Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Jabba]

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".

Dave,
- Here's how I see it so far.
1. Some sort of physical thing (probably organic) naturally brings with it the emergent property of consciousness.
2. A particular sense of continuous self is inherent to each new consciousness.
3. Scientifically speaking, once the physical thing ceases to exist (dies), so does the particular sense of self -- never to exist again, even if the physical thing is duplicated.

 

[aleCcowaN]

...Some sort of physical thing (probably organic) naturally brings with it the emergent property of consciousness.
...

When you don't understand what you have been told, you ask respectfully and wait for further explanations.

Under no circumstance you start to write a soap opera about it, mixing up words at random, so they sound like you are onto something.

Even people raised by wolves know that.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- Here's how I see it so far.
1. Some sort of physical thing (probably organic) naturally brings with it the emergent property of consciousness.
[...]

One wonders what definition of 'organic' you are using.

An emergent property is like The Beatles. The whole was greater than the sum of the parts.

 

[Hokulele]

- 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.)

It is different, because unlike mountains, piles of sand, or bullet holes, your sense of self isn't a thing. Your "self" isn't the mountain, but its shape.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Here's how I see it so far.
1. Some sort of physical thing (probably organic) naturally brings with it the emergent property of consciousness.
2. A particular sense of continuous self is inherent to each new consciousness.
3. Scientifically speaking, once the physical thing ceases to exist (dies), so does the particular sense of self -- never to exist again, even if the physical thing is duplicated.

If we were able to duplicate the physical brain, why wouldn't it produce an identical consciousness with an identical sense of self?

 

[JayUtah]

Some sort of physical thing (probably organic) naturally brings with it the emergent property of consciousness.

You keep trying to rewrite the scientific model to make it sound like your hypothesis. Under H, the only relevant thing that exists is the brain, and it is undeniably organic. If you want to claim it's inorganic or that there is more that exists than the organic, that is your burden of proof. Second, the brain doesn't "bring with it" a consciousness. You're still trying to make consciousness an entity, and a separate one at that. Consciousness emerges from the brain as a property.

A particular sense of continuous self is inherent to each new consciousness.

No. There is no separation between consciousness and a "particular sense of conscious self." You're just playing word games to try to create a new entity you say must exist, must exhibit the properties you desire, and cannot be produced by the brain.

Scientifically speaking, once the physical thing ceases to exist (dies), so does the particular sense of self -- never to exist again, even if the physical thing is duplicated.

No, that is not the scientific model. If the physical organism is duplicated, the identical sense of self must arise from it. You've been told this many times. Now quit trying to foist your desired requirements and definitions on the model you're trying to disprove, if only so you can more easily disprove it. Deal with the scientific hypothesis as it is actually formulated, not as you desperately wish it were.

 

[jond]

It is different, because unlike mountains, piles of sand, or bullet holes, your sense of self isn't a thing. Your "self" isn't the mountain, but its shape.

Quoting just because Jabba will ignore this post, although he really shouldn't.

 

[Jabba]

If we were able to duplicate the physical brain, why wouldn't it produce an identical consciousness with an identical sense of self?

Dave,
- Would you be reincarnated if we produced an identical sense of self?

 

[Jabba]

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.

Dave,
- My best guess, so far, as to why the current existence of MPSoCS (my particular sense of continuous self) makes for a legitimate Bayesian target, when other extremely unlikely 'events' (such as Mt Rainier) do not, is that in order to make for such a target, it needs to be set apart from other selves in a critical way (like the 2nd cousin of the controller of the lottery in regard to winning the lottery).
- And, at least in a sense, it is -- in that the other selves are only apparent -- mine is for sure. (Keep in mind that I accept that MPSoCS may be only a process or illusion -- just that, in such a sense, it is real.)
- Anyway, so far, I think that is the critical factor -- even though, I fully expect that your MPSoCS is also set apart...
- Confusing, but...

- Clearly, we have spent a goodly amount of time dealing with this issue -- so, much of what I have to say I have said already. Hopefully, I can add something more convincing, or just say what I've already said more convincingly.

- My sense of self, even if just a process or illusion, is still the only 'thing' that I know exists.
- And, if it didn't exist, there might as well be nothing -- it would be as if there were nothing – because, this self is the only observer I have.
- And, if my self never exists, there might as well never be anything...
- See what I mean?
- Probably not. But, I’ll keep tryin.

- And then, as there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit as to the number of selves possible. I was, in that sense, brand new -- created out of nothing (an inherent part of an emergent property)-- and the likelihood of my self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is only 7 billion over infinity.
- My existence under OOFLam would be an ENORMOUS coincident. I would be DAMNED lucky! And, I’m the only one I have!

 

[Hokulele]

Your self is not a thing. It goes away all the time, so your belief that it is continuous is simply a delusion.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- My best guess, so far, as to why the current existence of MPSoCS (my particular sense of continuous self) makes for a legitimate Bayesian target, when other extremely unlikely 'events' (such as Mt Rainier) do not, is that in order to make for such a target, it needs to be set apart from other selves in a critical way (like the 2nd cousin of the controller of the lottery in regard to winning the lottery).
- And, at least in a sense, it is -- in that the other selves are only apparent -- mine is for sure. (Keep in mind that I accept that MPSoCS may be only a process or illusion -- just that, in such a sense, it is real.)
- Anyway, so far, I think that is the critical factor -- even though, I fully expect that your MPSoCS is also set apart...
- Confusing, but...

- Clearly, we have spent a goodly amount of time dealing with this issue -- so, much of what I have to say I have said already. Hopefully, I can add something more convincing, or just say what I've already said more convincingly.

- My sense of self, even if just a process or illusion, is still the only 'thing' that I know exists.
- And, if it didn't exist, there might as well be nothing -- it would be as if there were nothing – because, this self is the only observer I have.
- And, if my self never exists, there might as well never be anything...
- See what I mean?
- Probably not. But, I’ll keep tryin.

- And then, as there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit as to the number of selves possible. I was, in that sense, brand new -- created out of nothing (an inherent part of an emergent property)-- and the likelihood of my self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is only 7 billion over infinity.
- My existence under OOFLam would be an ENORMOUS coincident. I would be DAMNED lucky! And, I’m the only one I have!

Jabba, your sense of self is process, not an entity. Your sense of self is fed by every experience you have. As such, there is no possibility of you being anyone other than you. It is created as your brain is functioning. In the end: Brain stops, process stops.

Also, however unlikely your body's existence may be, it is far more likely than your scenario which includes both an unlikely body and an unlikely soul, completed with an unlikely matching of the two. Please address this fatal flaw in your reasoning.

 

[The Sparrow]

........ or just say what I've already said more convincingly.......

Oh for the love of crumb cake

 

[jond]

Oh, and Jabba: the universe existed long before human beings came along, and will exist long after we are gone. If you didn't exist, the universe wouldn't change a bit.

You might also consider that the problem isn't that you're not making a sufficiently convincing argument. The problem is that you are wrong, and you are willfully ignoring all the points that demonstrate it so clearly.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Would you be reincarnated if we produced an identical sense of self?

As far as everyone else, including the copy of Dave, was concerned, yes, because the duplicate self would be identical in every respect to the original.

An identical copy is separate from the original. I suspect you understand that, otherwise you would be confused every time you had two coins of the same denomination that were minted the same year at the same mint.

Dave,
- My best guess, so far, as to why the current existence of MPSoCS (my particular sense of continuous self) makes for a legitimate Bayesian target, when other extremely unlikely 'events' (such as Mt Rainier) do not, is that in order to make for such a target, it needs to be set apart from other selves in a critical way (like the 2nd cousin of the controller of the lottery in regard to winning the lottery).
- And, at least in a sense, it is -- in that the other selves are only apparent -- mine is for sure. (Keep in mind that I accept that MPSoCS may be only a process or illusion -- just that, in such a sense, it is real.)
- Anyway, so far, I think that is the critical factor -- even though, I fully expect that your MPSoCS is also set apart...

How does that set it apart?

- My sense of self, even if just a process or illusion, is still the only 'thing' that I know exists.
- And, if it didn't exist, there might as well be nothing -- it would be as if there were nothing – because, this self is the only observer I have.
- And, if my self never exists, there might as well never be anything...
- See what I mean?

I don't see how any of that is relevant.

- And then, as there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit as to the number of selves possible. I was, in that sense, brand new -- created out of nothing (an inherent part of an emergent property)-- and the likelihood of my self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is only 7 billion over infinity.

That's not the likelihood of your current self existing. The likelihood of your current self existing has nothing to do with how many other people are alive now. Why would it? And the denominator certainly isn't infinity.

The likelihood of your current self existing is based on the likelihood of your parents meeting and producing offspring, and that offspring surviving until now.

I'm sure you understand that under OOFLam, your self is produced by your brain. It is not brought from anywhere. It is not drawn from a pool.

- My existence under OOFLam would be an ENORMOUS coincident.

It's not a coincidence at all. A coincidence requires two events happening. Your birth is only one event.

I would be DAMNED lucky! And, I’m the only one I have!

Completely irrelevant.

 

[JayUtah]

...the current existence of MPSoCS (my particular sense of continuous self)

No, Jabba, devising another silly acronym does not suddenly give life to the nonsensical concept you're trying to foist on your critics.

...it needs to be set apart from other selves in a critical way (like the 2nd cousin of the controller of the lottery in regard to winning the lottery).

No, there is no "lottery" for consciousness. There is no pre-existing prize of conscious existence that is won by being made to live.

And no, there is no "need[] to be set apart" in the scientific model. That is what you desperately need so that you can have a countable "thing" to give you the Big Denominator. But that's not how the scientific model works. Do you really think simply rewording your assumption of countability is going to sneak it somehow past your critics?

MPSoCS may be only a process or illusion -- just that, in such a sense, it is real.)

It is a process. It is not ten billion (or any other number of) processes. Get over that error as quickly as you can.

Clearly, we have spent a goodly amount of time dealing with this issue -- so, much of what I have to say I have said already. Hopefully, I can add something more convincing, or just say what I've already said more convincingly.

We have, and you simply refuse to address the other side of the argument. Simply rephrasing your claims, as from a pulpit, does absolutely nothing to fix the errors that others have pointed out in it. There is no "confusion." There is only your unwillingness to engage in the debate you asked for.

-My sense of self, even if just a process or illusion, is still the only 'thing' that I know exists.
- And, if it didn't exist, there might as well be nothing -- it would be as if there were nothing – because, this self is the only observer I have.
- And, if my self never exists, there might as well never be anything...
- See what I mean?

I see that you're trying to replay your existential crisis, which we have already dealt with. If you're talking about H, the scientific hypothesis, then your angsty feelings about whether you exist or not are simply irrelevant.

And then, as there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit as to the number of selves possible.

Asked and answered. The only way you can have a countable set of something, such that its cardinality can be countably infinite and give you your Big Denominator, is if there is a pool of it. There isn't, so there's no Big Denominator. That's something that goes right to the heart of mathematics.

You're simply wrong.

I was, in that sense, brand new -- created out of nothing (an inherent part of an emergent property)-- and the likelihood of my self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is only 7 billion over infinity.

No. "OOFLAM" (or rather, the scientific hypothesis) does not have the concept of anything to give you the Big Denominator. Please stop trying to foist your straw man onto your critics.

My existence under OOFLam would be an ENORMOUS coincident.

Do not simply keep repeating your argument. We know what you claim. You have provided no viable proof that this is the case. You refuse to deal with the reasons why your proof is not viable. Since you are uninterested in the problems with your theory, there only remains for you to explain why a rational person should continue to give you attention.

 

[aleCcowaN]

So far, Jabba's misconceptualization of "emergent property" goes so deep and far that he'd probably go back to the shroud's thread to tell the impression was made by an "emergent property" of the Jebus.

 

[Dancing David]

2. A particular sense of continuous self is inherent to each new consciousness.

Which is why you are the only one to have that unsubstantiated feeling. If someone else has that feeling it is not unique, now is it?

Do you know how many way consciousness can fail, amnesia, confabulation, delusion and blackouts?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Do you know how many way consciousness can fail, amnesia, confabulation, delusion and blackouts?

...or oxygen deprivation during NDEs ... but the true believers will find there new evidence for their arbitrary "souls" to be eternal. What an immorality!

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- My best guess, so far, as to why the current existence of MPSoCS (my particular sense of continuous self) makes for a legitimate Bayesian target, when other extremely unlikely 'events' (such as Mt Rainier) do not, is that in order to make for such a target, it needs to be set apart from other selves in a critical way (like the 2nd cousin of the controller of the lottery in regard to winning the lottery).
- And, at least in a sense, it is -- in that the other selves are only apparent -- mine is for sure. (Keep in mind that I accept that MPSoCS may be only a process or illusion -- just that, in such a sense, it is real.)
- Anyway, so far, I think that is the critical factor -- even though, I fully expect that your MPSoCS is also set apart...
- Confusing, but...

- Clearly, we have spent a goodly amount of time dealing with this issue -- so, much of what I have to say I have said already. Hopefully, I can add something more convincing, or just say what I've already said more convincingly.

- My sense of self, even if just a process or illusion, is still the only 'thing' that I know exists.
- And, if it didn't exist, there might as well be nothing -- it would be as if there were nothing – because, this self is the only observer I have.
- And, if my self never exists, there might as well never be anything...
- See what I mean?
- Probably not. But, I’ll keep tryin.

- And then, as there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit as to the number of selves possible. I was, in that sense, brand new -- created out of nothing (an inherent part of an emergent property)-- and the likelihood of my self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is only 7 billion over infinity.
- My existence under OOFLam would be an ENORMOUS coincident. I would be DAMNED lucky! And, I’m the only one I have!

Jabba,
- If your body produced a random consciousness, what would be the likelihood that that consciousness thought it was you?

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- My best guess, so far, as to why the current existence of MPSoCS (my particular sense of continuous self) makes for a legitimate Bayesian target, when other extremely unlikely 'events' (such as Mt Rainier) do not, is that in order to make for such a target, it needs to be set apart from other selves in a critical way (like the 2nd cousin of the controller of the lottery in regard to winning the lottery).
- And, at least in a sense, it is -- in that the other selves are only apparent -- mine is for sure. (Keep in mind that I accept that MPSoCS may be only a process or illusion -- just that, in such a sense, it is real.)
- Anyway, so far, I think that is the critical factor -- even though, I fully expect that your MPSoCS is also set apart...

Jabba -

I doubt I have ever read such a confusion of concepts in my life.

Let's examine the concept that you are the only thing you know exists. If that's true, then you don't know anything else exists - Mt. Rainier or anybody. Thus, you absolutely cannot determine the odds of you existing because you have no information whatsoever.

You cannot speculate as to how many possible people or arrangements of atoms there could be or how long the universe had to get any of it done because you don't know that the universe even exists. You cannot use this to devise odds of anything. And you certainly can't import an argument that nothing is knowable back into a structure where we agree things are knowable.

You cannot even state that you existed one minute ago. For all you know, you were fully formed just this moment complete with memories of things that never happened. Nor can you be certain you'll exist a minute from now. Because you know nothing other than that you exist.

Solipsism is nifty so long as you don't ask it to do anything, because it can't. It can just sit there being useless for describing any aspect of the universe - which is exactly what you are attempting to force it to do.

- Confusing, but...

The confusion resides entirely within you. I'm not confused at all about what you are trying to say or why you're wrong.

- My sense of self, even if just a process or illusion, is still the only 'thing' that I know exists.

Nope. A process is not a thing. An illusion is certainly not a thing. This becomes clear when we describe other bodily processes like, say, digestion. Is your digestion of the food you ate today the same digestion as yesterday or twenty years ago? Are there infinite possible digestions from which your digestion at this moment came to be, meaning that your digestion right now had an infinitely small chance of existing? Does this lead you to believe your digestion is immortal?

I hope you answered no. I hope you thought those questions were ridiculous. I hope you see that they are equally ridiculous when we substitute cognition for digestion.

- And, if it didn't exist, there might as well be nothing -- it would be as if there were nothing – because, this self is the only observer I have.
- And, if my self never exists, there might as well never be anything...

That leads to nothing other than you knowing you exist at this moment. You can't even know whether you existed when you started reading this post. You certainly can't bring that back into an argument which depends on the axiom that the universe exists.

- And then, as there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit as to the number of selves possible. I was, in that sense, brand new -- created out of nothing (an inherent part of an emergent property)-- and the likelihood of my self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is only 7 billion over infinity.
- My existence under OOFLam would be an ENORMOUS coincident. I would be DAMNED lucky! And, I’m the only one I have!

This is nonsense. You just argued that the opposite of this with your solipsism soliloquy.