Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[theprestige]

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

But this just the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy writ large.

 

[godless dave]

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

I understand there are two of them. What is different between them?

 

[godless dave]

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

That's the only time I could have existed, because my existence depends on my parents' existence.

Not to mention that modern homo saiens have only been around for about 200,000 years and almost cetainly will continue evolving and eventually go extinct

 

[godless dave]

Accidental double post.

 

[JesseCuster]

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

By that logic, the likelihood that the current time would be any time is something over infinity, therefore it's impossible for anything to exist at any point in time.

Therefore nothing exists. Or everything is immortal. Or everything has a soul. Or something.

 

[Loss Leader]

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.

Prove #1.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Non sequitur.

 

[Mojo]

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?

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

The duplicate Jabba would have its own self awareness. How would it differ from yours?

 

[jond]

That's the only time I could have existed, because my existence depends on my parents' existence.

Not to mention that modern homo saiens have only been around for about 200,000 years and almost cetainly will continue evolving and eventually go extinct

At this point, it seems liked Jabba is desperately flailing to keep this thing alive. This new development in his argument is quite absurd.

 

[The Sparrow]

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.

Bump for Jabba.

 

[Mojo]

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.

"ME" is just your latest attempt to beg the question. Under the hypothesis you claim to be trying to disprove, such an entity doesn't exist, and consciousness is caused by brain processes.

 

[Pixel42]

At this point, it seems liked Jabba is desperately flailing to keep this thing alive. This new development in his argument is quite absurd.

It's not a new development, he's attempted to argue it before. To him the fact that he exists at this particular time has always been as astonishing as the fact that he exists at all. It's the Texas sharpshooter fallacy squared.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't think that's exactly right. It's not that Jabba doesn't dare to invoke divine intervention, it's more like he believes that his unwavering dedication to unevidenced assertion will eventually convince the opposition to accept those assertions as truth.

Personally, I don't believe that anyone would sincerely pursue such a folly, but I have no evidence to support my belief.

He's essentially said as much on other boards and his own blog/forum; he doesn't say it here because he's trying to maintain that thin veneer of "science" and "logic" to "prove" stuff he simply believes in.

Stonewalling works. Which is to say it produces a result that can easily be spun to look like success. You simply repeat the nonsense over and over, and sooner or later your critics realize you're not at all interested in actually debating and then they flounce. You get to spin the result as having prevailed by simply persisting in The Truth until your critics realize they can't refute you.

Yep, Jabba has done this before too.

 

[The Sparrow]

For kicks I will attempt to summarize Jabba's position at this point.

1.Self awareness is really awesome and cool. I can't imagine how it could arise from a chemical/biological process.
2. I don't wanna die and have my self awareness stop.
3. Infinity is a real real real big number, and the fact that a particular configuration was actualized out of a possibly infinite number of possible configurations seems really really really unlikely.
4. Because of 3, there can't really be an infinite # of configurations. There must be a limited set that are being re-used.
5. I am being re-used.
6. I will never stop existing and am therefore immortal.



is that about right?

Personally I don't get #3 because single possibilities of configurations are being actualized ALL THE TIME. Like Bananas.

 

[jond]

It's not a new development, he's attempted to argue it before. To him the fact that he exists at this particular time has always been as astonishing as the fact that he exists at all. It's the Texas sharpshooter fallacy squared.

Hmm, must've been so wrapped up in other absurdities that I missed it. But yes. It's another bullet hole circled post facto.

 

[The Norseman]

For kicks I will attempt to summarize Jabba's position at this point.

1.Self awareness is really awesome and cool. I can't imagine how it could arise from a chemical/biological process.
2. I don't wanna die and have my self awareness stop.
3. Infinity is a real real real big number, and the fact that a particular configuration was actualized out of a possibly infinite number of possible configurations seems really really really unlikely.
4. Because of 3, there can't really be an infinite # of configurations. There must be a limited set that are being re-used.
5. I am being re-used.
6. I will never stop existing and am therefore immortal.



is that about right?

Personally I don't get #3 because single possibilities of configurations are being actualized ALL THE TIME. Like Bananas.

I think it's really closer to:

1. I am a good, god-fearing Christian
2. I believe in what the Bible teaches about us humans
3. This sense of self could not possibly be created by biological means therefore the Bible is correct and God gave us all souls
4. I once took a logic course or read a website on Bayes Theorem and realized how thrilling it would be to have actual proof of souls (and thus immortality), just like the Shroud of Turin is proof that Jesus existed and therefore that the Bible is truly the word of God
5. I taught myself Bayes and made my own blog about this stuff and the rest of the Christians really loved it
6. I really am ready to stick it to those so-called "skeptics" and horrible atheists so I'll go to this one website ready to destroy their puny arguments
7. After several months of being systematically, methodically annihalated on all fronts, I think I'll, in desperation, do whatever I can to keep from seeing that I've been wrong about my proofs
8. But I can't be seen to "lose" so I'll have to do this for the rest of my life so I don't have to actually face the idea that there might not be a God nor a heaven nor souls after all


The rest of what you're trying to write and make sense of is his attempts at refuting every new argument that comes up, one at a time, never once thinking of what the consequences of the new argument is or would be, so he's constantly caught off-guard and is constantly scrambling to cover the new flaw once he's had his face rubbed into it long enough that he actually sees it for what it is.

 

[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.

Prove #1.

LL,
- I can't.
- It is my understanding that Dave and others agree -- so I was sort of "going from there."
- From my understanding, some identical twins do not share the same genome -- but others do. These others do not look out of each other's eyes.
- Also, clones don't seem to look out of each others eyes.
- Hopefully, you agree with me that such is evidence that producing an identical brain after my death would not bring me back to life.
- And, if that's true, there must be an infinity of potential different MEs -- and also, we don't have a clue as to what determines WHO the specific ME will be.

 

[jond]

LL,
- I can't.
- It is my understanding that Dave and others agree -- so I was sort of "going from there."
- From my understanding, some identical twins do not share the same genome -- but others do. These others do not look out of each other's eyes.
- Also, clones don't seem to look out of each others eyes.
- Hopefully, you agree with me that such is evidence that producing an identical brain after my death would not bring me back to life.
- And, if that's true, there must be an infinity of potential different MEs -- and also, we don't have a clue as to what determines WHO the specific ME will be.

Jabba, since you agree that both the original and the clone would both think they are Jabba, and since you agree that there is nothing about them which would be different, how can you possibly still be on this absurd track? They would both be "ME" and no one would have any way of knowing which was which.

And if you EVER paid attention to anything anyone writes, you would stop the nonsense of "we don't have a clue as to what determines WHO the specific ME will be." We know perfectly well that it's the combination of genes and every experience a person has that creates the ME. And it isn't an entity but is instead an ongoing process. Your refusal to even acknowledge this fact is getting way beyond tiresome.

 

[JesseCuster]

LL,
- I can't.
- It is my understanding that Dave and others agree -- so I was sort of "going from there."
- From my understanding, some identical twins do not share the same genome -- but others do. These others do not look out of each other's eyes.
- Also, clones don't seem to look out of each others eyes.
- Hopefully, you agree with me that such is evidence that producing an identical brain after my death would not bring me back to life.
- And, if that's true, there must be an infinity of potential different MEs -- and also, we don't have a clue as to what determines WHO the specific ME will be.

Yes we do. The WHO will be a perfect replica of the ME that is an emergent property of the body and brain that is perfectly replicated.

What's so hard to grasp about this? More importantly, what's not so blazingly obvious about this? What am I missing?

 

[godless dave]

LL,
- I can't.
- It is my understanding that Dave and others agree -- so I was sort of "going from there."
- From my understanding, some identical twins do not share the same genome -- but others do. These others do not look out of each other's eyes.
- Also, clones don't seem to look out of each others eyes.
- Hopefully, you agree with me that such is evidence that producing an identical brain after my death would not bring me back to life.
-And, if that's true, there must be an infinity of potential different MEs -- and also, we don't have a clue as to what determines WHO the specific ME will be.

The highlighted is what I don't agree with. It doesn't follow from the previous.

An identical copy of your brain would produce an identical copy of your self. There would be no difference between them.