Proof of Immortality III

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba do you realize that, at best, the most cognizant, coherent argument you've been able to put forth boils down to "If you accept that I am right, then I am right?"

If we accept that pigs have wings, feathers, and beaks we could call all agree to call them eagles. But that's not an argument. And pigs aren't eagles.

 

[JayUtah]

Jabba do you realize that, at best, the most cognizant, coherent argument you've been able to put forth boils down to "If you accept that I am right, then I am right?"

And if you don't, then you're "angry" or "biased." Jabba never stops telling us how much better his arguments would be received elsewhere. So it's all ISF's fault, somehow, that he can't make headway here. We're unfair critics in his judgment.

Sadly all of Jabba's arguments are based on just such elementary mistakes in logic -- false dilemmas, question-begging, circular reasoning. He thinks he's disguised them well enough in pseudo-Bayesian inference. But every so often he'll just blatantly ask people to accept his claims, and even pretend that they already have.

 

[Jabba]

So for figuring out the likelihood of a self existing under OOFLam, we only need to worry about the laws of nature.

Dave,

- I see your point -- and, I have to change my mind again...

- Try this. Even if we assume determinism, the big bang had to start with exactly the right characteristics for both ME and Rainier. What is the likelihood of that? I'd say, virtually zero for both of us. (Think of the Anthropic Principle.)

- So again, what's the difference between ME and Rainier?
- I think that the answer is still that we have no reason to question the scientific explanation for Rainier -- whereas, we do have reason to question the scientific explanation for ME -- and in particular, the consequent hypothesis of OOFLam.
- We have no reason for questioning the scientific explanation for my physical, emotional or cognitive characteristics, but we do have reason for questioning the scientific explanation for my seemingly immaterial self -- we have no idea how MY "who" was determined.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- I see your point -- and, I have to change my mind again...

- Try this. Even if we assume determinism, the big bang had to start with exactly the right characteristics for both ME and Rainier. What is the likelihood of that? I'd say, virtually zero for both of us. (Think of the Anthropic Principle.)

- So again, what's the difference between ME and Rainier?
- I think that the answer is still that we have no reason to question the scientific explanation for Rainier -- whereas, we do have reason to question the scientific explanation for ME -- and in particular, the consequent hypothesis of OOFLam.
- We have no reason for questioning the scientific explanation for my physical, emotional or cognitive characteristics, but we do have reason for questioning the scientific explanation for my seemingly immaterial self -- we have no idea how MY "who" was determined.

In the material model of the self, the physical, emotional and cognitive characteristics make up the self. There is no immaterial self to explain. The who is the what. The explanation for my physical brain existing is the same as the explanation for my self existing - they're the same thing.

 

[jond]

Dave,

- I see your point -- and, I have to change my mind again...

- Try this. Even if we assume determinism, the big bang had to start with exactly the right characteristics for both ME and Rainier. What is the likelihood of that? I'd say, virtually zero for both of us. (Think of the Anthropic Principle.)

- So again, what's the difference between ME and Rainier?
- I think that the answer is still that we have no reason to question the scientific explanation for Rainier -- whereas, we do have reason to question the scientific explanation for ME -- and in particular, the consequent hypothesis of OOFLam.
- We have no reason for questioning the scientific explanation for my physical, emotional or cognitive characteristics, but we do have reason for questioning the scientific explanation for my seemingly immaterial self -- we have no idea how MY "who" was determined.

No, Jabba, we have a very good idea about how your "who" (and everyone else's) was determined. It is an ongoing process, beginning with your DNA, and continually shaped by every experience you've had throughout your life. Of course, you're going to ignore this as always.

Also: if things had gone differently from the Big Bang forward, we wouldn't be here discussing this. So what? It's what happened, and there's no reason to imagine that we humans are some intended end result.

 

[JayUtah]

...whereas, we do have reason to question the scientific explanation for ME...

No, we don't. You obviously desperately want to be more than just another expression of universal physical law. But you have provided no evidence that any such vision is even necessary, much less valid.

...we do have reason for questioning the scientific explanation for my seemingly immaterial self...

The weasel words "seemingly immaterial self" are the best reason for not needing to question the scientific explanations that suffice for literally everything else within our experience. Everything else in the universe obeys physical laws that we can discover, refine, and employ based on observation, evidence, and logically sound deduction. That you, in your nebulous estimation, "seem" to have a soul has absolutely no power to shake science from its foothold.

And before you get the idea that your soul cannot be examined by science because of <reasons>, let me remind you that you professed the ability to prove the existence and immortality of a soul by mathematical means and ostensibly to a mathematical level of rigor. You don't get to move those goalposts.

...we have no idea how MY "who" was determined.

You're still assuming your self-awareness is an independent "thing." And since you can point to no aspect of the "self" that cannot be explained as a product of existing universal natural law, I'd say your protest here is just your personal denial. A very serviceable example has emerged to show how universal natural law can produce irreproducible complexity, and cannot be undone via your feeble attempt at reductionism. Your only rebuttal to it has been the same rebuttal played over and over in different words: You are "seemingly" a special snowflake that is somehow exempt from universal physical law. For how many more pages do you plan to argue in this same circle?

 

[The Sparrow]

...It's what happened, and there's no reason to imagine that we humans are some intended end result.

indeed, considering how long dinosaurs were the 'intended result' long before humanity's brief time here, and but for a catastrophic disaster would still be.

Dinos - 65 million years
Modern humans - a couple hundred thousand years

 

[Jabba]

In the material model of the self, the physical, emotional and cognitive characteristics make up the self. There is no immaterial self to explain. The who is the what. The explanation for my physical brain existing is the same as the explanation for my self existing - they're the same thing.

Dave,
- If science was able to reproduce my exact physical causes would they reproduce my awareness of existence?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- If science was able to produce my exact physical causes would they reproduce my awareness of existence?

They would produce a copy of you that was aware of its existence.

 

[ComfySlippers]

They would produce a copy of you that was aware of its existence.

I've no idea what that particular horror movie would be called, but I'd fear the inevitable doubling of pixel wastage.

 

[JayUtah]

If science was able to reproduce my exact physical causes would they reproduce my awareness of existence?

Yes.

Every human is produced by the same expression of universal physical law. Every human is aware of its existence.

You have yet to show there is anything endemic to you that is not or cannot be produced by application of universal physical law. That includes your genetic makeup, your quantum state from instant to instant, your collection of experiences and so forth. All those are understood by science, even if they cannot presently be manipulated or enumerated to reproduce an exact you. You want your self-awareness to be the ineffable "thing" that is unscientifically you, but can only beg that question. There is nothing about self-awareness that need arise outside universal physical law.

Conversely you want your individuality be that "thing." But you're still stuck on reproduce. You were produced once. The chances of that happening are 1. You want to rewrite the question into one of reproducing an exact you -- in retrospect, now that you know what "you" are. That's irrelevant to the question, so you cannot use it to prove "statistically" that it's a miracle there's a you.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,

- I see your point -- and, I have to change my mind again...

- Try this. Even if we assume determinism, the big bang had to start with exactly the right characteristics for both ME and Rainier. What is the likelihood of that? I'd say, virtually zero for both of us. (Think of the Anthropic Principle.)

Yet, both exist. Actually, the BB just had to start with the characteristics for mountains and humans to exist.

Then some mountain would be there, and some human.

- So again, what's the difference between ME and Rainier?
- I think that the answer is still that we have no reason to question the scientific explanation for Rainier -- whereas, we do have reason to question the scientific explanation for ME

Correction: While we almost fully understand the explanation for a mountain, we are less sure about the human self.

Caveat: The current human ability to explain a given phenomenon has no relevance for the probabilty of the existence of that phenomenon.

-- and in particular, the consequent hypothesis of OOFLam.

That is, in fact irrelevant. You cannot link mortality to our understanding of the self.

- We have no reason for questioning the scientific explanation for my physical, emotional or cognitive characteristics, but we do have reason for questioning the scientific explanation for my seemingly immaterial self -- we have no idea how MY "who" was determined.

There is no information giving reason to assume an immaterial self.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

They would produce a copy of you that was aware of its existence.

- But, I wouldn't be re-aware?

 

[JayUtah]

- But, I wouldn't be re-aware?

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[godless dave]

- But, I wouldn't be re-aware?

No, because a copy is separate from the original.

 

[Jabba]

No, because a copy is separate from the original.

- So, what would be the physical cause of the difference?

 

[godless dave]

- So, what would be the physical cause of the difference?

The fact that there are two of them. The exact same cause for there being two brains. Each is made of different raw material. They are in different locations, were produced at different times, or both.

 

[JayUtah]

- So, what would be the physical cause of the difference?

Why is there a presumption that they should be the same?

 

[John Jones]

- But, I wouldn't be re-aware?

Huh?

 

[Jabba]

The fact that there are two of them. The exact same cause for there being two brains. Each is made of different raw material. They are in different locations, were produced at different times, or both.

- But, the chemistry is the same, so the difference in raw material shouldn't matter.