Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Loss Leader]

Why? Immortal or not, the number of selfs is still limited by the number of bodies.

Don't ask me. I was just trying to trace Jabba's argument, not defend it.

Can I pinch this???? sig worthy

My pleasure. Both of the quotes in my sig come from this thread.

 

[Mojo]

Why? Immortal or not, the number of selfs is still limited by the number of bodies.

Because Jabba needs there to be an infinite number of "selves". For an example of similar reasoning, see here.

 

[Mojo]

Incidentally, I think there may only be one "potential self" under Jabba's definition of the self:

However, in my kind of self, the self, itself, has no characteristics (intelligence, skin color, whatever). Does your kind of self, itself, have characteristics?

If the "self" has no characteristics, all "selves" are identical, and there is only one "potential self".

 

[Jabba]

Would you say the 1938 Brooklyn Dodgers are potential winners of the 2017 World Series?

Dave,
- No. But, I'm sure that's different...
- You certainly ask some difficult questions.

- One point is that I don't see a problem with our sense of self being a process, illusion or delusion. Whatever it is, I do experience something, wish it to continue and certainly do not wish it to cease forever (that isn't to say that I would mind a break here and there).
- It isn't that my wishes are evidence -- though, they do constitute meaning and my experience is evidence.

- So far, I assume that you guys are right, in that we could produce an identical sense of self by using the same chemistry, but we wouldn't produce the same sense of self. In other words, as long as the necessary matter is available, the universe can keep producing new and different selves. Then, there's conservation of matter and energy. Each new organism should bring with it a brand new sense of self. Scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential senses of selves.
- Again, if opposite reproductive cells of the same species join they naturally create a new and specific organism. And then, any two such reproductive cells represent a potential self. I wonder how I can say that better.

- In a sense, there must be levels of potential selves. There are the approximately septillion possible combinations from my Mom and Dad that never joined, the approximately septillion possible combinations from me and the lady next door that will never join, the same from me and cleopatra, etc.

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- No. But, I'm sure that's different...
- You certainly ask some difficult questions.

- One point is that I don't see a problem with our sense of self being a process, illusion or delusion. Whatever it is, I do experience something, wish it to continue and certainly do not wish it to cease forever (that isn't to say that I would mind a break here and there).
- It isn't that my wishes are evidence -- though, they do constitute meaning and my experience is evidence.

- So far, I assume that you guys are right, in that we could produce an identical sense of self by using the same chemistry, but we wouldn't produce the same sense of self. In other words, as long as the necessary matter is available, the universe can keep producing new and different selves. Then, there's conservation of matter and energy. Each new organism should bring with it a brand new sense of self. Scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential senses of selves.
- Again, if opposite reproductive cells of the same species join they naturally create a new and specific organism. And then, any two such reproductive cells represent a potential self. I wonder how I can say that better.

- In a sense, there must be levels of potential selves. There are the approximately septillion possible combinations from my Mom and Dad that never joined, the approximately septillion possible combinations from me and the lady next door that will never join, the same from me and cleopatra, etc.

No, because the self, the sense of self, or the sense that you have a self is not a thing.

Self is a verb, not a noun.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- No. But, I'm sure that's different...

How is it different?

 

[Mojo]

- One point is that I don't see a problem with our sense of self being a process, illusion or delusion.

It matters to your argument. Your "self", as far as the model you are arguing against is concerned, is just what your brain happens to be doing. The issue of "who" yourself is is meaningless under this hypothesis, and you cannot use your concept of the "self" in assessing the likelihood of your existence under this hypothesis. I think you may have been told this already.

Whatever it is, I do experience something, wish it to continue and certainly do not wish it to cease forever (that isn't to say that I would mind a break here and there).
- It isn't that my wishes are evidence -- though, they do constitute meaning and my experience is evidence.

Yes, it had been apparent for several years that your augment is based on nothing beyond wishful thinking.

- So far, I assume that you guys are right, in that we could produce an identical sense of self by using the same chemistry, but we wouldn't produce the same sense of self. In other words, as long as the necessary matter is available, the universe can keep producing new and different selves.

What people are saying is that if two completely identical brains could somehow be produced then their "selves" or "senses of self", or whatever you're calling it today, would be identical because they are properties of the brain. You are still trying to beg the question by implying that the "self" is a thing.


Stop trying to misrepresent other posters. It is uncivil.

Then, there's conservation of matter and energy. Each new organism should bring with it a brand new sense of self.

What has that got to do with conservation of matter and energy?

Scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential senses of selves.

Not according to your own definition of the "self". And not according to any "scientific hypothesis" other than your strawman.

- Again, if opposite reproductive cells of the same species join they naturally create a new and specific organism. And then, any two such reproductive cells represent a potential self.

No, because consciousness is a process. The "self", as you use the term, doesn't exist.

I wonder how I can say that better.

You can't. It's going to be wrong however you rephrase it.

Stop pretending that everyone else doesn't understand your argument.

- In a sense, there must be levels of potential selves. There are the approximately septillion possible combinations from my Mom and Dad that never joined, the approximately septillion possible combinations from me and the lady next door that will never join, the same from me and cleopatra, etc.

There are no "potential selves" in the hypothesis you are arguing against. If you include "selves" or "potential selves" in your argument it is only relevant to hypotheses that include them, such as your preferred hypothesis. In other words you can use them to assess the likelihood of an event under your preferred hypothesis, but not under the hypothesis you oppose. Do you really want to invoke an infinite number of "selves", potential or otherwise?

 

[abaddon]

NVM. Abstruse syntax error.

 

[abaddon]

- One point is that I don't see a problem with our sense of self being a process, illusion or delusion. Whatever it is, I do experience something, wish it to continue and certainly do not wish it to cease forever (that isn't to say that I would mind a break here and there).
- It isn't that my wishes are evidence -- though, they do constitute meaning and my experience is evidence.

Baloney. Very few want to die. Most accept that they will.

So far, I assume that you guys are right, in that we could produce an identical sense of self by using the same chemistry, but we wouldn't produce the same sense of self. In other words, as long as the necessary matter is available, the universe can keep producing new and different selves.

So you say, I don't think your assumption is sincere because you follow it up with...

Then, there's conservation of matter and energy. Each new organism should bring with it a brand new sense of self. Scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential senses of selves.

Which is the exact opposite of your previous concession.

- Again, if opposite reproductive cells of the same species join they naturally create a new and specific organism. And then, any two such reproductive cells represent a potential self. I wonder how I can say that better.

Nonsense. Provide any example of a species mating with a different species. You cannot. It is definitional for species. Could you do the dirty deed with a horse and produce a centaur? There are no "opposite reproductive cells", that is a violation of basic biology. There are no "potential selves". I have no idea how one might better express that level of wrong.

- In a sense, there must be levels of potential selves.

Holy crap. Now we have a claim of "levels" of selves out of whole cloth.

There are the approximately septillion possible combinations from my Mom and Dad that never joined, the approximately septillion possible combinations from me and the lady next door that will never join, the same from me and cleopatra, etc.

And we come right back to the question you dodged before. You had two parents, those had your four grandparents, who in turn had your eight great-grandparents and if you work back to the year 0 BCE results in more people that have existed throughout the entire 2 million history of mankind. Explain that. You continue to dodge that.

 

[Loss Leader]

- One point is that I don't see a problem with our sense of self being a process, illusion or delusion. Whatever it is, I do experience something, wish it to continue and certainly do not wish it to cease forever (that isn't to say that I would mind a break here and there).
- It isn't that my wishes are evidence -- though, they do constitute meaning and my experience is evidence.

- So far, I assume that you guys are right, in that we could produce an identical sense of self by using the same chemistry, but we wouldn't produce the same sense of self. In other words, as long as the necessary matter is available, the universe can keep producing new and different selves. Then, there's conservation of matter and energy. Each new organism should bring with it a brand new sense of self. Scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential senses of selves.
- Again, if opposite reproductive cells of the same species join they naturally create a new and specific organism. And then, any two such reproductive cells represent a potential self. I wonder how I can say that better.

- In a sense, there must be levels of potential selves. There are the approximately septillion possible combinations from my Mom and Dad that never joined, the approximately septillion possible combinations from me and the lady next door that will never join, the same from me and cleopatra, etc.

Utter gibberish. You say that you understand that the sense of self is an illusion created by a working neurosystem but then you immediately equate the sense of self with the biological DNA map created by procreation. The self is not a thing. The mere fact that identical twins exist is all that is needed to completely dismantle this very poorly reasoned portion of your argument.

We don't have to wonder what happens when two people are born with the same DNA. We just have to interview a couple of them.

The self is a process that is always changing. I can prove this to your satisfaction with one question: What aspect of the self survives the death of the body? What are its characteristics? If you can't define it, then it doesn't exist.

 

[Hokulele]

Utter gibberish. You say that you understand that the sense of self is an illusion created by a working neurosystem but then you immediately equate the sense of self with the biological DNA map created by procreation. The self is not a thing. The mere fact that identical twins exist is all that is needed to completely dismantle this very poorly reasoned portion of your argument.

We don't have to wonder what happens when two people are born with the same DNA. We just have to interview a couple of them.

The self is a process that is always changing. I can prove this to your satisfaction with one question: What aspect of the self survives the death of the body? What are its characteristics? If you can't define it, then it doesn't exist.

In addition, Jabba is claiming that "selfhood" happens at conception.

I wonder how this affects identical twins, since they separate well after conception...

 

[John Jones]

In addition, Jabba is claiming that "selfhood" happens at conception.

I wonder how this affects identical twins, since they separate well after conception...

I'd like to hear about this myself, being the father of so-called identical twins.

 

[aleCcowaN]

In addition, Jabba is claiming that "selfhood" happens at conception.

I wonder how this affects identical twins, since they separate well after conception...

So Jabba agrees that 60-70% of "selfhoods" perish quickly, and I'm not talking of provoked abortion.

That's the problem when one tries to add even more Cataholicism to one's twisted pseudo-reasoning. But, you know, with Jabba it's a free-for-all.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- No. But, I'm sure that's different...
- You certainly ask some difficult questions.

- One point is that I don't see a problem with our sense of self being a process, illusion or delusion. Whatever it is, I do experience something, wish it to continue and certainly do not wish it to cease forever (that isn't to say that I would mind a break here and there).
- It isn't that my wishes are evidence -- though, they do constitute meaning and my experience is evidence.

- So far, I assume that you guys are right, in that we could produce an identical sense of self by using the same chemistry, but we wouldn't produce the same sense of self. In other words, as long as the necessary matter is available, the universe can keep producing new and different selves. Then, there's conservation of matter and energy. Each new organism should bring with it a brand new sense of self. Scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential senses of selves.
- Again, if opposite reproductive cells of the same species join they naturally create a new and specific organism. And then, any two such reproductive cells represent a potential self. I wonder how I can say that better.

- In a sense, there must be levels of potential selves. There are the approximately septillion possible combinations from my Mom and Dad that never joined, the approximately septillion possible combinations from me and the lady next door that will never join, the same from me and cleopatra, etc.

Jabba: Happy New Year. Please be so good as to read the many good responses to your post. Especially, but not limited to, Mojo's excellent point by point rebuttal.

 

[JayUtah]

One point is that I don't see a problem with our sense of self being a process, illusion or delusion. Whatever it is...

That's the problem. You don't know what it means to be a "process" or "illustion" or "emergent property." The way you seem to understand it, those are all just synonyms for "thing" -- and it results in all sorts of error on your part. These errors have been explained at length to you, and you simply don't care. So the only remaining thing is for you to explain why you deserve any serious attention.

It isn't that my wishes are evidence -- though, they do constitute meaning and my experience is evidence.

No. Your experience is not evidence that your interpretation of events and circumstances is the right one. You're very much trying to make your wishes evidence.

So far, I assume that you guys are right, in that we could produce an identical sense of self by using the same chemistry, but we wouldn't produce the same sense of self.

Still trying to think of the self under H as a "thing." That's just wrong.

I wonder how I can say that better.

How about, "After four years of trying, I concede that I am unable to prove the existence of an immortal soul using mathematics." We all know that's the truth; you've even admitted it in not quite as many words. The only thing now is for you to stop wasting everyone else's time trying to save face in defeat.

In a sense, there must be levels of potential selves.

No. H contains no concept of "potential selves." Speculating what properties a made-up, foisted concept must possess is just desperate.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I hit on this during one of the many, many, many, many, far more then is reasonable under the most liberally applied argumentative standards, many, many ways this has been tried to be explained to Jabba through every possible way, metaphor, comparison etc.

On a linguistic level we assign words and phrases to meaningful concepts on a day to day level. We don't generally create a word or phrase to label massively unlikely or esoteric concepts we don't need to communicate.

When it comes to personal identity this is a loose collection of words, phrases and concepts like "self" and "identity" and similar. We have those because applying an easy to use word or phrase to the continuing mental process of a singular entity is just handy and useful in a day to day level.

"Joe Bentley" isn't a thing. It's not a singular concrete thing. It's a continuous but constantly changing process. There's a continuity with the "Joe Bentley" of tens years ago, but surprisingly little shared qualities beyond that. And I'm okay with that. It hardly cheapens my own personal concept of "me."

We don't have an easy linguistic way to describe, say two identical mental process inhabiting two separate physical bodies because we don't need them and people, outside of navel gazers and pedantic twits (but I repeat myself) don't waste time splitting linguistic hairs over distinctions without difference. Right now all human consciousnesses are linked to a physical human body because the emergent property of the sensory input and mental processing of a human brain is the only methodology that currently exists for creating and maintaining the process we call "self."

If tomorrow some way of creating or maintaining a "self" was invented, we'd adjust the language to compensate.

 

[Loss Leader]

On a linguistic level we assign words and phrases to meaningful concepts on a day to day level. We don't generally create a word or phrase to label massively unlikely or esoteric concepts we don't need to communicate.

You are right and I have said so before. Words are created ad-hoc with little thought as to the exact boundaries of their meanings. They are expediencies and nothing more. Believing that "Loss Leader" or some mountain are unchanging things because they share the same words year after year is like believing that "pineapple" is a cross between a pine tree and an apple.

 

[CriticalThanking]

You are right and I have said so before. Words are created ad-hoc with little thought as to the exact boundaries of their meanings. They are expediencies and nothing more. Believing that "Loss Leader" or some mountain are unchanging things because they share the same words year after year is like believing that "pineapple" is a cross between a pine tree and an apple.

Cue Euell Gibbons and his famous commercial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJMIu18I8Y

Apologies if that does not play correctly. I'm at work and can't check.

 

[abaddon]

Cue Euell Gibbons and his famous commercial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJMIu18I8Y

Apologies if that does not play correctly. I'm at work and can't check.

It works. It's daft. It's irrelevant.

Not sure where you were aiming.

Little help? (I concede that jabberish may color this)

 

[JoeMorgue]

You are right and I have said so before. Words are created ad-hoc with little thought as to the exact boundaries of their meanings. They are expediencies and nothing more. Believing that "Loss Leader" or some mountain are unchanging things because they share the same words year after year is like believing that "pineapple" is a cross between a pine tree and an apple.

Exactly. Language is a tool for communicating ideas. It certainly doesn't create reality, doesn't mirror it to some 1:1 ratio, hell language doesn't even "describe" reality really, just the parts of it we need to communicate about to our fellow humans.

Any time a discussion degrades to argument via language instead of argument using language it's reached an intellectual dead end.

Which is what I think that CriticalThinking's link was about. Grape Nuts is a silly name for a cereal that contains neither grapes or nuts. It would be silly to argue that Grape Nuts has to have grape and nuts in it or to redefine what grapes or nuts were because a cereal used the terms in its name but if you get right down to it that's what a lot of Woo Apologetics and philosophy boil down to, something on the intellectual level of "But Applejacks don't even taste like Apples!"