Proof of Immortality, VI

[RoboTimbo]

- And, if the copy does not bring the original self SOUL back to life, isn't there a difference between the two selves SOULS -- other than there separateness?

Now you can see what everyone else sees.

Are there simpler words that would allow you to understand?

 

[The Sparrow]

Looks like we can add this to the list of posts that Jabba asked for a response and then ignored the answer. How unsurprising...

Well, it wasn't the answer he was hoping for. He will keep trying though.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,

- Still hoping (against hope) that if I say this just right you'll see what I mean...

[...]

You're groveling for agreement again.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, I'm confused. Here are some excerpts of the last time we discussed this duplication scenario:

Jabba, you seem to be implying that this:

- How about the barer of consciousness? The 'thing' that recognizes or experiences existence. Whatever it is that is aware.

suggests this:

...
that which would be looking out two sets of eyes if it were actually duplicated.

Can you explain why the one suggests the other to you?

Dave,
- I probably can't do any better than before -- but by duplicating 'me,' it would be as if I were a computer with a camera, and you're really just duplicating my camera. In this analogy, my "self" is the receiver of the info being gathered by the camera.

Why wouldn't it be possible to duplicate the receiver as well as the camera?

Dave,
- As often happens, it took me a while to understand (or think that I understand) at what you are getting...
- But first, it isn't an issue of "possible" -- I don't think that any of this is possible.
- I think that the issue has to do with the way I described the "self" a long time ago. I said that maybe the physical brain was just the receiver of the consciousness -- that it didn't actually produce the consciousness.

The highlighted text obviously refers to a possible nature of the experience of self, not to the experience of self. At the time you seemed to understand that there's nothing about the experience that suggests that duplicating it would result in one thing looking out of two sets of eyes. Your idea of the physical brain as the receiver of consciousness is a model of the nature of the self, a model of what underlies that experience. It's obviously not the model in H.

So you understood this at one point in the discussion. I don't understand why you're backtracking now.

 

[Loss Leader]

Jabba -

Have you researched the beliefs of Hindus, Buddhists or any other religion with reincarnation yet? It's remarkably easy. I imagine folks on the forums I provided would be very glad to explain it to you.

 

[Belz...]

- Still hoping (against hope) that if I say this just right you'll see what I mean...

It's not that you're using the wrong words, Jabba. It's that you're wrong.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, I'm confused. Here are some excerpts of the last time we discussed this duplication scenario:

Originally Posted by godless dave
Jabba, you seem to be implying that this:

Originally Posted by Jabba
- How about the barer of consciousness? The 'thing' that recognizes or experiences existence. Whatever it is that is aware.
suggests this:

Originally Posted by Jabba
...
that which would be looking out two sets of eyes if it were actually duplicated.
Can you explain why the one suggests the other to you?

Originally Posted by Jabba
Dave,
- I probably can't do any better than before -- but by duplicating 'me,' it would be as if I were a computer with a camera, and you're really just duplicating my camera. In this analogy, my "self" is the receiver of the info being gathered by the camera.

Originally Posted by godless dave
Why wouldn't it be possible to duplicate the receiver as well as the camera?

Originally Posted by Jabba
Dave,
- As often happens, it took me a while to understand (or think that I understand) at what you are getting...
- But first, it isn't an issue of "possible" -- I don't think that any of this is possible.
- I think that the issue has to do with the way I described the "self" a long time ago. I said that maybe the physical brain was just the receiver of the consciousness -- that it didn't actually produce the consciousness.
The highlighted text obviously refers to a possible nature of the experience of self, not to the experience of self. At the time you seemed to understand that there's nothing about the experience that suggests that duplicating it would result in one thing looking out of two sets of eyes. Your idea of the physical brain as the receiver of consciousness is a model of the nature of the self, a model of what underlies that experience. It's obviously not the model in H.

So you understood this at one point in the discussion. I don't understand why you're backtracking now.

Dave,
- I don't know that we'll ever get anywhere in our discussion, but it's certainly an interesting discussion (for me at least) simply due to the difficulty we're having in really understanding each other -- when I suspect that we are both relatively intelligent...
- I keep hoping that we can eventually succeed, but so far, that seems unlikely.

- Anyway, from my perspective, we do seem to be talking about the same sense of self -- the same experience.
- I claim that H (OOFLam) provides a piece of the materialist model of that self, a piece of its materialist nature -- whereas, ~H provides the complement to that piece.
- And it's these positions re the nature of the self that are exactly what the Bayesian formula is supposed to be comparing.

- For now, I'd like to postpone a further discussion about cameras, receivers and two sets of eyes -- that will require further thought.

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave,
- I don't know that we'll ever get anywhere in our discussion, but it's certainly an interesting discussion (for me at least) simply due to the difficulty we're having in really understanding each other -- when I suspect that we are both relatively intelligent...

We understand you perfectly

- I keep hoping that we can eventually succeed, but so far, that seems unlikely.

Because you ignore anything that doesn't agree with your myth.

- Anyway, from my perspective, we do seem to be talking about the same sense of self -- the same experience.

This again?

- I claim that H (OOFLam) provides a piece of the materialist model of that self, a piece of its materialist nature -- whereas, ~H provides the complement to that piece.
- And it's these positions re the nature of the self that are exactly what the Bayesian formula is supposed to be comparing.

I'll leave this gibberish to Jay.

- For now, I'd like to postpone a further discussion about cameras, receivers and two sets of eyes -- that will require further thought.

But you won't think about it further, you will just re-post it in a few days or weeks as if we are starting from square zero again.
You have no interest in what anyone says, unless you can somehow twist/contort/torture it to support your myth.

 

[jsfisher]

Dave,
- I don't know that we'll ever get anywhere in our discussion, but it's certainly an interesting discussion (for me at least) simply due to the difficulty we're having in really understanding each other -- when I suspect that we are both relatively intelligent...
- I keep hoping that we can eventually succeed, but so far, that seems unlikely.

No, Jabba, this is flatly untrue. You do not seek anyone's comprehension of your position (which in fact you already have); you seek agreement. You cycle endlessly through the same flimsy arguments, ignoring any well-formed rebuttals, in the desperate hope someone will finally agree with you.

We don't.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't know that we'll ever get anywhere in our discussion, but it's certainly an interesting discussion (for me at least) simply due to the difficulty we're having in really understanding each other -- when I suspect that we are both relatively intelligent...

Oh save your breadbuttering Jabba. The entire fact of this discussion being a non-starter rest solely and completely on your shoulders. You haven't even taken the babiest of steps in actually addressing your opponents points.

And you're still maintaining this condescending, speaking down to us attitude, as if its our fault we aren't just accepting your gibberish. Or hell at this point you asking us to accept your gibberish instead of your silly "You have to agree to accept my gibberish before we even begin game" you are playing.

I keep hoping that we can eventually succeed, but so far, that seems unlikely.

Then you'll have to abandon this absurd fantasy you are trying to create where you humble the big mean skeptics with your "Patented debate style."

Engage us in an open and honest discussion Jabba.

Anyway, from my perspective, we do seem to be talking about the same sense of self -- the same experience.
- I claim that H (OOFLam) provides a piece of the materialist model of that self, a piece of its materialist nature -- whereas, ~H provides the complement to that piece.
- And it's these positions re the nature of the self that are exactly what the Bayesian formula is supposed to be comparing.

And this is all the same gibberish that multiple people have already laid out their problems with a billion times.

For now, I'd like to postpone a further discussion about cameras, receivers and two sets of eyes -- that will require further thought.

But you won't. You'll fringe reset and come back with the same gibberish slightly re-worded, not even granting us the base level of respect to assume we'll be able to see through it.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't know that we'll ever get anywhere in our discussion...

You don't want the discussion to go anywhere, and none of your behavior is consistent with that goal. For more than four years you have just churned through the same nonsense, paying hardly any attention to anything said in this forum that wasn't said by you. Oh sure, you've glommed onto a few passers-by when it seemed that they were willing to accept your conclusion without an argument. But for the most part your debate has only two moves: (1) repeat your claim, (2) blame something else for your failure.

If you simply want approval for having come up with a clever proof, you're going to have to go someplace where mathematics and logic are not well known. You are in a skeptics' forum. Your argument has been properly refuted many times over. You have no answer for it. You're done.

Anyway, from my perspective, we do seem to be talking about the same sense of self -- the same experience.

Your perspective is simply your standard equivocation. It's clear from the previous debate today that you intend "experience" to mean "soul." It's today's word to hide behind in the charade you admitted you were playing.

I claim that H (OOFLam) provides a piece of the materialist model of that self, a piece of its materialist nature -- whereas, ~H provides the complement to that piece.

One of the individually fatal flaws I identified in your argument is your inability to discern what the different parts of a statistical inference are and cast them in their proper roles. This sentence is perfect evidence of that inability.

E is the data, the sense of self-awareness. H and ~H don't live in the same universe. P(E|H) and P(E|~H) cannot just mix and match concepts to come up with some intermediate truth. Please take a class or something. How many professional statisticians have told you your argument is nonsense for this reason?

And it's these positions re the nature of the self that are exactly what the Bayesian formula is supposed to be comparing.

Some months ago you admitted you didn't understand what the Bayesian formula was trying to do. Can it possibly be that your inability to prove your point with the proffered method is due to that lack of understanding on your part? Are you honestly asking your critics to give you the benefit of the doubt (even if there were any) after admitting ignorance?

For now, I'd like to postpone a further discussion about cameras, receivers and two sets of eyes -- that will require further thought.

These were your proposals, clearly not very well thought out. If you want to concede that they have been properly rebutted, now is the time to do so. Simply announcing that you don't want to have that part of the argument anymore is your standard dodge. The thread only talks about what you want to talk about, and when you get backed into a corner you blame everything under the sun for having been backed in there. This time you're just nonchalantly declaring your refuted points irrelevant.

Yes, your argument as a whole needs quite a lot of further thought. I've compiled a list of flaws, each of which is individually fatal to your claim. Before you waste any more of your critics' time it would be well for you to write a few sentences for each one telling us how you plan to get over them. We know you know the list exists. Hence your disinterest in it amounts to an admission that you really can't progress this debate and have no interest in doing so.

 

[Belz...]

- I don't know that we'll ever get anywhere in our discussion, but it's certainly an interesting discussion (for me at least) simply due to the difficulty we're having in really understanding each other

No one has any difficulty understanding you.

 

[John Jones]

nvm

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I don't know that we'll ever get anywhere in our discussion, but it's certainly an interesting discussion (for me at least) simply due to the difficulty we're having in really understanding each other -- when I suspect that we are both relatively intelligent...
[...]

You've never had a discussion on ISF. Everyone here understands what you're saying. You can't understand what your interlocutors are saying and you never have, despite having it repeated again and again and again. Your claim to intelligence definitely requires some empirical evidence that is absent at the moment.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave,
- I don't know that we'll ever get anywhere in our discussion,

So, mission accomplished then.

but it's certainly an interesting discussion (for me at least) simply due to the difficulty we're having in really understanding each other

That was a lie. We are having no difficulty understanding you. You're arguing at a kindergarten level.

-- when I suspect that we are both relatively intelligent...

I suspect you're half right.

- I keep hoping that we can eventually succeed, but so far, that seems unlikely.

Another lie. That's actually the last thing you want to happen.

- Anyway, from my perspective, we do seem to be talking about the same sense of self -- the same experience.

But you keep trying to obfuscate by dishonestly mixing in the nature of that experience. Everyone sees it because you're basically arguing at a kindergarten level.

- I claim that H (OOFLam) provides a piece of the materialist model of that self, a piece of its materialist nature -- whereas, ~H provides the complement to that piece.
- And it's these positions re the nature of the self that are exactly what the Bayesian formula is supposed to be comparing.

And you have been roundly spanked at trying to use Bayes because you are at a kindergarten level of knowing anything about it.

- For now, I'd like to postpone a further discussion about cameras, receivers and two sets of eyes -- that will require further thought.

Do you understand you could have gotten an advanced degree in the time it's taken you to fail to understand anything that's been said to you?

 

[Loss Leader]

- For now, I'd like to postpone a further discussion about cameras, receivers and two sets of eyes -- that will require further thought.

Great news.

Now is the perfect opportunity for you to find people in religions with reincarnation and ask them to explain their beliefs about the subject.

Or you could talk to some of the professors in the theology department at SUNY Albany.

 

[jsfisher]

Great news.

Now is the perfect opportunity for you to find people in religions with reincarnation and ask them to explain their beliefs about the subject.

Or you could talk to some of the professors in the theology department at SUNY Albany.

He also has Union College nearby.

 

[sackett]

Unfortunately, univ faculty are bothered by cranks, excuse me, laymen all the time. When they recieve a communication that defies intelligent commentary, the usual brushoff is something like, "We don't feel qualified to evaluate this material."

I mean, what would YOU do in their situation?

 

[carlitos]

The reincarnation comments reminded me of a though I had recently during my daily check-in to this train wreck.

Jabba is proving reincarnation in a daily way with his method of argument. Maybe he did find a Buddhist and they told him to watch the movie Groundhog Day, in which Harold Ramis does a little Buddhist light with Bill Murray's character. However, that character actually learned something each day and finally got it at the end.

Maybe this thread is more like the movie Momento, and our protagonist keeps losing his sticky notes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Loss Leader]

Unfortunately, univ faculty are bothered by cranks, excuse me, laymen all the time. When they recieve a communication that defies intelligent commentary, the usual brushoff is something like, "We don't feel qualified to evaluate this material."

I mean, what would YOU do in their situation?

He's not supposed to be foisting his theories on them. He's supposed to be asking them for help understanding exactly how various religions conceive of reincarnation. If I were a professor of the subject, I would be happy to send him a couple links.