Proof of Immortality II

[xtifr]

- I was thinking that in that one sentence you were admitting that the beer's relationship with "identity" was different than consciousness' relationship with identity.- Now, I see that I had misread (misunderstood) your point. I was thinking that you were being inconsistent both within and between each of the two paragraphs...

Well, to be fair, beer isn't the best analogy. It's an object, while consciousness is a process. Legs:running:leg lifting is, IMO, a better analogy to brain:consciousness:sense of self. So let's stick to that, and not drift back to beer (delicious as beer may be).

- I was thinking that in those two sentences you were admitting that the beer's relationship to "identity" was different than consciousness' relationship to "identity," rather than both beer and consciousness had different relationships to "features" than they did with "identity." (Though, I'm still not sure that we're talking about the same "identity"...)

If you're not sure what I mean when I say "identity", that could indeed be confusing. In mathematics, identity is basically definitional. Two is the successor to one, and all instances of the number two share identity. Likewise for a given line or shape. But that's because mathematics is about abstract concepts. In physics, this notion is basically limited to one given object. If you throw a rock and I throw a rock, and those rocks share identity, then we threw the same rock (presumably at different times).

- I think I'll leave it at that rather than try to explain my misunderstanding. (That could take another two weeks...)

As long as you understand me now, I'm not particularly concerned with why or how you misunderstood me before, so that's fine.

But to try to avoid future misunderstanding, let's try something. Do you understand what I mean when I say "teleportation is indistinguishable from destroying the original when you make the copy"? And do you see how it relates to your argument?

- For now, I'm thinking that we just disagree about the relationships that beer and consciousness have to identity. I think that they're different; you think that they're the same.

This isn't about what you or I think at this stage. We're still discussing what the scientific model says. In science, it's not sufficient to think something's true. You need evidence, or at the very least, a logical and consistent reason.

Now we don't really have the Magic Copier we would need to gather actual experimental data, but our* argument (that beer and running and consciousness and self will all be separate-but-identical) is at least consistent. Your argument that self will show a different behavior when copied than anything else does needs some pretty strong reasons to overcome the obvious lack of consistency. And so far, I haven't seen anything other than "I believe it's different."

William of Occam is spinning in his grave.

* And by "our" I'm referring to me and Godless Dave and the vast majority of other posters you've been rudely ignoring. You don't need to respond to every single post, of course, but it would be good if you at least acknowledge when more than one person has raised a point, by saying something like "I disagree with the point that you and Bob and Alice and others have raised because..." Even better yet would be choosing posts to respond to based on the content rather than on who posted.

(And to all you people out there who are posting and being ignored by Jabba: rest assured that I am reading your posts and considering the points you raise, and I'm pretty sure Dave is as well.)

 

[Jabba]

546

They're different because they're not the same object. Which, indeed, has absolutely nothing to do with biochemistry. Two different objects are never the same object, whether or not they're biochemical. Two identical lumps of iron are not the same lump, and all the properties of those two lumps are unique to each lump, despite the fact that the lumps and their properties are identical.
And yes, that basically boils down to physics, since it clearly doesn't have anything to do with biochemistry.
Don't forget, while you're contemplating all this, that teleportation is indistinguishable from destroying the original while creating the copy.

- OK.
- If time were infinite, would there be an infinity of different SELVES?

 

[Akhenaten]

546

- OK.
- If time were infinite, would there be an infinity of different SELVES?

No, because there isn't an infinite amount of material in the Universe from which to create them.

Face it Jabba, there isn't an infinity of anything.

Although I'm considering that obtuseness might be the exception to the rule.

 

[Giordano]

546

- OK.
- If time were infinite, would there be an infinity of different SELVES?

Didn't we already do this?
If my uncle was a motorcycle, what gas mileage would he get?

 

[godless dave]

546

- OK.
- If time were infinite, would there be an infinity of different SELVES?

Even if there were, the likelihood of any particular SELF existing would not be 1/infinity because the existence of each SELF would depend on previous events.

 

[xtifr]

546

- OK.
- If time were infinite, would there be an infinity of different SELVES?

Depends on the type of infinity.

.101001000100001... is an infinite, non-repeating series, but it does not contain all possible arrangements of digits. Pi, on the other hand, is an infinite, non-repeating series that does contain all possible arrangements of digits.

Eventually the universe is going to experience heat-death, at which point, consciousness will no longer be possible. Whether or not the universe continues existing beyond that point is irrelevant. So the part of spacetime that can host consciousness is finite, whether or not the universe is.

But if that's wrong, and there are an infinity of different selves, then your chance of existence is not 1/infinity, but 1. Just as the chance of finding any particular sequence of numbers in pi somewhere is one, in an infinite universe with an infinite number of selves, your existence is guaranteed. So that still doesn't help you prove immortality.

 

[pakeha]

546

- OK.
- If time were infinite, would there be an infinity of different SELVES?

Jabba, your posts show you're still not accepting the fact there is no SELF, but rather there's a sense of self, part of an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.
And remember, Jabba, leg lifts aren't the same as leg lifting.

 

[Mojo]

If time were infinite, would there be an infinity of different SELVES?

Only if there were an infinite number of possible brain states, which would require brains to be of infinite size.

Are brains of infinite size?

 

[Mojo]

If time were infinite, would there be an infinity of different SELVES?

Only if there were an infinite number of possible brain states, which would require brains to be of infinite size.

Are brains of infinite size?

And remember, Jabba: the SELF (or self, or consciousness, or whatever else you want to call it) is not a thing that is somehow attached to a brain, it is a process, and is determined by the state of the brain producing it at the particular time being considered. The SELF your brain is producing today is not the same as the SELF your brain produced yesterday, or even the same as the SELF it was producing when you started reading this post a few seconds ago.

 

[Jabba]

Well, to be fair, beer isn't the best analogy. It's an object, while consciousness is a process. Legs:running:leg lifting is, IMO, a better analogy to brain:consciousness:sense of self. So let's stick to that, and not drift back to beer (delicious as beer may be).



If you're not sure what I mean when I say "identity", that could indeed be confusing. In mathematics, identity is basically definitional. Two is the successor to one, and all instances of the number two share identity. Likewise for a given line or shape. But that's because mathematics is about abstract concepts. In physics, this notion is basically limited to one given object. If you throw a rock and I throw a rock, and those rocks share identity, then we threw the same rock (presumably at different times).


As long as you understand me now, I'm not particularly concerned with why or how you misunderstood me before, so that's fine.

But to try to avoid future misunderstanding, let's try something. Do you understand what I mean when I say "teleportation is indistinguishable from destroying the original when you make the copy"? And do you see how it relates to your argument?



This isn't about what you or I think at this stage. We're still discussing what the scientific model says. In science, it's not sufficient to think something's true. You need evidence, or at the very least, a logical and consistent reason.

Now we don't really have the Magic Copier we would need to gather actual experimental data, but our* argument (that beer and running and consciousness and self will all be separate-but-identical) is at least consistent. Your argument that self will show a different behavior when copied than anything else does needs some pretty strong reasons to overcome the obvious lack of consistency. And so far, I haven't seen anything other than "I believe it's different."

William of Occam is spinning in his grave.

* And by "our" I'm referring to me and Godless Dave and the vast majority of other posters you've been rudely ignoring. You don't need to respond to every single post, of course, but it would be good if you at least acknowledge when more than one person has raised a point, by saying something like "I disagree with the point that you and Bob and Alice and others have raised because..." Even better yet would be choosing posts to respond to based on the content rather than on who posted.

(And to all you people out there who are posting and being ignored by Jabba: rest assured that I am reading your posts and considering the points you raise, and I'm pretty sure Dave is as well.)

xt,

- Don't you suspect that it would take me forever to respond fully to your post above...? Well, it would...
- I'll try to stick to a couple of points.

1) In 'my' previous thread about the Shroud, I asked -- numerous times --for you guys to elect a spokesperson. Numerous times I was turned down. I've probably asked for a spokesperson in this thread, but I can't remember, and don't want to take the time to do the search -- I have miles to go...
- But anyway, you have just nominated yourself and Dave to be that spokesperson(s). Thanks; I think that's a significant step in the right direction...
- Now, with the help of the others, you or Dave could round up the best and most repeated points/questions for my consideration, and tell me which one you would like me to address first. At the same time, I'll be doing my own "examinations," and cross-examinations in the direction that I would like to go. Sounds tedious, but wht'r'ya'gonna'do?

2) (I forget what that second point was...)

 

[Filippo Lippi]

xt,

- Don't you suspect that it would take me forever to respond fully to your post above...? Well, it would...
- I'll try to stick to a couple of points.

1) In 'my' previous thread about the Shroud, I asked -- numerous times --for you guys to elect a spokesperson. Numerous times I was turned down. I've probably asked for a spokesperson in this thread, but I can't remember, and don't want to take the time to do the search -- I have miles to go...
- But anyway, you have just nominated yourself and Dave to be that spokesperson(s). Thanks; I think that's a significant step in the right direction...
- Now, with the help of the others, you or Dave could round up the best and most repeated points/questions for my consideration, and tell me which one you would like me to address first. At the same time, I'll be doing my own "examinations," and cross-examinations in the direction that I would like to go. Sounds tedious, but wht'r'ya'gonna'do?

2) (I forget what that second point was...)

A staggeringly dishonest post.

You were given the very thread you asked for with the rules of the debate being the ones you pulled out of your arse and splattered on your car-crash of a website. You ran away from it within a couple of posts, because you couldn't use the noise of a normal thread to hide your duplicity.

 

[Jabba]

A staggeringly dishonest post.

You were given the very thread you asked for with the rules of the debate being the ones you pulled out of your arse and splattered on your car-crash of a website. You ran away from it within a couple of posts, because you couldn't use the noise of a normal thread to hide your duplicity.

Filippo,
- I forgot about that attempt...
- Can you show me how I ran away from it?

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]1) In 'my' previous thread about the Shroud, I asked -- numerous times --for you guys to elect a spokesperson. Numerous times I was turned down. I've probably asked for a spokesperson in this thread, but I can't remember, and don't want to take the time to do the search -- I have miles to go...
- But anyway, you have just nominated yourself and Dave to be that spokesperson(s). Thanks; I think that's a significant step in the right direction...
- Now, with the help of the others, you or Dave could round up the best and most repeated points/questions for my consideration, and tell me which one you would like me to address first. At the same time, I'll be doing my own "examinations," and cross-examinations in the direction that I would like to go. Sounds tedious, but wht'r'ya'gonna'do?

2) (I forget what that second point was...)

Jabba, are you joking or have you actually forgotten about your website dedicated our little discussion about the medieval artefact which is the TS?

Have you already forgotten about the one-one-one thread you had with Locknar?

Filippo,
- I forgot about that attempt...
- Can you show me how I ran away from it?

Do you know how to use the Forum's search engine?

 

[godless dave]

- Can you show me how I ran away from it?

You posted in the commentary thread rather than in the debate thread itself.

You insisted that Loss Leader only ask you one question per post, but you asked multiple questions per post.

 

[Jabba]

- Just to try to put our discussion into perspective.
- This whole thread boils down to one issue with two sub-issues.
- I need to support one of two claims about the value of P(me|A) in my Bayesian formula.
- I claim that the value of P(me|A) is either one over infinity or one over a totally unimaginably large number. To do the latter, I need to support my claim that I can legitimately be separated from the crowd.

 

[godless dave]

Now, with the help of the others, you or Dave could round up the best and most repeated points/questions for my consideration, and tell me which one you would like me to address first.

If, in the scientific model, the likelihood of a particular human brain existing is not 1/infinity, then how can the likelihood of a human SELF existing be 1/infinity, given that in the scientific model, the brain produces the SELF?

 

[Slowvehicle]

xt,

- Don't you suspect that it would take me forever to respond fully to your post above...? Well, it would...
- I'll try to stick to a couple of points.

1) In 'my' previous thread about the Shroud, I asked -- numerous times --for you guys to elect a spokesperson. Numerous times I was turned down. I've probably asked for a spokesperson in this thread, but I can't remember, and don't want to take the time to do the search -- I have miles to go...
- But anyway, you have just nominated yourself and Dave to be that spokesperson(s). Thanks; I think that's a significant step in the right direction...
- Now, with the help of the others, you or Dave could round up the best and most repeated points/questions for my consideration, and tell me which one you would like me to address first. At the same time, I'll be doing my own "examinations," and cross-examinations in the direction that I would like to go. Sounds tedious, but wht'r'ya'gonna'do?

2) (I forget what that second point was...)

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

I have nearly stopped participating in this thread, as it is clear that it is going nowhere.

This, however, goes beyong your normal rudeness and incivility and sinks deep onto dishonesty.

Please pay attention, Mr. Savage:

You were given your very own thread,with only one interlocutor allowed to post in it. A special arena was set up, just for you, with an official "spokesperson", a single disputant to whom you were free to respond.

Do you remember the result of that, Mr. Savage?

You...bailed. You stopped posting in that thread; you declined to engage the appointed contender. You left the field, abandoning the custom-crafted contest upon which you had insisted.

Given the failure (one is tempted to say, the abject and predictable failure), of the forum's sally into your "effective debate" technique, why would you even pretend to bring it up again?

Do you ever intend to present what you consider to be evidence of the existence of the "soul", or its "immortality"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Filippo,
- I forgot about that attempt...
- Can you show me how I ran away from it?

Go back and read the thread that was dedicated to you and your "effective debate" technique, Mr. Savage (it isn't very long, after all), and you can see where your assigned minder closed the thread because you had stopped participating in it.

I offer you a trade. I will lead you to that post, if you will present your evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal".

 

[Jabba]

You posted in the commentary thread rather than in the debate thread itself.

You insisted that Loss Leader only ask you one question per post, but you asked multiple questions per post.

Dave,
- You can show me faster than I can remember, or figure out, how to access that discussion.
- Or maybe, you could just post the passages that support your claim.
- I don't mean to be obtuse -- I just need help in speeding up my participation.

 

[pakeha]

- Just to try to put our discussion into perspective.
- This whole thread boils down to one issue with two sub-issues.
- I need to support one of two claims about the value of P(me|A) in my Bayesian formula.
- I claim that the value of P(me|A) is either one over infinity or one over a totally unimaginably large number. To do the latter, I need to support my claim that I can legitimately be separated from the crowd.

Jabba, have you forgotten that I (or more correctly your sense of self) is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem?