Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[JayUtah]

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.

No. How many ways must both godless dave and everyone else explain to you why the scientific hypothesis for consciousness is not like a lottery. You can postulate that an "infinite number" of "potential" anythings might exist, but that abstract handwaving has absolutely nothing to do with the actual likelihood of something coming into existence in a particular way. You're not reading the important parts of godless dave's posts. You're just cherry-picking away whatever word or phrase you can spin to seem like agreement.

And no, 7 billion divided by infinity is not "virtually" zero. If it's anything, it is zero.

 

[JayUtah]

Because his 'proof' relies on it.

The proof, we'll remind ourselves, stemming from angsty belief in a soul coupled with massive logical flaws, enabled by a model Jabba admits he doesn't understand, refuted dozens if not hundreds of times over by thousands of posts Jabba admits he will not read.

 

[John Jones]

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.

Jabba, go back and read the posts in the multiple threads.

 

[jond]

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?

Yeah, I tried asking that question (or at least a variation on the theme) once or twice and shockingly it was ignored.

 

[Dancing David]

- 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.

Please demonstrate that it is a 'particular consciousness', you assume that but haven't shown it to be true.

Are you really having the same 'particular consciousness' when you are sleepy or drunk?

 

[The Sparrow]

Jabba, how many "going 60 mph" are there?

 

[Loss Leader]

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.

And you're still wrong. And you've still learned nothing. And you still come back. And you still ignore the thousands of posts explaining it to you in as rude a manner as I have ever seen.

Why should any post from anyone say anything other than, "Go back an read your own thread"?

 

[Toontown]

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?

Read what you quoted.

What is the probability that Jabba's consciousness is part of the universe?

 

[Toontown]

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

Souls have nothing to do with it. A banana simply lacks the ability to recognize the ridiculously unlikely coincidence of it's particular existence.

And you are correct about one thing. The formula really cannot apply to a banana, for the simple reason that a banana cannot use the formula, and the formula only applies to the user.

And, for much the same reason, the formula cannot apply to you, because you are not using it. Nor can you correctly use the formula on Jabba, because the formula does not apply to anyone other than the user.

Nor can the formula be used to convince you that Jabba has a soul.

Nor can the formula be used to prove or disprove the science. The formula can only be correctly applied to some interpretation of some implication of the science.

So, bottom line, everything you've all been doing with the formula for the past 4 years is stuff the formula does not even apply to.

Which makes all of you "not even wrong". You've all been not even wrong all along. Which has been my contention pretty much from day 1. And I, like every other one of you, am not backing off. I am as stubborn a bastard as any of you. But not as fixatedly stubborn as some.

I will continue to intermittently troll this thread until hell freezes over.

 

[Jabba]

Why are you claiming that?

Dave,

- For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery; it's hard for me to understand why that isn't obvious to you or our colleagues; and for that reason, I have trouble explaining why I think that we're analogous to lottery winners...
- My best guess at this point is that you see the lottery as simple chance, and our existence as clearly due to cause and effect (in fact, I'm beginning to think that you already told me that...), whereas and whatever, I suspect that they are both the result of cause & effect, but that in neither case is the cause & effect traceable -- and consequently, chance is reasonably applied to both.
- I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect -- we cannot reproduce it chemically -- and our particular processes, scientifically speaking, can never exist again.

 

[jond]

Dave,

- For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery; it's hard for me to understand why that isn't obvious to you or our colleagues; and for that reason, I have trouble explaining why I think that we're analogous to lottery winners...
- My best guess at this point is that you see the lottery as simple chance, and our existence as clearly due to cause and effect (in fact, I'm beginning to think that you already told me that...), whereas and whatever, I suspect that they are both the result of cause & effect, but that in neither case is the cause & effect traceable -- and consequently, chance is reasonably applied to both.
- I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect -- we cannot reproduce it chemically -- and our particular processes, scientifically speaking, can never exist again.

Maybe it would be a good idea to actually read the responses you get?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery; it's hard for me to understand why that isn't obvious to you or our colleagues; and for that reason, I have trouble explaining why I think that we're analogous to lottery winners...
- My best guess at this point is that you see the lottery as simple chance, and our existence as clearly due to cause and effect (in fact, I'm beginning to think that you already told me that...),

Several times.

whereas and whatever, I suspect that they are both the result of cause & effect, but that in neither case is the cause & effect traceable -- and consequently, chance is reasonably applied to both.
- I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect -- we cannot reproduce it chemically -- and our particular processes, scientifically speaking, can never exist again.

In scientific models for consciousness, it is exactly as traceable as the cause and effect that led to a particular brain existing, because they are the same thing. My particular brain can never exist again. If you somehow made an exact copy of my brain, It would exhibit an exact copy of my consciousness.

 

[JayUtah]

For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery; it's hard for me to understand why that isn't obvious to you or our colleagues;

Begging the question. If you find it hard to understand how someone can disagree with your foist, it can only be because you admit to not having read their posts. Unlike you, who cannot articulate good reasoning for your belief, your critics have been clear and cogent in explaining just exactly in what way the scientific hypothesis of life is unlike a lottery. They are not obliged to repeat themselves endlessly in the face of your slothful denial.

My best guess at this point is that you see...

Why are you guessing? Don't put words in your critics' mouths. They have put thousands upon thousands of words from their own mouths at your disposal to explain themselves. And yet you seem to think it's almost a point in your favor that you have ignored them. Go back and read these threads in their entirety, paying special attention to the parts that discuss the failure of the lottery analogy. Don't just "guess" at what you wish your critics' rebuttals to have been.

I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect -- we cannot reproduce it chemically

You can "claim" anything you want, but in this case, in the sense of the scientific hypothesis, you are just plain wrong. You don't get to pretend that the scientific hypothesis must be wrong because it cannot produce what, in your wild imagination, you suppose that consciousness ought to be under that theory. If you are going to falsify the scientific hypothesis, you must falsify what it actually is, not some handwaving straw man.

 

[abaddon]

Dave,

- For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery; it's hard for me to understand why that isn't obvious to you or our colleagues; and for that reason, I have trouble explaining why I think that we're analogous to lottery winners...

Seriously Jabba, it is your analogy. It cannot be a good analogy if nobody else gets it and when asked for an explanation, you cannot provide one beyond "I believe it is".

Can you not see the problem? You have no clue how your own analogy works.

- My best guess at this point is that you see the lottery as simple chance,

Because it is. Disagree? What do you think it is?

and our existence as clearly due to cause and effect (in fact, I'm beginning to think that you already told me that...),

You might be able to figure that out if you read your own threads.

whereas and whatever, I suspect that they are both the result of cause & effect, but that in neither case is the cause & effect traceable -- and consequently, chance is reasonably applied to both.

Actually, cause, effect and chance all apply at the same time.

- I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect

All three apply. If, by chance, you had been born a muslim in a muslim country, you would be a muslim. You already agreed to that.

In that case you would not be the same person that you are today even though the hardware would be the same. The software i.e the process, would be different due to pure chance.

-- we cannot reproduce it chemically -- and our particular processes, scientifically speaking, can never exist again.

We cannot reproduce many things. That's a limit of available technology and/or relevant knowledge. We cannot say with absolute certainty why exactly the Egyptians just up and decided to build pyramids for thousands of years. What you are claiming is tantamount to stating that when you switch off your computer, the Microsoft Word process from your computer discarnates and wanders the world in search of another fresh computer straight off the production line.

Note relevant analogy, Jabba. I can explain it, too.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, since you can't stop trying to "essentially prove" immortality, and I am nothing if not helpful, here are my poorly worded suggestions:

(1) Drop the "soul" assumption. It is a multiplication of entities, is non-explanatory, and is just plain unlikely. Why does the particular soul that is "you" exist, out of an infinite set of "possible" souls? To "explain" that, you have to make even more unlikely assumptions. And the longer your list of unlikely assumptions gets, the less likely it is that they are all correct.

(2) Drop the "OOFlam" assumption that one particular body is the only "you" that can ever exist. This may require defining sentient experience in a way that will be unpopular in this venue. So be it. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

(3) Stop letting your opponents derail you with the "Texas Sharpshooter" nonsense. You did not "cherry pick" a "you" from a group of yous. That "you" is the only one available. Nor is a hypothesis invalid simply because it is post ante, if the observation upon which the hypothesis is based is sufficiently compelling. My poker nemesis, whose style of play I know nothing about, just went all in on the river. It could be an all-in river bluff, but I'm leaning toward the hypothesis that he has my top pair beaten. That's a post ante hypothesis, based on a single data point. Is it invalid? A guy could learn a series of costly lessons about how reliable a post ante hypothesis based on a single data point can be.

Hint: the correct anthropic assumption is that what you are experiencing is typical, rather than anomalous.

Drop (1) and (2), and what you are left with is your best shot at making a case for any semblance of "immortality". Hold on to (1) and/or (2) and you've got no shot at all.

But "prove" it you will not.

Toontown,
- I wish I could understand more of what you're saying...
- I'll be thinking along and suddenly recognize -- and agree with -- something you're saying, but quickly slip back into neutral, or even reverse...
- When I try to explain why my existence is so special, I keep running into "my perspective." But then,...

- This will sound pretty syrupy, but maybe you should change your name to "Yoda."

 

[Jabba]

Several times.




In scientific models for consciousness, it is exactly as traceable as the cause and effect that led to a particular brain existing, because they are the same thing. My particular brain can never exist again. If you somehow made an exact copy of my brain, It would exhibit an exact copy of my consciousness.

- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.

 

[JayUtah]

When I try to explain why my existence is so special, I keep running into "my perspective."

Because that's all it is -- your perspective. You are not special in the scientific sense, and you've all but admitted that the only reason you can give for the supposed profundity of your existence is your subjective sense of wonder and your deep emotional need to believe you must have a soul that will persist after you die. You're trying to fault science for not being able to explain your angsty identity crisis in straightforward chemical terms.

 

[JayUtah]

- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.

There is no "particular" self-awareness under H. You're back to arguing the meaningless cardinality argument. If you will consult this and previous threads, you will discover that was refuted several times.

 

[godless dave]

- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.

For exactly the same reason it wouldn't be my particular brain. It would be a copy.

If two separate brains could produce the same self-awareness that would mean the scientific explanation for self-awareness is wrong.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery; it's hard for me to understand why that isn't obvious to you or our colleagues; and for that reason, I have trouble explaining why I think that we're analogous to lottery winners...

Read your own thread, already answered and/or addressed multiple times. You are being insulting by asking the same questions over and over.

My best guess at this point is that you see the lottery as simple chance, and our existence as clearly due to cause and effect (in fact, I'm beginning to think that you already told me that...), whereas and whatever, I suspect that they are both the result of cause & effect, but that in neither case is the cause & effect traceable -- and consequently, chance is reasonably applied to both.

Read your own thread, already answered and/or addressed multiple times. You are being insulting by asking the same questions over and over.

I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect -- we cannot reproduce it chemically -- and our particular processes, scientifically speaking, can never exist again.

Read your own thread, already answered and/or addressed multiple times. You are being insulting by asking the same questions over and over.

When I try to explain why my existence is so special, I keep running into "my perspective." But then,...

Read your own thread, already answered and/or addressed multiple times. You are being insulting by asking the same questions over and over.

- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.

Read your own thread, already answered and/or addressed multiple times. You are being insulting by asking the same questions over and over.