Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- Anyway, from our previous discussions, you must accept that this particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place.
- I claim that you must be wrong because the likelihood of your sense of self currently existing is virtually zero if you are right.
- Just in case you haven't quite understood what I've been claiming.

Texas Sharpshooter!

But to answer your question, not only do I have a sense of self, but because the brain has some interesting quirks in it, I have experienced things that aren't even part of my body as being part of my self. When I ride a bike, I often feel as if I am not guiding a separate object, but that the bike is merely an extension of my body. People can be fooled into thinking their nose is 3 feet long.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mind/note_nf6.html

As a side note, you may want to read V.S. Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain. It is a fascinating look at what goes into creating the illusion of a self.

 

[JayUtah]

- Susan Blackmore says that she has a 'sense' (my word) of self, that she believes is an illusion. Do any of you guys have such a sense of self?

I am conscious. That does not prove mathematically that there is an immortal soul. Quit begging the question.

 

[JayUtah]

you must accept that this particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place.

No, I don't have to accept that consciousness is countable.

I claim that you must be wrong because the likelihood of your sense of self currently existing is virtually zero if you are right.

This claim has been refuted.

Just in case you haven't quite understood what I've been claiming.

Everyone understands what you are claiming. I can't imagine how you could possibly conclude that anyone in this thread hasn't already heard your claims a million times, because repeating them ad nauseam is frankly about half of what you do here. Now quit using the alleged hard-headedness of your critics as an imaginary excuse to keep doing it.

 

[Navigator]

creating the illusion of a self.

Is there a real self?

 

[Hokulele]

Is there a real self?

There is a process we refer to as a "self" that is fully real. There is an illusion that the process is a separate thing in and of itself.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Anyway, from our previous discussions, you must accept that this particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place.
- I claim that you must be wrong because the likelihood of your sense of self currently existing is virtually zero if you are right.
- Just in case you haven't quite understood what I've been claiming.

Yes, you keep claiming that.

You still haven't given a reason it would be virtually zero.

My particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again, and never had to exist in the first place. That is true of literally everything in the universe. The lasagna I had for dinner never existed before, will never exist again, and never had to exist in the first place. Each of the snowflakes now falling on my yard never existed before, will never exist again, and never had to exist in the first place.

So what? Why does that make them so unlikely that we should think the naturalistic explanation for their existence is inadequate?

 

[Mojo]

A point about Jabba's argument that hasn't been made explicitly (or explicitly enough, at any rate) yet is that OOFLam is only a hypothesis in Jabba's mind. As far as the rest of the world is concerned the relevant hypothesis here is that consciousness is produced by the brain. That it will cease when the brain ceases functioning is an implication of this hypothesis, not a testable hypothesis in its own right.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Are you talking about breast size here? Finally! Something interesting and useful to discuss! Like what would a size 3D be in American measurements?

Certainly the most modest of the jewels those garments protect and enhance are way more a source of substantial things than all of Jabba's reasoning put together. Unless you're studying logical fallacies. In such case Jabba's is the cornucopia.

I love the dialogue here between the pretentious hedonistic pseudo-logic of Jabba's and many of the posters from the side of reason:

you must accept that this particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place.

No, I don't have to accept that consciousness is countable.

One commits rookie mistakes while saying things he imagines they have been never said. The other one replies with his feet firmly standing in the sum of human knowledge.

It's like hearing:

poor excuse of a prophet - "If you see a light in the darkness..."
DylanNDakota - "... you have left your refrigerator open"

I leave Jabba to think aboot all this and come to a proper conclusion ("Ooooohhh! Prophet!! I must be doing well!")

 

[Mojo]

I leave Jabba to think aboot all this and come to a proper conclusion ("Ooooohhh! Prophet!! I must be doing well!")

1. Collect fallacies.
2. ?
3. Prophet!

 

[Belz...]

- It could be that no one wants to answer my last question, but at least some of you probably accept that you do have such a sense, and do believe that when your body dies, you will never have that sense again -- your particular sense of self will never exist again.

You would do well to stop concluding that agreement exists when none is given, Jabba.

 

[Mojo]

If you were to be duplicated, would you know whether or not you are the original? Why do you have such trouble addressing such a simple question?

He has trouble with the question because it highlights yet another fatal flaw in his argument: even if we accept his infinite number of "potential selves", whichever one of them happened to get lucky would think that it was "him". In other words he's back to a situation in which the probability of the observed result is 1.

 

[Mojo]

To illustrate that last point, here's a brief exchange from "The Terrible Revenge of Fred Fu-Manchu", an episode of the Goon Show written by Spike Milligan in 1955:

[sound effect: knocking on door]
MINNIE: Oh! Who's there?
SEAGOON [outside]: It's me.
MINNIE: Henry, there's a man called 'Me' at the door.
CRUN: Me?
MINNIE: Me.
CRUN: He'll have to prove it. You, out there!
SEAGOON [outside]: Yes?
CRUN: Prove you're me.
SEAGOON [outside]: All right. I'm Henry Crun.
CRUN: Oh, that's me, Minnie, yes. Min, open the door and let him in.
MINNIE: But you are in, Hen.
CRUN: Well, you'll have to let me out again then.
MINNIE: Why?
CRUN: Because I'm out there waiting to come in.
MINNIE: Oh, very well.
[Door opens]
SEAGOON: Ah, thank you.
[Door closes]
SEAGOON: Now then, Mr Crun, I want to warn you that...
[Knocking on door]
CRUN: Who's that out there?
MINNIE [outside]: It's me. You've locked me out.
CRUN: Nonsense. Me just came in. He's here now.

 

[Jabba]

- Digging down, looking for the roots of our dilemma...

- I assume that some organic state naturally produces a 'bit' of consciousness.
- I claim that a sense of self is an intrinsic part of consciousness.
- Each new bit of consciousness has a new, and different, sense of self.
- If time is infinite, the potential bits of consciousness -- and, different senses of self -- are also infinite.

 

[Mojo]

So what? Your consciousness is produced by your brain. When your brain stops, your consciousness stops.

 

[jond]

- Digging down, looking for the roots of our dilemma...

- I assume that some organic state naturally produces a 'bit' of consciousness.
- I claim that a sense of self is an intrinsic part of consciousness.
- Each new bit of consciousness has a new, and different, sense of self.
- If time is infinite, the potential bits of consciousness -- and, different senses of self -- are also infinite.

You really don't understand the concept of a process, do you? You're still insisting that the self is an actual entity. You're still insisting that consciousness is an entity. That's where the problem lies.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You really don't understand the concept of a process, do you? You're still insisting that the self is an actual entity. You're still insisting that consciousness is an entity. That's where the problem lies.

Consciousness isn't so much a noun as it is a verb.

 

[jond]

Jabba, can you think of an example of a process that continues when the component parts that give rise to it stop?

Before you say radio: I'm talking about the transmission components. In the scientific model, the brain is doing the transmission, it is generating consciousness.

 

[jond]

Consciousness isn't so much a noun as it is a verb.

Indeed, it is that very peculiar bit of language which causes this problem.

 

[John Jones]

- Digging down, looking for the roots of our dilemma...

Whose dilemma?

 

[Mojo]

Jabba,
- You are conscious. The consciousness you have today is not the same as the consciousness you had yesterday. Your consciousness as of the moment you read this post is not the same as the consciousness of five minutes earlier. They appear to be continuous with each other because your current consciousness includes memories of those earlier consciousnesses.

Some day, your brain will cease to function. Then, not only will your consciousness of yesterday, and your consciousness of today, and your consciousness of the particular instant you read this post no longer exist, but there will be no consciousness with memories of those earlier consciousnesses. There will no longer be an entity that thinks it is Jabba.