Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[godless dave]

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

jond and Dave,
- If I understand what you're saying, that's the point... I'm trying to show that H is wrong, cause it's so unlikely for me to exist right now if H (if everything is physical).

Do you understand that a self that could look out two sets of eyes cannot exist in H?

I want to make sure we're talking about the same kind of self.

 

[Jabba]

And how they're relevant to anything. He's already said, when asked about what they are, that potential selves don't actually exist in any real way.

If there are potential selves, then there are potential anything you can think of. And there's no limit to them. Everything you can imagine has an infinite pool of potentials. So therefore everything, under H, has a probability of existing of 'virtually zero', according to Jabba.

Therefore everything is immortal, not just 'selves'.

Jabba keeps getting asked about this, if and how his supposed logic applies to concepts other than selves, but he won't answer it.

Jesse,
- Does anything that is currently only potential actually exist?
- Seems to me that this is one place where our language is not up to the task.

 

[jond]

Jesse,
- Does anything that is currently only potential actually exist?
- Seems to me that this is one place where our language is not up to the task.

Can you count things that only potentially exist but don't actually exist? In what way is it meaningful to do so?

 

[JayUtah]

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

Under H this is simply a nonsensical statement. Under H there is no separate "self" that could be connected in any way to two separate organisms. Under H each organism manifests a sense of self.

If I understand what you're saying, that's the point... I'm trying to show that H is wrong, cause it's so unlikely for me to exist right now if H (if everything is physical).

But you cannot do this. In all your attempts you have to dress up H as a straw man, with all sorts of nonsense you just make up and try to get your critics to agree should be part of H.

If you are trying to reckon P(E|H) you must use H as it is formulated, not H as you somehow imagine it or wish it to be.

 

[JayUtah]

Does anything that is currently only potential actually exist?

No. "Potential" is expressly an antonym to "actual."

However, your argument is firmly predicated on the premise that "potential selves" exist in a countable form. It is your burden to prove they do. You have not done so, and you have thoroughly ignored all the reasons given for why it can't. When it's pointed out to you that if your premise were true, nothing would exist, you beg the question that "potential selves" are somehow magically different than "potential" anything elses.

Seems to me that this is one place where our language is not up to the task.

Our language is fine. The concept you're trying to push is broken, as has been demonstrated. Don't mistake the flaws in your thinking for flaws in the language.

 

[Belz...]

As usual, jabba ignores the most important questions and requests.

 

[Mojo]

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

Under H this is simply a nonsensical statement.

Not if the person who had been perfectly reproduced had two sets of eyes.

 

[Mojo]

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

Jabba,
- How many eyes do you have?

 

[JesseCuster]

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

What has this oddball idea of a sense of self looking out multiple sets of eyes got to do with anything? I'm new to this debate, but I've read enough of it to see that a lot of the points you're arguing don't seem to be particularly cogent.

A self is intimately tied to the working brain that produces it as an emergent process, so obviously perfectly reproducing a brain with connected eyes wouldn't result in a sense of self looking through 2 sets of eyes, it would result in a new sense of self looking through a new set of eyes. But what does it have to do with anything? Does anything about this make your case for immortality any better?

It just seems like you're arguing anything for the sake of having something to argue about.

 

[JesseCuster]

Jesse,
- Does anything that is currently only potential actually exist?
- Seems to me that this is one place where our language is not up to the task.

I will note for the record that you haven't (again) answered the actual question.

You've repeatedly made reference to an infinite pool of potential selves. You've wriggled your way through what that means and what language you use, but it's a concept you're clearly hung up on and it's important to your case.

But I want to know if you think that other concepts, apart from selves, have potential existence. Is their actual existence they are drawn from an infinitely sized pool of potential existence?

You can see where I'm obviously going with this. If other things, processes, emergent properties, etc. do come from infinitely sized pools of potential existence, then the obvious conclusion, using your own logic, is that you must think that everything is immortal as its chance of existence is virtually zero, according to your own logic.

Either that or you must resort to special pleading to argue that there's something different about the sense of self that means it, for some reason, comes from a limitless pool of potential existence, while other things, for some reason, don't.

So which is it Jabba, is everything immortal, or is there something special about consciousness? Can you explain why your argument is valid for concluding an immortal self but not for arguing immortal everything? Or do you think that everything single object, process, emergent property, etc. is immortal? Failure to avoid answering the question makes it look like you're deliberately avoiding giving a straight answer because you know it makes your argument look as weak as it really is.

 

[JayUtah]

What has this oddball idea of a sense of self looking out multiple sets of eyes got to do with anything?

It was a thought experiment intended to illustrate the difference between materialism and Jabba's idea of a soul. Specifically it illustrates the difference between the physical organism being a conduit or container for a soul, in which the properties of life are speculated to be vested, and the physical organism being the producer, via cognition etc., of the subjective sense of self -- consciousness.

The gist of it is to predict what would happen if it were hypothetically possible to duplicate a physical organism in perfect fidelity -- something that's obviously impossible practically. Apparently Jabba initially believed this would be a highly problematic issue for his critics.

It just seems like you're arguing anything for the sake of having something to argue about.

Jabba has abused the thought experiment in numerous way, as you say -- not always in ways that relate to or help his case. He's tried to use the impracticality of the thought experiment as an argument that a sense of self cannot be duplicated, therefore there must be an infinite number of them. He's trying to say that if the cardinality is greater than one, then the sense of self thus produced must be somehow different (not merely distinct) from the original. And yes, his critics have generally seen through these various absurd obfuscations.

 

[Loss Leader]

Jesse,
- Does anything that is currently only potential actually exist?

Jabba -

Let's ask ourselves a simple question.

Of the following:

1. The Yankees win the 2017 World Series
2. The Blue Jays win the 2017 World Series
3. The Red Sox win the 2017 World Series
4. The Braves win the 2017 World Series
5. The Dodgers win the 2017 World Series

All of these have the potential to exist eventually. Which of these actually exist right now?

 

[Jabba]

1) Do you understand that a self that could look out two sets of eyes cannot exist in H?

2) I want to make sure we're talking about the same kind of self.

#1. Yes. But, That's the point. Such a self would probably require something non-physical.
#2. If you accepted that you and I are valid targets, would you agree that our current existence is evidence against everything being physical?

 

[Hokulele]

#1. Yes. But, That's the point. Such a self would probably require something non-physical.

Right, so it can't exist under H, so you can't use it to quantify anything for P(E|H). Using it to generate your denominator of infinity is inherently dishonest.

 

[godless dave]

#1. Yes. But, That's the point. Such a self would probably require something non-physical.

Since there's no evidence such selves exist, we have no reason to suspect the existence of something nonphysical.

#2. If you accepted that you and I are valid targets, would you agree that our current existence is evidence against everything being physical?

I don't accept that we're valid targets. We are two of a huge number of possible outcomes. I don't see how our current existence is evidence against everything being physical.

 

[Mojo]

#1. Yes. But, That's the point. Such a self would probably require something non-physical.
#2. If you accepted that you and I are valid targets, would you agree that our current existence is evidence against everything being physical?

Jabba,
- Do you agree that your and Dave's current existence is evidence against the existence of souls?

 

[jond]

#1. Yes. But, That's the point. Such a self would probably require something non-physical.
#2. If you accepted that you and I are valid targets, would you agree that our current existence is evidence against everything being physical?

Maybe you missed this response before:

But however unlikely it is that your brain exists if everything is physical, it is still more likely than your version. Because you still have to account for your brain existing if you include a non physical soul.

Follow:
1. under H, the likelihood of your brain existing = X.
2. under Jabba's H: the likelihood of your brain existing =X; the likelihood of your soul existing =Y; the likelihood of your soul and your brain connecting is Z.
3. X+Y+Z is always going to be more than X alone.

I don't care how unlikely X is, because it's unlikely existence is necessary for both H and your ~H.

 

[JayUtah]

#1. Yes. But, That's the point. Such a self would probably require something non-physical.

The claim that the same self would look out through two sets of (duplicated) eyes is simply nonsensical under H. The claim that there are a different number of selves than sets of eyes is nonsensical under H. Under H the self is a property produced by the process of consciousness. There are exactly as many instances of that as there are viable organisms at any given moment.

Formulate what you want for ~H, but leave H the way it is, please.

If you accepted that you and I are valid targets, would you agree that our current existence is evidence against everything being physical?

No, your argument still commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Asking people to agree that it doesn't, doesn't make your argument suddenly start working.

 

[The Norseman]

Beliefnet stands ready and willing to embrace anyone with a theory of anything.

Well, color me unsurprised such a place exists.

I don't, as indicated.

You were saying "don't prove anything" so I understand you to mean that coming to a website or forum making a claim with no proof essentially means taking their word for it. In this instance, there is only "evidence" and "no evidence" given for a claim. "No evidence" given means "believe based on nothing but what I tell you", i.e., "take my word for it."

When proof is obviously impossible, but one may still want to hypothesize about something,

Yes. And? No problem with that, either here or wherever. This thread you are posting in, however, explicitly claims there is proof/evidence and the OP has it and will present it.

it doesn't pay to give a rat's ass whether anyone thinks you're making any sense or not. That attitude won't do anything but stifle creativity.

Hahahahahaha! O rly? Okay, well, if being nonsensical floats your boat, who am I to stand in the way? Have fun with that "communication" thing!

And it certainly wouldn't make any sense to try to prove it. Not only because it can't be proved, but also because if, by some miracle of logic, you could prove something like that, it would be paradigm-changing, and you should keep your mouth shut. So there is absolutely no reason to try to prove anything like that, ever, in a forum.

So I really don't see anything unreasonable about what I said.

'Impossible' thought experiments are great and can prod actually productive thoughts (kinda like brain-storming) but remember the OP is presenting actual evidence that this impossible thing is actual reality.

No, you ran away from it.

Follow:
1. under H, the likelihood of your brain existing = X.
2. under Jabba's ~H: the likelihood of your brain existing =X; the likelihood of your soul existing =y; the likelihood of your soul and your brain connecting is Z.
3. X+Y+Z is always going to be more than X alone.

I don't care how unlikely X is, because it's unlikely existence is necessary for both H and your ~H.

Perhaps you might change your post slightly based on his few latest 'ideas', thusly:

Follow:
1. under H, the lielihood of your brain existing = X
2. under Jabba's ~H, the lielihood of your brain existing = X, the likelihood of some sort of transmitter existing and transmitting 'soul'-like stuff = y; the likelihood of your brain being a receiver of this undetectable transmission and receive the correct signal = z
x + y + z is always going to be more than x alone.

1. How do I know you're not the one who is anti-intellectual? Evidence seems scarce.

The evidence is actually reading what he posts here (and there's quite a lot of it) and it's certainly 180⁰ from anti-intellectualism.

If you even care whether I think you are an intellectual whose opinion I should run scared from, you could demonstrate your creative intellectuality in some manner more substantial than daily rote criticism.

Who ever said anything about running scared or that you should do so?

JoeBentley posts more than "daily rote criticism" but if you decide not to read what he writes with a blanket dismissal, then that's fine.

 

[JesseCuster]

It was a thought experiment intended to illustrate the difference between materialism and Jabba's idea of a soul. Specifically it illustrates the difference between the physical organism being a conduit or container for a soul, in which the properties of life are speculated to be vested, and the physical organism being the producer, via cognition etc., of the subjective sense of self -- consciousness.

The gist of it is to predict what would happen if it were hypothetically possible to duplicate a physical organism in perfect fidelity -- something that's obviously impossible practically. Apparently Jabba initially believed this would be a highly problematic issue for his critics.



Jabba has abused the thought experiment in numerous way, as you say -- not always in ways that relate to or help his case. He's tried to use the impracticality of the thought experiment as an argument that a sense of self cannot be duplicated, therefore there must be an infinite number of them. He's trying to say that if the cardinality is greater than one, then the sense of self thus produced must be somehow different (not merely distinct) from the original. And yes, his critics have generally seen through these various absurd obfuscations.

I admire your patience and ability to follow and comprehend this discussion after all this time.

I'm trying to get a grip on the discussion, but I don't have much tolerance for meandering discussions like this that don't seem to go anywhere. A lot of Jabba's posts just seem to me to be going nowhere obvious, arguing things that don't seem to apparently benefit his case one way or the other.

At least not to me.