Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Slowvehicle]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

I do hope you are well.

It seems you are beset on every side, and accord is not being approached. May I make a suggestion? There is a simple question you might address, the answer to which would provide a place from which to begin building an understanding. An honest and forthright answer to it would certainly be a good start.

To wit:

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

I remain mildly hopefully yours, &ct.

 

[Jabba]

- IOW, the number of potential particular consciousnesses is infinite if matter can keep being recycled.

As is the number of particular brains, bodies, banana, planets, stars, and literally everything else.

(Not really because of entropy and heat death but we don't need to worry about that for another 100 billion years or so).

Dave,
- In your vocabulary, are consciousness and awareness the same?

 

[Pixel42]

Dave,
- In your vocabulary, are consciousness and awareness the same?

Why should anyone answer your questions when you refuse to answer theirs?

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

 

[The Sparrow]

Yup, answer the question and "effective debate" can move on. It's only common courtesy and fair.

 

[jond]

Jabba: How surprising that you continue to evade Godless Dave's question. And the question everyone else is asking. It's almost as if you know you can't answer them so you are diving into absurd semantics to avoid it.

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- In your vocabulary, are consciousness and awareness the same?

Stop trying to change the topic of discussion.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

Your avoidance of this question is becoming comical.

 

[JayUtah]

In your vocabulary, are consciousness and awareness the same?

Effective Debate: when trapped, play word games incessantly until your critics rage-quit in frustration.

In your vocabulary, Jabba, are awareness and soul the same thing? Because you're certainly arguing like they are, even when discussing science. Your vocabulary also seems to lack a correct definition for "property," as illustrated by the concerted request that you answer certain questions about the countability of a property. Any news on when you'll be getting around to answering them?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- In your vocabulary, are consciousness and awareness the same?

I would say awareness is part of consciousness but I don't think it's germane to the discussion.

Your value for P(E|H) depends on H including some kind non-physical self independent of the physical brain. Accepted scientific models don't include anything like that. Very few people participating in this thread believe in such a thing. I suspect most people who believe in the existence of such a thing already believe in some kind of life after death.

No amount of clever wordplay is going to get me to believe in a non-physical "self". If your model H includes such a thing you are wasting your time trying to disprove it to me - I already don't believe that model.

 

[caveman1917]

While I do not think Jabba will ever openly concede regardless of the strength of the article Hume the demonstrating his errors (and deceit), your use of the word "version" leads me to think that a more direct analogy is that of software. If I buy Word 2016 and you buy Word 2016, the two programs are, indeed, both identical and the same though they reside on different laptops. The use of them to produce different documents, iow, does not change that.

How many different "typing a document" are there?

Well that one's simple enough, an upper bound is the number of possible states your computer's memory can be in.

 

[Garrette]

Well that one's simple enough, an upper bound is the number of possible states your computer's memory can be in.

Not an answer to the question (and curses again to auto correct for changing "argument" on my phone to "article Hume").

The question is not how many documents can be typed but how many "typing a document are there?"

To return to the car analogy, you have answered the question of how many different speeds a car can go but not how many "going 60 mphs are there?"

 

[caveman1917]

Not an answer to the question (and curses again to auto correct for changing "argument" on my phone to "article Hume").

The question is not how many documents can be typed but how many "typing a document are there?"

What does that even mean? If you mean "how many processes are there that can be considered as typing a document?" then an upper bound is M^n where M is the number of possible states of your computer's memory and n is the maximum number of steps in typing a document (n <= M). This is again pretty simple.

If you mean something else then you should ask the question better.

To return to the car analogy, you have answered the question of how many different speeds a car can go but not how many "going 60 mphs are there?"

Yeah well that's one meaningless question if there ever was one.

 

[Garrette]

What does that even mean? If you mean "how many processes are there that can be considered as typing a document?" then an upper bound is M^n where M is the number of possible states of your computer's memory and n is the maximum number of steps in typing a document (n <= M).

You are unintentionally demonstrating the problem with Jabba's fixation on potential selves/awareness/consciousnesses/whatever. (Note that I am not at all implying anything about your agreement or disagreement with Jabba's position).

You are attempting to make a question without meaning have meaning by ascribing something countable to it. Jabba is doing the same thing with his sense of self and his eternal attempts to foist it upon H. He cannot do so any more than one can answer the question as I have asked it. Neither is countable.

If you mean something else then you should ask the question better.

Were I writing it outside the context of this thread I might be troubled to do so; as it has a fairly specific context that makes it clear in regard to my meaning, I'll not take the trouble.

Yeah well that's one meaningless question if there ever was one.

Heartily disagree. It gets to the nub of Jabba's problem here.

ETA: I mean that it is meaningless taken by itself, as you indicate. It has the meta-meaning of demonstrating the problem with Jabba's position in regard to awareness in H.

 

[caveman1917]

You are unintentionally demonstrating the problem with Jabba's fixation on potential selves/awareness/consciousnesses/whatever.

Just because Jabba is unable or unwilling to define a notion of "potential self" doesn't mean that the notion in and of itself is problematic. That's like using the fact that a two-year old cannot articulate general relativity as an argument that there is a problem with general relativity. I mean, the entire basis of anthropic reasoning is the notion of a class of "potential observers" (or rather observer-moments in current practice).

 

[godless dave]

The fact that it's a meaningless question is kind of the point. It's as meaningless as asking for the number of potential selves.

 

[caveman1917]

The fact that it's a meaningless question is kind of the point. It's as meaningless as asking for the number of potential selves.

There's nothing meaningless in asking for the number of potential selves. Again, anthropic reasoning wouldn't even exist if one weren't able to reason about a class of potential observers/selves.

 

[Hokulele]

There's nothing meaningless in asking for the number of potential selves. Again, anthropic reasoning wouldn't even exist if one weren't able to reason about a class of potential observers/selves.

The self isn't a thing, so it is meaningless.

Do you have evidence of such an observer?

 

[Garrette]

There's nothing meaningless in asking for the number of potential selves. Again, anthropic reasoning wouldn't even exist if one weren't able to reason about a class of potential observers/selves.

It is meaningless when he attempts to foist it upon his H. That's the issue. We could meaningfully talk about potential selves outside of H, sure, but not within it. As such, your analogy to a child's inability to articulate relativity falls short.

 

[caveman1917]

The self isn't a thing, so it is meaningless.

What's that even supposed to mean? A frequency isn't a "thing" yet it is clearly not meaningless.

Do you have evidence of such an observer?

Erm... I, you, anyone else...

 

[caveman1917]

It is meaningless when he attempts to foist it upon his H. That's the issue. We could meaningfully talk about potential selves outside of H, sure, but not within it. As such, your analogy to a child's inability to articulate relativity falls short.

What is H?

 

[Garrette]

What is H?

It is Jabba's shorthand for what he otherwise calls OOFLAM (Only One Finite Life At the Most) and therefore a version of the standard scientific understanding of consciousness.

ETA: By "shorthand" I mean it is the symbol within his Bayesian framework, i.e., P(E|H) etc.