Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Mojo]

I was still editing the post when you posted. The finished version is a little different from your quote.

"The probability that I exist is 1" is either a red herring or a non-sequitur, in terms of the formula, depending on the intent of the claimant.

The probability that any observed evidence exists is always 1. Even if the evidence takes the form of the absence of something, the absence of that something exists.

If the hypothesis that Jabba's consciousness is what his brain is doing is correct, what is the probability that Jabba's consciousness exists once he has a functioning brain?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

This series of threads must be the most patient act of trolling in history.

 

[Jabba]

Where I differ with many of you is that I'm willing to call a working brain a conscious thing. That doesn't help Jabba's math though.

Dave,
- But each brain has a different consciousness, its own consciousness -- that it does not share with any other brain, that never existed before the existence of this brain, and will never exist after the existence of this brain.

Yes, because each brain is a different brain, that is not connected to any other brain, that never existed before and will never exist again after it dies.

- But, each brain has a particular consciousness, self awareness, 'identity' (whether thing or process) somehow attached to it that keeps coming back each time the brain wakes up, but, would not come back after death of the brain -- even if we were able to duplicate the brain itself.
- That's the thing or process to which I'm referring -- and, I think, it's the same thing or process to which you're referring.
- Whatever, it is the thing or process to which my math is referring. And, since this specific thing or process cannot be reproduced but there is no limit on the number of duplicate brains produceable (like Volkswagons), there should be no limit on the number of different examples of this thing or process.

 

[jond]

- But, each brain has a particular consciousness, self awareness, 'identity' (whether thing or process) somehow attached to it that keeps coming back each time the brain wakes up, but, would not come back after death of the brain -- even if we were able to duplicate the brain itself.
- That's the thing or process to which I'm referring -- and, I think, it's the same thing or process to which you're referring.
- Whatever, it is the thing or process to which my math is referring. And, since this specific thing or process cannot be reproduced but there is no limit on the number of duplicate brains produceable (like Volkswagons), there should be no limit on the number of different examples of this thing or process.

Generates, not has. Big difference, and one which you continually ignore.

 

[John Jones]

- But, each brain has a particular consciousness, self awareness, 'identity' (whether thing or process) somehow attached to it that keeps coming back each time the brain wakes up, but, would not come back after death of the brain -- even if we were able to duplicate the brain itself.
- That's the thing or process to which I'm referring -- and, I think, it's the same thing or process to which you're referring.
- Whatever, it is the thing or process to which my math is referring. And, since this specific thing or process cannot be reproduced but there is no limit on the number of duplicate brains produceable (like Volkswagons), there should be no limit on the number of different examples of this thing or process.

Dealt with before. Go back and read all the posts and threads that came before this one.

 

[godless dave]

- But, each brain has a particular consciousness, self awareness, 'identity' (whether thing or process) somehow attached to it that keeps coming back each time the brain wakes up, but, would not come back after death of the brain -- even if we were able to duplicate the brain itself.

So what? Each particular brain is a separate brain. Each particular brain is conscious.

- That's the thing or process to which I'm referring -- and, I think, it's the same thing or process to which you're referring.
- Whatever, it is the thing or process to which my math is referring. And, since this specific thing or process cannot be reproduced but there is no limit on the number of duplicate brains produceable (like Volkswagons), there should be no limit on the number of different examples of this thing or process.

As we've discussed repeatedly, a duplicate brain would also be conscious in exactly the same way as the original. The fact that we could hypothetically have an infinite number of duplicate consciousness is no more significant than the fact that we could hypothetically have an infinite number of duplicate brains, or an infinite number of duplicate Volkswagens. Each Volkswagen would have its own particular engine noise. So what?

 

[Loss Leader]

- Whatever, it is the thing or process to which my math is referring. And, since this specific thing or process cannot be reproduced but there is no limit on the number of duplicate brains produceable (like Volkswagons), there should be no limit on the number of different examples of this thing or process.

Leaving aside the fact that you're still trying to conflate "process" and "thing" despite ignoring necessary questions on the subject:

There Is A Limit.

The limit may be very high. It may change over time. There are only so many people the planet can sustain. There are only so many ways genes can mix. There is only so much time before the heat death of the universe.

Even if no two DNA strands are ever the same, there will never be an infinite number of people, let alone possible people. You cannot count to infinity.

The chance that the person typing was the person being born will always be some non-zero number. And that gives you a very small fraction - but not so small as to be zero. And without zero, your equation is meaningless.

But you knew that. You've had it explained for over four years. Your insistence on rehashing it is very rude to those who have posted before. Instead, go back an reread your own thread.

 

[JayUtah]

- But, each brain has a particular consciousness...

A process is not particular. Look up what "particular" means.

-- even if we were able to duplicate the brain itself.

A brain is particular because it is a thing. A well formed brain, like all well formed brains, exhibits consciousness as a property. The property is not divisible or enumerable. It does not somehow exist in discrete quantities aside from the nouns that manifest it.

That's the thing or process to which I'm referring --

Things and processes differ according to whether they can be particular. A speeding car is a particular car. Speeding is not particular. Speeding does not exist separately in any countable way from things that speed.

...and, I think, it's the same thing or process to which you're referring.

No, it isn't. You have spent years trying to foist the notion that it is. Listen to your critics instead of frantically cramming words in their mouths. You don't get to dictate what the scientific hypothesis is.

Whatever, it is the thing or process to which my math is referring.

Then your math does not accurately describe the scientific hypothesis, for this reason and also the other reasons godless dave mentions. And as such, it does not pertain to P(H|E).

...there should be no limit on the number of different examples of this thing or process.

There is no essential limit on the detailed ways the process can actually operate in organisms that actually, physically arise. That doesn't mean there is an "infinite number of potential" examples that has any meaning in a statistical model. Nor does it mean anything you compute by such a model has the slightest to do with the likelihood that some individual may arise.

This has been explained to you countless times. Your recent confession to having deliberately ignored most or all of that explanation does not relieve you of the responsibility to answer it.

 

[Hokulele]

- But, each brain has a particular consciousness, self awareness, 'identity' (whether thing or process) somehow attached to it that keeps coming back each time the brain wakes up, but, would not come back after death of the brain -- even if we were able to duplicate the brain itself.
- That's the thing or process to which I'm referring -- and, I think, it's the same thing or process to which you're referring.
- Whatever, it is the thing or process to which my math is referring. And, since this specific thing or process cannot be reproduced but there is no limit on the number of duplicate brains produceable (like Volkswagons), there should be no limit on the number of different examples of this thing or process.

There is no "or". Consciousness, self awareness, and identity aren't things. You are simply wrong. Get rid of the notion completely, remove it from your argument, and you will be halfway there.

 

[Jabba]

So what? Each particular brain is a separate brain. Each particular brain is conscious.



As we've discussed repeatedly, a duplicate brain would also be conscious in exactly the same way as the original. The fact that we could hypothetically have an infinite number of duplicate consciousness is no more significant than the fact that we could hypothetically have an infinite number of duplicate brains, or an infinite number of duplicate Volkswagens. Each Volkswagen would have its own particular engine noise. So what?

Dave,

- It sounds like you accept that there is an infinite number of different potential self-awarenesses (including only human self-awarenesses)...

- If there is, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self-awareness is 7 billion (there being about 7 billion humans currently existing) over infinity -- or, virtually zero.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- It sounds like you accept that there is an infinite number of different potential self-awarenesses (including only human self-awarenesses)...

In exactly the same way there are an infinite number of different potential brains, for exactly the same reasons.

- If there is, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self-awareness is 7 billion (there being about 7 billion humans currently existing) over infinity -- or, virtually zero.

Why? What does the number of potential self-awarenesses over all time have to do with the likelihood of my self-awareness existing?

 

[JayUtah]

It sounds like you accept...

Groveling for agreement. Nothing new here. Befuddled Old Man failed to convince your critics that you had a change of heart, so back to the same old rhetorical stunts.

If there is, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self-awareness is 7 billion (there being about 7 billion humans currently existing) over infinity -- or, virtually zero.

No. And whatever godless dave may parse differently than the rest of us, this part of the argument he has clearly and fully repudiated. He has told you on numerous occasions that this math has nothing to do with the actual likelihood that a person exists. And we have told you the same thing. Further, this part of the argument has been entirely refuted by reductio ad absurdum many times. Oh, but you don't read those posts, so I guess they just magically don't exist.

 

[JayUtah]

In exactly the same way there are an infinite number of different potential brains, for exactly the same reasons.

Or bananas. Don't forget the bananas. Oh right -- bananas don't have a soul, so this math doesn't work on them.

 

[godless dave]

Or bananas. Don't forget the bananas. Oh right -- bananas don't have a soul, so this math doesn't work on them.

Also Volkswagens and literally everything else in existence.

The last time we got to this point Jabba claimed this:

I think that I finally have a satisfactory answer for the Mt Rainier, Texas Sharp Shooter, bucket of sand issue. The simple answer is that we have no real reason to doubt their scientific explanations -- whereas, we do have real reasons to doubt the scientific explanation for my existence.

I asked him what those "real reasons" are here but he never answered.

 

[theprestige]

Groveling for agreement. Nothing new here. Befuddled Old Man failed to convince your critics that you had a change of heart, so back to the same old rhetorical stunts.

Stunt Rhetors is the name of my TMBG cover band.

 

[JayUtah]

I asked him what those "real reasons" are here but he never answered.

I recall he did, but the answer just begged again the question of a soul. There is reason, according to him, to doubt the scientific explanation of his sense of self because he just feels in his heart that he has a consciousness that's just too marvelous than anything science could explain. In other words, the same old woo-woo notion that science -- being based on careful observation and testing -- is therefore too staid and regimented to grasp what people of extraordinary intuition can fathom. I'll bet it won't be too long before Jabba tries once more to shame people away from rightly asking for evidence by claiming he's a more "holistic" thinker than they.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,

- It sounds like you accept that there is an infinite number of different potential self-awarenesses (including only human self-awarenesses)...

- If there is, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self-awareness is 7 billion (there being about 7 billion humans currently existing) over infinity -- or, virtually zero.

...
Why? What does the number of potential self-awarenesses over all time have to do with the likelihood of my self-awareness existing?

Dave,
- I'm still claiming that you and I are analogous to two of the 7 billion lottery winners chosen from an infinity of lottery tickets. Our chances were virtually zero.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I'm still claiming that you and I are analogous to two of the 7 billion lottery winners chosen from an infinity of lottery tickets. Our chances were virtually zero.

Why are you claiming that?

 

[Mojo]

Why are you claiming that?

Because his 'proof' relies on it.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- I'm still claiming that you and I are analogous to two of the 7 billion lottery winners chosen from an infinity of lottery tickets. Our chances were virtually zero.

I'll ask Jabba this question.

Jabba, if the hypothesis that your consciousness is what your brain is doing is correct, what is the likelihood that, once it exists, your brain produces your consciousness?