Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Belz...]

Agatha,
- Good questions. Hate to say it -- and link you to my campaign -- but this is a way to begin the "map" I want to develop.
- My thinking:
#1.1. Consciousness must be what we call an "emergent property."
#1.2. Consciousness must, somehow, result from a functioning brain, but it could result from other "things," -- it could even be that everything is conscious, just that a functioning brain is the only thing (we're aware of) that can express it.
#1.3. Then, there is the issue of how it results from whatever. The brain could be a receiver of something non-physical, rather than a producer of something entirely physical.

- I'll be back.

So you have not answered any of Agatha's question, then. You just repeated what was already there.

 

[Belz...]

- I shouldn't exist right now unless I have more than one, finite life or, not everything is physical.

Nonsense. You have provided no reason for us to accept this other than your say-so.

 

[jond]

Agatha,
- Good questions. Hate to say it -- and link you to my campaign -- but this is a way to begin the "map" I want to develop.
- My thinking:
#1.1. Consciousness must be what we call an "emergent property."

Indeed it is. What happens to an emergent property when the components that give rise to it cease functioning? That's correct, it no longer continues.

#1.2. Consciousness must, somehow, result from a functioning brain, but it could result from other "things," -- it could even be that everything is conscious, just that a functioning brain is the only thing (we're aware of) that can express it.

Also correct. However, under H, it is only the result of a functioning brain. You insist that there are other "things". However, as you point out here, because it must result from a functioning brain, that means that in your formula you must account for the existence of the brain, and account for the existence of the other thing, and also account for the connection of the brain and the other thing. Quite simply, there is no way that your inclusion of the other thing is more likely than H.

#1.3. Then, there is the issue of how it results from whatever. The brain could be a receiver of something non-physical, rather than a producer of something entirely physical.

- I'll be back.

Once again, if true it still leaves you with the very real problem that H is far more likely than H + another thing + a means of connecting the two.

 

[jond]

- I shouldn't exist right now unless I have more than one, finite life or, not everything is physical.

And yet the existence of your body alone is far more likely than the existence of your body + a soul + a means of connecting them.

 

[MRC_Hans]

#1.2. Consciousness must, somehow, result from a functioning brain, but it could result from other "things," -- it could even be that everything is conscious, just that a functioning brain is the only thing (we're aware of) that can express it.

However, THAT hypothesis is NOT the hypothesis H.

Hans

 

[JesseCuster]

1) No, but allows for souls.

Your wording wasn't that the nonphysical allows for souls, it was - nonphysical, therefore souls. Implying that once you have successfully argued for the nonphysical, that the existence of souls will automatically follow.

2) Yeah. I'm trying to be friendly -- just saying that something your opponent believes is not true is true isn't friendly. But, in various places I explain why I believe these things are true.

Putting "it just seems to me" in front a post does not indicate friendliness, it indicates a lack of rigour in what you're saying.

I don't think anybody is going to be offended if you simply tell them they're wrong, and I don't think anybody is likely to interpret your "just seems" and similar statements as an attempt to avoid offending anyone.

No need to tip toe on thin ice for fear of offending people by saying what you think.

 

[JesseCuster]

- My thinking:
#1.1. Consciousness must be what we call an "emergent property."

How does this help your case?

Consciousness as an emergent property of a working brain doesn't help your case, it hurts it as it's saying that consciousness is not something that exists or can exist absent the conditions that give rise to it as an emergent property.

Get rid of the conditions which give rise to consciousness as an emergent property (e.g. kill someone) and the consciousness goes away.

The consciousness, or self, or whatever you want to call it, as an emergent property of a functioning brain is not something that helps your argument that it's something immortal that exists before and after the existence of the brain that gives rise to it.

How do you think that consciousness as an emergent property in any way helps your argument?

 

[Mojo]

- I shouldn't exist right now unless I have more than one, finite life or, not everything is physical.

As I said, an appeal to personal incredulity.

 

[JayUtah]

Putting "it just seems to me" in front a post does not indicate friendliness, it indicates a lack of rigour in what you're saying.

Not just a lack of rigor but a lack of friendliness as skeptics look at it. Skeptics do not believe in souls. But we know that Jabba does. Stating his claim as a mere belief doesn't advance the argument, and doesn't soften it much over trying to state it as fact. Stating it as putative fact, without supporting evidence, is eminently unfriendly in skeptic circles.

I don't think anybody is going to be offended if you simply tell them they're wrong...

If I'm being told I'm wrong, I'd like to see the evidence that I'm wrong. And if you recall the discussion over Fair Use and Jabba's co-opting of others' work, you'll also recall I will accept correction accompanied by fact and sound argument.

Stating it as a hypothesis is safe. Stating it as a conclusion and offering a tractable line of reasoning to support the conclusion is safe. Stating it as a belief and expecting that to suffice is insulting.

 

[Mojo]

I don't think anybody is going to be offended if you simply tell them they're wrong...

Apart from Jabba, of course.

 

[Pixel42]

- I shouldn't exist right now unless I have more than one, finite life

Why not?

You have been asserting this for years, but your reasons for believing it have been shown over and over again to be erroneous. You make no attempt to rebut, you simply restate your assertion because to you it seems obvious. But the fact that something seems obvious does not necessarily mean that it's true. It's obvious that the Earth is flat, and that the sun goes round the Earth, but the people who assumed that meant these things were true were wrong.

The mistakes you are making to reach the wrong conclusion, which you then assert, have been explained to you in the simplest possible terms. It's long past time that you considered the possibility that the reason we do not agree with you is not that we don't understand what you are saying, but that you are simply wrong.

 

[John Jones]

Behold another slow-motion Fringe Reset^[TM], punctuated every few fallacies by "This is difficult for you guys to understand..." and "I'll be back...".

Jabba, has time stood still in your life for 5 years? It has in your cyber-life.

 

[caveman1917]

I will accept correction accompanied by fact and sound argument.

Not really:

And here you're just absolutely wrong, mathematically speaking. Because things exist, you know the likelihood of them existing cannot be zero. If it were actually zero, they wouldn't exist.

That is almost surely wrong.

You say these "potential selves" must exist in infinite numbers, but then you botch the math when you ignore that, if that's your denominator, then the result is exactly zero. That would mean neither you or I actually existed, which we clearly do.

 

[HighRiser]

1) No, but allows for souls.
2) Yeah. I'm trying to be friendly -- just saying that something your opponent believes is not true is true isn't friendly. But, in various places I explain why I believe these things are true.

The issue is that H can't contain anything that's not confirmed by objective evidence. No exceptions to that rule can be allowed if H is to have any merit in the debate. Otherwise you'll have to have ~H on both sides of the formula, and that seems rather nonsensical to me.

 

[JayUtah]

How does this help your case?

It's one handhold of an equivocation that seems intended to make H and ~H seem not quite so far apart. Agatha has provided a side-by-side comparison between materialism and Jabba's claims. If Jabba can use the same words as materialism to express his belief, he can make H and ~H seem close enough together that he can borrow concepts from ~H to decorate H.

"See, I believe just what you guys do, but I accept that there may be something more that science doesn't see," is an argument he's tried before. (Well, all his arguments are arguments he's tried before.) He wants to characterize his claim as just a slight evolution of materialism. "How can science be so sure it has captured all the behavior that results in consciousness?" It's sort of a standard fringe method of frantically pointing to an inductive gap and suggesting an entirely different theory should be able to fit inside it.

But if this is his formulation du jour, then it still runs up against the fact that materialism-and-then-souls-to-inhabit-the-bodies cannot possibly be more probable than mere materialism.

 

[The Norseman]

Not really:

I don't see how a link to a wiki entry is considered "fact and sound argument" for one; two, I don't recall you using Jabba's mathematics he's supplied in this thread, so maybe you could link to your post which does so? It seems to me you're trying to play the über-skeptic by trying to pick apart rebuttals to Jabba's statements but ignoring those statements themselves.

One could imagine that you're supporting Jabba's contention of the existence of "souls" and his mathematics are sound; the main problem being as I see it, we still don't know what is meant by the word "soul" so it nothing can be proven either way.

 

[caveman1917]

I don't see how a link to a wiki entry is considered "fact and sound argument" for one

What more do you need? Probability zero does not imply impossibility, this is like 2nd or 3rd chapter introductory probability theory.

two, I don't recall you using Jabba's mathematics he's supplied in this thread, so maybe you could link to your post which does so?

No need, the error stands on its own. And it keeps standing on its own even after refutation, as the second post shows after the error was corrected.

It seems to me you're trying to play the über-skeptic by trying to pick apart rebuttals to Jabba's statements but ignoring those statements themselves.

I've picked apart Jabba's statements in an earlier iteration. When it occurred to him that his definitions weren't leading to the answer he wanted he undefined his definitions. In other words, it's simply a waste of time to engage Jabba. As for the "uber-skeptic" thing, just because you're responding to woo doesn't mean you get free reign to assert your own litany of errors in response.

 

[The Norseman]

What more do you need? Probability zero does not imply impossibility, this is like 2nd or 3rd chapter introductory probability theory.

What's needed next is you actually applying the wiki information specifically to what's been said here. And I get you're bludgeoning people with the idea you are amazingly well-versed in a topic which you believe is something that's been included in a basic education, but it's not so.

It would be great for you to explain things a bit more simply for posters like me. I have no problem admitting I don't understand and you've not been very clear.

No need, the error stands on its own. And it keeps standing on its own even after refutation, as the second post shows after the error was corrected.

Would you be so kind as to link to that post then?

I've picked apart Jabba's statements in an earlier iteration. When it occurred to him that his definitions weren't leading to the answer he wanted he undefined his definitions. In other words, it's simply a waste of time to engage Jabba.

Alright. I will take this at face value and move on.

As for the "uber-skeptic" thing, just because you're responding to woo doesn't mean you get free reign to assert your own litany of errors in response.

Yes, of course, that's fair.

Perhaps someone else would then be more willing to be a bit more verbose in explaining the 'litany of errors' if it's beneath your contempt in explaining it to me (and thus, to others). I'm trying not to be combative here, btw. I'd like to learn.

 

[caveman1917]

What's needed next is you actually applying the wiki information specifically to what's been said here.

What's been said here is that if the probability of us existing were zero (when you have an infinite sample space of "potential selves") then we wouldn't exist. This is simply false, a probability of zero does not imply an impossibility. It's not just false really, it's silly if you think about it.

And I get you're bludgeoning people with the idea you are amazingly well-versed in a topic which you believe is something that's been included in a basic education, but it's not so.

Not included in a "basic education" (whatever that may be), but included in introductory probability theory. A textbook on probability theory will contain this.

It would be great for you to explain things a bit more simply for posters like me. I have no problem admitting I don't understand and you've not been very clear.

What exactly don't you understand?

Would you be so kind as to link to that post then?

It's the second one I quoted above. An error gets made, it gets corrected, and exactly the same error is made again. Which suggests incorrigibility, leading to me disputing the claim about accepting correction.

Perhaps someone else would then be more willing to be a bit more verbose in explaining the 'litany of errors' if it's beneath your contempt in explaining it to me (and thus, to others).

It's not beneath my contempt to explain it. I saw no need to, as the wiki article seems pretty clear to me.

I'm trying not to be combative here, btw. I'd like to learn.

Learn what exactly? There's nothing wrong with being combative, btw, just be able to back it up when you do.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, can you fill in the blanks to try to pin down your thinking? Feel free to add any more lines as you feel appropriate to compare your idea of ~H with H, where H is materialism.

Under H | Under Jabba's ~H
Consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain | Consciousness is ???
The self is a process | ???
The self is always changing | ???
'Who' you are us determined by your DNA plus the sum of all experiences | 'Who' you are is determined by ???
We have no existence prior to conception | We are immortal in the sense that ???
We have no existence post-death | We are immortal in the sense that ???
The odds of each of our current existences is 1 | The odds of each of our current existences is ???

Agatha,
- Good questions. Hate to say it -- and link you to my campaign -- but this is a way to begin the "map" I want to develop.
- My thinking:
#1.1. Consciousness must be what we call an "emergent property."
#1.2. Consciousness must, somehow, result from a functioning brain, but it could result from other "things," -- it could even be that everything is conscious, just that a functioning brain is the only thing (we're aware of) that can express it.
#1.3. Then, there is the issue of how it results from whatever. The brain could be a receiver of something non-physical, rather than a producer of something entirely physical.

- I'll be back.

#2. I assume that the self is a "process" -- but, I don't see that as a problem for my argument...
- Even if the self is an "illusion" or "delusion," I don't see that as a problem.
- I don't know how this affects my argument, but I also see the self as an "experience."