• 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:
- Did I somehow delete something you said?
Click to expand...

You must have edited the post I replied to while I was replying.

Under H, a self is as repeatable as anything else. If you were to precisely repeat the events that led to my self existing under precisely the same conditions, you would end up with a self exactly like mine.
 
- Anyway, back to the question I meant to ask. Is this version of self physically repeatable?
 
Under H, a self is as repeatable as anything else. If you were to precisely repeat the events that led to my self existing under precisely the same conditions, you would end up with a self exactly like mine.
 
Jabba said:
- Anyway, back to the question I meant to ask. Is this version of self physically repeatable?
Click to expand...

Yes.

It is just as repeatable as it is reproducible, replicatable, and recreatable. Constantly using new words as the meanings of the old ones are pinned down is practically an admission of evasion.
 
carlitos said:
This argument is certainly repeatable.
Click to expand...

At this point it's just monotonous since there's only so many words to play games with. Frantically introducing new concepts like "this version" of a self and "repeatable" (cf. the candle-flame analogy) is just keeping the debate flopping about, not actually moving it in a useful direction. Jabba is pulling out all the stops to avoid seeing what his critics are explaining.
 
JayUtah said:
At this point it's just monotonous since there's only so many words to play games with. Frantically introducing new concepts like "this version" of a self and "repeatable" (cf. the candle-flame analogy) is just keeping the debate flopping about, not actually moving it in a useful direction. Jabba is pulling out all the stops to avoid seeing what his critics are explaining.
Click to expand...

And THAT has been fully repeatable for years now ;)
 
Jabba said:
- Anyway, back to the question I meant to ask. Is this version of self physically repeatable?
Click to expand...

No. The question is whether you can provide proof or evidence of immortality. Five years, and you've produced zip. Zero. Nichts. Nada. Walang. Nothing.

The casual observer understands this.
 
This argument is like that slot car racetrack that looks fun in the commercial but after you send your car around twice you've pretty much seen everything it can do.
 
Jabba said:
- Anyway, back to the question I meant to ask. Is this version of self physically repeatable?
Click to expand...

What does "physically repeatable" mean in the first place? And what does it even matter?

It's very simple, here is your problem: P(E|H) = P(E|~H). If that weren't true, and everything else equal, your argument would go through. Until you solve that, nothing else even matters.

If you really have some need to go around thinking you're immortal, here are some arguments which might be more productive:

-Claim that you believe mind-uploading will become accessible in your lifetime and give you effective immortality. Speculative, but nothing quite wrong with it in principle. Even you can argue that one.

-Go with the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics and claim you're immortal because your self will always follow a branch in which it survives. You probably don't want to go with that one, but at least it gets a bit interesting.

-Go only with the minimal assumptions required for the MWI argument to work, and claim you're immortal based on the general case. You really don't want to go with that one, but it would at least be interesting enough to warrant a discussion, yet probably still not a friggin 5-year one.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
What does "physically repeatable" mean in the first place? And what does it even matter?

It's very simple, here is your problem: P(E|H) = P(E|~H). If that weren't true, and everything else equal, your argument would go through. Until you solve that, nothing else even matters.

If you really have some need to go around thinking you're immortal, here are some arguments which might be more productive:

-Claim that you believe mind-uploading will become accessible in your lifetime and give you effective immortality. Speculative, but nothing quite wrong with it in principle. Even you can argue that one.

-Go with the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics and claim you're immortal because your self will always follow a branch in which it survives. You probably don't want to go with that one, but at least it gets a bit interesting.

-Go only with the minimal assumptions required for the MWI argument to work, and claim you're immortal based on the general case. You really don't want to go with that one, but it would at least be interesting enough to warrant a discussion, yet probably still not a friggin 5-year one.
Click to expand...
Caveman,
- I don't understand why you say that.
 
godless dave said:
You must have edited the post I replied to while I was replying.

Under H, a self is as repeatable as anything else. If you were to precisely repeat the events that led to my self existing under precisely the same conditions, you would end up with a self exactly like mine.
Click to expand...
- I would say, "N0."
1. With the emergent property of consciousness, your object has a separate, specific, identity (self) that is not physically repeatable.
2. This is the "identity" to which we refer when we question the self's mortality.
3. It's a kind of identity that non-conscious objects do not have.
4. And, there is no formula we can follow to repeat this specific identity.
 
Jabba said:
1. With the emergent property of consciousness, your object has a separate, specific, identity (self) that is not physically repeatable.
Click to expand...


It is an emergent property of the brain. Physically "repeat" the brain and the environment of its physical existence, and voila.
 
Jabba said:
I would say, "N0."
Click to expand...

Then you would be wrong.

With the emergent property of consciousness, your object has a separate, specific, identity (self) that is not physically repeatable.
Click to expand...

Under H, the emergent property of consciousness is repeated any time the object is repeated. That is what it means to be a property.

This is the "identity" to which we refer when we question the self's mortality.
3. It's a kind of identity that non-conscious objects do not have.
Click to expand...

No, that's the soul in your hypothesis. You're trying to pin an identical concept onto H.

4. And, there is no formula we can follow to repeat this specific identity.
Click to expand...

Yes there is. The formula is to replicate the object that exhibits the property.
 
Jabba said:
- I would say, "N0."
1. With the emergent property of consciousness, your object has a separate, specific, identity (self) that is not physically repeatable.
2. This is the "identity" to which we refer when we question the self's mortality.
3. It's a kind of identity that non-conscious objects do not have.
4. And, there is no formula we can follow to repeat this specific identity.
Click to expand...

That's just you assuming the consequent again. AKA Begging the question.
 
Jabba said:
3. It's a kind of identity that non-conscious objects do not have.
4. And, there is no formula we can follow to repeat this specific identity.
Click to expand...


Those two statements are irreconcilable with a materialistic universe. If you are attempting to determine the probability of a person existing in a material universe, you cannot use these concepts.

If you have abandoned Bayes and are now going for a simple logical deduction, then you need evidence that your "identity" is composed of anything more than the material of a working neurosystem.

Otherwise, you're just assuming your conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom