Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[JayUtah]

For one thing, while the brain is made up of emergent properties...

No. That's not what "emergent property" means.

...the brain is not an emergent property in itself (like Mt Rainier is not). But then, the self is.

The brain is an object. More appropriately, the brain is a collection of objects working in concert to compose a complex system. Objects and systems exhibit properties. A property is not necessarily an object. An emergent property is one that is vested in systems as opposed to individually in their components. You are drowning in equivocation here, Jabba. What's worse, this has all been explained to you before.

For another thing, the brain was not created out of nowhere -- the self was.

An individual brain comes about according to the principles of vertebrate development. The self is a property of that brain. Because of how we understand the brain to work, the self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. It's not something that exists or can exist separately from it.

The scientific hypothesis no more difficult or mystical than that. Stop trying to muddy up the waters and then pin the mud on your critics.

Now if you want to prove that the self is something else, then that is your burden of proof. You don't get to prove it by circularly falsifying the scientific hypothesis. You can't say that because the scientific hypothesis doesn't explain the purported causations in your modek, science must therefore be wrong. That's the essence of circular argumentation.

 

[jond]

No. That's not what "emergent property" means.



The brain is an object. More appropriately, the brain is a collection of objects working in concert to compose a complex system. Objects and systems exhibit properties. A property is not necessarily an object. An emergent property is one that is vested in systems as opposed to individually in their components. You are drowning in equivocation here, Jabba. What's worse, this has all been explained to you before.



An individual brain comes about according to the principles of vertebrate development. The self is a property of that brain. Because of how we understand the brain to work, the self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. It's not something that exists or can exist separately from it.

The scientific hypothesis no more difficult or mystical than that. Stop trying to muddy up the waters and then pin the mud on your critics.

Now if you want to prove that the self is something else, then that is your burden of proof. You don't get to prove it by circularly falsifying the scientific hypothesis. You can't say that because the scientific hypothesis doesn't explain the purported causations in your modek, science must therefore be wrong. That's the essence of circular argumentation.

Jabba, read this entire post. Then read it again until you understand it.

 

[jsfisher]

Just checking:

Do we have a null hypothesis (H) defined yet? Do we have an operational definition for Jabba's "existence" (E) yet? Have P(H|E) and P(~H|E) been recalculated in light of those definitions?

 

[theprestige]

And mountains are an emergent property of certain geological conditions. Does that mean they come out of nowhere?

 

[Belz...]

Just checking:

Do we have a null hypothesis (H) defined yet? Do we have an operational definition for Jabba's "existence" (E) yet? Have P(H|E) and P(~H|E) been recalculated in light of those definitions?

He'll be back.

 

[HighRiser]

Dave,
- For one thing, while the brain is made up of emergent properties, the brain is not an emergent property in itself (like Mt Rainier is not). But then, the self is.
- For another thing, the brain was not created out of nowhere -- the self was.

The brain is meat. The mind is an emergent property of the functioning of the meat. Neither came from nowhere.

 

[godless dave]

Just checking:

Do we have a null hypothesis (H) defined yet? Do we have an operational definition for Jabba's "existence" (E) yet? Have P(H|E) and P(~H|E) been recalculated in light of those definitions?

H is the scientific model of consciousness and E is the existence of Jabba's body, until Jabba realizes the numbers don't work, in which case H is a model where souls are real but each soul is mortal and only exists once, and E is Jabba's soul, until we point out to Jabba that nobody here subscribes to such a model, and then we're back to H is the scientific model of consciousness and E is the existence of Jabba's body. Repeat.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- For one thing, while the brain is made up of emergent properties, the brain is not an emergent property in itself (like Mt Rainier is not). But then, the self is.
- For another thing, the brain was not created out of nowhere -- the self was.

Jabba -

I went offline for the Jewish holidays only to come back to four more pages of wrong.

First, the shape of Mt. Rainier is in fact an emergent property. The ongoing processes of geology, wind erosion, water cycles, underground biomass, plants and animals all working together create Mt. Rainier and change its shape every minute of every day.

Second, there is no difference between the brain and the self. The "self" changes every minute of every day as the chemistry, inputs, and memories of the brain and body change. Are you the same person you were 30 years ago? Do you look like him? Talk like him? Have the same memories? Care about the same people?

I, for example, am much different now that I'm a father. I'm less selfish, more irritable, and more caring. I consider Loss Leader of 20 years ago to be a jerk. He was terrible to women, exceptionally fond of alcohol, allergic to hard work, and I don't think he ever worried about anything. I am not the "self" that I was.

If you disagree, please offer a working definition of the self - something we can test for. Otherwise, your concept of an immaterial self should be abandoned. Frankly, I'm not sure what it has to do with your proof of immortality anyway.

 

[zooterkin]

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

Dave,
- For one thing, while the brain is made up of emergent properties, the brain is not an emergent property in itself (like Mt Rainier is not). But then, the self is.
- For another thing, the brain was not created out of nowhere -- the self was.

You might want to revisit my question, you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- For one thing, while the brain is made up of emergent properties, the brain is not an emergent property in itself (like Mt Rainier is not). But then, the self is.
- For another thing, the brain was not created out of nowhere -- the self was.

The brain is a thing. Mount Rainier is a thing. Things have properties. This does not mean that they are "made up of" properties. Properties are not components. "White" is a property of snow, not something snow is made of. Mount Rainier is made up of rock, earth, water, etc., but its shape is a property, not something it is made of. When snow melts it no longer has a colour, because colour is a property of the snow. If Mount Rainier ceased to exist it would no longer have a shape, and when a brain ceases to function the consciousness which is a property of it ends.

 

[Mojo]

This idea that Jabba has suddenly adopted that things are composed of their properties looks like some sort of humoral theory of matter, in which, for example, snow might be composed of 'cold' and 'wet'. Like a throwback to the prescientific idea of the four elements.

 

[JayUtah]

This idea that Jabba has suddenly adopted...

...is academically interesting but naturally problematic in his argument. He's trying to describe his understanding of the scientific hypothesis, especially in contrast to whatever blob of pseudo-philosophical goo he's spewing. But goo nothwithstanding, he commits the straw-man fallacy unless he gets his opponent's claim right. And he can't do it. He's flopping about, throwing out a semblance of philosophical nonsense that he wants to characterize as the scientific hypothesis, and he has every incentive not to get it right.

 

[Mojo]

The concept he is now trying to foist on science is so distinctively prescientific that it is hard to see how he can have misunderstood in this way. It's also hard to see where he is trying to go with this, unless he's going to try to argue that if things are made up of their properties then their properties must be capable of existing independently, therefore souls. And he can only do that by ignoring all the responses to his last post. I expect he'll do it any time now.

 

[JayUtah]

The concept he is now trying to foist on science is so distinctively prescientific that it is hard to see how he can have misunderstood in this way. It's also hard to see where he is trying to go with this...

He may not be going anywhere. For example, the "souls have no characteristics" argument was clearly intended to winch him out of the pitfall du jour, but after people pointed out to him its impossibility -- not the least of which its contradiction to earlier claims he made -- he abandoned it and won't entertain further discussion on it.

In other words, you perhaps err in thinking Jabba has a plan that goes beyond simply surviving to prolong the debate another day.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The brain is a thing. Mount Rainier is a thing. Things have properties. This does not mean that they are "made up of" properties. Properties are not components. "White" is a property of snow, not something snow is made of. Mount Rainier is made up of rock, earth, water, etc., but its shape is a property, not something it is made of. When snow melts it no longer has a colour, because colour is a property of the snow. If Mount Rainier ceased to exist it would no longer have a shape, and when a brain ceases to function the consciousness which is a property of it ends.

Tough when you have to teach a dualist about qualia.


Hans

 

[John Jones]

So Jabba,
You haven't made a single successful point these last four years.

Is there some reason you keep posting here?

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- For one thing, while the brain is made up of emergent properties, the brain is not an emergent property in itself (like Mt Rainier is not). But then, the self is.
- For another thing, the brain was not created out of nowhere -- the self was.

Why would that make a difference?But the self wasn't created out of nowhere. A brain produced it. Everything about the self is determined by the brain.

Dave,

- Sorry for the extra tardiness, but I've been especially busy and what I'm currently trying to convey seems especially opaque(?).

- But anyway, emergence is like a unifying factor. It allows us to deal with the whole, rather than the sum of its parts. My claim is that Mt Rainier, and the physical brain, are just a bunch of parts thrown together, and consequently do not produce legitimate "targets." IOW, without that, their likelihoods are not appropriate as any P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula.

- Then, I'm claiming that the self IS a whole and does meet that particular P(E|H) requirement.

- From Wikipedia:
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a process whereby larger entities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit.
Emergence is central in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. For instance, the phenomenon of life as studied in biology is an emergent property of chemistry and psychological phenomena emerge from the neurobiological phenomena of living things. Likewise, economic and legal phenomena emerge from psychology.
In philosophy, emergence typically refers to emergentism. Almost all accounts of emergentism include a form of epistemic or ontological irreducibility to the lower levels.[1]

 

[godless dave]

That doesn't answer my question. The Wikipedia definition does not say emergent properties come out of nowhere.

 

[JayUtah]

But anyway, emergence is like a unifying factor. It allows us to deal with the whole, rather than the sum of its parts.

No.

Emergence is something that can only be considered at the scale of the system. It is explicitly not something, say, common, congruent, or coherent among all the parts such that they are unified by or along its lines. Your concept of emergence is exactly the opposite of what emergence really is.

My claim is that Mt Rainier, and the physical brain, are just a bunch of parts thrown together, and consequently do not produce legitimate "targets."

Your claim is wrong, at least as far as the scientific hypothesis goes. "Thrown together" may be your disparaging attitude toward complex genesis, but it aptly describes systems from which properties emerge.

IOW, without that, their likelihoods are not appropriate as any P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula.

Begging the question. You just "claimed" something that magically makes your theory hold. You're assuming what you set out to prove.

Then, I'm claiming that the self IS a whole and does meet that particular P(E|H) requirement.

No. You're just "claiming" the proposition you desperately want to be true so your numbers work out in your favor. In the scientific model the self is an emergent property of the organism. Nothing else. Don't try to foist your homemade definitions on your critics. They will tell you what their proposition is.

From Wikipedia:

How on Earth did you think any of that supported your half-baked straw man?

 

[The Sparrow]

- But anyway, emergence is like a unifying factor. It allows us to deal with the whole, rather than the sum of its parts. My claim is that Mt Rainier, and the physical brain, are just a bunch of parts thrown together, and consequently do not produce legitimate "targets." IOW, without that, their likelihoods are not appropriate as any P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula.

- Then, I'm claiming that the self IS a whole and does meet that particular P(E|H) requirement.

Why. Why are you claiming the self is different and meets your qualification but they physical brain or mount rainer does not.

you are special pleading for they 'self' to be something special.