• 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:
- If we don't have a formula for it, as far as we're concerned, it's random. Remember, probability is based upon the info we have.
Click to expand...


If the hypothesis that the self is produced by the brain is true, the self is determined by the state of the brain.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- If we don't have a formula for it, as far as we're concerned, it's random.
Click to expand...

No. Complex systems are functionally unpredictable but not random.

Remember, probability is based upon the info we have.
Click to expand...

And the best information we have says that if we reproduce the brain exactly we are guaranteed -- in a probabilistic sense -- of reproducing the exact sense of self. The fact that it is practically impossible to do so does not alter the fundamental nature of the problem that you're trying to rewrite.
 
Jabba said:
- If we don't have a formula for it, as far as we're concerned, it's random.
Click to expand...

The reason we don't have a formula for it is because it can't exist. The same thing can never exist twice, whether it's brains, blades of grass, mountains, loaves of banana bread, Volkswagens, or anything else.

If you have a formula for my sense of self then you also have a formula for as many exact copies of my sense of self as you have material to make them out of. There is nothing in the formula that determines which is which, just as there is nothing in a recipe for banana bread that determines which loaf is which.
 
Jabba said:
- If we don't have a formula for it, as far as we're concerned, it's random. Remember, probability is based upon the info we have.
Click to expand...
I'm really struggling to get a grip on where this is going.

In a worldview where there is no immortality or souls, even if someone were to agree to what you just said (and that's a big if), it makes absolutely not a whit of difference to anything at all.

In my worldview, there are no souls, no afterlife, no reincarnation, etc. and if I were to agree with your argument that it's impossible for my 'same' (in the sense of being a continuation of my self and not a replication) sense of self to be recreated by any means possible, how on earth does that say anything about my view is wrong that there are no souls or immortality or reincarnation? :confused:

Far from showing that I'm wrong about souls, afterlife, reincarnation, etc. it actually shows that I'm right because you're arguing that it's impossible for my sense of self to come back after I die. Ergo, no soul, no reincarnation, no immortality, etc.

So how you're spinning this in your own head as some sort of proof that there exist immortal souls is darn hard to figure out.
 
JayUtah said:
Your mistake is in assuming there is a plan. The plan, such as it ever is, rarely extends beyond simply showing one's critic to be in error on some unconnected, inconsequential point simply so some victory can be crowed over.
Click to expand...
I wonder, having read through a lot of this debate, if Jabba's tactic is to simply argue long enough and tediously enough to get his opponents to simply give up out of boredom and then claim victory.
 
JesseCuster said:
I wonder, having read through a lot of this debate, if Jabba's tactic is to simply argue long enough and tediously enough to get his opponents to simply give up out of boredom and then claim victory.
Click to expand...

Yep. Everyone turned away in boredon, and Jabba stated he was going to apply for the JREF prize for proving some paranormal claim.
 
godless dave said:
The reason we don't have a formula for it is because it can't exist. The same thing can never exist twice, whether it's brains, blades of grass, mountains, loaves of banana bread, Volkswagens, or anything else.

If you have a formula for my sense of self then you also have a formula for as many exact copies of my sense of self as you have material to make them out of. There is nothing in the formula that determines which is which, just as there is nothing in a recipe for banana bread that determines which loaf is which.
Click to expand...
- So, we have no idea who will come out. "Who" is random.
 
Jabba said:
- So, we have no idea who will come out. "Who" is random.
Click to expand...

We know exactly who will "come out". That person. Just like when we build a Volkswagen we know exactly which Volkswagen will come out, even if we already built 1000 just like it.

Under H, there is no separate identity property.
 
Jabba said:
- So, we have no idea who will come out. "Who" is random.
Click to expand...

No, "Who" is the ongoing result of every experience each person has. You are the only "Who" you could have been. You couldn't have been Napoleon, and your father couldn't have had sex with Cleopatra.
 
Jabba said:
- So, we have no idea who will come out. "Who" is random[SIZE="6"].[/SIZE]
Click to expand...


No, if we perfectly reproduced your brain a consciousness exactly like yours would result.

I edited your post to add noparse tags. Why the size tags around a full stop?
 
Jabba said:
- So, we have no idea who will come out.
Click to expand...

Where are getting that? Dave is arguing exactly the opposite. If you have the formula, you can make as many examples of the formula as you want. If you have the formula for my brain, you can make as many copies of it as you want. And under H, each of those brains will have my sense of self. Because, under H, that sense of self is a property. It doesn't exist in quantities or numbers. It exists as a property. As many formulaic copies as you make of it will exhibit that property.

You're still inexorably stuck on the idea of the self or the identity as a "thing." Under H it isn't.

"Who" is random.
Click to expand...

No, "who" is determined by the brain. If you have the formula, the one thing you cannot do is transform two into one. Once again you're simply trying to play word games with the concept of cardinality, to no useful end.
 
Jabba said:
- So, we have no idea who will come out. "Who" is random.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make a lick of sense.

My consciousness, sense of self, etc. isn't random. It's an emergent property of my brain (which is the result of my genetics, experiences, etc.) and thus if you were to replicate my brain, you'd replicate my consciousness / sense of self.

To continue the banana bread analogy you responded to, it's like you're saying that that because a banana bread recipe doesn't specify 'which loaf is which', then the properties of a loaf of banana bread are therefore random.
 
JayUtah said:
No wonderment needed. He has expressly done this in the past.
Click to expand...
What I do find interesting in reading through the debate is that he never even acknowledges the very valid criticisms of his debating style.

For example, he has been criticised on countless occasions for calling out other members, pleading with them to agree with him about something, yet he doesn't even acknowledge those criticisms or respond to them.

It's all rather odd and curious to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom