Proof of Immortality II

[godless dave]

I'm not going to help you with this particular stalling tactic.

How about addressing this instead?

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?

 

[Mojo]

But anyway, you have just nominated yourself and Dave to be that spokesperson(s).

Jabba, you were replying, here, to a post in which xtifr said that you ought to be "choosing posts to respond to based on the content rather than on who posted" rather than just responding to Dave and xtifr. It's hard to see how you could interpret that as nominating himself and Dave to be spokespersons.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

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

Imagine someone grossly dishonest running away from something that exposes their hypocrisy, that's precisely how you ran

 

[Jabba]

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?

Dave,
- A SELF is more than the biochemistry of the brain. A perfect replica of my brain would not produce the same me.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- A SELF is more than the biochemistry of the brain.

In the scientific model it is not more than the biochemistry of the brain.

A perfect replica of my brain would not produce the same me.

In the scientific model, it would produce an identical you.

 

[Jabba]

In the scientific model it is.




In the scientific model, it would produce an identical you.

- Identical, but not the same. It would not produce my SELF.

 

[godless dave]

- Identical, but not the same. It would not produce my SELF.

And?

 

[Mojo]

- Identical, but not the same. It would not produce my SELF.

It would produce a SELF identical to your SELF.

 

[Akhenaten]

xt,

- Don't you suspect that it would take me forever to respond fully to your post above...? Well, it would...

If only you were immortal.

- I'll try to stick to a couple of points.

Your argument(?) lacks even a single point.

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...

No, you don't have anywhere to go. The exercise of having a one-on-one discussion about this garbage was done and dusted months ago.

- 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...

I don't care who nominates who to be my spokesman. I speak for myself.

Your pretence notwithstanding, the first step in building a case for your idiotic proposition has yet to be taken.

- 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?

Continue to comment on the never-ending train smash that this thread has become.

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

There wasn't one. Nor was there a first point, really.

 

[George]

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.

Is this the product of a mind undergoing rapid deterioration or is he taking the piss.

 

[Akhenaten]

Filippo,
- I forgot about that attempt...

Nobody else has, and that's what matters.

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

 

[Akhenaten]

- Just to try to put our discussion into perspective.

It's utterly meaningless.

On the other hand, our discussion (the one in which you have chosen not to participate) has been relatively fruitful and moderately entertaining.

- This whole thread boils down to one issue with two sub-issues.

How would you know? You appear to have no memory even of the tiny fraction of it in which you've taken part.

- I need to support one of two claims about the value of P(me|A) in my Bayesian formula.

The probability of your current existence is exactly 1. Attempting to support any other value is as futile as Xerxes' efforts against the tide.

- 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.

No support for this claim is necessary. As the Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"​

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- A SELF is more than the biochemistry of the brain. A perfect replica of my brain would not produce the same me.

Still wrong. You really should read the other posts to understand why.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- A SELF is more than the biochemistry of the brain. A perfect replica of my brain would not produce the same me.

Mr. Savage:

Even for you, this is remarkably disingenuous.

The SELF/self/ISOS/observer/consciousness (or whatever other euphemism you want to try to hide behind, this time) is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem. If you want to insist it ia something else, you are no longer working within the "scientific model".

Can't make that claim without supporting it.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

So you can forget about it again tomorrow? Why the hell should anyone bother with such a pointless endeavour?

- Or maybe, you could just post the passages that support your claim.

Passages??? Claim???


We're talking about at least two complete threads here. Future editions of the Concise Oxford Dictionary and Merriam-Webster will include references to them as part of the definition of "fiasco".

Are you for real?

- I don't mean to be obtuse -- I just need help in speeding up my participation.

Participation is something upon which you have no right to lay claim.

 

[Giordano]

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

Either this post is joking, or there is no use to debate given anything we post will be soon forgotten, if not downright ignored. You have even been reminded of this one-on-one thread, and your abandonment of it, very recently.

 

[Giordano]

- 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.

It comes down to one issue: is there a "self" that is non-physical and that survives physical death? Scientific model: no. Are we done yet?

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- A SELF is more than the biochemistry of the brain.

A self is neither more nor less than the biochemistry of a brain. It's an emergent property.

A SELF is neither more nor less than a meaningless term that occurs nowhere outside the weird and witless world of Jabbanetics™.

A perfect replica of my brain would not produce the same me.

No, you'll definitely be needing to do the arms and legs and stuff as well.

Having accomplished that impossible task, the only thing you'll have achieved is to be twice as wrong as you are now.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Identical, but not the same. It would not produce my SELF.

"BALDERDASH"

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, I say this out of concern for you, truly. If your memory is as poor as you imply - that you cannot remember that you requested special treatment and a one-on-one discussion, which was provided to you as a particular favour by this forum, in which you failed to abide by your own rues of 'one point per post' and which you abandoned despite your interlocutor agreeing to concede your argument in order to move the discussion along - then I really think you should see a doctor and perhaps consider requesting a referral to a geriatrician. Memory problems need not be a unavoidable part of growing older, nor are they untreatable.