Proof of Immortality, VI

[Mojo]

What are the properties of this so-called dimension?

Well, obviously, it's going to be at 90 degrees to each of the first three, and whenever Jabba tries to point at it his hand vanishes.

 

[JayUtah]

If that's what the label says, you may well be drinking cheap whiskey, rather than single malt whisky.

I'm content to get at least 51% of the letters right in any brand of scotch.

Jabba is simply wrong; the fact that he persists in being wrong, in the teeth of ample corrections, doesn't make him right.

I believe it's enough for him to think he's right and to have some modicum of empirical evidence he can mentally spin to support that thought. He's already primed for the inevitable by noting that we are analytical thinkers while he is a holistic thinker. That could mean he just "augments" that puny analytical mathematics with his holistic beads and rattles and has a "holistic" mathematical proof.

People determined to delude themselves simply cannot be stopped, and most of us eventually grow tired of trying.

 

[Belz...]

(Voice muffled by desk) Anybody else want some?

I appreciate the gesture, but in my old age I've adopted the maxim that life is too short to drink cheap whiskey. *Reaches for the Glenfidditch...*

You kids don't know how to live dangerously. <reaches for a 2 litre of orange Crush.>




See you in the next (second and last) life.

 

[John Jones]

Well, obviously, it's going to be at 90 degrees to each of the first three, and whenever Jabba tries to point at it his hand vanishes.

Orthogonality. I'm sure he's heard of it.

 

[Peregrinus]

I'm content to get at least 51% of the letters right in any brand of scotch.

The corollary might be if you can off-hand spell the name correctly it's isn't good enough?

 

[JayUtah]

The corollary might be if you can off-hand spell the name correctly it's isn't good enough?

I would subscribe to that. "D-e-w-a-r-s," ah, no. "G-r-o-i-g-n-f-o-n-n-d-e-l," now we're talking.

 

[Hokulele]

- There is no difference in the usual "dimensions" (the usual "objective factors") -- but with the emergence of consciousness/self from the brain, we have a new dimension (a new factor, though maybe we can't call it "objective") that rocks and VWs do not have. And the two "persons" are different in that respect/dimension.

You are assuming that objective and subjective values are equal when it comes to assigning weight to them for comparing two hypotheses. This is the same flawed assumption that Toontown has been promoting all along. Although you can use subjective values in Bayesian analysis, you can only do so when it comes to calculating how new data will change the probability of an existing hypothesis, not when comparing two of them.

The other major problem you are clearly displaying throughout this thread is that you not only apply subjective value to people over rocks, you do so using an arbitrary hierarchy. There are all sorts of properties people can have, why focus solely on consciousness? We already know from another thread that you determine a person's value using other properties such as gender. Do you also use hair color? Skin color? Average internal temperature? If so, which properties are more or less important in determining a person's special "targetness"?

You see, by basing your comparison on your personal preferences, your argument can only hold for you. Not anyone else, unless they share your biases and bigotry. For example, you designate "targetness" by level of consciousness. My dog, however, designates "targetness" by level of bacon flavor, or sometimes by speed of movement. Why is your preference for a specific "targetness" more valid than hers?

(Hint, your preference is more valid to you, because it is purely subjective, and will never progress your argument beyond mere question begging.)

 

[Loss Leader]

- There is no difference in the usual "dimensions" (the usual "objective factors") -- but with the emergence of consciousness/self from the brain, we have a new dimension (a new factor, though maybe we can't call it "objective") that rocks and VWs do not have. And the two "persons" are different in that respect/dimension.

ASSUMING

THE

CONSEQUENT

 

[Waterman]

- There is no difference in the usual "dimensions" (the usual "objective factors") -- but with the emergence of consciousness/self from the brain, we have a new dimension (a new factor, though maybe we can't call it "objective") that rocks and VWs do not have. And the two "persons" are different in that respect/dimension.
- Also, the H model acknowledges that dimension. H and ~H just disagree about the nature of that dimension.

[- To brag some, I flew what we called an H model -- in Vietnam, a UH-1H.]

HERE the bold text is where you attempt to insert the concept of a immaterial component into the materialist definition. What is this dimension? How does it fit with the materialist definition? Under materialism is fits into the same categories as all other emergent properties of other things.

 

[abaddon]

- There is no difference in the usual "dimensions" (the usual "objective factors") -- but with the emergence of consciousness/self from the brain, we have a new dimension (a new factor, though maybe we can't call it "objective") that rocks and VWs do not have. And the two "persons" are different in that respect/dimension.
- Also, the H model acknowledges that dimension. H and ~H just disagree about the nature of that dimension.

[- To brag some, I flew what we called an H model -- in Vietnam, a UH-1H.]

Jabba, materialism by definition does not have these "extra dimensions".

 

[jond]

Jabba: in advance of your next fringe reset, may I suggest something? Rather than contemplate yet another way of saying the same thing you've been saying for the last five years, perhaps you might contemplate what everyone here (as well as every academic to whom you've brought this) has been telling you. Which is: you are wrong.

 

[Jabba]

Just to clarify, Jabba, when you are calculating P(E|H) it doesn't matter whether or not H is correct: you have to assume that H is correct and calculate the likelihood as if H is correct.

1) I've said the above, and am still waiting for a reply. You must calculate the probability of you existing in H as if H were correct. 2) Since, in H, there is nothing special about a sense of self as it is just an emergent property of the brain your argument would apply equally to things without this property...

SOdhner,
- Re #1. Agreed. Given H, the current existence of my self is unimaginably small.
- Re #2. No. Unfortunately here is where it gets confusing. The fact that under H there is nothing special about the self does not mean that my argument applies equally to things without such an emergent property. We of this thread have accepted that when all of the potential results of the situation are equally likely (or unlikely), for a particular event to be appropriate as E in the Bayes formula, it needs to be "set apart" from most other potential results in a way that is relevant to H. The example I use is the lottery winner being a 2nd cousin of the lottery controller. That makes him "special." Being a second cousin puts a target on his back.
- Anyway, my claim is that this emergent property of self is what sets me apart. Rocks don't have such an emergent property.

- And to me, that's the only real issue of my 'immortality' claim. Is my self really set apart? Obviously, I think that it is.

 

[godless dave]

SOdhner,
- Re #1. Agreed. Given H, the current existence of my self is unimaginably small.
- Re #2. No. Unfortunately here is where it gets confusing. The fact that under H there is nothing special about the self does not mean that my argument applies equally to things without such an emergent property. We of this thread have accepted that when all of the potential results of the situation are equally likely (or unlikely), for a particular event to be appropriate as E in the Bayes formula, it needs to be "set apart" from most other potential results in a way that is relevant to H. The example I use is the lottery winner being a 2nd cousin of the lottery controller. That makes him "special." Being a second cousin puts a target on his back.
- Anyway, my claim is that this emergent property of self is what sets me apart. Rocks don't have such an emergent property.

Nobody accepts that claim.

 

[Jabba]

That is the definition of copy. The copy is not the original. It is the same with anything, be it VWs, bananas, or people. The original is the original and the copy is the copy. Why is this so difficult?

Monza,
- In a human, there is an emergent property that would be different between the original and the copy. There is no such property in VWs.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Monza,
- In a human, there is an emergent property that would be different between the original and the copy. There is no such property in VWs.

In your own words, define "emergent property" for me.

 

[jsfisher]

An equivocation continues to be employed: The E at issue is not Jabba's existence; it is his sense of self.

Under the materialistic model, E is an emergent property of Jabba's functioning brain. E is very likely.

 

[godless dave]

Monza,
- In a human, there is an emergent property that would be different between the original and the copy. There is no such property in VWs.

Not under H. Under H the emergent properties would be identical.

 

[The Sparrow]

Monza,
- In a human, there is an emergent property that would be different between the original and the copy. There is no such property in VWs.

What is the difference?

The difference is ________ ?

Don't just say "i wont be bought back to life"

what SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES are different?

 

[Belz...]

Given H, the current existence of my self is unimaginably small.

Unsupported assertion. It also relies on the existence of souls, which is contrary to H. Your claim above is therefore a contradiction.

Unfortunately here is where it gets confusing.

No one else is confused.

We of this thread have accepted that when all of the potential results of the situation are equally likely (or unlikely), for a particular event to be appropriate as E in the Bayes formula, it needs to be "set apart" from most other potential results in a way that is relevant to H.

And you've not done that.

The example I use is the lottery winner being a 2nd cousin of the lottery controller. That makes him "special." Being a second cousin puts a target on his back.

No.

- Anyway, my claim is that

Stop repeating your claim.

this emergent property of self is what sets me apart.

Over a hundred billion people have had this property so far. Doesn't seem very special to me. In fact, it seems pretty much automatic in humans. Now, if you were the _only_ human with a self, you might have a point. You're not, so you don't.

Rocks don't have such an emergent property.

Rocks have other emergent properties. Why is your self so special? You've never answered this.

And to me, that's the only real issue of my 'immortality' claim. Is my self really set apart? Obviously, I think that it is.

Stop repeating your claim.

 

[Monza]

Monza,
- In a human, there is an emergent property that would be different between the original and the copy. There is no such property in VWs.

No. The emergent property would be an identical copy. It would be separate, but it would be identical. VWs have their own emergent properties.