Proof of Immortality II

[jond]

Slowvehicle,
- But I never claim to have pointed out things to you guys. I admit that my claims are only claims.
- I've avoided using the word "soul" because it begs the question. I've quit trying to "essentially prove" immortality, and am currently trying to essentially disprove the scientific consensus that each self has only one finite life to live (at most).
- The main points are that (1) I had tried to justify my claim of immortality, but began to recognize that my real claim was that the scientific consensus in this case is wrong, and (2) personally, I think that I have begun to justify my claim (for anyone of your apparent intelligence that is not also a committed skeptic).

What you need to do is start by proving evidence that the "self/soul/experiencer" exists as a separate entity and is not an emergent process of a functioning neuro system.

 

[Slowvehicle]

How all-consumingly rude. First of all, you assume that there is a position called "committed skeptic" that simply rules things out no matter what words are said to them. As a lawyer, I care very much about facts, what they preponderate, and what it means when statements are irreconcileable.

Second, you assume that everyone in this thread but you shares the same background as "committed skeptics." We do not. We are all of various age, religions, locations, cultures, education and experience. When we come together on a topic, it's not because we're all in the same room conferring with each other.

In fact, one of the great weaknesses of your so-called effective debate is that you assume that there are two sides that caucus before coming together to slowly talk past each other. There is no consensus. We do not communicate with each other behind the scenes.

I object to your ideas because they make no sense. If they made sense, I'd agree with you. But they do not. They are a confusion of illogical and contradictory nonsense that add up to nothing. It's not my position as a committed skeptic that tells me this. Quite the opposite: it's my understanding of this that, in a small way, makes me a skeptic.

There is no such number as infinity. You cannot get to it by counting. If you count finite numbers for an infinite time, you would have infinity - BUT that infinity comes from you having introduced infinity into your calculation. It does not come from the sum of the finite numbers.

There are not infinite possible people. Impossible people are not possible people. You have shown nothing. You are wrong.

Nommed.

 

[Giordano]

- The main points are that (1) I had tried to justify my claim of immortality, but began to recognize that my real claim was that the scientific consensus in this case is wrong, and (2) personally, I think that I have begun to justify my claim (for anyone of your apparent intelligence that is not also a committed skeptic).

(1) Why not start a new thread if you now realize this one is not your goal? Also, of course, you haven't posted anything in this thread to even try to justify your claim of immortality. Nothing.

(2) At first I was surprised that you believe that you have begun to justify your claim that the scientific consensus is wrong. (1) Despite having many people (here, on the web elsewhere, and who you have personally contacted with questions) try to help tell you the real scientific consensus, you have completely ignored all of them and created your own false strawman of what you would like the scientific consensus to be, just so you can disprove it. (2) Why should I be surprised that you believe that you have begun to justify your claim? You also claim that one can divide (in fact must divide) by infinity in the Bayesian equation, that the infinite selfs in your model are somehow different from the infinite selfs you assign (incorrectly) to the SM, that your own creation is somehow special and preordained compared to the creation of others, and that something impossible can nonetheless be potentially possible. I am ignoring many of your other completely wrong statements. If you believe these you might as well believe the effectiveness of your posts.

(3) Others have told you how incredibly rude you are to assume smart, "non-skeptics" are convinced by your posts. Although these acquisitions of rudeness are correct, I would also say that your posts, and your refusal to acknowledge the many corrections and problems others have tried to bring to your attention, have if anything convinced everyone how very, very wrong your theory is.

(4) I have often asked why Jabba is here. Jabba claims to seek to convince an invisible flock of lurkers who are following this thread. But perhaps it is my own participation that is absurd. There is no evidence of these lurkers, despite my pleas for them to share their opinions. And everyone here but Jabba (and maybe Toontown) already agrees with, or is well ahead of, what I might post. My own posts cannot convince Jabba, and there is no invisible choir to convince.

 

[godless dave]

- At least in a sense, for me, that’s the main issue here -- and the one that I will now try to address. Which number replaces P(me|A)? Is it the likelihood of ME currently existing – or, is it the likelihood of someone/anyone currently existing?

Hold on. I thought you said P(me|A) wasn't the likelihood of you existing, it was the probability of A being correct given that you exist.

 

[Giordano]

Agatha,
- But, what about things that are impossible under the wrong circumstances, but possible under the right circumstances?

Then they would be possible under the second circumstance but not the first. So it is impossible to walk through an closed door without injury or an axe, but possible to walk through an opened door in this way. Probability (potential) of former = 0 and probability (potential) of the latter = close to 1.

Sorry, I just noticed that some prior posts were sent to AAH and to stay on topic, I have edited out a discussion that directly links this to this earlier set of posts. I guess we will have to see about this current question too.

As Lost Leader has repeatedly requested of you: what is the numerical probability you would assign to an impossible event?

 

[zooterkin]

Just quoting this again, since Jabba seems to have inexplicably skipped over it.

Mojo,
- I'm operating under the assumption that replicating the DNA would not replicate the person -- in the sense that replicating my DNA would not bring ME back to life.

Is there anything that would bring YOU back to life?

 

[Mojo]

- But Mojo, what if you can add finite numbers together infinitely?

You won't live long enough. It's not as if you're immortal.

 

[godless dave]

Mojo,
- I'm operating under the assumption that replicating the DNA would not replicate the person -- in the sense that replicating my DNA would not bring ME back to life.

As we discussed before, replicating the DNA would replicate the person, and because it's a replica, it wouldn't bring you back to life.

But since creating exact DNA replicas is currently impossible, I think we can discount this from the calculation.

 

[godless dave]

- But Mojo, what if you can add finite numbers together infinitely?

We haven't had infinite time to do this, we've only had 13 billion years or so.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- I'm operating under the assumption that replicating the DNA would not replicate the person -- in the sense that replicating my DNA would not bring ME back to life.

And you would be correct in that assumption, but not for the reason you think. Replicating a person's DNA will not replicate that person's consciousness because the consciousness (at a particular time) is the result of the state of the brain (at that particular time), and the particular brain state is the result of the DNA plus the environment and experiences of the person. The consciousness is a process, something that the brain does, not a thing that somehow springs into being at conception, birth, or any other point.

Replicating your DNA, environment, and experiences up to this moment (if such a thing could be done) would replicate you, but the replica wouldn't be you, it would be another person identical to you as of this moment. As you may recall having been told, if you have two identical items there are two of them, not one.

 

[Mojo]

We haven't had infinite time to do this...

Although reading this thread sometimes makes it seem as if we have.

 

[Akhenaten]

Mojo,
- I'm operating under the assumption that replicating the DNA would not replicate the person -- in the sense that replicating my DNA would not bring ME back to life.

Your assumption is invalid because the ME on which you're attempting to base your argument simply doesn't exist.

The ME to which you allude consists of a living neurosystem and all of its demonstrably extant emergent properties plus some X-factor which, despite everyone else here recognising (conceptually) as an immortal soul, you refuse point-blank to acknowledge as a critical component of your hypothesis.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This has descended into a full on surrealistic tragic comedy.

I don't know if it is possible to scientifically pinpoint an exact moment at which a discussion crossing some event horizon of intellectualism, a point at which intelligent thought can no longer escape, but the phrase "But what if we add infinite numbers together an infinite number of times" ten nested arguments deep in an argument about proving immortality through statistics is probably that moment within a rounding error.

This argument hasn't jumped the shark. It hasn't jumped over ten sharks. It hasn't jumped over a hundred sharks. It's jumped over an infinite number of sharks, none of which are immortal.

 

[pakeha]

- But Mojo, what if you can add finite numbers together infinitely?

You can't.

Agatha,
- But, what about things that are impossible under the wrong circumstances, but possible under the right circumstances?

Are you positing an alternative reality?
Jabba, are you not aware that you're delving into fantasy?

[ . . . ]
- The main points are that (1) I had tried to justify my claim of immortality, but began to recognize that my real claim was that the scientific consensus in this case is wrong, and (2) personally, I think that I have begun to justify my claim (for anyone of your apparent intelligence that is not also a committed skeptic).

What is a committed skeptic?

 

[Agatha]

What is a committed skeptic?

One who has been driven beyond the edge of madness by participating in this thread.

 

[Jabba]

Hold on. I thought you said P(me|A) wasn't the likelihood of you existing, it was the probability of A being correct given that you exist.

Dave,
- You have it backwards. Can you show me where I said that?

 

[Akhenaten]

And you're wrong, and every single person who responded to that post pointed out that you're wrong...

xt,
- They claimed I was wrong.

No, Jabba.

Pointing out that you're applying your own personal meanings to common English words isn't a claim - its a simple statement of fact.

"Impossible" precludes "potential" and as long as you flail about attempting to create ridiculous hypotheses which flagrantly ignore this obvious truth you will continue to be unequivocally wrong.

 

[Akhenaten]

1536xt,
- Try this on for size.

This pretty much sums up your entire approach to this discussion.

You fling as much utterly worthless crap as you can invent at the walls and whatever isn't washed off with a high pressure hose becomes your hypothesis.

Who would have thought that Truly Effective Debate™ would actually turn out to consist of nothing more than attempting to sell unsightly **** stains as proof of the Emerald Beyond?

What if the denominator includes all the potential combinations from the first set of potential combinations?

Something quite clearly wouldn't add up and we'd need to have a closer look at our definition of "potential".


Oh, wait . . .

"We" already did that.

 

[Giordano]

- At least in a sense, for me, that’s the main issue here -- and the one that I will now try to address. Which number replaces P(me|A)? Is it the likelihood of ME currently existing – or, is it the likelihood of someone/anyone currently existing?
- In order for the answer to be the former requires that I be someone “special” – such as the one being circled before the shot was fired.
- I’ll be back.

Are you back yet? On yes, I see- many times. Please point me to the posts among these in which you have addressed this issue. I appear to have missed it. Thanks!

 

[Giordano]

xt,
- They claimed I was wrong.

They claimed I was wrong. All of them. Everyone here. Everyone on the rest of the Internet. Everyone writing in a relevant book or journal. All of the experts I contacted at Universities. Everyone of them!

To maintain otherwise, your self-confidence in your theory is impressive. I presume you will show everyone the error or their judgement? Soon?