Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Jabba]

The only difference between the two particular awarenesses would be their times of existence.

- Not to me -- nor to most humans. There are two different registrants, observers, receivers, occupants, identities, "persons" inside.

So far you haven't given any difference between the situation with burning matches and living humans. Please try to explain "target meaningful".

- Yeah. We're back to MT Rainier.
- I still don't have a good answer. The best I have for now is that you make for a much better target than does Mt Rainier. I think that toontown would agree.[/quote]

But keep in mind that you still haven't in any way established that the number of potential X is relevant to the likelihood of a particular X appearing.

- I tried to explain this before, and didn't convince anybody. But the more lottery entries, the less your chances of winning. If there is an infinity of lottery entries, but only 7 billion winners, it's very unlikely that you will win.
- If we have an infinity of applicants, and only 7 billion openings, you're not very likely to get a job.

 

[godless dave]

- Not to me -- nor to most humans. There are two different registrants, observers, receivers, occupants, identities, "persons" inside.

That tells us that there are two of them, not that they are different from each other. How are they different?

 

[Pixel42]

I tried to explain this before, and didn't convince anybody. But the more lottery entries, the less your chances of winning. If there is an infinity of lottery entries, but only 7 billion winners, it's very unlikely that you will win.

But after the draw, once the numbers of the winning tickets are known, it's 100% likely that the 7 billion people who bought those winning tickets won. That is the part of the analogy that you never get.

 

[godless dave]

But after the draw, once the numbers of the winning tickets are known, it's 100% likely that the 7 billion people who bought those winning tickets won. That is the part of the analogy that you never get.

That, and the fact that a lottery or raffle drawing is not analogous to how human "selves" come into existence.

Jabba, it seems like you are imagining potential selves as existing somewhere in immaterial form, waiting for a brain to attach to. This is nothing at all like any scientific model of consciousness. You didn't exist in any form before your brain existed, just as a match flame doesn't exist before the match is struck.

 

[jt512]

Off topic. As far as I know, the intensity of an electromagnetic wave is always measured in discrete quantities, but you still have photons of any frequency. Missing boundary conditions, how do you know that frequencies are quantized?

Frequency is proportional energy, and a photon cannot have any energy. Its possible energy levels are discrete; hence, its frequencies are discrete.

 

[Hokulele]

Frequency is proportional energy, and a photon cannot have any energy. It's possible energy levels are discrete; hence, its frequencies are discrete.

The problem with this line of argument is that you are counting frequencies, not reds.

 

[jt512]

The problem with this line of argument is that you are counting frequencies, not reds.

I'm not talking about "counting reds," whatever that even means.

 

[Pixel42]

That, and the fact that a lottery or raffle drawing is not analogous to how human "selves" come into existence.

Jabba, it seems like you are imagining potential selves as existing somewhere in immaterial form, waiting for a brain to attach to. This is nothing at all like any scientific model of consciousness. You didn't exist in any form before your brain existed, just as a match flame doesn't exist before the match is struck.

That is of course true, but even if you accept Jabba's faulty premises as correct the conclusion he draws is still not valid.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Not to me -- nor to most humans. There are two different registrants,

No.

observers,

No.

receivers,

No.

occupants,

No.

identities,

No.

"persons" inside.

No.

None of these words is consistent with the scientifically observed truth that a person is a process of the workings of a physical body. None of those words occupy or inhabit a body. They are the body. And, as such, they die no later than the moment the body dies.

 

[JayUtah]

Not to me -- nor to most humans.

How do you know how many humans you speak for? Even if everyone were to believe it, that's not a mathematical proof.

There are two different registrants, observers, receivers, occupants, identities, "persons" inside.

No. Under H there is no concept of habitation or occupation. There are individual organisms. The sense of self arises as an emergent property of each organism.

The best I have for now is that you make for a much better target than does Mt Rainier.

This has been your best answer for years, and it's not likely to improve. Your best answer is exactly to beg the question that you are "somehow" different than an individual mountain in exactly the way that would need to be in order for a soul to exist. Your best answer is clearly wrong and your attempt to refute H fails for this and other reasons.

I think that toontown would agree.

It doesn't matter. He can't support his belief with evidence any more than you can.

I tried to explain this before, and didn't convince anybody. But the more lottery entries, the less your chances of winning. If there is an infinity of lottery entries, but only 7 billion winners, it's very unlikely that you will win.

You didn't convince anybody, and they gave you the reasons why you didn't convince them. They have been repeated to you ad nauseam for months if not years: H has no concept akin to winning the lottery. There are no "pre-existing" entities under H waiting to inhabit a body. When and if a organism comes into existence, the sense of self emerges as a property of that organism.

Until you are willing to address the reasons people give for why your arguments don't convince them, you will never be effective in this debate.

If we have an infinity of applicants, and only 7 billion openings, you're not very likely to get a job.

There is no concept in H that is akin to applicants vying for a limited number of jobs.

 

[Mojo]

- Not to me -- nor to most humans. There are two different registrants, observers, receivers, occupants, identities, "persons" inside.

How would they differ?

 

[John Jones]

- Not to me -- nor to most humans. There are two different registrants, observers, receivers, occupants, identities, "persons" inside.[...].

The Appeal to Popularity fallacy again.

 

[theprestige]

That's not an answer though.



Then why don't you just answer the question yourself and make a case for the answer? I've claimed that you can define a set of "potential selves" and reason about its cardinality, and I've made a case for it.

Yes. And can you make a case for it which satisfies Jabba's argument for the improbability of consciousness given the scientific model of consciousness?

 

[MRC_Hans]

- I tried to explain this before, and didn't convince anybody. But the more lottery entries, the less your chances of winning. If there is an infinity of lottery entries, but only 7 billion winners, it's very unlikely that you will win.
- If we have an infinity of applicants, and only 7 billion openings, you're not very likely to get a job.

The above is true, but irrelevant. There is not only one winner. In the materialistic model, EVERY human body with a functional brain gets a self. Every applicant gets a job.

Hans

 

[JayUtah]

The above is true, but irrelevant. There is not only one winner. In the materialistic model, EVERY human body with a functional brain gets a self. Every applicant gets a job.

A more accurate way to think about it might be to say there's a guy named Tim. Tim likes to work with wood, and spends his evenings and weekends in his woodworking shop. The "job" that Tim does in that circumstance came into existence with Tim. It wasn't created, waiting for him to step into it. It's a "job" he does because it seems natural and pleasant to him, and it's simply part of Tim's outward identity. When Tim dies, the "job" goes away with him. It didn't exist independently of him. There doesn't suddenly arise a need that must be filled after his absence.

Under H, the sense of self is more like a hobby. It's not like a person looking for a job. The sense of self arises and is just a property of the organism, just like "is a woodworker" is a property of Tim. Can you count "potential woodworkers?" Maybe, but it has no bearing on whether Tim is one. If he is, he is. But the question is not about "potential woodworkers." The important difference is between "woodworker" and "is a woodworker." If you don't formulate the property correctly as a matter of language, you end up with meaningless equivocations like "how many 'is a woodworker' are there?" if the question isn't meaningless then I consider that a good clue that you haven't thought carefully about what a property really is or means. That's the essence of the notion of a property being countable as opposed to the notion of the countability of entities that exhibit that property.

 

[Loss Leader]

A more accurate way to think about it might be to say there's a guy named Tim.

Respectfully, I liked my dashboard Jesus explanation better. It had a picture.

 

[JayUtah]

Respectfully, I liked my dashboard Jesus explanation better. It had a picture.

"No pictures, please." --Tim, probably

 

[Loss Leader]

"No pictures, please." --Tim, probably

First result for "Tim the woodworker": https://www.handkrafted.com/timey

It sure does look like after Tim dies, there won't be any more woodworking.

 

[Jabba]

But after the draw, once the numbers of the winning tickets are known, it's 100% likely that the 7 billion people who bought those winning tickets won. That is the part of the analogy that you never get.

Pixel,
- If I understand what you're saying, two of the elements in our Bayesian formula provide "likelihoods" of events after the events have already occurred (given that a particular hypothesis is true), and their likelihoods are not 100%.

 

[Mojo]

It sure does look like after Tim dies, there won't be any more woodworking.

But what if someone else makes the same things as Tim? Wouldn't that be Tim's woodworking reborn?