Proof of Immortality III

[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.

Dave,
- Theoretically, if scientists knew all the factors that went into your creation, they could predict the details of your brain. However, they would not be able to predict who your awareness would be.
- If, in your interpretation, scientists could predict who your awareness would be, you and I are not talking about the same kind of "awareness" or, the same kind of "who.".

Then I don't think you're talking about a kind of awareness or "who" that exists under OOFLam.

Dave,
- IOW, you and I are not talking about the same kind of "who"?

Apparently not. You're talking about some kind of "who" that I don't believe exists.

Dave,
- I don’t think that quite answers the question…
- Reincarnationists believe that this kind of self (the “who”) reappears over time. I believe that this kind of self may reappear over time. You don’t believe that this kind of self reappears at all.
- But that implies that we are all talking about the same kind of self...
- We just disagree as to their destinies.

- Sorry this has taken so long -- I had lost my internet connection -- and per usual, it took me a long time to understand the real issue. I'm sure that there is more that needs to be said.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I don’t think that quite answers the question…
- Reincarnationists believe that this kind of self (the “who”) reappears over time. I believe that this kind of self may reappear over time. You don’t believe that this kind of self reappears at all.
- But that implies that we are all talking about the same kind of self...
- We just disagree as to their destinies.

- Sorry this has taken so long -- I had lost my internet connection -- and per usual, it took me a long time to understand the real issue. I'm sure that there is more that needs to be said.

I'm talking about the kind of awareness that is a product of, and entirely dependent on, a physical brain, such that if scientists could predict all the details about my brain, they would necessarily be predicting all the details about my awareness.

 

[JayUtah]

ut that implies that we are all talking about the same kind of self...

We are not. You have insisted upon a definition for the self that transcends what science knows it to be, solely so you can declare that science cannot know it and therefore cannot limit it to a process of the physical organism. you are literally trying to set up your desired conclusion as a premise.

We just disagree as to their destinies.

No, you disagree about its fundamental nature. You keep wanting to style it as an entity while there is no evidence it is anything but a process. Therefore you invent something that is an entity and wish it into existence on no better basis than that you say no one can say it's not possible.

I'm sure that there is more that needs to be said.

You've not said anything substantially different for the past three weeks. You just keep trying to find ways to equivocate the same claims using new words, and new ways to conceal the same fundamental errors in reasoning.

 

[Jabba]

I'm talking about the kind of awareness that is a product of, and entirely dependent on, a physical brain, such that if scientists could predict all the details about my brain, they would necessarily be predicting all the details about my awareness.

Dave,
- Sort of a repeat, but just to make sure -- do you think that you are talking about the same kind of self that reincarnationists refer to when they claim that the self returns (you just don't think it returns)?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Sort of a repeat, but just to make sure -- do you think that you are talking about the same kind of self that reincarnationists refer to when they claim that the self returns (you just don't think it returns)?

There are several different reincarnation beliefs and I really don't know the details on what they consider the self.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- Sort of a repeat, but just to make sure -- do you think that you are talking about the same kind of self that reincarnationists refer to when they claim that the self returns (you just don't think it returns)?

HELLO, Jabba! Stop asking others to define your concepts for you. YOU define what kind of self YOU are talking about, and we might take it from there.

Don't be such a coward, speak your mind.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- IOW, you and I are not talking about the same kind of "who"?

Apparently not. You're talking about some kind of "who" that I don't believe exists.

Dave,
- I don’t think that quite answers the question…
- Reincarnationists believe that this kind of self (the “who”) reappears over time. I believe that this kind of self may reappear over time. You don’t believe that this kind of self reappears at all.
- But that implies that we are all talking about the same kind of self...
- We just disagree as to their destinies.

- Sorry this has taken so long -- I had lost my internet connection -- and per usual, it took me a long time to understand the real issue. I'm sure that there is more that needs to be said.

I'm talking about the kind of awareness that is a product of, and entirely dependent on, a physical brain, such that if scientists could predict all the details about my brain, they would necessarily be predicting all the details about my awareness.

Dave,
- Sort of a repeat, but just to make sure -- do you think that you are talking about the same kind of self that reincarnationists refer to when they claim that the self returns (you just don't think it returns)?

There are several different reincarnation beliefs and I really don't know the details on what they consider the self.

Dave,

- As noted before, it may be impossible to make sure that we're communicating here...

- There are, indeed, different models of reincarnation belief -- but they all seem to be talking about the same kind of self.
- How about this: one's awareness of existence. It it their awareness of existence that reincarnationists believe keeps coming back. In their returns, they will be totally different in terms of characteristics, but absolutely the same in their awareness of existence -- even though they won't remember their previous existences.

- Not quite the "man" in the Turing test, but close. Better yet, "Johnny Five is alive!" from the movie "Short Circuit." Hopefully, this helps...

 

[Mojo]

- As noted before, it may be impossible to make sure that we're communicating here...

One way to make communication better would be for you to define your terms, and then stick to them rather than introducing multiple terms for what is evidently the same concept.

 

[godless dave]

In that case we're talking about the same self, except the model I subscribe to is the materialist one, where that self is a product of, and entirely dependent on, a live human brain, such that if scientists could predict every detail of a particular brain they would necessarily be predicting every detail of a particular self. In that model, the only way a particular self could return after death would be if the brain that produced it was returned to life.

 

[I Am The Scum]

- How about this: one's awareness of existence. It it their awareness of existence that reincarnationists believe keeps coming back. In their returns, they will be totally different in terms of characteristics, but absolutely the same in their awareness of existence -- even though they won't remember their previous existences.

Nobody knows what this means. Not even you.

The sense of self is directly tied to one's subjective experience, but you are describing something where there is no continuity of any kind in the experience.

 

[Jabba]

In that case we're talking about the same self, except the model I subscribe to is the materialist one, where that self is a product of, and entirely dependent on, a live human brain, such that if scientists could predict every detail of a particular brain they would necessarily be predicting every detail of a particular self. In that model, the only way a particular self could return after death would be if the brain that produced it was returned to life.

Dave,

- Sounds good. Hopefully, we've made a step in the right direction.

- However, in my kind of self, the self, itself, has no characteristics (intelligence, skin color, whatever). Does your kind of self, itself, have characteristics?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- Sounds good. Hopefully, we've made a step in the right direction.

- However, in my kind of self, the self, itself, has no characteristics (intelligence, skin color, whatever). Does your kind of self, itself, have characteristics?

At the very least it has a physical location. Beyond that, scientists don't know enough about how subjective experience works to really answer that.

 

[Mojo]

- However, in my kind of self, the self, itself, has no characteristics (intelligence, skin color, whatever).

You are now invoking an entity with no defining characteristics. All the characteristics that enable it to be identified as your particular consciousness are properties of your body.

How would you go about demonstrating that such an entity exists?

 

[Mojo]

You are now invoking an entity with no defining characteristics. All the characteristics that enable it to be identified as your particular consciousness are properties of your body.

Are we now back to your 'bucket-o-souls' idea?

 

[Jabba]

At the very least it has a physical location. Beyond that, scientists don't know enough about how subjective experience works to really answer that.

Dave,
- This question may not really communicate -- but, if it does, it's important. Can science predict who this kind of self would be?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- This question may not really communicate -- but, if it does, it's important. Can science predict who this kind of self would be?

What do you mean by "who"?

 

[JoeMorgue]

The irony is that the opinion Jabba is (ostensibly) trying to argue isn't unusual, hell it's practically mainstream. Billions of people around the world believe that some definition of "ourselves" is non-material and survives death in some fashion.

The only difference is they just called it a "soul" and invoke faith and call it a day, without the need to create some convoluted on a scale I didn't think possible infinite nested argument to support it.

Jabba I've asked this several times in this thread and would like (but don't necessarily expect) an answer. Why not just call your view that there is some immaterial part of your being that isn't dependent on your bodily functions a soul, invoke faith, and be done with it? That would certainly put you in a lot of company.

I don't understand this desire to pretend you have a rational explanation for (and stranger a near fetish for proving you have a rational explanation for) something you are obviously just taking on faith the same as literally billions of other people, to the point that you're so deep down in nested arguments within nested arguments within some framework of rewriting the rules of how discussions have to go as to be lost forever.

 

[Jabba]

What do you mean by "who"?

- Yeah...
- "Who" is the concept that is so hard to describe effectively...
- How about the "observer" itself?
- "Who" is the concept that reincarnationists think will keep coming back.
- Might this help?

 

[godless dave]

- Yeah...
- "Who" is the concept that is so hard to describe effectively...
- How about the "observer" itself?
- "Who" is the concept that reincarnationists think will keep coming back.
- Might this help?

The observer that belongs to a particular brain is the observer produced by that brain. By predicting the existence of a living brain, you necessarily predict the observer.

 

[jond]

The observer that belongs to a particular brain is the observer produced by that brain. By predicting the existence of a living brain, you necessarily predict the observer.

Of course, the problem is that Jabba still insists that the observer is an entity, separate and distinct from the brain. He refuses to acknowledge that the "self/observer/soul" is not a static entity but rather it is an ongoing process that is shaped and altered by every experience that the person has. There is no way to predict what those experiences will be, obviously, so this whole "science can't predict who I'll be" is simply absurd.