Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I'm trying to find out if you agree with my infinity claim. (I suppose I should have been more direct.) I don't think that you do -- but, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
I do not.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- So Dave, you agree that the likelihood of your current existence is extremely small -- just not something over infinity.
- In addition, you think that the unlikelihood of your current existence is no more meaningful than the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier -- i.e. you and Mt Rainier, and countless other unlikely events, do not make for valid 'targets.'
- I can't remember your other disagreements.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
I don't believe in souls. When you describe H as the scientific model for consciousness, I take that to mean the actual scientific model - that consciousness, self-awareness, a sense of self, and the ability to have subjective experiences are all things a physical brain does.

I don't think the number of "potential selves" is relevant to the likelihood of a particular self occurring.
Click to expand...

- So far, we seem to have the following 4 basic disagreements. Please restate these where you disagree with my assessment.
1. I claim that the likelihood of the current existence of your "self" -- given the scientific consensus that each potential self has only one finite life to live (at most) -- is about 7 billion over infinity. You agree that the likelihood of the current existence of your self is extremely small (given the scientific consensus) -- just not anything over infinity.
2. I claim that the current existence of your self (with its extreme unlikelihood) makes for a legitimate target event in Bayesian statistics. You think that the unlikelihood of your current existence is no more meaningful than the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier -- i.e. you, me, Mt Rainier, and countless other unlikely events, do not make for valid 'targets.'
3. My claim seems to require the existence of something non-physical. You (and consensus science) don’t think that there is anything non-physical.
4. I claim that the number of potential selves is critical to the likelihood that your self would currently exist. You think that’s irrelevant.
 
Jabba said:
- So far, we seem to have the following 4 basic disagreements. Please restate these where you disagree with my assessment.
1. I claim that the likelihood of the current existence of your "self" -- given the scientific consensus that each potential self has only one finite life to live (at most) -- is about 7 billion over infinity. You agree that the likelihood of the current existence of your self is extremely small (given the scientific consensus) -- just not anything over infinity.
2. I claim that the current existence of your self (with its extreme unlikelihood) makes for a legitimate target event in Bayesian statistics. You think that the unlikelihood of your current existence is no more meaningful than the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier -- i.e. you, me, Mt Rainier, and countless other unlikely events, do not make for valid 'targets.'
3. My claim seems to require the existence of something non-physical. You (and consensus science) don’t think that there is anything non-physical.
4. I claim that the number of potential selves is critical to the likelihood that your self would currently exist. You think that’s irrelevant.
Click to expand...

That's about right.
 
Jabba said:
- So far, we seem to have the following 4 basic disagreements. Please restate these where you disagree with my assessment.
1. I claim that the likelihood of the current existence of your "self" -- given the scientific consensus that each potential self has only one finite life to live (at most) -- is about 7 billion over infinity. You agree that the likelihood of the current existence of your self is extremely small (given the scientific consensus) -- just not anything over infinity.
2. I claim that the current existence of your self (with its extreme unlikelihood) makes for a legitimate target event in Bayesian statistics. You think that the unlikelihood of your current existence is no more meaningful than the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier -- i.e. you, me, Mt Rainier, and countless other unlikely events, do not make for valid 'targets.'
3. My claim seems to require the existence of something non-physical. You (and consensus science) don’t think that there is anything non-physical.
4. I claim that the number of potential selves is critical to the likelihood that your self would currently exist. You think that’s irrelevant.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
That's about right.
Click to expand...
- Good.
- I'll start with #1.
- We both agree that each human self is somehow the result of combining a human ovum with a human sperm cell -- but that duplicating the ovum and sperm cell responsible for you, and re-combining them, would not bring your specific self back to life. That would bring some other, and new, self to life.
 
Jabba said:
- Good.
- I'll start with #1.
- We both agree that each human self is somehow the result of combining a human ovum with a human sperm cell -- but that duplicating the ovum and sperm cell responsible for you, and re-combining them, would not bring your specific self back to life. That would bring some other, and new, self to life.
Click to expand...

We've already had this discussion several times. Last time you even said you saw my point.

Rather than having the same discussion again (a separate but identical discussion), I invite you to reread my posts from the previous one. Or read the following summary:

2>1
 
Jabba said:
- Good.
- I'll start with #1.
- We both agree that each human self is somehow the result of combining a human ovum with a human sperm cell -- but that duplicating the ovum and sperm cell responsible for you, and re-combining them, would not bring your specific self back to life. That would bring some other, and new, self to life.
Click to expand...

And immediately your change your argument from duplicating an existing brain to duplicating the sperm and ovum.

However, to continue: if you then duplicate every experience that the two people have then you will have two of the same person. Why? Because the self is a process, not a thing, and it is the ongoing result of every experience a person has.
 
Jabba said:
- Good.
- I'll start with #1.
- We both agree that each human self is somehow the result of combining a human ovum with a human sperm cell -- but that duplicating the ovum and sperm cell responsible for you, and re-combining them, would not bring your specific self back to life. That would bring some other, and new, self to life.
Click to expand...


How on earth does this have anything to do with the point Dave agreed on?
 
- Would you agree that the sky is blue?
- Yes, that seems to be true.
- Then can I assume that you agree that there are fairies in the sky?
- Wait, what?
 
Jabba said:
1. I claim that the likelihood of the current existence of your "self" -- given the scientific consensus that each potential self has only one finite life to live (at most) -- is about 7 billion over infinity.
Click to expand...


Jabba - even your dependent clause is wrong. The scientific consensus IS NOT that each potenial self had only one finite life to live at most.

As has been explained dozens of times, science is a process of careful, repeatable testing used to understand the world.

Science has nothing to say about potential selves, infinity or reincarnation because no experiment has ever shown that any of these things actually exist

The best scientific knowledge right now is that the neurosystem produces a sense of continuity when working properly.

The self is not a thing. It never will be.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
Sounds stupid, you mean. Yeah, re-defining something in order to get the answer you want usually does.
Click to expand...

I thought Jay gave a very good explanation of how defining infinity to behave a certain way in some systems of formal logic, enables those systems to yield productive lines of reasoning both in theory and in real-world applications.

He even explained the constraints on assigning such definitions in the context of formal logic systems. You seem to be ignoring those considerations, in order to apply the concept in a destructive way, for the sake of proving something that isn't actually true in the first place.
 
Jabba said:
- So far, we seem to have the following 4 basic disagreements. Please restate these where you disagree with my assessment.[...]
Click to expand...

Stop trying to put words in other people's mouth. There is no point in misrepresenting the opinions of your interlocutors. It's obviously dishonest.
 
Jabba what possible emotional or intellectual reward can even you possibly get out of begging and backdooring people into agreeing with you and then when that doesn't work just straight up pretending they agree with you anyway?

Why is the illusion of our agreement with your nonsense so important to you if our actual agreeing isn't?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom