• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- But consciousness is special. Consciousness brings with it a specific personal awareness -- a self. Not something that science really understands. Grass, flames, mountains don't appear to have consciousness, nor specific personal awareness/identities
Click to expand...

No but they are the only things like themselves. You have not made the case that consiousness is special. You have simply asserted it.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- But consciousness is special. Consciousness brings with it a specific personal awareness -- a self. Not something that science really understands. Grass, flames, mountains don't appear to have consciousness, nor specific personal awareness/identities
Click to expand...

This is the fallacy of special pleading. There are many things science doesn't understand. That doesn't mean we get to declare them magic and assume reality works differently for them than for the things we do understand.

The reason my self is specific to me is because it's my brain. It doesn't need some extra property to tell it which brain to associate with. Every functioning brain thinks of itself as "me". My brain only gets visual information from the eyes that are physically attached to it. It only gets information about smell from the nose that is physically attached to it. The same for the other senses. It doesn't need an identity property to know which eyes to get data from because it is only physically connected to one pair of eyes.


Jabba said:
- Anyway, we humans engender specific examples of consciousness, "selves," that we cannot (so far) recreate. If we can't recreate them, they are not physically traceable. Or, that's my current conclusion...
Click to expand...

If we're using recreate in the meaning you gave it a few posts ago, then we can't recreate anything.

If we're using it in the conventional meaning, then we have no reason to think that making an exact copy of a person wouldn't result in an exact copy of their self-awareness.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- But consciousness is special. Consciousness brings with it a specific personal awareness -- a self. Not something that science really understands. Grass, flames, mountains don't appear to have consciousness, nor specific personal awareness/identities (though, it could be that these others just don't have a way of expressing their consciousness. (Auras? I once found a skinny rainbow around myself for about 5 minutes! I jog, it was a hot day, I was jogging and sweating -- but, I've been jogging for maybe 60 years, in a lot of heat, and that was the only time I ever experienced such a thing.))
- Anyway, we humans engender specific examples of consciousness, "selves," that we cannot (so far) recreate. If we can't recreate them, they are not physically traceable. Or, that's my current conclusion...
Click to expand...

Consciousness is a process in the brain. While it certainly not fully understood, it is well enough understood to be quite confident in stating that there is no need to introduce a separate entity (especially one that is completely undefined) to explain anything. The "self" is the ongoing result of every experience each person has had. If you duplicated a brain, and then duplicated every experience, you would have two identical selves, with no way of knowing which was the original and which was the copy.

You will, of course, ignore all this as always. And you will, of course, be wrong.
 
Jabba said:
But consciousness is special.
Click to expand...

Literally special pleading.

Consciousness brings with it a specific personal awareness -- a self. Not something that science really understands.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Science understands perfectly that consciousness and the ensuing sense of self are two of several emergent properties of a functioning organism. The proposition that consciousness is something else is the proposition you're trying to prove. That means you don't get to assume it true for the purposes of falsifying its competition.

Grass, flames, mountains don't appear to have consciousness, nor specific personal awareness/identities...
Click to expand...

But they have other kinds of emergent properties. Under H consciousness is not the magical thing you're trying to make it out to be. It's just one of several emergent properties that are proper to the organism. Humans aren't green like grass. That doesn't mean anything.

Anyway, we humans engender specific examples of consciousness, "selves," that we cannot (so far) recreate.
Click to expand...

Because we cannot (so far) perfectly replicate the organism. Master one and you get the other for free. That's what it means for consciousness to be a property of the organism. An organism brings its properties with it.

If we can't recreate them, they are not physically traceable. Or, that's my current conclusion...
Click to expand...

We can't recreate them today. We lack the skill. But the point of the thought experiment was to investigate what would happen if we could perfectly reproduce the organism. If we could, then it would produce an identical consciousness. You don't get to say consciousness is not physically traceable just because the thought experiment is necessarily hypothetical. What sort of equivocal nonsense is that?
 
JesseCuster said:
More to the point, how is any of this going to prove the existence of an immortal soul? :confused:
Click to expand...


Jabba is arguing that if immortal souls exist then there must be an infinite numbers of potential souls, and therefore the likelihood that his soul is currently inhabiting his body is zero. This, he claims, proves that immortal souls exist.
 
Jabba said:
- Anyway, we humans engender specific examples of consciousness, "selves," that we cannot (so far) recreate. If we can't recreate them, they are not physically traceable. Or, that's my current conclusion...
Click to expand...


So you're just skipping back and forth between H and ~H whenever anything becomes inconvenient? Under the physical model of the universe, consciousness is not any more special to humans than going 60 mph is to cars. It is a process that occurs when a brain is working.

You are trying to create some sort of probability that a person would exist in a materialistic universe. You cannot then declare that the answer is 1/inf. because there is an immaterial "consciousness."

Stay on the side of the line that you brought up.
 
Jabba: here's a suggestion that could help you finally make progress with this train wreck of a thread.

I just enrolled on this free course which starts on April 10th:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/emergent-phenomena

Emergent Phenomena in Science and Everyday Life

Before the advent of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century, most scientists believed that it should be possible to predict the behavior of any object in the universe simply by understanding the behavior of its constituent parts. For instance, if one could write down the equations of motion for every atom in a system, it should be possible to solve those equations (with the aid of a sufficiently large computing device) and make accurate predictions about that system’s future.

However, there are some systems that defy this notion. Consider a living cell, which consists mostly of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen along with other trace elements. We can study these components individually without ever imagining how combining them in just the right way can lead to something as complex and wonderful as a living organism! Thus, we can consider life to be an emergent property of what is essentially an accumulation of constituent parts that are somehow organized in a very precise way.

This course lets you explore the concept of emergence using examples from materials science, mathematics, biology, physics, and neuroscience to illustrate how ordinary components when brought together can collectively yield unexpected, surprising behaviors.
Click to expand...

It's a six week course, a few hours a week. The final week is about consciousness.

If you take this course you might finally be able to address the criticisms of your arguments that have been made, instead of having to just ignore them.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- But consciousness is special. Consciousness brings with it a specific personal awareness -- a self. Not something that science really understands. Grass, flames, mountains don't appear to have consciousness, nor specific personal awareness/identities (though, it could be that these others just don't have a way of expressing their consciousness. (Auras? I once found a skinny rainbow around myself for about 5 minutes! I jog, it was a hot day, I was jogging and sweating -- but, I've been jogging for maybe 60 years, in a lot of heat, and that was the only time I ever experienced such a thing.))
- Anyway, we humans engender specific examples of consciousness, "selves," that we cannot (so far) recreate. If we can't recreate them, they are not physically traceable. Or, that's my current conclusion...
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
This is the fallacy of special pleading. There are many things science doesn't understand. That doesn't mean we get to declare them magic and assume reality works differently for them than for the things we do understand.

The reason my self is specific to me is because it's my brain. It doesn't need some extra property to tell it which brain to associate with. Every functioning brain thinks of itself as "me". My brain only gets visual information from the eyes that are physically attached to it. It only gets information about smell from the nose that is physically attached to it. The same for the other senses. It doesn't need an identity property to know which eyes to get data from because it is only physically connected to one pair of eyes.




If we're using recreate in the meaning you gave it a few posts ago, then we can't recreate anything.

If we're using it in the conventional meaning, then we have no reason to think that making an exact copy of a person wouldn't result in an exact copy of their self-awareness.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- It appears that a certain physical state (whatever the hell it is) produces consciousness. It then appears that consciousness naturally invokes(?) a brand new "self."
- Here's where words seem to fail us...
- As best I can formulate thus far, I claim that we cannot physically recreate this self... And, this means that this "self" is not cause and effect traceable or predictable, and the likelihood of its current existence is totally random.
- How would you describe/explain this situation/wreckage differently?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- It appears that a certain physical state (whatever the hell it is) produces consciousness.
Click to expand...

Took you long enough to admit this.

It then appears that consciousness naturally invokes(?) a brand new "self."
Click to expand...

It is the self.

- Here's where words seem to fail us...
Click to expand...

No, they fail you.

- As best I can formulate thus far, I claim that we cannot physically recreate this self... And, this means that this "self" is not cause and effect traceable or predictable, and the likelihood of its current existence is totally random.
Click to expand...

We're well aware of your claim. But the claim itself is unconvincing.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- It appears that a certain physical state (whatever the hell it is) produces consciousness. It then appears that consciousness naturally invokes(?) a brand new "self."
- Here's where words seem to fail us...
- As best I can formulate thus far, I claim that we cannot physically recreate this self... And, this means that this "self" is not cause and effect traceable or predictable, and the likelihood of its current existence is totally random.
- How would you describe/explain this situation/wreckage differently?
Click to expand...

Now might be a good time to read ALL the responses you've received that explain your errors.
 
Jabba said:
It appears that a certain physical state (whatever the hell it is)...
Click to expand...

No, not "whatever..." A functioning brain and nervous system.

..produces consciousness.
Click to expand...

Yes, as long as you grasp that under H consciousness is a property, not a "thing."

It then appears that consciousness naturally invokes(?) a brand new "self."
Click to expand...

No. There is no distinction under H between "consciousness" and "self." Just two words to refer to the same property. And it's not "brand new" under H. That's you trying to slip your preconception under the radar. Again. And the "self" is not a thing under H.

Here's where words seem to fail us...
Click to expand...

There's no "us" when talking about this particular failure. The words serve me and your other critics just fine. The failure comes when you misuse the words and try to change what they mean. Stop doing that and all the problems will evaporate.

As best I can formulate thus far...
Click to expand...

We're talking about H. You're not supposed to be doing any formulating there. H is already formulated. In order to derive P(E|H) you need to use H as it is already formulated.

I claim that we cannot physically recreate this self...
Click to expand...

Correct; we presently lack the skill to recreate an organism exactly like another one. That's why it was a thought experiment. The question was what would happen if we could. If we can physically recreate the organism that exhibited a property, it will once again exhibit the property. The self is not physical per se because it is a property, not a thing. It fails to be a physical thing in exactly the same way "going 60 mph" fails to be a physical thing. But I can recreate "going 60 mph" by getting in my car.

And, this means that this "self" is not cause and effect traceable or predictable
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense. The self is a traceable effect caused by the emergence of a particular brain and nervous system. If it were possible to recreate that brain and nervous system at another time or place, it would exhibit the same self. That is H. That's what the thought experiment was designed to investigate. You're pinning your hopes on the undeniable fact that a thought experiment isn't practical. Just how dumb do you think your critics are?

and the likelihood of its current existence is totally random.
Click to expand...

Not random, but chaotic. And yes, there are many, many bullet holes in the side of the barn. We don't need to speculate about their distribution to know that going up to one of them selected arbitrarily and computing the odds a bullet landed there is a fallacy.

How would you describe/explain this situation/wreckage differently?
Click to expand...

"Jabba's argument consists of nothing but year after year of silly word games."
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- It appears that a certain physical state (whatever the hell it is) produces consciousness. It then appears that consciousness naturally invokes(?) a brand new "self."
- Here's where words seem to fail us...
- As best I can formulate thus far, I claim that we cannot physically recreate this self... And, this means that this "self" is not cause and effect traceable or predictable, and the likelihood of its current existence is totally random.
- How would you describe/explain this situation/wreckage differently?
Click to expand...

Consciousness, self-awareness, a sense of self, and the ability to have subjective experiences are all things a physical brain does. What cares, senses, and imagines is the physical brain.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- It appears that a certain physical state (whatever the hell it is) produces consciousness. It then appears that consciousness naturally invokes(?) a brand new "self."
- Here's where words seem to fail us...
Click to expand...

Who is this "us", pale face?
 
godless dave said:
Consciousness, self-awareness, a sense of self, and the ability to have subjective experiences are all things a physical brain does. What cares, senses, and imagines is the physical brain.
Click to expand...
- But you and me (our selves) are not physically recreatable; we cannot be brought back to life, even if we were physically, perfectly, reproduced.
 
Jabba said:
- But you and me (our selves) are not physically recreatable; we cannot be brought back to life, even if we were physically, perfectly, reproduced.
Click to expand...

Why would you expect us to be if the self is physical?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom