Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[JoeMorgue]

No mind uploading then?

Nobody was talking about that and you know it.

The mind is not severable from the brain with our current level of technology. Jabba's entire premise is based upon there being some sort of inherent, natural difference between the normal everyday neurological functioning of a brain and his belief that there is an immortal soul that God created and put in all of us, not in some hypothetical post-Singularity future where we've backed up our brains to the cloud.

There now your pedantic exception has been noted and addressed, let's move on before Jabba spins it off into a 30 page derail.

 

[godless dave]

No mind uploading then?

My view is that if it ever exists, mind "uploading" will really be mind copying.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- I did...
- The H we're now considering is that everything is physical -- and, I don't think that that H allows for anything to be not chemically reproducible (maybe, I should say not chemically reducible).
- But anyway, I think I should have been more specific. That's the aspect of "self" that you seem to accept -- but that H doesn't.

I don't accept that it exists. I said I understand what the concept is.

Dave,
- It seems to me that you and reincarnationists are both referring to a real part of the human conception of self, and that you do accept that this part actually exists. You just don't think that it can return, or that it is physically reproducible.- It then seems to me that if everything is in fact physical, everything should also be physically reducible, and therefor physically reproducible...

I have explicitly said on several occasions that it is, in theory, physically reproducible:

- The 'thing' that reincarnationists think returns is physically reproducible?

The human brain is, in theory although not in practice, physically reproducible.

- But, the human brain is not what the reincarnationists think returns.

I know. What they think returns is a soul. You already know I don't believe in souls.

Dave,
-I assume that you realize that what you say immediately above is inconsistent. Explanation?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
-I assume that you realize that what you say immediately above is inconsistent. Explanation?

It only seems inconsistent to you because of the incorrect assumption you made here:

It seems to me that you and reincarnationists are both referring to a real part of the human conception of self, and that you do accept that this part actually exists.

People who believe in reincarnation and I both believe that there is a part of the human conception of the self that undergoes subjective experiences and has a sense of personal identity. Where we differ is that I think this part of the self is entirely physical - it is one or more parts of the brain.

As I said here:

I understand the concept of a soul. I also think I understand that when people who believe in reincarnation talk about what gets reincarnated, many of them are referring to a concept that corresponds with the parts of the brain that undergo subjective experiences and have a sense of personal identity; what Freud called the ego.

 

[Belz...]

Dave,
-I assume that you realize that what you say immediately above is inconsistent. Explanation?

It isn't inconsistent. That's patently obvious from reading the posts.

 

[theprestige]

No mind uploading then?

Copying process state to an emulator, you mean?

Yeah, that's been discussed repeatedly in these threads.

 

[JayUtah]

I assume that you realize that what you say immediately above is inconsistent. Explanation?

I gave you the explanation twice. The explanation is that the second clause in your first highlighted statement is patently false. Dave in no way accepted that what the recreationists believe persists after death actually exists, and said so several times.

Have you literally no shame? You are accusing your critic of inconsistency for not conforming to your misrepresentation of him -- a misrepresentation he and others explicitly drew your attention to several times.

 

[John Jones]

- But, the human brain is not what the reincarnationists think returns.

So what? This thread isn't about what recreations think.

Is this just another red herring, or do you have other subterfuge in mind?

 

[Loss Leader]

Is this just another red herring, or do you have other subterfuge in mind?

Well, two subterfuges that I can see:

The first is to avoid defining the soul. Instead, it's just whatever reincanationists think gets reincarnated. But Jabba has no further definition.

The second is to short-circuit his whole Bayesian nonsense. "Humans have souls, souls can't exist in a material universe, thus humans have souls."

In both cases, it is the paucity of definition of "soul" that most galls me. It can't be tested if it can't be defined.

 

[JayUtah]

Instead, it's just whatever reincanationists think gets reincarnated. But Jabba has no further definition.

Hence the adamant pretense that godless dave already conceded its existence. Instead, Dave carefully defined what he meant and what he surmised the reincarnationists meant about the sense of self. It's one thing not to define your terms. It's another thing to drag those who do into your gaping pit of deliberate ambiguity.

 

[The Sparrow]

Well, two subterfuges that I can see:

The first is to avoid defining the soul. Instead, it's just whatever reincanationists think gets reincarnated. But Jabba has no further definition.

The second is to short-circuit his whole Bayesian nonsense. "Humans have souls, souls can't exist in a material universe, thus humans have souls."

In both cases, it is the paucity of definition of "soul" that most galls me. It can't be tested if it can't be defined.

defining something into existence circularly. Reincarnation is real. Something gets reincarnated. What is that thing? Well, its the thing that...........gets reincarnated.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
-I assume that you realize that what you say immediately above is inconsistent. Explanation?

No, it is not. Please explain why you think it is.

Hans

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
-I assume that you realize that what you say immediately above is inconsistent. Explanation?

Jabba,
- What it is inconsistent with is your claim about what Dave has said rather than what Dave has actually said.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- It seems to me that you and reincarnationists are both referring to a real part of the human conception of self, and that you do accept that this part actually exists. You just don't think that it can return, or that it is physically reproducible.
- It then seems to me that if everything is in fact physical, everything should also be physically reducible, and therefor physically reproducible...

I have explicitly said on several occasions that it is, in theory, physically reproducible:

- The 'thing' that reincarnationists think returns is physically reproducible?

The human brain is, in theory although not in practice, physically reproducible.

- But, the human brain is not what the reincarnationists think returns.

I know. What they think returns is a soul. You already know I don't believe in souls.

Dave,
-I assume that you realize that what you say immediately above is inconsistent. Explanation?

It only seems inconsistent to you because of the incorrect assumption you made here:- It seems to me that you and reincarnationists are both referring to a real part of the human conception of self, and that you do accept that this part actually exists.
People who believe in reincarnation and I both believe that there is a part of the human conception of the self that undergoes subjective experiences and has a sense of personal identity. Where we differ is that I think this part of the self is entirely physical - it is one or more parts of the brain.

- I might know how to clear this up: you think that the human brain is, in theory although not in practice, physically reproducible, and that consequently the sense of personal identity is also. You believe that theoretically we could produce a perfect copy of a personal identity -- however, you do not believe that we could even theoretically produce the same personal identity. The reincarnationists are talking about the same personal identity.

 

[Hokulele]

- I might know how to clear this up: you think that the human brain is, in theory although not in practice, physically reproducible, and that consequently the sense of personal identity is also. You believe that theoretically we could produce a perfect copy of a personal identity -- however, you do not believe that we could even theoretically produce the same personal identity. The reincarnationists are talking about the same personal identity.

The word you are looking for is "soul".

Glad to be of help...

 

[JayUtah]

- I might know how to clear this up: you think that the human brain is, in theory although not in practice, physically reproducible, and that consequently the sense of personal identity is also. You believe that theoretically we could produce a perfect copy of a personal identity -- however, you do not believe that we could even theoretically produce the same personal identity.

Asked and answered a thousand times. Two is not the same number as one, but this is not the salvation of your claim, nor does it have any special implication under H.

The reincarnationists are talking about the same personal identity.

And that is why what the reincarnationists are on about has nothing to do with H. As has been belabored at length, their concept of a sense of self is a separate entity from the organism, and must be in order to have a separate existence that persists beyond the organism. What they're talking about is essentially a soul.

Under H the sense of self is a property of the organism. While godless dave acknowleges the two concepts share some similarities, the glaring difference they share is the one you insist on obfuscating no matter how clearly your critics spell it out. The sense of self under H is not an entity. The sense of self under H is not enumerable; it's a property.

 

[Mojo]

- I might know how to clear this up: you think that the human brain is, in theory although not in practice, physically reproducible, and that consequently the sense of personal identity is also. You believe that theoretically we could produce a perfect copy of a personal identity -- however, you do not believe that we could even theoretically produce the same personal identity. The reincarnationists are talking about the same personal identity.

Jabba,
- If H says that there are no souls, how many souls are there if H is true?

 

[Mojo]

It's a simple enough question, Jabba. If you are incapable of answering it there is little point in your continuing with this discussion.

 

[godless dave]

- I might know how to clear this up: you think that the human brain is, in theory although not in practice, physically reproducible, and that consequently the sense of personal identity is also. You believe that theoretically we could produce a perfect copy of a personal identity -- however, you do not believe that we could even theoretically produce the same personal identity. The reincarnationists are talking about the same personal identity.

So are you using "reproducible" to mean make a copy? I assumed you were because you posted this:

It then seems to me that if everything is in fact physical, everything should also be physically reducible, and therefor physically reproducible...

 

[Belz...]

- I might know how to clear this up: you think that the human brain is, in theory although not in practice, physically reproducible, and that consequently the sense of personal identity is also.

That's already been answered in the last few days. Do you even pay attention to what Dave posts?

You believe that theoretically we could produce a perfect copy of a personal identity -- however, you do not believe that we could even theoretically produce the same personal identity. The reincarnationists are talking about the same personal identity

Who gives a toss about reincarnation? This isn't what we're discussing. WE'RE DISCUSSING H.