Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Hokulele]

Hokulele,
- If I were actually duplicated, I would be looking out both sets of eyes -- and, my best guess is that my self would remember which body was there first.
- Like a computer hooked to two robots. All of a sudden, I'd have two sets of eyes, and my self (the computer) would remember which set was first.
- But then, I don't know why that should matter...

This implies that the self is not restricted to a physical body at all. Therefore, your H is incorrect, as science makes no such claim. Your proof has failed.

 

[Fudbucker]

It's not whether the data predated the hypothesis (ie, a model) that matters; it is whether the data was used in the formulation of the model. Data that was used to formulate a model biases the model in favor of that data, so it is not valid to use that same data to test the hypothesis. To test the hypothesis, new data are needed. The reason we prefer data that were observed after the model was formulated is that we know that the scientist could not have used the data in the formulation of the model.

The bolded was the only thing I disagreed with. Theories can be tested with old data. If someone proposes a new theory (e.g., dark matter doesn't exist, we just have to modify physics), the theory still has to explain all the data that's already been collected. The success or failure of a theory to explain this old data counts as a "test", since it receives confirmation is it passes the "test", as in the case of relativity theory explaining Mercury's orbit.

 

[Hokulele]

The bolded was the only thing I disagreed with. Theories can be tested with old data. If someone proposes a new theory (e.g., dark matter doesn't exist, we just have to modify physics), the theory still has to explain all the data that's already been collected. The success or failure of a theory to explain this old data counts as a "test", since it receives confirmation is it passes the "test", as in the case of relativity theory explaining Mercury's orbit.

I believe that by "new", jt512 is simply talking about data that is different from the set used when developing the hypothesis, not new in the chronological sense.

 

[Jabba]

- Perhaps, my basic claim is that if there is no pool of potential selves, each new self is a brand new creation, and potential selves must be infinite. Does anyone see any logic in that?

 

[JayUtah]

- Perhaps, my basic claim is that if there is no pool of potential selves, each new self is a brand new creation, and potential selves must be infinite. Does anyone see any logic in that?

There is no logic whatsoever in that. And it is fatal to your claim. "The number of potential selves must be infinite" matters only if there exists a countable set of such things -- a "pool" of them, if you will. You fundamentally misunderstand what a denominator is in a ratio.

You can claim whatever you want for souls, but for consciousness under H there is no such thing as an enumerable "number" of consciousness. Consciousness under H is a process that is an innumerable property of a functioning brain.

 

[Hokulele]

- Perhaps, my basic claim is that if there is no pool of potential selves, each new self is a brand new creation, and potential selves must be infinite. Does anyone see any logic in that?

A self isn't a thing, and can't be counted, no more than you can count how many wind there were yesterday.

 

[jond]

- Perhaps, my basic claim is that if there is no pool of potential selves, each new self is a brand new creation, and potential selves must be infinite. Does anyone see any logic in that?

Each self is an ongoing process in a brain. There is no such thing as a potential self.

 

[godless dave]

- Perhaps, my basic claim is that if there is no pool of potential selves, each new self is a brand new creation, and potential selves must be infinite. Does anyone see any logic in that?

No, I don't see any logic in it.

Each self is brand new in exactly the same way that each body is brand new. Or each banana for that matter. Or blade of grass.

 

[aleCcowaN]

- Perhaps, my basic claim is that if there is no pool of potential selves, each new self is a brand new creation, and potential selves must be infinite. Does anyone see any logic in that?

On the platitude side? ...yes!

 

[jt512]

The bolded was the only thing I disagreed with. Theories can be tested with old data. If someone proposes a new theory (e.g., dark matter doesn't exist, we just have to modify physics), the theory still has to explain all the data that's already been collected. The success or failure of a theory to explain this old data counts as a "test", since it receives confirmation is it passes the "test", as in the case of relativity theory explaining Mercury's orbit.

I believe that by "new", jt512 is simply talking about data that is different from the set used when developing the hypothesis, not new in the chronological sense.

Yes. Exactly. So, in that sense, the data on the perihelion of Mercury, which had been known at the time, was "new" to Einstein's theory.

There are a couple of interesting articles on why Einstein's theory was simpler than competing contemporaneous theories of Mercury's perihelion, and hence more plausible. Here's a link to one of them:

http://www2.stat.duke.edu/~berger/papers/ockham.html

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes. Exactly. So, in that sense, the data on the perihelion of Mercury, which had been known at the time, was "new" to Einstein's theory.

There are a couple of interesting articles on why Einstein's theory was simpler than competing contemporaneous theories of Mercury's perihelion, and hence more plausible. Here's a link to one of them:

http://www2.stat.duke.edu/~berger/papers/ockham.html

OK, I have no disagreement then. Thanks for the link.

 

[Mojo]

Hokulele,
- If I were actually duplicated, I would be looking out both sets of eyes -- and, my best guess is that my self would remember which body was there first.
- Like a computer hooked to two robots. All of a sudden, I'd have two sets of eyes, and my self (the computer) would remember which set was first.
- But then, I don't know why that should matter...

Jabba,
- Here's something that was posted only yesterday: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11622311#post11622311

Do you see how repeating your "looking through two sets of eyes" nonsense today makes you look?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

jond,
- Will that particular process continue when my body dies? OOFLam would say that it will not, that it will never process again and it never had to process in the first place. In other words, given OOFLam, the likelihood of this particular process currently processing is infinitesimal.

The likelihood of any particular banana existing is infinitesimal.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- Perhaps, my basic claim is that if there is no pool of potential selves, each new self is a brand new creation, and potential selves must be infinite. Does anyone see any logic in that?

If there is no pool of potential bananas, each new banana is a brand new creation, and potential bananas must be infinite.

 

[Mojo]

Then the self you're talking about is not part of H.

Or, alternatively, Jabba's H is a strawman.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- And, the likelihood of your particular current existence -- given OOFLam -- is infinitesimal.

jond,
- Will that particular process continue when my body dies? OOFLam would say that it will not, that it will never process again and it never had to process in the first place. In other words, given OOFLam, the likelihood of this particular process currently processing is infinitesimal.

Jabba,
- Is the likelihood of your body existing infinitesimal?



ETA: It might be a good idea to try to remember what you said last time you were asked about this.

 

[The Sparrow]

If there is no pool of potential bananas, each new banana is a brand new creation, and potential bananas must be infinite.

I support every word you are saying, but mark me - MARK ME!

I bought up the banana thing about 1000 posts ago.
He never answered me either.

 

[HighRiser]

Hokulele,
- If I were actually duplicated, I would be looking out both sets of eyes --

How? I've asked you several times to explain this odd notion because it seems to be beyond my comprehension.

and, my best guess is that my self would remember which body was there first.

How? A perfectly duplicated you would have all the same memories of your life up to the moment of duplication. Your parents, schooling, wife, kids, bank accounts, mortgages, SSN, fingerprints, and secrets would be as much a part of the duplicate's sense of identity as they are a part of yours.

- Like a computer hooked to two robots. All of a sudden, I'd have two sets of eyes, and my self (the computer) would remember which set was first.

How do two separate but identical things share their perceptions?

- But then, I don't know why that should matter...

Then I don't know why you keep bringing it back into the conversation.

 

[Loss Leader]

Mojo,
- Trying to restrict my quotes to single paragraphs.
- Blackmore is an atheist, and doesn't believe that the self is real. I'm trying to show how unlikely even an illusional self is, given OOFLam,....

Mojo-

I'm trying to completely destroy the meaning of the word "illusion" so that I can continue pretending the whole concept doesn't exist.

I'll be back.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Perhaps, my basic claim is that if there is no pool of potential selves, each new self is a brand new creation, and potential selves must be infinite. Does anyone see any logic in that?

"There is no pool of going sixty miles an hour. Each new instance of going sixty miles an hour is a brand new creation, and going sixty miles an hour must be infinite. Does anyone see any logic in that?[/quote]