Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Mojo]

- In addition, we still have no idea how a particular awareness is determined.

Consciousness is something the brain does. If it's your brain that's doing it, it is your consciousness.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In addition, we still have no idea how a particular awareness is determined.

5 years into this and you are still just straight up acting like this question hasn't been answered a million times by now.

 

[Loss Leader]

- In addition, we still have no idea how a particular awareness is determined.

Yes, we do. It is a process of a functioning neurosystem. You are the only person here who thinks it is a magic "thing" bestowed upon a little baby.

But "we," and neurologists in general, aren't confused by this question at all.

 

[The Sparrow]

Jabba, How many going 60mph are there.

 

[caveman1917]

A photon with a specific frequency has always energy = hν (to say nothing about Lorentz' trasformations), and as currently understood all frequencies are possible (i.e. the electromagnetic spectrum is a continuum in the current QED model).

True, but that's not the reason to assume it to be quantized (finite even) in this case. It also needs to interact with a brain (or computer or ...) which can only be in a certain number of states. Just because QED doesn't limit a variable to be quantized doesn't mean there is no other argument to consider it so, it just means that QED doesn't model it. If it were really high-energetic the entire system of brain+photon would collapse into a black hole, but you'd also not get that from just looking at which values the frequency of a photon can take in QED.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- How are they not analogous?

A human self existing is the result of a series of events, not a one time draw from a pool of possibilities.

- We can speculate as to the characteristics of the resulting self -- but, we have no idea as to how the self itself is determined.
- Am I alluding to a null class for you by "the self itself"?

 

[JayUtah]

- We can speculate as to the characteristics of the resulting self -- but, we have no idea as to how the self itself is determined.

Under H, sense of self (there's no essential "self" under H, it's a sense of self) isn't "determined." It's observed as an emergent property of a functioning brain. And yes, we know how it arises. You cannot win this debate by casting vague, ignorant aspersions on the scientific model of consciousness.

 

[godless dave]

- We can speculate as to the characteristics of the resulting self -- but, we have no idea as to how the self itself is determined.

If you have no idea it's because you haven't bothered to try to find out.

- Am I alluding to a null class for you by "the self itself"?

That depends. Since we're talking about the model H, I assume you mean the parts of a particular brain that have subjective experiences and perform executive functions.

 

[Jabba]

If you have no idea it's because you haven't bothered to try to find out.
...

Dave,
- But you agree that we can't reproduce a self itself

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- But you agree that we can't reproduce a self itself

No I don't agree with that at all. As I've said several times.

To "reproduce" means to make a copy of something. If you were to precisely replicate the conditions that resulted in a particular self, you would end up with an identical self.

 

[JayUtah]

But you agree that we can't reproduce a self itself

I don't agree, because under H there is no notion of "a self." This is you trying to foist the concept that the sense of self under H is necessarily a "thing." It is not. And your critics grow weary of reminding you of this.

 

[jond]

No I don't agree with that at all. As I've said several times.

To "reproduce" means to make a copy of something. If you were to precisely replicate the conditions that resulted in a particular self, you would end up with an identical self.

Jabba, read this several times until you understand it. The self is not an entity that exists on it's own, it is a process. Process stops, sense of self stops. That is the scientific model.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba if I watch the classic 1969 western musical "Paint your Wagon" on Monday and watch the same movie again on Thursday... I WATCHED THE SAME MOVIE.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- But you agree that we can't reproduce a self itself

"But you agree that we can't reproduce the going 60 mph itself"

Jabba, note the degree of nonsense you create by trying to treat a process as a thing.

"But you agree that we can't reproduce the digestion of the hot dog itself"

Utter nonsense.

 

[John Jones]

- We can speculate as to the characteristics of the resulting self -- but, we have no idea as to how the self itself is determined.
[...]

Have you got a mouse in your pocket? We do have an idea.

The self itself is an emergent property of a functioning brain.

That's been explained to you again and again and again.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- But you agree that we can't reproduce a self itself

It's a lie. Dave agreed to nothing of the kind.

This is why your credibility went down the toilet several years ago. You utter contemptible prevarications. You misquote, misrepresent and flat-out lie.

But you agree, don't you?

 

[jt512]

A photon with a specific frequency has always energy = hν (to say nothing about Lorentz' trasformations), and as currently understood all frequencies are possible (i.e. the electromagnetic spectrum is a continuum in the current QED model). To have frequencies quantized, it would probably be necessary to have time quantized too, I think. Can you point me to any advance I'm not aware of in this direction?

Waiting for a reference, back to an interesting dilemma:

Tonight I asked my girlfriend, a theoretical chemist, whether electromagnetic energy was continuous or quantized, and she was like, "Of course, it's continuous, you moron," and proceeded to give an explanation that sounded vaguely like what you wrote above.

So, I stand corrected.

 

[Jabba]

No I don't agree with that at all. As I've said several times.

To "reproduce" means to make a copy of something. If you were to precisely replicate the conditions that resulted in a particular self, you would end up with an identical self.

- You're right -- and I have to be more careful about the words I use. What we can't reproduce is the same self. Theoretically, we could create a perfect copy of someone, but we can't bring anyone back to life.
- Trying to develop some better wording for our discussion, I need a more effective term for "self" -- and "particular awareness" would seem to capture the concept better. I need a word that refers to the concept (null class or not) that reincarnationists think comes back to life...

 

[JoeMorgue]

Trying to develop some better wording for our discussion, I need a more effective term for "self" -- and "particular awareness" would seem to capture the concept better. I need a word that refers to the concept (null class or not) that reincarnationists think comes back to life...

Yeah Jabba just keep making up new terms for things you've already had explained to you so you can misconstrue people as agreeing with you.

 

[godless dave]

- You're right -- and I have to be more careful about the words I use. What we can't reproduce is the same self. Theoretically, we could create a perfect copy of someone, but we can't bring anyone back to life.

Just like we can't reproduce the same body. Just like after we blow out a candle, we can never get the same flame again. Just like after a snowflake melts, the same snowflake will never exist again.

Can you think of anything in reality that can exist again after it's gone? Why do you think it's significant that particular senses of self can't exist twice when that's the case for literally everything else?