Proof of Immortality III

[JayUtah]

Well you've failed.

But he won't admit it, in those words. It's yet another Jabba non-concession concession that he can disavow when the heat is off. Witness the weasel words with which he tries to squirm away from having failed at his claim. He "dropped" the immortality claim, but now he's trying to prove it indirectly. He decided he "shouldn't be so specific," which is his way of moving the goalposts without admitting that he's moved them.

We will never see him say, "I, Jabba, admit that I cannot prove immortality mathematically, as I previously said I believed I could do." He is simply incapable of admitting error.

 

[Mojo]

He is simply incapable of admitting error.

Which is what makes him so good at making them.

 

[Jabba]

- I'm suggesting that our brains do not produce the consciousness, they receive it as a self...

Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

Dave,

- Since the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small if the specific brain produces the specific self (which has OOFLam) all I need to show is that there is a reasonable possibility that the brain is a receiver, rather than a producer, of consciousness.
- Then, if there is a reasonable possibility that the brain is a receiver of consciousness, the posterior probability of OOFLam has a numerator that is unimaginably small and a denominator that isn't.

- If you agree, I'll see how much evidence I can find that the brain could be a receiver rather than a producer.

 

[I Am The Scum]

The tectonic plates did not produce Mt. Rainier. Instead, they received the mountain from the Phantom Zone.

Jabba, does this make sense to you?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- Since the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small if the specific brain produces the specific self (which has OOFLam) all I need to show is that there is a reasonable possibility that the brain is a receiver, rather than a producer, of consciousness.
- Then, if there is a reasonable possibility that the brain is a receiver of consciousness, the posterior probability of OOFLam has a numerator that is unimaginably small and a denominator that isn't.

- If you agree, I'll see how much evidence I can find that the brain could be a receiver rather than a producer.

I don't agree with those premises. A very small likelihood of something existing given a particular hypothesis is not evidence that hypothesis is wrong. To wit: Mount Rainier and geology.

You would also want to test your new hypothesis the same way - what is the likelihood of a particular brain receiving a transmission of a particular self?

 

[JayUtah]

Since the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small if the specific brain produces the specific self...

Asked and answered. You have not shown that this statistical factoid is the governing principle in the formation of the "self," or in fact of anything. You have struggled in vain to show a difference between your "self" and the defeating counterexample, but you cannot do so without begging the question and reasoning in a circle.

And if you are talking about "likelihoods" again, are you trying to return to a mathematical level of rigor in your proof? Or are you just couching your wild guesses in math-sounding language?

...all I need to show is that there is a reasonable possibility that the brain is a receiver, rather than a producer, of consciousness.

Nonsense. You're affirmatively formulating an entirely new model for consciousness. Your hypothesis proposes a completely new mechanism for how it operates in the qualitative sense, and requires an entirely new and hitherto unknown phenomenon as a vital component. This hypothesis is being proposed in direct contravention of a reasonably functional theory to the contrary.

The notion that you need no evidence for this is preposterous.

If you agree, I'll see how much evidence I can find that the brain could be a receiver rather than a producer.

I do not agree at all with your formulation of the problem, and not just in that absolves you of all meaningful burden of proof. It is your hypothesis that the brain "receives" consciousness. You have the burden to prove it. That burden is not even remotely approached, much less carried, by suggesting merely that it is not impossible.

You are simply trying to foist as axioms the key tenets of your claim. Since you were unsuccessful at getting the classical model of consciousness to fit your beliefs, you're trying to create out of thin air a new concept that embodies everything you need for immortality and a new hypothetical method of its operation. As others have noted, this is equivalent to setting aside the universal laws of nature as the governing forces and postulating some new unknown force that is the "real" reason things are the way we observe them to be.

This is no different than you trying to foist your personal definition of "evidence" in the shroud thread as a condition of allowing the discussion to proceed. You may not force your critics to accept your personal definitions and a condition for having the debate.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,

- Since the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small if the specific brain produces the specific self (which has OOFLam) all I need to show is that there is a reasonable possibility that the brain is a receiver, rather than a producer, of consciousness.
- Then, if there is a reasonable possibility that the brain is a receiver of consciousness, the posterior probability of OOFLam has a numerator that is unimaginably small and a denominator that isn't.

- If you agree, I'll see how much evidence I can find that the brain could be a receiver rather than a producer.

See Dave, If you agree with him now, without seeing any evidence, then he'll then provide evidence.

He'll also glady pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

 

[Mojo]

- Since the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small if the specific brain produces the specific self (which has OOFLam) all I need to show is that there is a reasonable possibility that the brain is a receiver, rather than a producer, of consciousness.

Nope. In a scenario in which your consciousness is the result of your brain processes the likelihood of your consciousness existing is the same as the likelihood of your body existing. In a scenario in which your consciousness is not the result of your brain processes but is beamed in from elsewhere the likelihood that your particular consciousness is received by your body is the likelihood that your body exists multiplied by the likelihood that your particular consciousness is the one received by your body. It cannot possibly be greater than the likelihood of your body existing.

Since the likelihood of your current existence is therefore, by your own argument, unimaginably small if the brain is a receiver rather than a producer of consciousness, then, again by your own argument, all we need to show to prove OOFLam is that there is a reasonable possibility that the specific brain produces the specific consciousness.

Or perhaps there is something fundamentally wrong with your argument. Which seems more likely?

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,

- Since the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small if the specific brain produces the specific self (which has OOFLam) all I need to show is that there is a reasonable possibility that the brain is a receiver, rather than a producer, of consciousness.
- Then, if there is a reasonable possibility that the brain is a receiver of consciousness, the posterior probability of OOFLam has a numerator that is unimaginably small and a denominator that isn't.

- If you agree, I'll see how much evidence I can find that the brain could be a receiver rather than a producer.

If you mean to say that you will show evidence that there is a Self which is separate from the physical body, I look forward to reading it.

So far, propper scientific examination had shown a biological basis for all observed brain activity.

But beware: very small is not zero. It is not practically zero. It may be unimaginably small but, then, so is Natalie Portman.

 

[Dancing David]

Agatha,
- Still not sure we're talking about the same "self."
- The characteristics of the self I'm talking about do change over time, but the self, itself, doesn't. I do change over time, but it's still me.
.- You change over time, but it's still you. It's the same awareness.
- Does the self you're talking about at least appear to stay the same over time?

What evidence is there that awareness doesn't change over time, I mean really I used to get drunk and high, awareness changed, now I get sleepy. Awareness changes.

 

[Dancing David]

- So, nothing could make the self become re-aware?

Burden on you Jabba

 

[Dancing David]

- Trying to make sure that we're talking about the same "self" -- after your characteristics change, is it still you? Is it the same "self"?

So you never studied the teachings of the buddha? there is no self, every thing including you is changing all the time.
There is an illusion of continuity

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think you're falling into his trap, and it is a trap (and a dishonest one at that, just like all his previous attempts).

#3 is his insertion of the soul by sneaking in a distinction between consciousness and self when there is no reason to think such distinction exists.

No, I made the necessary reservation.

Seriously, I'm an old-timer in this game.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

- There is a phenomenon we call "consciousness." Then, there are NUMEROUS specific examples of consciousness, and we call them "selves."

Instances of consciousness, and yes, we could call them 'selves' if you would like.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Monza,
- Interesting.
- Superficially, at least, I should say, instead, that our brains are the receivers of what consciousness transmits...

No. That requires the self to be a separate entity, instead of a product of the brain. That does not follow from your points above.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

- I'm suggesting that our brains do not produce the consciousness, they receive it as a self...

You will have to produce evidence for that.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

- Who says?

Well, if you want to say that, you need to provide evidence.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,

- Since the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small if the specific brain produces the specific self (which has OOFLam) all I need to show is that there is a reasonable possibility that the brain is a receiver, rather than a producer, of consciousness.
- Then, if there is a reasonable possibility that the brain is a receiver of consciousness, the posterior probability of OOFLam has a numerator that is unimaginably small and a denominator that isn't.

- If you agree, I'll see how much evidence I can find that the brain could be a receiver rather than a producer.

No. You cannot compare those probabilities. They are not connected.
Hint: You would need to show the probability of the transmitting self.

Hans

 

[Mojo]

No. You cannot compare those probabilities. They are not connected.

He's trying to employ the prosecutor's fallacy. His argument collapses* because if A is improbable given B, then it doesn't follow that B is improbable given A.


*Or at least it would if it hadn't already collapsed when he invoked the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, or when he employed the false dilemma.

 

[Dancing David]

- It would appear that
1) a certain chemistry produces what we call "life,"
2) at least some life produces (or transmits) what we call consciousness,
3) consciousness inherently (or intrinsically) involves what we call a "self"

poorly defined assumption of your conclusion. the experice does not require an actual self.

4) and this self appears to continue existing until the death of the body (that carries the life and self)
5) at which time, the self ceases to exist -- never to return...
- That's the "self" I'm trying to talk about.

There is no self, anatta, annica, noself, impermanence