarding what actually constitutes "living on" are so convoluted at this point, I'm not convinced it would really count as not dying in the literal sense. Even if it weren't malarkey, I mean.

I think all the malarkey is supposed to prove that what Jabba terms "the scientific model" has a probablility of zero, and therefore Jabba is immortal. Because, obviously, the only possible alternative to Jabba's strawman of the "scientific model" is that we are immortal.




May contain irony.

 

[John Jones]

He's also using these convoluted definitions and deliberate misinterpretations to try and trick people into accidentally agreeing with him so he can have his GOTCHA! moment. He has actually admitted that he does this.

I can easily imagine him getting away with this kind of intellectual bullying at home, but it's failed here every time.

 

[John Jones]

Duplicate

 

[xtifr]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.

This is (amusingly, given what follows) perfectly true. In fact, you would have done well to stop here.

2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".

Includes. Not "brings with it" or "takes on". The self is a part of consciousness. Just as leg-lifting is part of running.

3. There is no pool (or set) of potential selves.

Non sequitur. Is there a "pool" of running? Running is a feature of legs, just as consciousness/self are features of brains, and there's a finite number of potential runnings/selves, which could be referred to as a pool (in probability space), but running cannot exist without legs (just as consciousness/self cannot exist without a brain), so there's no physical "pool" where runnings/selves are "stored" when not actually occurring.

Actions don't exist without actors.

4. (Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)

Fallacy. And, amusingly, a direct contradiction of your point one! How do you possibly think you can get here from there?

I honestly have no idea how you think this follows, although my guess would be false dichotomy/fallacy of the excluded middle, based on your misleading and non-sequiturish point 3.

Consciousness/self come from the brain and are wholly determined by the specific brain in which they occur (which resolves your whole perfect-copy issue). The physics "formula" which identifies a specific brain also identifies a specific self. Biochemistry plus space-time coordinates.

All your remaining points seem to be based on this particular fallacy, so I won't bother to discuss them. This is the fallacy you need to deal with. Consciousness and the self come from the brain! You can't have "self" without a brain, any more than you can have running without legs. Saying that "self" comes from nowhere is like saying that running comes from nowhere. It makes no sense and follows no discernible logic.

Consciousness, self, and running are all physical processes performed by physical objects, and cannot exist independently of those physical objects.

 

[Giordano]

He's also using these convoluted definitions and deliberate misinterpretations to try and trick people into accidentally agreeing with him so he can have his GOTCHA! moment. He has actually admitted that he does this.

I can easily imagine him getting away with this kind of intellectual bullying at home, but it's failed here every time.

This just intensifies the mystery for me. I don't know Jabba or his real life and will not assign a motivation to him. But I really don't understand his posts where they seem to seek to twist someone's actual statements into a false agreement. Clearly this will only irritate the original poster, who will then correct the twisted view. How does this help Jabba? A few minutes of manufactured false agreement, followed by a denial from the poster "roped in?" How does this help any goal?

 

[abaddon]

It is admittedly 1/2 speculation on my part.

I really don't know why he keeps going at it - he's not exactly crowning himself with laurels.

Half speculation on my part also. One cannot but help reaching that conclusion, given we have all of us spent two years telling Jabba that nobody here agrees with him, yet Jabba has not noticed this and blithely wanders on, randomly positing that godless dave has agreed with him when he has not, or Giordano has agreed with him when he has not, or Humots has... well you get the picture.

 

[Aepervius]

Half speculation on my part also. One cannot but help reaching that conclusion, given we have all of us spent two years telling Jabba that nobody here agrees with him, yet Jabba has not noticed this and blithely wanders on, randomly positing that godless dave has agreed with him when he has not, or Giordano has agreed with him when he has not, or Humots has... well you get the picture.

I have had a few hypothesis since the middle of the cloth thread. I think he truly is oblivious to why we are so negative with his claims. That seems to be confirmed by a personal message I had with him. Why he is oblivious may have a few reason : for example he may think we are wrong and thus trying to find justification for it, or he may (due to age) have cognition problems among others.

 

[John Jones]

This just intensifies the mystery for me. I don't know Jabba or his real life and will not assign a motivation to him. But I really don't understand his posts where they seem to seek to twist someone's actual statements into a false agreement. Clearly this will only irritate the original poster, who will then correct the twisted view. How does this help Jabba? A few minutes of manufactured false agreement, followed by a denial from the poster "roped in?" How does this help any goal?

I have a brother like this. He'll wear people down with his false logic, inability to change his mind or listen to another point of view, and unwillingness to change the subject.

People will just say "whatever" and walk out of the room shaking their heads. My brother will call that a win for his score card.

 

[Cainkane1]

I wonder if asparagus is immortal?

 

[abaddon]

I have had a few hypothesis since the middle of the cloth thread. I think he truly is oblivious to why we are so negative with his claims. That seems to be confirmed by a personal message I had with him. Why he is oblivious may have a few reason : for example he may think we are wrong and thus trying to find justification for it, or he may (due to age) have cognition problems among others.

We are into the realm of speculation here, but I suspect he simply deletes from memory any post he does not like. It isn't even intentional. It is a conditioned response not to see opposing ideas. Jabba will not see or respond to this exchange. Jabba is not able to see it. This is why I have ceased to post in this thread very often. Our protaganist Jabba simply will not answer.

Let us face facts. Here we are, you and me, having a civil conversation. No controversy, nobody having a rant, just a simple exchange of opinions.

It's nice.

Can't for the life of me see Jabba doing that.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I wonder if asparagus is immortal?

I get the scents that it lingers on for a while, at least.

 

[Jabba]

2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".

#2 is not part of the scientific model, and I don't understand why you think it is.

Dave,
- For some reason, I thought you had agreed with #2...
- How about ... "Each separate consciousness has its own, separate, sense of self?"

 

[pakeha]

Dave,
- For some reason, I thought you had agreed with #2...
- How about ... "Each separate consciousness has its own, separate, sense of self?"

No, Jabba.
You seem to have forgotten that consciousness isn't a thing but rather an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.