Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Mojo]

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.

You might have something there.

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.

The universe doesn't care what it wants.

 

[jond]

No, Latin. That satin doll.

Or maybe Italian.

(sorry, obscure Thomas Dolby reference...)

 

[Mojo]

(sorry, obscure Thomas Dolby reference...)

(Obscure Duke Ellington reference)

 

[The Sparrow]

(Obscure Duke Ellington reference)

Not that obscure

 

[Loss Leader]

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.

Are you the same person you were 30 years ago? Do you have the same characteristics, likes and dislikes, worries, loves, memories?

If not, then I don't think you've supported your mere assertion that the self is a thing at all.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Oh! You speak French!

..."Italian"...

 

[Jabba]

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?

Dave,
- Consciousness came from my brain. My consciousness naturally came with, or produced, a particular self -- ME. If we were able to reproduce my brain, consciousness would again come with it, but this consciousness would not be ME. This would be a brand new self. We would not get the same self via the same chemistry.
- The point is that there is ‘something’ here that never existed before -- in any form whatsoever. In that sense, it came from nowhere. And, there was no limited pool of potential selves from which this self came. And, if there is no limited pool of potential selves, the number of potential selves is unlimited. And, the likelihood of the current existence of my self (and your self) – given the scientific model (and OOFLam) -- is 7 billion divided by infinity.

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave,
- Consciousness came from my brain. My consciousness naturally came with, or produced, a particular self -- ME. If we were able to reproduce my brain, consciousness would again come with it, but this consciousness would not be ME. This would be a brand new self. We would not get the same self via the same chemistry.

Well sorta, but ok.

- The point is that there is ‘something’ here that never existed before -- in any form whatsoever. In that sense, it came from nowhere.

No, wrong, false. I cannot see why you are making that jump. It comes as a process from the brain.

And, there was no limited pool of potential selves from which this self came.

There is no such thing as potential selves. What the hell are you talking about?

And, if there is no limited pool of potential selves, the number of potential selves is unlimited.

Again, what the hell is a potential self? You act like it is a concrete thing that exists. You're begging the question that their are souls out there existing, just waiting to be actualized into a brain. Which is hogwash.

And, the likelihood of the current existence of my self (and your self) – given the scientific model (and OOFLam) -- is 7 billion divided by infinity.

Full circle fringe reset depending on flawed and false premises.
And even if you had a point, which you do not, what the hell does one life vs reincarnation have to do with your particular emerging conciousness being potentially unique.

 

[Mojo]

- Consciousness came from my brain. My consciousness naturally came with, or produced, a particular self -- ME.

There is no "self" in the sense if a separate entity. The feeling of "self" is just part of consciousness.

If we were able to reproduce my brain, consciousness would again come with it, but this consciousness would not be ME. This would be a brand new self. We would not get the same self via the same chemistry.

Because a copy of something is not the original, and if you have two things there are two of them, even if they are identical.

- The point is that there is ‘something’ here that never existed before -- in any form whatsoever. In that sense, it came from nowhere.

It is a process going on in your brain, not an entity that can "come from somewhere".

And, there was no limited pool of potential selves from which this self came. And, if there is no limited pool of potential selves, the number of potential selves is unlimited. And, the likelihood of the current existence of my self (and your self) – given the scientific model (and OOFLam) -- is 7 billion divided by infinity.

There is no pool of potential selves, limited or not limited. Consciousness is just something your brain does. There is no question of there being a multiplicity of "selves" competing for the privilege of occupying your brain. Once your brain exists the likelihood that it will produce your consciousness is one.

As The Sparrow said, this is just another full-blown reset. The flaws in your argument have been repeatedly pointed out to you, and you just restate it as if nothing had happened. This is not a method that is going to result in Effective Debate^TM.

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- Consciousness came from my brain. My consciousness naturally came with, or produced, a particular self -- ME. If we were able to reproduce my brain, consciousness would again come with it, but this consciousness would not be ME. This would be a brand new self. We would not get the same self via the same chemistry.

If we were to reproduce your brain, when you woke up from the procedure, would you KNOW you are You, or simply the Copy of You?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Would the new Jabba be able to actually argue his point?

 

[jsfisher]

Would the new Jabba be able to actually argue his point?

Which would be the new one?

 

[sackett]

Jabba, you forgot to say "anyway." And people are starting to swear at you. On the sabbath!

Surely you see the connection. Now cover your ears with your hands and cry Anyway! Anyway! Anyway! until everything's all right again.

 

[JayUtah]

Consciousness came from my brain. My consciousness naturally came with, or produced, a particular self -- ME.

No, that's not the scientific hypothesis. In the scientific hypothesis your sense of self is the same thing as your consciousness. If you want to argue that the scientific hypothesis includes or should include a separate concept of "self" then you'll have to show scientific evidence for that distinction.

If we were able to reproduce my brain, consciousness would again come with it, but this consciousness would not be ME. This would be a brand new self. We would not get the same self via the same chemistry.

That is exactly the opposite of the scientific hypothesis. Do not just make up crap and call it H. If your purpose is to falsify H you have to falsify the real H, not just crap you invent.

The point is that there is ‘something’ here that never existed before -- in any form whatsoever.

Nonsense. Emergent properties are properties. It's meaningless to talk about the supposed existence of a property separately from the entity of which it is a property. To say it came from nothing is like saying there's no such thing as white until I make a snowball. You're still stuck in the rut of thinking properties are things.

And, there was no limited pool of potential selves from which this self came.

That concept is wholly inapplicable to the scientific hypothesis. Properties do not come from a "pool".

And, if there is no limited pool of potential selves, the number of potential selves is unlimited.

NO

Just, no. You are doing your best to cobble up some rationale for dividing by infinity, but not because the rationale bears any sort of relationship to reality or to principles of mathematics.

First, you are applying quantitative reasoning to things you assume are discrete and are countable. That assumption does not apply here. We're talking about properties, not objects. You simply refuse to listen to anyone who tries to instruct you.

Second, none of this has a single whit to do with science. If you are going to falsify the scientific hypothesis H by asserting that it has practically zero chance of producing people with a sense of self, you can't just make up whatever you want and call it H. H actually has to derive from scientific principles.

BLATANT STRAW MAN

And, the likelihood of the current existence of my self (and your self) – given the scientific model (and OOFLam) -- is 7 billion divided by infinity.

No, you're just pulling stuff out of your kiester and calling it the scientific hypothesis. Why don't you listen to the people who actually subscribe to the scientific hypothesis and falsify that instead of your rambling pseudo-philosophical nonsense?

 

[JayUtah]

Allow dividing or multiplying by infinity, and we can prove that 1=2.

But it's a red herring anyway. The properties of infinity don't bear on the problem because Jabba's torturous route to get to infinity is just his typical deceptive word play. His argument is akin to, "Snow wasn't white until it fell, therefore there is infinity white, therefore any snowball is too improbable to exist according to science."

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Consciousness came from my brain.

And so did your self.

If we reproduced your brain we wouldn't get the same consciousness, we would get one exactly like it.

It still seems like you're trying to get us to concede that souls exist so you can then try to prove souls are immortal.

We don't believe souls exist.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Consciousness came from my brain. My consciousness naturally came with, or produced, a particular self -- ME. If we were able to reproduce my brain, consciousness would again come with it, but this consciousness would not be ME. This would be a brand new self. We would not get the same self via the same chemistry.
- The point is that there is ‘something’ here that never existed before -- in any form whatsoever. In that sense, it came from nowhere. And, there was no limited pool of potential selves from which this self came. And, if there is no limited pool of potential selves, the number of potential selves is unlimited. And, the likelihood of the current existence of my self (and your self) – given the scientific model (and OOFLam) -- is 7 billion divided by infinity.

And so did your self. If we reproduced your brain we wouldn't get the same consciousness, we would get one exactly like it.It still seems like you're trying to get us to concede that souls exist so you can then try to prove souls are immortal.
We don't believe souls exist.

Dave,
- I basically agree with your part that I hilited. Scientifically speaking, we cannot reproduce the particular self. IOW, there are no potential selves in the sense that specific chemistry would produce the same self each time.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba seriously stop telling people you agree with them and then making the exact opposite point they are making.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I basically agree with your part that I hilited. Scientifically speaking, we cannot reproduce the particular self. IOW, there are no potential selves in the sense that specific chemistry would produce the same self each time.

Specific chemistry wouldn't produce the same brain each time either. Because a copy is not the original, even if it's identical to the original.

 

[Hokulele]

Jabba, what do the words "same" and "identical" mean to you?