Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Jabba]

LL,
- My reasoning:
1. A perfect replication of my brain would not bring ME back to life.
2. That ME is not cause and effect traceable.

Both the original you and the perfect replica of you would be cause and effect traceable.

- But ME is not.

 

[godless dave]

- But ME is not.

Why not? Every self aware brain thinks of itself as "me". It doesn't need some identity property to know which one it is. It's refering to itself.

What's not cause and effect traceable about it?

 

[Jabba]

In this case he is correct, I agree that there are an infinite number of potential Volkswagens in exactly the same way there are an infinite number of potential humans.

And those infinities of potentials are completely irrelevant to the likelihood of a particular Volkswagen or human existing, for the same reasons.

Dave,
- You're leaving out a word that I think is critical to the whole argument. That word is "currently." The likelihood of me currently existing under OOFLam is certainly much smaller than the likelihood of me currently existing under ~OOFLam -- and, I think it's infinitely smaller.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- You're leaving out a word that I think is critical to the whole argument. That word is "currently." The likelihood of me currently existing under OOFLam is certainly much smaller than the likelihood of me currently existing under ~OOFLam -- and, I think it's infinitely smaller.

You still haven't explained why it's critical.

Remember, at the current time I have already existed for almost 47 years, so the likelihood of me continuing to exist is pretty high.

 

[Jabba]

- But ME is not.

Why not? Every self aware brain thinks of itself as "me". It doesn't need some identity property to know which one it is. It's refering to itself.

What's not cause and effect traceable about it?

- But you agree that whatever it is that I'm calling me cannot be brought back to life. Can't we infer that that ME is not cause and effect traceable? After all, we cannot re-create that ME by reproducing my exact chemistry.

 

[godless dave]

- But you agree that whatever it is that I'm calling me cannot be brought back to life. Can't we infer that that ME is not cause and effect traceable?

I don't see how. We can't bring back the same Volkswagen either, but we accept cause and effect for the production of a Volkswagen.

After all, we cannot re-create that ME by reproducing my exact chemistry.

We could create one exactly like it. There would be no difference between the two.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- You're leaving out a word that I think is critical to the whole argument. That word is "currently." The likelihood of me currently existing under OOFLam is certainly much smaller than the likelihood of me currently existing under ~OOFLam -- and, I think it's infinitely smaller.

You still haven't explained why it's critical.

Remember, at the current time I have already existed for almost 47 years, so the likelihood of me continuing to exist is pretty high.

Dave,
- It's critical because the current time happens to be part of your time -- it is much more likely to have been outside of your time.

 

[JesseCuster]

- But you agree that whatever it is that I'm calling me cannot be brought back to life. Can't we infer that that ME is not cause and effect traceable? After all, we cannot re-create that ME by reproducing my exact chemistry.

But why is that relevant?

So let's agree that duplicating your exact chemistry would create a replica of your self that's distinct from the original self.

So what?

Your original self is very much cause and effect traceable. It's an emergent property of your working brain which is very much the result of a cause and effect sequence of events.

Why would the fact that that original self can only be recreated in a way that creates a distinct duplicate of your self and not in a way that creates a continuation of your original self mean that it's not cause and effect traceable?

I genuinely don't understand this.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- It's critical because the current time happens to be part of your time -- it is much more likely to have been outside of your time.

If it were outside of the time I was alive it would never be the current time from my perspective. There's nothing special about the current time.

 

[Jabba]

- But you agree that whatever it is that I'm calling me cannot be brought back to life. Can't we infer that that ME is not cause and effect traceable? After all, we cannot re-create that ME by reproducing my exact chemistry.

I don't see how. We can't bring back the same Volkswagen either, but we accept cause and effect for the production of a Volkswagen.



We could create one exactly like it. There would be no difference between the two.

Dave,
- There is nothing different between the old and new VWs, but there is something different between the old and new selves. That something different has to do with the emergent property in the selves.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- There is nothing different between the old and new VWs, but there is something different between the old and new selves. That something different has to do with the emergent property in the selves.

What's different between the old and new selves?

 

[JayUtah]

- But you agree that whatever it is that I'm calling me cannot be brought back to life.

No, because you're just circularly defining that "me" to be whatever it is you claim can't be brought back to life.

 

[JayUtah]

There is nothing different between the old and new VWs, but there is something different between the old and new selves.

Not under H there isn't.

That something different has to do with the emergent property in the selves.

No. Volkswagens have emergent properties. People have emergent properties. The properties of a Volkswagen, emergent or otherwise, are necessarily cause-and-effect traceable to the Volkswagen's physical configuration. The properties of a person are cause-and-effect traceable to the physical organism. Yes, H is that easy to talk about.

And no, "emergent property" is not just another name for soul.

 

[JayUtah]

A perfect replication of my brain would not bring ME back to life.

Yes it would. Under H there is no "you" that is not a property of the physical organism. As others have said, the proof of your proposition is not simply to repeat it.

 

[JayUtah]

Must admit, having difficulty following your meaning...

Not unexpected from someone who confesses he doesn't understand his own methods, and then amply proves he doesn't.

Assuming that "h" is same thing as "H"...

It isn't, and that was clear from my phrasing, "There is a difference between reckoning some P(x|h) as if some arbitrary h were true." Don't be deliberately obtuse.

Now go back and study until you can tell the difference between a prior and a likelihood.

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave,
- There is nothing different between the old and new VWs, but there is something different between the old and new selves. That something different has to do with the emergent property in the selves.

You would think that, if you thought you were composed of everything physical, PLUS a "soul" that was unique and necessary for the complete package to "work" and be a fully formed person.

Now all you need to do is prove/show/demonstrate that a unique Jabba-soul exists separately from the body and is necessary to "make" a Jabba.

 

[Jabba]

What's different between the old and new selves?

- ME. My self awareness will not come with my new self.

 

[The Sparrow]

- ME. My self awareness will not come with my new self.

Again, you would think that, if you thought you were composed of everything physical, PLUS a "soul", a "me" that was unique and necessary for the complete package to "work" and be a fully formed person.

Now all you need to do is prove/show/demonstrate that a unique Jabba-soul exists separately from the body and is necessary to "make" a Jabba.

 

[Jabba]

If it were outside of the time I was alive it would never be the current time from my perspective. There's nothing special about the current time.

- But the likelihood that time would currently be in the 20th or 21st century is 200 over infinity(?).

 

[JayUtah]

- ME. My self awareness will not come with my new self.

Under H it would. Under H everything that is you comes with your physical organism because it's a property of that organism. Make up whatever rules you want for ~H, but don't make the mistake of assuming H has to follow or explain them.