Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[JoeMorgue]

It seems everytime he's argued into a corner the "Fringe Reset" takes longer.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, the human genome has a finite number of base pairs. There are therefore a finite number of possible combinations.

Mojo,
- If we reproduced your exact set of base pairs, would we reincarnate you?

Why do you keep asking questions that we've already answered?
Two is more than one.

If you make a copy of something, you now have two of that thing and you can't tell them apart.

Dave,

- I see your point. I'm sure that Mojo had already answered my question -- just that his quote above made me wonder if, somehow, I had misunderstood.

- As I perceive my own approach to our debate, my primary, current, aim is to make sure that I understand exactly what you guys are saying.

There are only infinite possible selves if you allow duplicates and if you have infinite matter and time.

Think of it like this: there are a finite number of banana bread recipes, and if you had infinite ingredients you could make an infinite number of loaves of banana bread using those recipes...

- For the moment, I'll avoid the self concept, and stick with "organisms." So, you accept that there can be an infinite number of organisms -- but, only if we have infinite matter and time and we count duplicates?

 

[godless dave]

- For the moment, I'll avoid the self concept, and stick with "organisms." So, you accept that there can be an infinite number of organisms -- but, only if we have infinite matter and time and we count duplicates?

Yes, that's what I said, and I accept what I said.

How many potential "going 60 MPH" are there?

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave,

- I see your point. I'm sure that Mojo had already answered my question -- just that his quote above made me wonder if, somehow, I had misunderstood.

- As I perceive my own approach to our debate, my primary, current, aim is to make sure that I understand exactly what you guys are saying.

- For the moment, I'll avoid the self concept, and stick with "organisms." So, you accept that there can be an infinite number of organisms -- but, only if we have infinite matter and time and we count duplicates?

Clearly you missed the part where you have to answer the going 60mph question before we move on.

 

[JayUtah]

As I perceive my own approach to our debate, my primary, current, aim is to make sure that I understand exactly what you guys are saying.

You say that, but your arguments for the past four years have centered mostly around trying to rewrite what others say to make it sound more like what you wanted to hear. Keep in mind that in the time you have taken to "understand exactly" a few simple sentences uttered by your challengers, entire college degrees in complicated subjects can have been earned. Now, faced with an important question that's being put to you in concert by all your challengers, you have retreated back to one of Befuddled Old Man's signature soliloquies. "Gee, fellas, I guess I just don't understand so I need to keep asking." We're well attuned to your typical stall tactics, Jabba. Would it be too much to ask for you to treat your critics with more respect than this?

For the moment, I'll avoid the self concept...

A strange decision to arrive at just as your critics have banded together to require a certain answer from you regarding a very important property of the self that lies at the very mathematical heart of your argument. Your argument literally fails immediately without a suitable answer to that question, so I find it very strange that you want to set it aside and talk about some peripheral notion. How is this effective debate? Until you fix the huge problem in the denominator of your P(E|H), everything else is moot.

...and stick with "organisms." So, you accept that there can be an infinite number of organisms -- but, only if we have infinite matter and time and we count duplicates?

Yes, under H this is straightforward and has no need for confirmation. Infinite organisms can exist if there is infinite matter to make them out of. Why wouldn't we count duplicates? They're separate organisms, aren't they? Do we count twins as only one person? Why does this need clarification?

Now the question at hand. "Going sixty miles per hour" is an example of a property. Your argument requires that properties be countable. Hence, how many "going 60 mph" are there? Let's hear your answer on this before we continue with your attempt to give twins an identity crisis.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,

- I see your point. I'm sure that Mojo had already answered my question -- just that his quote above made me wonder if, somehow, I had misunderstood.

- As I perceive my own approach to our debate, my primary, current, aim is to make sure that I understand exactly what you guys are saying.

- For the moment, I'll avoid the self concept, and stick with "organisms." So, you accept that there can be an infinite number of organisms -- but, only if we have infinite matter and time and we count duplicates?

Yes, that's what I said, and I accept what I said.

How many potential "going 60 MPH" are there?

Dave,
- I think you said that the duplicates would be identical, but not the same. I think that I agree -- in that, the duplicates would be "manned" by different observers.

 

[zooterkin]

Dave,
- I think you said that the duplicates would be identical, but not the same. I think that I agree -- in that, the duplicates would be "manned" by different observers.

You still haven't grasped the meaning of 'emergent property', have you?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I think you said that the duplicates would be identical, but not the same. I think that I agree -- in that, the duplicates would be "manned" by different observers.

Under H, bodies aren't manned by observers.

The bodies would be identical but separate. That's what duplicate means.

The "selves" would be identical but separate. That's what duplicate means.

The "observers" would be identical but separate. That's what duplicate means.

If you can understand the concept of two identical organisms, then you should be able to understand the concept of two identical "selves".

 

[JayUtah]

...in that, the duplicates would be "manned" by different observers.

NO.

Under H the self is an emergent property of the organism. There is no concept of "manning" an organism under H. Please stop trying to shoehorn your concept of a soul into the scientific model of the self.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- I think you said that the duplicates would be identical, but not the same. I think that I agree -- in that, the duplicates would be "manned" by different observers.

Jabba -

The highlighted words are your obvious attempt to once again turn "a sense of self" into a thing that can be counted. Bodies are not manned by observers. Bodies function and, in doing so, create a sense of consciousness within them ... just like cars function and, in doing so, go 60 mph.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

- or -

How many "going 96.5606 kph" are there?

 

[theprestige]

Dave,
- I think you said that the duplicates would be identical, but not the same. I think that I agree -- in that, the duplicates would be "manned" by different observers.

Are different cars going 60mph equipped with different "going 60mph"?

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- I think you said that the duplicates would be identical, but not the same. I think that I agree -- in that, the duplicates would be "manned" by different observers.

Under H, bodies aren't manned by observers.

The bodies would be identical but separate. That's what duplicate means.

The "selves" would be identical but separate. That's what duplicate means.

The "observers" would be identical but separate. That's what duplicate means.

If you can understand the concept of two identical organisms, then you should be able to understand the concept of two identical "selves".

Dave,
- I don't understand how you can believe that your body is not "manned" by an observer (or, something to that effect).

 

[JayUtah]

I don't understand how you can believe that your body is not "manned" by an observer (or, something to that effect).

Because there's no evidence it is. You are the one claiming you can prove otherwise using mathematics. You won't do that by trying to throw shade on Dave's exposition of the scientific model. If you have scientifically valid evidence the organism is "manned" by a thing, provide it. And no, that's not an invitation to go through your NDE song and dance again.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I don't understand how you can believe that your body is not "manned" by an observer (or, something to that effect).

When I said I didn't believe in the existence of souls, what did you think I meant?

What did you think I'd been arguing all these years, that a person has a soul that exists distinct from his physical body, but that soul is mortal?

Here's what I - and most monists - believe:

The physical brain is what's doing the observing and experiencing. A whole lot of neurons in the right structures are capable of feeling, thinking, planning, and being aware of that feeling, thinking, and planning.

Is there anything about that that's not clear?

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I think you said that the duplicates would be identical, but not the same. I think that I agree -- in that, the duplicates would be "manned" by different observers.

I suspect you're beginning a laborious attempt to put words in Dave's mouth. Please don't bother.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- I don't understand how you can believe that your body is not "manned" by an observer (or, something to that effect).

I don't understand how you can believe it.

All available evidence points to the fact that the consciousness is a function of the body - just like digestion, perspiration, respiration and every other process a body performs while alive.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I don't understand how you can believe that your body is not "manned" by an observer (or, something to that effect).

^Appeal to ignorance.

 

[Dancing David]

Dave,
- I don't understand how you can believe that your body is not "manned" by an observer (or, something to that effect).

How can you prove that it is? And that it is not just a body function?

 

[theprestige]

Dave,
- I don't understand how you can believe that your body is not "manned" by an observer (or, something to that effect).

For me, it's because I know that the "something to that effect" is your attempt to insinuate consciousness as a countable thing under H.

Shifting from one vague term ("manned", "something to that effect") to another doesn't conceal the argument you've been trying and failing to make for the past four years.

How many "going 60mph" are there?

 

[JayUtah]

I don't understand how you can believe it.

In one of his lengthier posts several months back, Jabba at least tried to address this. It amounted to nothing more than an existential crisis, but at least the lawyers here should appreciate that he numbered its throes.

Jabba, understand that not everyone here -- and not everyone in the world -- labors under the same existential angst as you do. We're not vehemently opposed to the notion that there may be some "observer" than can "man" an organism. There's just no evidence that such a thing exists or needs to exist, so as skeptics we reject the claim that there must be one. And we're quite happy with that, because it doesn't change how we experience and enjoy our one finite life.

You need to consider that if someone has to adopt the same existential dread of oblivion as you do in order to accept your proof, then your proof isn't really mathematical.