Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[caveman1917]

* if you want a physical justification, by the earlier-mentioned Bekenstein bound the number of possible physical configurations within the Hubble cosmic event horizon (and hence relevant, with "relevant" being "causally connected to us") is finite.

erratum

 

[John Jones]

Dave and Sparrow,
- I see this as equivalent to the Mt Rainier and the Texas Sharpshooter arguments. Do you agree?
- If so, I agree that this issue deserves more consideration. And, for now at least, I also think that it is the weakest part of my argument.

What do you think is the strongest part of your argument? Please don't do yet another fringe reset. We've see it too many times already.

 

[The Sparrow]

Ok, I have decided to answer.

Dave and Sparrow,
- I see this as equivalent to the Mt Rainier and the Texas Sharpshooter arguments. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree you are committing the texas sharpshooter fallacy.

- If so, I agree that this issue deserves more consideration. And, for now at least, I also think that it is the weakest part of my argument.

Not "weak", but "wrong".

 

[theprestige]

What do you think is the strongest part of your argument? Please don't do yet another fringe reset. We've see it too many times already.

In his body of work, the answer to this question is invariably an ad hoc citation thrown out without him even checking to make sure it's supportive. He literally has no idea what he's actually presenting. And invariably when someone else actually checks it for him, it does not support his argument at all.

The strongest part of his argument will be something he hasn't read, that does't actually support his argument.

 

[John Jones]

In his body of work, the answer to this question is invariably an ad hoc citation thrown out without him even checking to make sure it's supportive. He literally has no idea what he's actually presenting. And invariably when someone else actually checks it for him, it does not support his argument at all.

The strongest part of his argument will be something he hasn't read, that does't actually support his argument.

Jabba, do you have a rejoinder to this? I happen to agree with theprestige. Prove us wrong.

 

[zooterkin]

- 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?

P1680143.jpg by zooterkin, on Flickr

Susan Blackmore is very disappointed in you, Jabba.

 

[Jabba]

Dave and Sparrow,
- I see this as equivalent to the Mt Rainier and the Texas Sharpshooter arguments. Do you agree?
- If so, I agree that this issue deserves more consideration. And, for now at least, I also think that it is the weakest part of my argument.

Yes.

Dave,

- Good.
- Sorry this is taking so long, but for me, the issue/reasoning is very complicated and difficult to put together (though, I feel 99% sure I'm right).

- How is my sense of a particular and continuous self different from Mt Rainier, a bucket of sand thrown on a floor and random bullet holes on the side of a barn -- when it comes to the likelihood of my current existence -- given modern science vs the likelihood of Mt Rainier, etc, given modern science? (Sorry about that.)
- Apparently, a personal sense of continuous self is an intrinsic/inherent aspect of (the emergent property of) consciousness, and it cannot be reproduced -- when there is no aspect of the other situations that cannot be reproduced.

- That is a way that it's different -- but, does that difference make my sense of self a legitimate "E" in the Bayes formula for P(H|E), when the existence of Mt Rainier is not? I'll be back.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

(though, I feel 99% sure I'm right).

Another wildly inaccurate number plucked from thin air

 

[The Sparrow]

....
- Apparently, a personal sense of continuous self is an intrinsic/inherent aspect of (the emergent property of) consciousness, and it cannot be reproduced -- when there is no aspect of the other situations that cannot be reproduced.

Says who?

(Emphasis mine.)

 

[JayUtah]

Apparently, a personal sense of continuous self is an intrinsic/inherent aspect of (the emergent property of) consciousness

No, that is the emergent property of consciousness.

...and it cannot be reproduced -- when there is no aspect of the other situations that cannot be reproduced.

Because, as you always do when confronted with this question, you make up yet another "thing" that you claim exists, that has exactly the characteristics you need, that you claim the scientific model cannot produce, but which -- as always -- is entirely made up.

That is a way that it's different --

No, it isn't. You've just attempted once more to redefine what the scientific model says consciousness is.

 

[Dancing David]

Dave,

- Good.
- Sorry this is taking so long, but for me, the issue/reasoning is very complicated and difficult to put together (though, I feel 99% sure I'm right).

- How is my sense of a particular and continuous self different from Mt Rainier, a bucket of sand thrown on a floor and random bullet holes on the side of a barn -- when it comes to the likelihood of my current existence -- given modern science vs the likelihood of Mt Rainier, etc, given modern science? (Sorry about that.)
- Apparently, a personal sense of continuous self is an intrinsic/inherent aspect of (the emergent property of) consciousness, and it cannot be reproduced -- when there is no aspect of the other situations that cannot be reproduced.

- That is a way that it's different -- but, does that difference make my sense of self a legitimate "E" in the Bayes formula for P(H|E), when the existence of Mt Rainier is not? I'll be back.

How do you know it isn't just the byproduct of an organic brain?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- Good.
- Sorry this is taking so long, but for me, the issue/reasoning is very complicated and difficult to put together (though, I feel 99% sure I'm right).

- How is my sense of a particular and continuous self different from Mt Rainier, a bucket of sand thrown on a floor and random bullet holes on the side of a barn -- when it comes to the likelihood of my current existence -- given modern science vs the likelihood of Mt Rainier, etc, given modern science? (Sorry about that.)
- Apparently, a personal sense of continuous self is an intrinsic/inherent aspect of (the emergent property of) consciousness, and it cannot be reproduced -- when there is no aspect of the other situations that cannot be reproduced.

Why do you think it can't be reproduced?

Remember that in the scientific model of consciousness, everything about your sense of a continuous self is determined by your brain. If we had an exact copy of your brain, it would feel a sense of a continuous self in exactly the same way the original did, but referring to itself - the copy - instead of the original. There would be no difference between them. Each brain would think of itself as "me".

 

[aleCcowaN]

I got a figure*! that tonight's gonna be a good night! that tonight's gonna be a good, good nite!

(though, I feel 99% sure I'm right).

Make it a 100%. You're just making up numbers as you need them, why are you so demure now?

*make it 99%

 

[John Jones]

I'm 99 and 44/100 percent sure that Jabba is mistaken.

 

[Loss Leader]

- How is my sense of a particular and continuous self different from Mt Rainier, a bucket of sand thrown on a floor and random bullet holes on the side of a barn

It isn't. They're all complex systems based on a few simple rules. They're all exceedingly low probability events. And all of them, except the bullet holes I guess, change over time. It is nothing but a linguistic convenience to call them by the same names as before.

Technically, You're Jabba-t0 but the guy who finishes reading this sentence is Jabba t-2. They're different people.

 

[abaddon]

I'm 99 and 44/100 percent sure that Jabba is mistaken.

I'm not sure. Are we allowed to make up numbers out of whole cloth for any reason? In that case anyone could prove anything.

For example, 99.99999999 percent of people believe jabba is wrong

I made that up, but hey, making numbers up seems par for the course in the jabbaverse, right?

 

[Loss Leader]

(though, I feel 99% sure I'm right)

Jabba t-30 -

Under what circumstances would you revise your estimate downward?

 

[abaddon]

Jabba t-30 -

Under what circumstances would you revise your estimate downward?

Wow. That is hardcore optomism.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Jabba t-30 -

Under what circumstances would you revise your estimate downward?

Let's see.

One feeling only can be modified by another feeling.

... atonement after a mortal sin?

 

[MetalPig]

I'm not sure. Are we allowed to make up numbers out of whole cloth for any reason?

Uh oh.