Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[JayUtah]

I'm starting with a premise that I think we all agree upon.

No. We don't agree that the "duplicated body" scenario poses any problem. You insist it does, but that's a problem with your hypothesis, not the scientific hypothesis.

I just think that there are important implications attached to that premise...

There are, but they affect only your hypothesis, and only negatively.

i.e., the only way we could re-create me (according to toon, pixel, my science fiction story and modern science) is to travel back in time and run my film all over again.

Equivocation. The scenario was originally a thought experiment to investigate how consciousness or the "self" would respond were it possible to make an exact duplicate or clone of you. It wasn't to investigate how such a thing might be done.

Do not attempt once again to conflate predictability with determinism. We went through this already several times. And you're still just re-committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

And, that being the case, there is no limited pool of potential selves that we came from -- each of us just "popped up," came from nowhere, was a "brand new" entity -- and any theoretical 'pool' of potential selves is infinite...

Under the scientific hypothesis this is simply moot. The consciousness or self is simply an emergent property of the brain, and as such there are as many selves as there are brains. It's only under your hypothesis that this point even has relevance, since you're the one trying to argue that there is something separate from the body that creates consciousness or self and can't be shared.

This will take some discussion.

You don't discuss. You ignore most of the discussion in favor of rambling over the same points over and over, and "forgetting" that you lost those points the last time we debated them.

 

[Belz...]

- This will take some discussion.

How many years are we looking at?

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I guess so. I'm starting with a premise that I think we all agree upon. I just think that there are important implications attached to that premise -- i.e., the only way we could re-create me (according to toon, pixel, my science fiction story and modern science) is to travel back in time and run my film all over again...
- And, that being the case, there is no limited pool of potential selves that we came from -- each of us just "popped up," came from nowhere, was a "brand new" entity -- and any theoretical 'pool' of potential selves is infinite...
- This will take some discussion.

No.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- I guess so. I'm starting with a premise that I think we all agree upon. I just think that there are important implications attached to that premise -- i.e., the only way we could re-create me (according to toon, pixel, my science fiction story and modern science) is to travel back in time and run my film all over again...
- And, that being the case, there is no limited pool of potential selves that we came from -- each of us just "popped up," came from nowhere, was a "brand new" entity -- and any theoretical 'pool' of potential selves is infinite...
- This will take some discussion.

Until you finally understand that science does not consider the "self" to be a separate entity, you're never going to get anywhere. We don't "pop up from nowhere", we are an emergent property of a functioning brain. Every experience you have contributes to your self from the moment you're born to the moment you die. And when you die, the brain stops and your "self" stops. You've been told this countless times, and you've ignored it every time and keep returning to this argument as though it had never been addressed. And you're going to ignore it again, because you know it completely stops your whole theory in its tracks.

 

[Jabba]

There is no pool of selves at all. Science does not attempt to account for immaterial souls because there is no credible evidence they exist...

Dave,
- There is something (perhaps an illusion) that we call the self. Whatever it is, that's what I'm talking about.
- And, OK. There is no pool of selves at all -- yet, these selves I'm talking about keep popping up. There must be no limitation on how many selves there could be.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- There is something (perhaps an illusion) that we call the self. Whatever it is, that's what I'm talking about.
- And, OK. There is no pool of selves at all -- yet, these selves I'm talking about keep popping up. There must be no limitation on how many selves there could be.

Good Morning, Mr Savage!

That "something" to which you refer, above, is an emergent property of a functioning brain. I am sorry not to have pointed that out to you before.

I remain, patiently,

Yours, &ct.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- There is something (perhaps an illusion) that we call the self. Whatever it is, that's what I'm talking about.

And the scientific hypothesis is that this self is activity of a living physical brain.

Some people postulate that the self is the brain in its entirety. Some postulate that it is localized to one part of the brain, the fronto-parietal cortex. It could be decades or centuries before we really understand it. But there is nothing suggesting that anything except the physical brain is involved.

- And, OK. There is no pool of selves at all -- yet, these selves I'm talking about keep popping up. There must be no limitation on how many selves there could be.

They keep popping up in exactly the same way that physical brains keep popping up. Is there a pool of brains?

 

[Dave Rogers]

They keep popping up in exactly the same way that physical brains keep popping up. Is there a pool of brains?

Yes, Igor. It's in the brain depository. Make sure you don't pick an abnormal one.

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

There is something (perhaps an illusion) that we call the self. Whatever it is, that's what I'm talking about.

But we're talking about two different explanations for that phenomenon. In the scientific hypothesis the self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. In your hypothesis it's separate from the organism, or requires elements that are separate from the organism.

The problem is that you can't keep those two explanations segregated properly in your argument. You correctly note that estimating P(E|~H) can be reasoned as if ~H were true, and therefore as if consciousness involved a separate entity. But then you incorrectly apply the limitations of that separation when thinking about P(E|H). You can't do that and still have a valid proof.

Under H, and therefore under everything that is contingent upon H, consciousness or the self may not be connected to anything other than the physical brain. Hypothetically, under H, if you duplicate the brain you duplicate the self and the duplicate self is identical to the first at the instant that occurs.

 

[Belz...]

Dave,
- There is something (perhaps an illusion) that we call the self. Whatever it is, that's what I'm talking about.

Ah, so you're talking about brain processes, then.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ah, so you're talking about brain processes, then.

And, finally, NOT a "soul"...

 

[Jabba]

And the scientific hypothesis is that this self is activity of a living physical brain.

Some people postulate that the self is the brain in its entirety. Some postulate that it is localized to one part of the brain, the fronto-parietal cortex. It could be decades or centuries before we really understand it. But there is nothing suggesting that anything except the physical brain is involved...

Dave,
- No problem. According to modern science, whatever this thing is, it never existed before, it will never exist again and didn't have to exist in the first place. My claim is that such leads to the conclusion that there is no pool of potential selves, that I came from nowhere and that there is no limit on the number of selves possible.

 

[Belz...]

According to modern science, whatever this thing is, it never existed before, it will never exist again and didn't have to exist in the first place.

How do you manage to be so consistently wrong in everything you post? The above is not true at all.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- No problem. According to modern science, whatever this thing is, it never existed before, it will never exist again and didn't have to exist in the first place.

Exactly like your physical brain.

My claim is that such leads to the conclusion that there is no pool of potential selves, that I came from nowhere and that there is no limit on the number of selves possible.

Did your brain come from nowhere?

 

[The Sparrow]

..... that I came from nowhere and that there is no limit on the number of selves possible.

No, you came from a fertilized egg.

There is also no "limit" on the number of human left hands possible, other than bodies being conceived and born I guess. Is that what you mean?

 

[JayUtah]

According to modern science, whatever this thing is...

No, science doesn't have to hide behind any sort of "whatever this thing is" equivocation. The scientific hypothesis is that the self, which is consciousness, is an emergent property of a functioning brain.

it never existed before, it will never exist again and didn't have to exist in the first place.

"It" in the scientific hypothesis is a property of a thing. As such it doesn't and cannot exist without the thing. Just like the color of a car is a property of that car. If the car doesn't exist, it can't have a color. You're trying so very hard to make this more complicated than it is.

My claim is that such leads to the conclusion that there is no pool of potential selves, that I came from nowhere and that there is no limit on the number of selves possible.

The scientific hypothesis does not claim you came from nowhere, nor does that follow from it. The organism that became you arose from your parents, in the customary progenitor fashion. As your brain developed, so therefore did your consciousness or sense of self -- not as a separate entity but as a property.

"Potential selves" has no meaning under the scientific hypothesis. The scientific hypothesis does not require it and therefore does not consider it. Your hypothesis involves the notion of a self that exists separately from the physical body. Dualism and all its attendant problems affect only your hypothesis.

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- No problem. According to modern science, whatever this thing is, it never existed before, it will never exist again and didn't have to exist in the first place. My claim is that such leads to the conclusion that there is no pool of potential selves, that I came from nowhere and that there is no limit on the number of selves possible.

Your conclusion is unsupported by evidence.

 

[zooterkin]

Dave,
- No problem. According to modern science, whatever this thing is, it never existed before, it will never exist again and didn't have to exist in the first place. My claim is that such leads to the conclusion that there is no pool of potential selves, that I came from nowhere and that there is no limit on the number of selves possible.

What do you understand the phrase "emergent property" to mean?

 

[jond]

Dave,
- No problem. According to modern science, whatever this thing is, it never existed before, it will never exist again and didn't have to exist in the first place. My claim is that such leads to the conclusion that there is no pool of potential selves, that I came from nowhere and that there is no limit on the number of selves possible.

It's not a thing, it's a process that results from a thing working. When the thing stops working, the process stops. What happens to the running when the car's engine blows a gasket?

 

[The Sparrow]

It's not a thing, it's a process that results from a thing working. When the thing stops working, the process stops. What happens to the running when the car's engine blows a gasket?

What happens to the screen saver animation when you unplug the computer.

What happens to the breeze when you turn off a fan.

What happens to the flashing neon sign that says
"cold"......."beer"........."cold beer"......."cold"......