Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[JayUtah]

Yes I have.

No, you haven't. Your "reason" is simply a restatement of the original claim.

The reason I've provided is that if I have only one, finite life to live at most (or, if everything is physical), the likelihood of me being here right now is some number over infinity (or, virtually zero).

That's not a reason. That's just your original unproven claim with extra steps.

I think that you just don't accept my reason, or reasoning -- and, I just need to do a better job of supporting my reason...

Your reason was shown to be wrong.

I think that this general area of the argument is where I should focus. This general area involves my validity as a target and the likelihood of my current existence being some number over infinity.

That's where you've "focused" unsuccessfully for more than four years. Your argument fails, and you know it. Why else would you be making up reasons not to have to listen to your critics?

 

[Mojo]

How does something that exists only as a process of a functioning brain exist without the brain?

Magic.

 

[Jabba]

How does something that exists only as a process of a functioning brain exist without the brain?

- Interesting question...
- So far, I do think it's reasonable to call the self a process, and a functioning brain is the one thing that we know exhibits the process -- but, the functioning brain could just be a receiver of the process, the only receiver we can hear, and the word "process" doesn't indicate that the self is not a real "thing"...
- I would argue that we humans are nowhere near understanding everything. We may be as close to everything as a chicken is to calculus. As noted before, nothing really makes sense in terms of reductive naturalism (the anchor of science). And (like the chickens) we just don't have the words and concepts to deal effectively with the fringes of our knowledge.
- But what does make sense, in terms of Bayesian statistics, is 1) that the likelihood of my current existence, given that everything is physical, is virtually zero and 2) I am a valid target.
- That's where I'll be going...

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Who was it who said brain as radio again? Line up to collect your million dollars.

 

[godless dave]

- I would argue that we humans are nowhere near understanding everything. We may be as close to everything as a chicken is to calculus.

Very true. And in all of human history, we've only developed one reliable method for understanding things.

As noted before, nothing really makes sense in terms of reductive naturalism (the anchor of science).

You mean you've claimed that before. You have never supported that claim.

- But what does make sense, in terms of Bayesian statistics, is 1) that the likelihood of my current existence, given that everything is physical, is virtually zero and 2) I am a valid target.

Neither of those things make any sense.

 

[JesseCuster]

"Brain is a radio" is coming I think.

We have a winner!

edit: Ninja'd!

 

[JayUtah]

...but, the functioning brain could just be a receiver of the process...

You don't understand what is meant by process. You can't "receive a process." You're just using the word equivocally as yet another reference to an entity. If you're talking about ~H, just say soul. If you're talking about H, please use the words as they are used in that model.

I would argue that we humans are nowhere near understanding everything.

No, the proof of your claim is not to be found in handwaving desperately over the inductive leap. You have been tasked with proving there is something outside the grasp of science that enlivens your claim. After nearly five years, it's clear you cannot do it. You admit you have no evidence. You have only your "thoughts" and "feelings" that amount to nothing more than asking people to accept your subjective sense of profoundness as a soul. When you claim to have proof, you may not beg those questions.

...we just don't have the words and concepts to deal effectively with the fringes of our knowledge.

You haven't given us any reason to suspect we're on the fringes of knowledge. And we most certainly do have appropriate language to deal with these concepts. The problem is, and has always been, the word games you play trying to get that language to seem like something else. Once you stop obfuscating and equivocating, we'll be able to make progress. Please don't blame your problems on your critics or on the supposed intractability of the problem. It's perfectly tractable. We have the answer. We're just waiting for you finally to acknowledge it.

But what does make sense, in terms of Bayesian statistics, is 1) that the likelihood of my current existence, given that everything is physical, is virtually zero and 2) I am a valid target.

No. Neither of those is valid under Bayesian methods. The reasons why have been explained to you at length. Do not keep touting models you neither understand nor can work properly.

That's where I'll be going...

That's where you started. You're not actually going anywhere. You're simply stagnating over the same failed arguments, completely ignoring everything else in the process. Do you plan to ever address your critics?

 

[jond]

- Interesting question...
- So far, I do think it's reasonable to call the self a process, and a functioning brain is the one thing that we know exhibits the process -- but, the functioning brain could just be a receiver of the process, the only receiver we can hear, and the word "process" doesn't indicate that the self is not a real "thing"...
- I would argue that we humans are nowhere near understanding everything. We may be as close to everything as a chicken is to calculus. As noted before, nothing really makes sense in terms of reductive naturalism (the anchor of science). And (like the chickens) we just don't have the words and concepts to deal effectively with the fringes of our knowledge.
- But what does make sense, in terms of Bayesian statistics, is 1) that the likelihood of my current existence, given that everything is physical, is virtually zero and 2) I am a valid target.
- That's where I'll be going...

- Under H, the brain is the generator, not the receiver.
- But you keep ignoring the fact that, under Bayesian statics, however unlikely your existence is, given that everything is physical, it is still more likely than the multiple unlikely things required if the self is a separate non physical entity.
- Remember, just above you noted that your self requires your brain to make itself known. That means that the thing you insist has virtually zero likelihood of existing, still has to exist and be accounted for.

 

[JesseCuster]

- Interesting question...
- So far, I do think it's reasonable to call the self a process, and a functioning brain is the one thing that we know exhibits the process -- but, the functioning brain could just be a receiver of the process, the only receiver we can hear, and the word "process" doesn't indicate that the self is not a real "thing"...

But you keep saying that 'the self' is an emergent process? How can you claim that the brain is merely a receiver of consciousness, if you think that the self is an emergent property of the brain?

Those are mutually exclusive claims. A radio can't be a receiver of radio programming while simultaneously being the originator of the programming.

I suspect you're going to say that the self is an emergent property of something other than the brain. But what? It's obvious why people claim that the self is an emergent property of a functioning brain, but you can't be confident of it being an emergent property of something else unless you can tell us at least something about what it's an emergent property of.

- I would argue that we humans are nowhere near understanding everything.

That old canard. It's continually trotted out by woo peddlers of all stripes, as if:

1) It's some radical insight instead of an obvious truism.

2) It makes it reasonable to therefore accept any woo you can think of. Just because there are gaps in knowledge, doesn't mean you can stuff anything you want into them.

 

[Jabba]

Why not respond to the many posts that address your points in Agatha's charts instead? The real problem has nothing to do with some number over infinity, it is that your H includes something that is not in the scientific model. Until you sort that out, your statistical efforts are both meaningless and wrong.

jond,
- Yeah. I've tried to explain that before -- but, I probably should try again before moving on...
- I claim that we all have the same experience of "self" in mind. Is that where you think that my H includes something that is not in the scientific model?
- I'll try again if that doesn't communicate.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Interesting question...
- So far, I do think it's reasonable to call the self a process, and a functioning brain is the one thing that we know exhibits the process -- but, the functioning brain could just be a receiver of the process, the only receiver we can hear, and the word "process" doesn't indicate that the self is not a real "thing"...

Jabba -

Do you have any testable evidence of this? If not, why believe it?

- As noted before, nothing really makes sense in terms of reductive naturalism (the anchor of science).

Can you please give me three examples of things that don't make sense?

the likelihood of my current existence, given that everything is physical, is virtually zero

Is the likelihood of your current existence any greater or smaller than this banana I'm holding? If so, why?

 

[JayUtah]

I've tried to explain that before -- but, I probably should try again before moving on...

You tried to explain it before, and you committed the same conflation you do below. I explained what you had conflated, and now it appears I have to do it again because you won't listen.

I claim that we all have the same experience of "self" in mind.

Stipulated and irrelevant. Your critics are not claiming the subjective experience of the self is different between H and ~H. The subjective experience of the self is E. E must be the same in P(E|H) and P(E|~H). H and ~H differ on how they explain what causes it. You equivocate "experience" to be just another word for "soul" in order to try to fool your critics into accepting "experience" as they understand it, thereby seeming to agree with "experience" as you redefine it. You're trying to sneak elements of ~H into E, and from there into P(E|H). Don't do that.

Is that where you think that my H includes something that is not in the scientific model?

There is no concept of "potential selves" in H. There is nothing under H that somehow exists separately from the organism and is wholly or partially responsible for the sense of self.

I'll try again if that doesn't communicate.

Your communication problem is that you don't liste to your critics. The information is there -- several times. All you have to do is acknowledge it and stop mindlessly repeating your argument with your fingers stuck in your ears.

 

[godless dave]

- I claim that we all have the same experience of "self" in mind. Is that where you think that my H includes something that is not in the scientific model?

Jond might be referring to this:

- Also, it is the self that would be looking out two sets of eyes if it was perfectly reproduced.

 

[The Sparrow]

Who was it who said brain as radio again? Line up to collect your million dollars.

thank you. I shall spend it on rum. A lot of rum.

 

[jond]

jond,
- Yeah. I've tried to explain that before -- but, I probably should try again before moving on...
- I claim that we all have the same experience of "self" in mind. Is that where you think that my H includes something that is not in the scientific model?
- I'll try again if that doesn't communicate.

- Under H (the scientific model) the self is an emergent property of a functioning brain.
- Under Jabb's H, the self is an entity that is capable of existing separate from the brain.

 

[JesseCuster]

- Under H (the scientific model) the self is an emergent property of a functioning brain.
- Under Jabb's H, the self is an entity that is capable of existing separate from the brain.

Yet Jabba has repeatedly referred to the self as an emergent property.

So it makes you wonder just what he's talking about at all.

 

[jond]

Yet Jabba has repeatedly referred to the self as an emergent property.

So it makes you wonder just what he's talking about at all.

It's clear that he doesn't understand that an emergent property only exists when the components that give rise to it are functioning.

 

[JayUtah]

It's clear that he doesn't understand that an emergent property only exists when the components that give rise to it are functioning.

Indeed, it's a simple concept: properties can't exist separately from the entities of which they are properties. That's what it means to be a property. And it is in that sense -- and that one only -- that H defines consciousness as an emergent property of a functioning brain. Jabba simply plays word games to speak the same words as his critics but instead to express his soully ideas by them.

 

[theprestige]

What about it isn't clear? It gives two examples.

"Examples"

 

[Belz...]

- The reason I've provided is that if I have only one, finite life to live at most (or, if everything is physical), the likelihood of me being here right now is some number over infinity (or, virtually zero).

That is not a reason. THAT IS YOUR CLAIM. You keep repeating your claim over and over in different wordings but you have made ZERO effort to provide any sort of evidence or even reasoning for it.

This entire line of reasoning rests on your contention that there is a lottery going on, which everybody has told you is WRONG. This contention of yours is the foundation of your calculation of "likelihood" (never mind that "infinity" is a "number" you've plugged in there without any sort of justification, as you have no idea how many potential selves there are even if your lottery analogy stands, which it doesn't.), and that calculation is the reason for your claim of immortality, even though there's no link between the two.

So you need to explain why you think there are potential selves at all. You have not done this. Every time you're asked to support this, your basic assumption, you run away.

- I think that you just don't accept my reason, or reasoning -- and, I just need to do a better job of supporting my reason...

No. You need to START supporting your claim.