Proof of Immortality II

[Jabba]

Yes, that's what I mean too. Just as there would be two identical brains, there would be two identical "experiencers". Obviously you could not have two brains producing one experiencer in the scientific model, just as you cannot have one brain in two skulls.

I still don't understand the point of this discussion.

- You're saying that, according to the scientific model, there is a difference in experiencers (even though they are "identical," but that it's due simply to the fact of different brains. Does that mean that the difference between experiencers is not due to biochemical differences?
- Hopefully, I'll be able convey the relevance of my questions as we proceed.

 

[godless dave]

- You're saying that, according to the scientific model, there is a difference in experiencers (even though they are "identical," but that it's due simply to the fact of different brains. Does that mean that the difference between experiencers is not due to biochemical differences?

The only difference between the experiencers is their locations. They are exactly the same, but there are two of them.

Are we really having this discussion all over again?

 

[xtifr]

- And even if the universe and all possible universes ran out of time and heat (which is hard for me to accept), there would still be an endless chain of potential experiencers that never had a chance of existence -- because all possible universes ran out of time and heat.

Still not endless. Its still a finite number of possible combinations, even if you take all possible ways our universe (or a universe like ours) could have evolved. This is where you keep going wrong. You keep trying to find ways to make your finite number into an even bigger finite number, and assuming that bigger=infinity. That's not the case. No matter how big your finite number, it's still infinitely smaller than infinity.

And once in a while you jump to an infinite universe, which not only doesn't fit in with any current scientific models, but destroys your hypothesis for other reasons--specifically, the infinite monkey theorem, which, from some of your recent responses, I'm guessing you still haven't looked up.

 

[Akhenaten]

Are we really having this discussion all over again?

Not to put too fine a point on it, Dave, but yes, you are.

 

[jond]

Jabba: is there a reason you've ignored this post? It answers your duplicate brain scenario, removing your intended "gotcha" that you're attempting to set up. We all know you're attempting to put forth that there's "something else" besides the brain involved, but your impossible duplicate brain scenario isn't going to get you there. Read my post again to understand why.

Jabba, as has been explained to you an infinite number of times: the "experiencer" isn't a separate thing, it is an ongoing process. Brain stops, "experiencer" stops.

One more time for the world: in your impossible duplicate brain scenario, the duplicate brain has exactly the same "experiencer" at the moment of duplication. From that moment onward the two "experiencers" diverge, because an "experiencer" is in reality an ongoing process which changes with every bit of information that comes in/goes out. Further, neither "experiencer" would have any way of knowing whether or not it was the one true "experiencer."

Now can we please get over your impossible scenario? It's not helping you at all.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba: is there a reason you've ignored this post?

I think there is a reason. There are several possibilities, but none of them are likely to be open to changing his posting style. What do you think might be his reason?

 

[jond]

I think there is a reason. There are several possibilities, but none of them are likely to be open to changing his posting style. What do you think might be his reason?

I think his reason is that he has no answer for it.

 

[Giordano]

I think his reason is that he has no answer for it.

This is one very likely possibility. But it doesn't seem to bother him much. Nor do all the other demonstrations of his errors (by the way-yours is a great post). He has made no attempt to respond at all to these corrections. So I guess I am really wondering his reasons for not caring enough about his theories (and how they are received by others here) to either fix his errors, or explain why the corrections are wrong. Or why he continues to ask questions when the answers are there for him to read any time he wishes.

 

[jond]

This is one very likely possibility. But it doesn't seem to bother him much. Nor do all the other demonstrations of his errors (by the way-yours is a great post). He has made no attempt to respond at all to these corrections. So I guess I am really wondering his reasons for not caring enough about his theories (and how they are received by others here) to either fix his errors, or explain why the corrections are wrong. Or why he continues to ask questions when the answers are there for him to read any time he wishes.

I too am curious about why he refuses to respond the the multitude of corrections offered from so many posters. Which is why I keep at it. I get why you've bailed, and sometimes I feel like I should too. OTOH, there's still occasional interesting tidbits that come up (ie "The Tale of Duelling Neruosurgeons".

 

[Loss Leader]

Hopefully, I'll be able convey the relevance of my questions as we proceed.

Absolutely nobody is confused as to the relevance of your question. You think that if you can separate the concept of "mind" from the physical brain, you can posit an infinite possible amount of minds.

Unfortunately for you:

1. The brain and the mind are one and the same and cannot be separated.

2. The scenarios for duplicating people are not just unrealistic but actually impossible, so nothing can be learned from them.

3. Because every brain needs to have a long chain of causation, there cannot be an infinite number of them. Ever.

4. Even if there could be an infinite number of minds, that argues against reincarnation.

5. You have no evidence that any method of reincarnation is actually possible.

6. Your philosophy is really, really silly.

 

[AdMan]

Jabba: is there a reason you've ignored this post? It answers your duplicate brain scenario, removing your intended "gotcha" that you're attempting to set up. We all know you're attempting to put forth that there's "something else" besides the brain involved, but your impossible duplicate brain scenario isn't going to get you there. Read my post again to understand why.

Jabba, as has been explained to you an infinite number of times: the "experiencer" isn't a separate thing, it is an ongoing process. Brain stops, "experiencer" stops.

One more time for the world: in your impossible duplicate brain scenario, the duplicate brain has exactly the same "experiencer" at the moment of duplication. From that moment onward the two "experiencers" diverge, because an "experiencer" is in reality an ongoing process which changes with every bit of information that comes in/goes out. Further, neither "experiencer" would have any way of knowing whether or not it was the one true "experiencer."

Now can we please get over your impossible scenario? It's not helping you at all.

Just in case he has you on ignore (and just in case he doesn't have me on ignore), I'm quoting your valuable post, hoping Jabba addresses it.

Of course, he will likely still not do so, unless Dave or another one of his Chosen Ones presents this argument, so let's hope one of them does (I know they have argued similarly, but maybe not in a way Jabba can understand it).

 

[Toontown]

[to Jabba]
5. You have no evidence that any method of reincarnation is actually possible.

What about incarnation? I have evidence for incarnation. I was incarnated in 1949.

Still not sure how I beat the universe's system of incarnation denial. First, I had to be eligible for possible incarnation by not ever having been a brain before. Then I had to beat 800 giganogazillion : 1 odds. Apparently the Toon-brain was the only one available, and I couldn't get that unless the Toon-brain actually materialized. So what happened? Boom. Toon-brain. Right on target.

[to Jabba]
6. Your philosophy is really, really silly.

So is yours. I laugh at both your philosophies.

 

[Mojo]

- You're saying that, according to the scientific model, there is a difference in experiencers (even though they are "identical," but that it's due simply to the fact of different brains. Does that mean that the difference between experiencers is not due to biochemical differences?

No, "identical" means there is no difference. The lack of difference in experiencers would be the result of the lack of difference difference between the brains. Attempting to redefine the word "identical" won't help you.

 

[Mojo]

- You're saying that, according to the scientific model, there is a difference in experiencers (even though they are "identical," but that it's due simply to the fact of different brains. Does that mean that the difference between experiencers is not due to biochemical differences?
- Hopefully, I'll be able convey the relevance of my questions as we proceed.

No, "identical" means there is no difference. The lack of difference in experiencers would be the result of the lack of difference difference between the brains. Attempting to redefine the word "identical" won't help you.

If I could somehow perfectly reproduce you, as of the moment that you are sitting at your computer, reading this post*, There would be two identical Jabbas, both of who would share exactly the same memories, and have as their most recent memory sitting at their computer, reading this post. One of them would probably become rather confused at suddenly finding themselves somewhere else, but at the moment they were duplicated they would be identical.



*Another triumph of hope over experience.

 

[AdMan]

If I could somehow perfectly reproduce you, as of the moment that you are sitting at your computer, reading this post*, There would be two identical Jabbas, both of who would share exactly the same memories, and have as their most recent memory sitting at their computer, reading this post. One of them would probably become rather confused at suddenly finding themselves somewhere else, but at the moment they were duplicated they would be identical.

And neither would know for sure they were the "real" Jabba. So the "experiencers," or the illusions of consciousness, would be exactly the same, and have the same memories, beliefs, hopes, dreams, etc, at that exact point of reproduction. But because they couldn't be in the exact same location or have the same experiences from then on, they would immediately begin to diverge.

Jabba, the "experiencer" you so want to claim as the soul has been explained to you over and over, and is a result of a process of a brain. Nothing more than that.

 

[Jabba]

Still not endless. Its still a finite number of possible combinations, even if you take all possible ways our universe (or a universe like ours) could have evolved. This is where you keep going wrong. You keep trying to find ways to make your finite number into an even bigger finite number, and assuming that bigger=infinity. That's not the case. No matter how big your finite number, it's still infinitely smaller than infinity.

And once in a while you jump to an infinite universe, which not only doesn't fit in with any current scientific models, but destroys your hypothesis for other reasons--specifically, the infinite monkey theorem, which, from some of your recent responses, I'm guessing you still haven't looked up.

xt,
- Can an impossible combination be a potential combination?

 

[Jabba]

The only difference between the experiencers is their locations. They are exactly the same, but there are two of them...

Dave,
- IOW, there would be no biochemical difference between the two experiencers?

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Can an impossible combination be a potential combination?

*Clears throats*

NO. Things which are "IMPOSSIBLE" are not "POTENTIAL" because "POTENTIAL" implies a "POSSIBILITY!"

Yet again because you apparently have a problem with this WORDS MEAN THINGS!

 

[zooterkin]

The only difference between the experiencers is their locations. They are exactly the same, but there are two of them...

Dave,
- IOW, there would be no biochemical difference between the two experiencers?

Jabba, what do you understand "only" to mean?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- IOW, there would be no biochemical difference between the two experiencers?

Right. There would really be no difference between them at all. That's what identical means.