Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[John Jones]

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.

What makes you an authority on the scientific model? Nothing that I can see indicates that you even understand it.

 

[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.

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.

Yes, an identical copy of something is not the thing it is a copy of; it is a second, identical, thing.

Where in the hell did I come from? Nowhere!

Nope. Your consciousness is a process going on in your brain.

- I was created. But, I wasn't created by any God. Each new consciousness just brings with it a brand new self.

In the model you are trying to attack, consciousness is a process. The "self" does not exist other than as that process.

 

[The Sparrow]

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.

No, it does not say that, it says your self arises from the chemistry of your brain. Repeating your falsehood does not make it true.

Science would say that there is no pool of potential selves

Correct. 'Potential selves is some bizarre concept you created to beg the question of souls.

, and reproducing the exact chemistry would produce a copy of me, but not Me.

Correct. They would not be the same carbon atoms for example.

Where in the hell did I come from? Nowhere!

Repeating your falsehood does not make it true.

- I was created. But, I wasn't created by any God.

Correct, it was sperm and an egg.

Each new consciousness just brings with it a brand new self.

Brings with it???
What does that even mean?

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- I'm claiming that by 'unifying' the parts, an emergent property creates a "whole," ...

You have that completely backwards.

 

[jond]

You have that completely backwards.

Indeed, and I suspect that's intentional. Because, obviously, if the Emergent property is created by the parts unifying, then the Emergent property stops with the component parts stop.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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!

Not from nowhere. You came from the same places as your parts came from:

The biological processes and random chances that created your body.
The incidences, experiences, and random chances that your current mind.

- I was created. But, I wasn't created by any God. Each new consciousness just brings with it a brand new self.

You might use the word 'created' although it is usually connoted with a willful action.

But your consciousness did not bring a brand new self. Your consciousness is part of the self, and the self is constantly evolving. Every second of your life brings a new self.

Hans

 

[Mojo]

Indeed, and I suspect that's intentional. Because, obviously, if the Emergent property is created by the parts unifying, then the Emergent property stops with the component parts stop.

It's just another attempt to beg the question.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm claiming that by 'unifying' the parts, an emergent property creates a "whole,"...

No, that's not what it means to be an emergent property.

And, that's how (I claim that) being an emergent property makes a difference.

Asked and answered. You're trying to trump up a difference by redefining what your critics have said and then cramming it back in their mouths. That's the straw-man fallacy. Quit it.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

No. It emerges from the system. If I make a snowball, does the white color or round shape "come out of nowhere?"

Science would say that there is no pool of potential selves...

Such a statement simply makes no sense in the scientific hypothesis. The white color is an emergent property of snowfall. There is no pool of "potential white." The crenelated conical shape of Mt Ranier is an emergent property of the processes that created the mountain. There is no pool of "potential shape."

You're still trying to shoehorn the notion of the self as a "thing" into the scientific hypothesis and then complaining because the hypothesis cannot explain that thing. That's as straw-manny as it gets, Jabba.

and reproducing the exact chemistry would produce a copy of me, but not Me.

Capitalizing words doesn't fix your problem, Jabba. Reproducing the organism exactly will create a system from which emergent properties will emerge identically.

If I make a snowball, and then make another snowball, both are white. There are not two "whites." If I magically have the capability to produce two quantumly identical snowballs, they will be identically white down to the smallest ability to observe them.

Where in the hell did I come from? Nowhere!

Under the scientific hypothesis your sense of "self" emerged as a property of a functioning brain. Stop trying to think of the self as a soul. Under the scientific hypothesis, it is no such thing. The sense of self under H is an abstract property.

Each new consciousness just brings with it a brand new self.

No. You don't understand the scientific hypothesis at all.

 

[godless dave]

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?

You came from your brain, which came from a biological process called sexual reproduction.

When I strike a match, where does the flame come from?

 

[Jabba]

Not from nowhere. You came from the same places as your parts came from:

The biological processes and random chances that created your body.
The incidences, experiences, and random chances that your current mind.



You might use the word 'created' although it is usually connoted with a willful action.

But your consciousness did not bring a brand new self. Your consciousness is part of the self, and the self is constantly evolving. Every second of your life brings a new self.

Hans

Hans,
- But, it brought with it some thing, process or illusion that never existed before, that continues to exist while this brain is conscious and healthy, that will cease to exist when this brain dies, and that will never exist again. And personally, whatever this 'thing' is, it cares, is happy that it came about, and that it has continued so far -- and also, it doesn't want to cease to exist forever.

 

[jond]

Hans,
- But, it brought with it some thing, process or illusion that never existed before, that continues to exist while this brain is conscious and healthy, that will cease to exist when this brain dies, and that will never exist again. And personally, whatever this 'thing' is, it cares, is happy that it came about, and that it has continued so far -- and also, it doesn't want to cease to exist forever.

That's nice. But reality doesn't care about what you want.

 

[JayUtah]

But, it brought with it some thing, process or illusion...

It is a process.

that never existed before...

That's like saying there was no such thing as white until you made a snowball.

And personally, whatever this 'thing' is, it cares, is happy that it came about, and that it has continued so far --

All aspects of the process. Emotion is a part of the self, and an emergent property of a functioning brain. That you experience them subjectively doesn't make them external or self-existent, no matter how badly you wish it to be.

and also, it doesn't want to cease to exist forever.

Which specific terror, of course, is all this is about. Remember the part where you told us you couldn't handle it emotionally if it turned out you couldn't prove mathematically the existence of a soul? Yeah, that's the part that's making you ignore and/or misrepresent your critics.

 

[JayUtah]

That's nice. But reality doesn't care about what you want.

You mean real mathematical proofs don't end with quod erat desiderandum?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans,
- But, it brought with it some thing, process or illusion that never existed before, that continues to exist while this brain is conscious and healthy, that will cease to exist when this brain dies, and that will never exist again. And personally, whatever this 'thing' is, it cares, is happy that it came about, and that it has continued so far -- and also, it doesn't want to cease to exist forever.

Well, it may not want that, but it is (usually) smart enough to realize that it will not exist forever.

Hans

 

[jond]

You mean real mathematical proofs don't end with quod erat desiderandum?

Oh! You speak French!

 

[John Jones]

Hans,
- But, it brought with it some thing, process or illusion that never existed before, that continues to exist while this brain is conscious and healthy, that will cease to exist when this brain dies, and that will never exist again. And personally, whatever this 'thing' is, it cares, is happy that it came about, and that it has continued so far -- and also, it doesn't want to cease to exist forever.

Can you think of any reason why this fear of no longer existing is relevant to the topic of this thread?

 

[John Jones]

You mean real mathematical proofs don't end with quod erat desiderandum?

Lol! It took me a moment of reflection, but it was worth it.

 

[godless dave]

Saying the observer was "brought" is begging the question.

 

[Mojo]

Oh! You speak French!

No, Latin. That satin doll.

Or maybe Italian.