Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[JayUtah]

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

Special pleading is the only approach Jabba has ever taken to any analogy, especially to a complex system like geological formation. The analogy doesn't hold because he "claims" otherwise.

Under H the self is not a "whole." Under his presumption of an immortal soul it may be, but under the scientific hypothesis self is to organism as white is to snow, or as conical is to mountain. It appears Jabba lacks the capacity for abstract thought that would allow him to consider the self as anything other than an object of some sort.

 

[sackett]

Jabba: When you begin with "anyway," that's a giveaway that you're going to disregard everything that's gone before and start all over with the same old unsupported assertions.

Betcha didn't realize that, now didja?

Don't ever try to play poker.

 

[Jabba]

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

Dave,
- The question I was trying to answer was, "Why would that make a difference?"
- Did I not answer that question?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- The question I was trying to answer was, "Why would that make a difference?"
- Did I not answer that question?

You did not.

 

[JayUtah]

Did I not answer that question?

Not at all. You spewed a bunch of pseudo-philosophical nonsense, the effect of which was to answer "Because I say so."

Keep in mind that you're discussing H. That is, you're discussing the hypothesis you say your critics hold, should hold, or must hold. Despite your clear desire to make H seem as improbable as possible, you still have the obligation to get H right such that your critics agree it's what the scientific hypothesis is. You don't get to short-circuit a debate to victory by attacking a straw man.

 

[Mojo]

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.

If the brain is not a legitimate target, then neither is the "self", because the self is just a property of the brain, not a thing with an independent existence.

You wouldn't be trying to beg the question again, would you?*



*Rhetorical.

 

[JayUtah]

Jabba wants very much for the self to have independence, even under H. When his critics tell him that under H (the scientific hypothesis for the self) the self is an emergent property of the organism (i.e., the brain), then Jabba's only recourse to justify his wildly fanciful guess for P(E|H) is to redefine "emergent property" to mean something that fits his preconception, regardless of whether it really is the scientific hypothesis. Jabba has the audacity to tell his critics essentially, "No, this is what you must really mean."

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm not sure how many ways there are left to simply restate.

X exists.
X exists because of Property Y.
X is defined as having Property Y.
If you say X I'll assume you mean X plus Y and refuse to believe otherwise.
20 GOTO 10.

 

[JayUtah]

20 GOTO 10.

This must be why Jabba claims he has achieved a stalemate.

 

[godless dave]

Consider a match. A strike-anywhere match, for the sake of simplicity (you can still buy these).

A match has no flame. None of the components that make up the match are on fire.

Strike it, and a flame appears where there was no flame before. Where did it come from?

It burns down, and the flame disappears. Where did it go?

Take out an identical match. Strike it. A flame appears. Is it the same flame?

 

[John Jones]

This must be why Jabba claims he has achieved a stalemate.

Did he really claim to achieve a stalemate?


Jabba, did you really claim that? Do you know what a stalemate means?

 

[The Sparrow]

Did he really claim to achieve a stalemate?


Jabba, did you really claim that? Do you know what a stalemate means?

It means he gets to tell himself, his religious friends, his blog etc that the most hardcore skeptics could not counter his arguments, therefore he is immortal.

 

[JayUtah]

Did he really claim to achieve a stalemate?

Yep

 

[JayUtah]

It means he gets to tell himself, his religious friends, his blog etc that the most hardcore skeptics could not counter his arguments...

And from his perspective that's true, albeit with his fingers firmly jammed in his ears.

He may have meant his "stalemate" claim to apply only to him and godless dave, and only on the point of Mt. Ranier. But even in that context it's still laughably untrue. Jabba's one and only counter to godless-dave's analogy has been to insist that selves must somehow be magically different. It's no stalemate. When your argument blatantly begs the question, you've lost whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

 

[zooterkin]

Do you know what a stalemate means?

I think it's an emergent property of this thread.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Sorry for the extra tardiness, but I've been especially busy and what I'm currently trying to convey seems especially opaque(?).
1) - 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.
1) - 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]

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

Dave,
- The question I was trying to answer was, "Why would that make a difference?"
- Did I not answer that question?

You did not.

Dave,
- I'm claiming that by 'unifying' the parts, an emergent property creates a "whole," and thereby avoids being just a bunch of pieces thrown together and not, therefore, a legitimate E in the Bayesian P(E|H).
- That was my last claim re Mt Ranier. And, that's how (I claim that) being an emergent property makes a difference.

- I'm don't mean to say that being such a 'unit,' by itself, makes the current existence of my self a valid E in the formula -- I'm just saying that it's one of the necessary conditions.

 

[zooterkin]

Dave,
- I'm claiming that by 'unifying' the parts, an emergent property creates a "whole," and thereby avoids being just a bunch of pieces thrown together and not, therefore, a legitimate E in the Bayesian P(E|H).
- That was my last claim re Mt Ranier. And, that's how (I claim that) being an emergent property makes a difference.

- I'm don't mean to say that being such a 'unit,' by itself, makes the current existence of my self a valid E in the formula -- I'm just saying that it's one of the necessary conditions.

I'll repeat, what do you understand "emergent property" to mean?

 

[Mojo]

- I'm claiming that by 'unifying' the parts, an emergent property creates a "whole," and thereby avoids being just a bunch of pieces thrown together and not, therefore, a legitimate E in the Bayesian P(E|H).

Nope. The "whole" creates the emergent property.

 

[Jabba]

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

Dave,
- I think that it does (in a sense), but I'm just saying that according to the scientific model, my self comes out of nowhere. Science would say that there is no pool of potential selves, and reproducing the exact chemistry would produce a copy of me, but not Me. Where in the hell did I come from? Nowhere!
- I was created. But, I wasn't created by any God. Each new consciousness just brings with it a brand new self.

 

[Mojo]

- I think that it does (in a sense), but I'm just saying that according to the scientific model, my self comes out of nowhere.

You're wrong.