Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Mojo]

- 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,
- Do you agree that, under the hypothesis that you have an immortal soul, the event you have specified requires your body to exist?

 

[Jabba]

- 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.

That's about right.

- 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.

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

Dave,
- Once again, I screwed up. It just doesn't pay to get old.
- For a lot of us, anyway, it seems impossible to hold more than one thought in mind at a time...
- Anyway, I should have said something to the effect that I would start with a preface to #1. I wanted to remind you that you had agreed to the potential infinity of potential selves.
- Anyway, would you agree that if there is an infinity of potential selves, there must be an infinity of potential selves that do not currently exist?

 

[HighRiser]

Dave,
- Once again, I screwed up. It just doesn't pay to get old.
- For a lot of us, anyway, it seems impossible to hold more than one thought in mind at a time...
- Anyway, I should have said something to the effect that I would start with a preface to #1. I wanted to remind you that you had agreed to the potential infinity of potential selves.- Anyway, would you agree that if there is an infinity of potential selves, there must be an infinity of potential selves that do not currently exist?

Where did this happen?

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- Once again, I screwed up. It just doesn't pay to get old.
- For a lot of us, anyway, it seems impossible to hold more than one thought in mind at a time...
- Anyway, I should have said something to the effect that I would start with a preface to #1. I wanted to remind you that you had agreed to the potential infinity of potential selves.
- Anyway, would you agree that if there is an infinity of potential selves, there must be an infinity of potential selves that do not currently exist?

Now you are just making things up. Stop that.

 

[JayUtah]

I wanted to remind you that you had agreed to the potential infinity of potential selves.

No, that did not happen. There are pages and pages and pages of people giving the reason why they don't accept this, and especially why it can't possibly have anything to do with the probability of something actually existing. Your unwillingness to read and respond to those pages of education for your benefit is insulting.

Anyway, would you agree that if there is an infinity of potential selves, there must be an infinity of potential selves that do not currently exist?

Oh, please, do tell us the difference between potential souls that exist and potential souls that don't exist? If they don't exist, how is their cardinality in any way meaningful? I can draw a card from a fair deck and have a 1/52 chance of drawing the card I name beforehand. Oh, but now if I have to think about the infinite number of cards that don't yet exist, my chances of drawing the named card are exactly zero.

Do you even think about this garbage before you post it?

 

[Mojo]

- Once again, I screwed up. It just doesn't pay to get old.

Even when the alternative is oblivion?

- For a lot of us, anyway, it seems impossible to hold more than one thought in mind at a time...

Stop trying to justify ignoring everything you have been told.

- Anyway, I should have said something to the effect that I would start with a preface to #1. I wanted to remind you that you had agreed to the potential infinity of potential selves.

I want to remind you that you have agreed that your "proof" of immortality is a total crock. But I can't because I have moral and ethical objections to misrepresentation.

- Anyway, would you agree that if there is an infinity of potential selves, there must be an infinity of potential selves that do not currently exist?

Would you agree that this can only apply to hypotheses that include souls (such as the one you favour)?

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Once again, I screwed up. It just doesn't pay to get old.
- For a lot of us, anyway, it seems impossible to hold more than one thought in mind at a time...
- Anyway, I should have said something to the effect that I would start with a preface to #1. I wanted to remind you that you had agreed to the potential infinity of potential selves.
- Anyway, would you agree that if there is an infinity of potential selves, there must be an infinity of potential selves that do not currently exist?

Where did this happen?

Now you are just making things up. Stop that.

High Riser & Hokulele,

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.

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.

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

 

[godless dave]

I'm not going to give you any answer that I haven't already given. You just quoted my answer from the last time you asked. Use that one.

 

[JayUtah]

High Riser & Hokulele,

You cherry-picked half of Dave's response and then pretended he agreed with you in the way you needed. That's dishonest, especially now that you demonstrate you are reading others' answers and just choosing to ignore them.

 

[HighRiser]

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



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

High Riser & Hokulele,

There's the whole quote, and it contains another unanswered question.

It seems to me that Dave has not agreed that there are an infinite number of potential selves but has allegorically referred to it in order to set the stage for his next question and advance the conversation.

Here's another allegory for you:
Infinity is a large number much in the same way that the beach is not near the shore.

 

[Mojo]

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

Jabba,
- http://infophilia.blogspot.co.uk/2008/05/lessons-in-quote-mining-1.html

Let me spell this out: Quote-mining is a dishonest tactic that makes you look bad when it's discovered. When you quote-mine the person you're arguing with, you're not only guaranteeing you'll be found out, but you're also ensuring that you'll not only look dishonest, but stupid too.

 

[Hokulele]

High Riser & Hokulele,

See? You are making things up. Stop it.

There are also an infinite number of potential flying monkeys. How exactly does that help your argument?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Jabba, assume you bought a lottery ticket. How many potential buyers of lottery tickets are there? All of those potential buyers who didn't actually buy one, do they affect your winning chances?

I know you don't dare answer this.

Hans

 

[abaddon]

Dave,
- Once again, I screwed up. It just doesn't pay to get old.

Load of baloney. two very close friends of mine are 72 and 75 and they are full of mental acuity.

- For a lot of us, anyway, it seems impossible to hold more than one thought in mind at a time...

And said friends have no issue holding many thoughts.

- Anyway, I should have said something to the effect that I would start with a preface to #1. I wanted to remind you that you had agreed to the potential infinity of potential selves.

Except that he did not.

- Anyway, would you agree that if there is an infinity of potential selves, there must be an infinity of potential selves that do not currently exist?

Stop doing that. It is lame and your befuddled old man routine is getting tired.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,...
- Anyway, would you agree that if there is an infinity of potential selves, there must be an infinity of potential selves that do not currently exist?

I'm not going to give you any answer that I haven't already given. You just quoted my answer from the last time you asked. Use that one.

- OK.
- I'll assume that you accept that there must be an infinity of potential selves that do not currently exist. But, doesn't that make the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- something over infinity?

 

[Mojo]

- OK.
- I'll assume that you accept that there must be an infinity of potential selves that do not currently exist. But, doesn't that make the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- something over infinity?

If your argument is valid, it makes the likelihood of your current existence -- given that you have an immortal soul -- something over infinity. It might even make the likelihood of your current existence -- given "OOFLam" -- something over infinity. But it doesn't make the likelihood of your existence -- given that your consciousness is the result of brain processes -- something over infinity, because that hypothesis doesn't include souls.

 

[godless dave]

- OK.
- I'll assume that you accept that there must be an infinity of potential selves that do not currently exist. But, doesn't that make the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- something over infinity?

No. For the reasons I gave the last time we discussed this.

 

[abaddon]

- OK.
- I'll assume that you accept that there must be an infinity of potential selves that do not currently exist. But, doesn't that make the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- something over infinity?

How many times must you be told "no"?

 

[The Norseman]

How many times must you be told "no"?

Infinite times?

 

[JesseCuster]

A potential infinity of potential selves that don't currently exist?

WTF does that even mean? Notwithstanding the argument over what 'self' means, I don't know what a 'potential self' is, I don't know why there would be infinity of them, I don't know what a 'potential infinity' of them is, and I sure as hell don't know what it means to be arguing about a potential infinity of potential things that don't actually exist. Sounds like literally an argument over nothing.

I've been on and off reading this and previous threads on the forums on this subject and I can't make head nor tail of where Jabba thinks he's heading with this.