Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

...
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.

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.
- Which is why our particular self-awarenesses are not cause and effect traceable -- and whose current existences are, therefore, as subject to calculations re chance as is winning the lottery.
 
- Which is why our particular self-awarenesses are not cause and effect traceable

I don't see how that follows. It's exactly as cause and effect traceable as the brain that produces it. If someone made a copy of your brain you could trace the causality that led to that copy existing, and thus to the copy of your self-awareness existing.
 
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.

Jabba, go back and read this thread and its ancestors.
 
- Which is why our particular self-awarenesses are not cause and effect traceable -- and whose current existences are, therefore, as subject to calculations re chance as is winning the lottery.

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

1) You don't speak for the discipline of science
2) Go back and read all the response to your posts.
 
Which is why our particular self-awarenesses are not cause and effect traceable...

You're equivocating "particular." If the exact causes are replicated, they will produce identical effects. This has been a hallmark of the debate since its beginning. You're trying to make something out of how many times this could be done in the hypothetical example and counting each as "particular".

...as subject to calculations re chance as is winning the lottery.

Are you ever going to read and respond to the dozens of arguments that explain why the emergent property of consciousness is not anything like a lottery? Or are you going to continue blundering ahead in ignorance, unapologetically ignoring the people who are trying to educate you? It's important. We want to know whether continuing to correct your ongoing, persistent misrepresentations is a waste of time.
 
- Which is why our particular self-awarenesses are not cause and effect traceable -- and whose current existences are, therefore, as subject to calculations re chance as is winning the lottery.

Why not use standard big bang theory? That was many orders of magnitude more chancy than any lottery.

According to standard big bang theory, our 'specific' self-awarenesses are not cause and effect traceable because the brains that produce them are not cause and effect traceable.

According to SBB theory, the first elementary particles began to form at t = 0 + 10-43 seconds, in the midst of an incomprehensibly chaotic quantum stew. That kind of chaos was true randomness, as only the quantum realm can do it. This entire universe randomly emerged from that wild and crazy quantum crap shoot. Literally any possible configuration of the universe could have emerged from that. All but one of which would not have included your specific brain.

Try cause-and-effect tracing your brain through that.

One of the random particles that eventually factored into your brain's formation might have gotten the crap knocked out of it by another random particle, sending it careening off in a direction inconsistent with your brain's formation. That's all it might have taken to erase any possibility of your brain, and maybe even the galaxy it was formed in. And it's actually far worse for the determinists than that. All of the quantum interactions that had a hand in your brain's eventual formation had to happen pretty much the way they did.

Don't even bother trying to calculate the odds that were stacked against your specific brain when that clock started ticking. Something like ten to the power of eighty, factorial. Something like that.

And that was just the tip of the randomness iceberg. Quantum interactions have been happening ever since. One of which might have been a cosmic ray randomly emerging from the sun and striking someone who would have killed one of your ancestors, had he not died of cancer caused by the cosmic ray. Or your ancestor who forgot to go on an errand because of a cosmic ray. An errand from which she would not have returned. Just a couple of an uncountable number of possibilities.

Yeah. Not really like a lottery. Lottery odds pale to laughable insignificance compared to the quantum shuffle.

And it's not even necessary to go that far to flummox the determinists. The fact is, probability applies to a fully deterministic universe the same as an indeterministic one. That's because probability is about incomplete knowledge, not randomness. Randomness just happens to be one of the causes of incomplete knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Toontown,
- When I try to explain why my existence is so special, I keep running into "my perspective." But then,...

The formula you presented is built on subjective perspective. It was intended only to be used subjectively and perspectively.

It's the kind of thing a theoretical cosmologist might use to choose or reject a direction of inquiry. "Would I exist if this is true?" can be a very pertinent question if used correctly.

And that was your problem when you decided to try to use the formula to prove an interpretation of reality to a bunch of 19th century determinist skeptics, many of whom were already pissed at you over the whole "shroud" thing, which I have avoided like the plague.
 
Why not use standard big bang theory? That was many orders of magnitude more chancy than any lottery.

According to standard big bang theory, our 'specific' self-awarenesses are not cause and effect traceable because the brains that produce them are not cause and effect traceable.

According to SBB theory, the first elementary particles began to form at t = 0 + 10-43 seconds, in the midst of an incomprehensibly chaotic quantum stew. That kind of chaos was true randomness, as only the quantum realm can do it. This entire universe randomly emerged from that wild and crazy quantum crap shoot. Literally any possible configuration of the universe could have emerged from that. All but one of which would not have included your specific brain.

Try cause-and-effect tracing your brain through that.

One of the random particles that eventually factored into your brain's formation might have gotten the crap knocked out of it by another random particle, sending it careening off in a direction inconsistent with your brain's formation. That's all it might have taken to erase any possibility of your brain, and maybe even the galaxy it was formed in. And it's actually far worse for the determinists than that. All of the quantum interactions that had a hand in your brain's eventual formation had to happen pretty much the way they did.

Don't even bother trying to calculate the odds that were stacked against your specific brain when that clock started ticking. Something like ten to the power of eighty, factorial. Something like that.

And that was just the tip of the randomness iceberg. Quantum interactions have been happening ever since. One of which might have been a cosmic ray randomly emerging from the sun and striking someone who would have killed one of your ancestors, had he not died of cancer caused by the cosmic ray. Or your ancestor who forgot to go on an errand because of a cosmic ray. An errand from which she would not have returned. Just a couple of an uncountable number of possibilities.

Yeah. Not really like a lottery. Lottery odds pale to laughable insignificance compared to the quantum shuffle.

And it's not even necessary to go that far to flummox the determinists. The fact is, probability applies to a fully deterministic universe the same as an indeterministic one. That's because probability is about incomplete knowledge, not randomness. Randomness just happens to be one of the causes of incomplete knowledge.
Toon,
- I think that I totally agree.
- Seems even more obvious if you're a determinist.
- Then, there's the Anthropic Principle.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how that follows. It's exactly as cause and effect traceable as the brain that produces it. If someone made a copy of your brain you could trace the causality that led to that copy existing, and thus to the copy of your self-awareness existing.
- But, you agree that my particular self-awareness is not reproduceable. How can we 'trace' it if we can't reproduce it? We have no idea what physicality brings about a particular self-awareness. Saying that a particular brain is the cause would seem to make it traceable only one step back...
 
But, you agree that my particular self-awareness is not reproduceable.

It would be reproducible if we could reproduce your organism exactly. You merely want to equivocate that "particular" must consider two things that are identical -- having derived from identical causes and ultimately indistinguishable -- to be somehow nevertheless different merely by the accident of cardinality. As you probably suspect, the half dozen previous times you tried this argument it was just as completely refuted as it is now. And you continue to insult your fellow contributors by ignoring them.

How can we 'trace' it if we can't reproduce it?

Traceability is simply the ability to go from cause to effect in a deterministic fashion. It doesn't somehow become untraceable or nondeterministic just because it is impractical to reproduce the causes perfectly. Determinism is in the nature of the consequence, not its practicality. Again, chaos theory has had the answer to this for some time and you have been given proper references to the relevant material. You simply chose to ignore it.

Determinism is not an axiom here. It's a necessary consequence of the scientific hypothesis for the sense of self. You have the cart before the horse.

We have no idea what physicality brings about a particular self-awareness.

Of course we do, but by all means keep that denial uncamouflaged so it doesn't get mistaken for an actual argument.
 
Last edited:
- But, you agree that my particular self-awareness is not reproduceable.

I don't agree with that at all. To reproduce something is to make a copy of it. Just like the last time you tried to tell me I agree with that statement.

A copy is identical to the original.

If something is capable of experiencing self awareness, a copy of that thing would experience self-awareness in exactly the same way. There doesn't have to be a difference between them for them to be two separate things.

We have no idea what physicality brings about a particular self-awareness. Saying that a particular brain is the cause would seem to make it traceable only one step back...

We know exactly what physicality brings about a particular self awareness - a human brain. And we understand the causes of a human brain existing. In my case I can trace a chain of causality back to 1763, and could go farther if I were willing to give Ancestry.com more money.
 
Last edited:
- I still think it is analogous.
- As you know, I consider each potential combination of human sperm cell and ovum (whatever the dates and places) as representing a potential different human being (What if we could freeze them all?). I don't understand why you don't.

It is irrelevant. Suppose you have a lottery with an infinity of numbers and you draw 7 billion tickets. What is the likelihood that each of the holders of those tickets is a winner?

That is the question.

Or, suppose you drop 7 billion buckets of sand on the ground. What is the likelihood that you have 7 billion individual heaps of sand?

Hans
 
I don't agree with that at all. To reproduce something is to make a copy of it. Just like the last time you tried to tell me I agree with that statement.

Analysis: "godless dave agrees with me on the cardinality of two. Therefore he has to agree with me on what that cardinality means in terms of my argument."
 
- But, you agree that my particular self-awareness is not reproduceable. How can we 'trace' it if we can't reproduce it? We have no idea what physicality brings about a particular self-awareness. Saying that a particular brain is the cause would seem to make it traceable only one step back...

How do you know it is the same moment to moment, or do you assume that?
 
- But, you agree that my particular self-awareness is not reproduceable. [...]..

There you go again -- trying to put your words into other peoples' mouths.

Shame on you. You have no worthwhile argument and no intellectual integrity.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom