Proof of Immortality III

[John Jones]

Jim,
- I don't understand what you mean in the hilited portion.

He means that you're not a special snowflake, and you haven't even come close to proving immortality.

 

[Toontown]

What's the probability of a different sperm fertilising the same egg and thereby producing a different person? Why should we believe the sperm that did fertilise the egg more important/significant than the ones that didn't?

The sperm that didn't get there are very significant. They stacked up even higher prior odds high against the one that did get there. Each and every one of them raced for it's life to try to prevent the winner from getting there.

Prior odds that were already stacked to some ridiculous power against the eventual winner ever existing in the first place.

Edited to add:

I understand what you're trying to get at. Here's a hypothetical:

Hypothesis A tells me that, should I ever come into existence, I will certainly observe a vast number of other things that came into existence against daunting odds.

Hypothesis A goes on to inform me that observation should never happen because I, in particular, should never exist with a prior certainty of 0.999999999999999...............--->

So. Right away I notice I exist. I look around. I see all the things the hypothesis predicted with absolute certainty. I also see one thing the hypothesis effectively ruled out - myself.

So I rule out the part of hypothesis A that effectively rules me out.

When a hypothesis is ruled out, it is not automatically forever deemed wrong in every aspect. A ruled-out hypothesis can be resurrected. Ruling out a hypothesis simply means you're looking elsewhere, or you're looking to fix what ails the hypothesis.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't understand what you mean in the hilited portion.

Why not? It's a simple, straightforward sentence saying the same thing nearly all your critics have said: (1) There is no tap-dance of mathematics that proves there is something mysteriously improbable about your particular self, if you were produced as the standard model suggests. (2) The principles of the standard model that govern the production of your particular self don't have anything to do with statistical probability.

See, now once again you've wasted one of your precious few posts today playing the Befuddled Old Man character that's grow so tired in this comedy.

 

[JayUtah]

Surely the mechanism in Shrödinger's Cat is radioactive decay?

It is, but Shroedinger used it only as the random variable in his thought experiment. He certainly had no intention of conflating radioactive decay with anything in quantum mechanics. His point was simply to show, by reductio ad absurdum, some of the problems with some of the prevailing interpretations of QM in his day.

 

[Mojo]

The sperm that didn't get there are very significant. They stacked up even higher prior odds high against the one that did get there. Each and every one of them raced for it's life to try to prevent the winner from getting there.

Meanwhile, the one that led to Jabba was just sitting there, thinking:

- I'm not sure I know what they mean by "egg".
- I'll be back.

Prior odds that were already stacked to some ridiculous power against the eventual winner ever existing in the first place.

And yet some existed and one of them won.

 

[caveman1917]

He certainly had no intention of conflating radioactive decay with anything in quantum mechanics.

Is that like having no intention of conflating planetary trajectories with anything in general relativity? I've asked this question to someone else before, without answer, but if not quantum mechanics then which physical theory describes radioactive decay?

 

[Jabba]

None of that pertains to my question. I'm familiar with the hard problem of consciousness. You said some scientists refer to consciousness as "seeming non-physical". That's the statement I asked you to support.

In our hypothetical situation where we make an exact duplicate of a person, what would be the difference between the two senses of awareness?

Dave,

- I should probably find better wording...

- "Seeming non-physical" is really my wording for something that I think -- and, that many scientists imply as they they compare mental to physical, or try to explain consciousness mechanistically.
- If you just Google "consciousness non-physical," and scan some of your hits, you'll see how science is struggling with an appearance of non-physicality in consciousness. (I got over 3 million hits.) I keep thinking that you must know about this struggle, but just don't recognize my description of it...

- Unfortunately, as I google this stuff, I keep coming up with videos/interviews, and I hesitate to encumber you with their time consumption, but here is a set of interviews (with scientists and philosophers) that deal with our issue -- is consciousness non-physical?
- Just by watching a minute or two of each interview, you'll see that there is a struggle going on. And, these interviews do give both sides of the story...
- At this point, I'd suggest that the best answer might be a combination -- i.e., consciousness is just a different kind of 'physical'... As David Chalmers suggests -- maybe, there are 4 basic aspects to reality -- Mass, space, time and consciousness.

- What I've just said will probably require a lot of rethinking and editing, but it might be a significant step (or two) in the right, general, direction...

 

[John Jones]

Dave,

- I should probably find better wording...

- "Seeming non-physical" is really my wording for something that I think -- and, that many scientists imply as they they compare mental to physical, or try to explain consciousness mechanistically.
- If you just Google "consciousness non-physical," and scan some of your hits, you'll see how science is struggling with an appearance of non-physicality in consciousness. (I got over 3 million hits.) I keep thinking that you must know about this struggle, but just don't recognize my description of it...

- Unfortunately, as I google this stuff, I keep coming up with videos/interviews, and I hesitate to encumber you with their time consumption, but here is a set of interviews (with scientists and philosophers) that deal with our issue -- is consciousness non-physical?
- Just by watching a minute or two of each interview, you'll see that there is a struggle going on. And, these interviews do give both sides of the story...
- At this point, I'd suggest that the best answer might be a combination -- i.e., consciousness is just a different kind of 'physical'... As David Chalmers suggests -- maybe, there are 4 basic aspects to reality -- Mass, space, time and consciousness.

- What I've just said will probably require a lot of rethinking and editing, but it might be a significant step (or two) in the right, general, direction...

So you were putting words in the mouths of unnamed scientists, and expect us to do your damn homework for you.

 

[JayUtah]

"Seeming non-physical" is really my wording for something that I think -- and, that many scientists imply...

No, they don't.

If you just Google "consciousness non-physical," and scan some of your hits, you'll see how science is struggling...

Post the links to the three hits you think best support your claims. Stop making other people guess at what your argument is.

I keep thinking that you must know about this struggle, but just don't recognize my description of it...

No, don't beg the question. Don't insinuate your critics secretly agree with you. Don't make others guess what you're trying to say. Don't make others look for evidence for your claims. As a self-styled evangelist of Effective Debate, you must certainly know how ineffective and dishonest such tactics are.

Unfortunately, as I google this stuff, I keep coming up with videos/interviews, and I hesitate to encumber you with their time consumption, but here is a set of interviews...

All you keep posting is New Age nonsense, with unqualified authors spewing a stream of meaningless technobabble and psychobabble. I addressed the ones you posted earlier and you ignored it. Why do you think spamming your critics with woo is an argument?

If you want to use lengthy videos as evidence, give your readers timepoints in the video where the speaker makes the point you want your critics to address, or summarize the video in your own words. Your critics manage to make their points without requiring lengthy YouTube videos. You can too.

What I've just said will probably require a lot of rethinking and editing, but it might be a significant step (or two) in the right, general, direction...

No, the faux befuddlement has grown old. Your critics are telling you in very clear, very explicit terms what you must do to convince them of your claims. Do that, not some self-sustaining goose chase.

Science is not "struggling" with the notion of consciousness, at least in terms of dualism. You are simply taken in by authors and speakers who make their living pretending there's some controversy that enlivens their scams. They affirmatively present nothing testable, nothing of value, and take no intellectual responsibility for the truth of their claims. I can see why that would appeal to you, but it is not in any way the proof you promised.

 

[Toontown]

And yet some existed and one of them won.

I edited that post to address what Squeegee was trying to say.

 

[godless dave]

- If you just Google "consciousness non-physical," and scan some of your hits, you'll see how science is struggling with an appearance of non-physicality in consciousness.

I did just that and the top 7 or 8 links were all woo articles, followed by a Psychology Today article about consciousness, followed by the Wikipedia article on the Hard Problem of Consciousness. The only scientists involved at all were in the Psychology Today article.

Some philosophers propose nonphysicality as part of the solution to the hard problem of consciousness. That doesn't mean it appears nonphysical.

In our hypothetical situation where we make an exact duplicate of a person, what would be the difference between the two senses of awareness?

 

[Jabba]

I did just that and the top 7 or 8 links were all woo articles, followed by a Psychology Today article about consciousness, followed by the Wikipedia article on the Hard Problem of Consciousness. The only scientists involved at all were in the Psychology Today article.

Some philosophers propose nonphysicality as part of the solution to the hard problem of consciousness. That doesn't mean it appears nonphysical.

In our hypothetical situation where we make an exact duplicate of a person, what would be the difference between the two senses of awareness?

Dave,
- It doesn't pay to get old -- I neglected to include the link I wanted you to peruse... https://www.closertotruth.com/series/does-consciousness-defeat-materialism.
- This link deals directly with our issue (both sides of it) but includes mostly philosophers and parapsychologists... I suspect that the interviewer best describes the issue.

 

[godless dave]

That's one of the woo sites I was referring to.

Parapsychologists aren't scientists, they're con artists.

 

[Jabba]

What science is that?

Dave,
- Biology mostly. Specifically, the science that produces OOFLam.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Biology mostly. Specifically, the science that produces OOFLam.

Are you also suspicious about the circumstances leading to the existence of Mount Rainier?

 

[Jabba]

Are you also suspicious about the circumstances leading to the existence of Mount Rainier?

Dave,
- No.

 

[Jabba]

That's one of the woo sites I was referring to.

Parapsychologists aren't scientists, they're con artists.

Dave,
- As you know, I disagree with your assessments, but that site expresses what the issue is pretty well, and does give both sides of the story. At this point in our discussion, I'm not arguing that consciousness is non-physical, I'm just arguing that while most scientists believe that consciousness is physical, a lot of recognized scientists (and philosophers) suspect that it is not; and, that's a significant issue in modern science.
- I'll try to come back with some quotes from recognized scientists.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- No.

What's the difference in the science?

 

[Jabba]

What's the difference in the science?

Dave,
- I've tried to explain my reasoning several times, but can't seem to communicate it -- or, just convince you (or most people) of its rationality.
- Basically, I'm saying that there is no reasonable possibility that science is significantly wrong in its explanation of Mt. Rainier -- whereas, there is a reasonable possibility that science is significantly wrong about OOFLam. We are not stuck with luck as the only explanation for an extremely unlikely event if there is reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the hypothesis our conclusion depends upon.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I've tried to explain my reasoning several times, but can't seem to communicate it -- or, just convince you (or most people) of its rationality.
- Basically, I'm saying that there is no reasonable possibility that science is significantly wrong in its explanation of Mt. Rainier -- whereas, there is a reasonable possibility that science is significantly wrong about OOFLam. We are not stuck with luck as the only explanation for an extremely unlikely event if there is reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the hypothesis our conclusion depends upon.

You're correct, you can't explain how that's a rational approach, because it isn't. You haven't even given a reason to think there is a reasonable possibility that science is significantly wrong about OOFLam.