Proof of Immortality, VI

[The Sparrow]

... The specific self of the new consciousness would be different than the specific self of the old consciousness.

yes yes yes. 2 matches, 2 flames. not 1 flame. 2 flames. Identical in all their attributes. indistinguishable. 2 flames.

- Whereas, the loaves of bread would appear to have no such difference.

2 smells. Identical smells in their attributes. But 2 of them. 2 processes of smells being produced.


2 brains, both producing the process of conciousness. 2 processes going on. 2. Identical in their attributes. But there are 2 of them.

loaf --- smell
brain -- conciousness -- illusion of selfhood

loaf #2 -- smell
brain #2 -- conciousness -- illusion of selfhood

Please explain the difference. I don't even understand why we are talking about it any more. Do you think brain #2 doesn't have a sense of self ??

 

[Darat]

As slippery and as diffuse as it has been this thread does have a topic. Keep to that topic. If you don't understand what the topic is then you probably shouldn't be posting in the thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Jabba]

- I think that's just a confuser of the issue.

- You're right to that extent. But that doesn't change the fact that something would be missing -- were we to reproduce the brain -- that would have no analog, were we to reproduce the bread. The second brain would also deliver the emergent property of consciousness, but our best guess is that it would not deliver the specific self of the first consciousness,

Of course it wouldn't, because one self can't be in two places at once. It would deliver an identical copy of that specific self, just like following a bread recipe a second time would result in an identical copy of the first loaf of bread...

Dave,
- Do you accept that the brain yields an emergent property that has no analog in a loaf of bread?

 

[Jabba]

Goddammit, Jabba, if it's not you, then who is it?

- Somebody else.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- Do you accept that the brain yields an emergent property that has no analog in a loaf of bread?

It is not immediately apparent how this makes a brain different from a second identical brain. Are you claiming that the second brain would lack the same emergent property of the first brain that the loaf of bread lacks?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Do you accept that the brain yields an emergent property that has no analog in a loaf of bread?

Yes, but nothing that would change the definitions of "reproduce", "copy", "same", or "different".

 

[JoeMorgue]

No he's claiming the second brain is different because God didn't put a soul in it.

Jabba doesn't know what an emergent property is. He's just parroting the word hoping we'll buy it.

 

[Mojo]

No he's claiming the second brain is different because God didn't put a soul in it.

Jabba's begging the question again?

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Do you accept that the brain yields an emergent property that has no analog in a loaf of bread?

Yes, but nothing that would change the definitions of "reproduce", "copy", "same", or "different".

- Yeah, but it's the emergent property (of the specific self) that I'm claiming is not cause and effect traceable.
- I think you've agreed that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life. It's that YOU that I'm calling your "specific self." The new specific self would not be YOU. And, scientifically speaking he would be a brand new WHO, and totally untraceable.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba's begging the question again?

As I've said before he left begging the question behind about 4 and a half years ago. He's guilt tripping the question. He's blackmailing the question. He's threatening the question at gunpoint.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Yeah, but it's the emergent property (of the specific self) that I'm claiming is not cause and effect traceable.

WE KNOW. You've been "claiming" this with no evidence for five years.

I think you've agreed that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life.

And you continue to be rude and dishonest by telling your opponents what they've agreed to.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- Yeah, but it's the emergent property (of the specific self) that I'm claiming is not cause and effect traceable.
- I think you've agreed that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life. It's that YOU that I'm calling your "specific self." The new specific self would not be YOU. And, scientifically speaking he would be a brand new WHO, and totally untraceable.

Who he is might be a matter of definition, but how can you even suggest that an emergent property is not cause and effect traceable? It is of curse traceable to the process of which it is an emergent property.

Hans

 

[Pixel42]

The instance of consciousness generated by the duplicate brain would be just as traceable as the instance of consciousness generated by the original brain. It would be identical in every way, including in its traceability to the brain that generates it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

- I think you've agreed that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life.

We all know that you think that. However, we don't know why you think it, given the number of times you've been told, "No, we don't agree with that."

Dave

 

[sackett]

I just felt a breeze

- Somebody else.

Jabba: Hi everybody! It's me!
Jabba: Like **** you are! YOU'RE the copy! I'm me!
Jabba: I'm me 'n I have a nimmortal soul to prove it!
Jabba: Grab him 'n hold him down, people! He's an inyuman clown, I mean clone!
Jabba: Help, help!
Jabba: Help help!

(Keep on until commercial break.)

 

[godless dave]

- Yeah, but it's the emergent property (of the specific self) that I'm claiming is not cause and effect traceable.

But you haven't explained why it wouldn't be.

- I think you've agreed that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life. It's that YOU that I'm calling your "specific self." The new specific self would not be YOU. And, scientifically speaking he would be a brand new WHO, and totally untraceable.

Scientifically speaking it would be traceable. You accept that every emergent property of each load of bread would be traceable. There's no reason the emergent properties of brains wouldn't be.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

- Yeah, but it's the emergent property (of the specific self) that I'm claiming is not cause and effect traceable.
- I think you've agreed that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life. It's that YOU that I'm calling your "specific self." The new specific self would not be YOU. And, scientifically speaking he would be a brand new WHO, and totally untraceable.

But it is cause and effect traceable.

Cause: We duplicated a functioning body, down to the subatomic level.
Predicted effect: A duplicate person, identical in every way to original, including an identical sense of self as an emergent property.
Actual effect: A duplicate person, identical in every way to original, including an identical sense of self as an emergent property.

Not only is the effect traceable to the cause, the effect was accurately and correctly predicted beforehand. We not only knew that a sense of self would emerge, we knew exactly how that sense of self would view itself before we did it!

In the materialistic view, duplicating the body exactly duplicates it's emergent properties. If that actually happens how it not cause and effect? How is it not traceable?

 

[JayUtah]

- Yeah, but it's the emergent property (of the specific self) that I'm claiming is not cause and effect traceable.

There is no such thing as "emergent property of the specific self." You're just smooshing your words and ours together in hopes someone will be tricked into agreeing with it..

...that I'm claiming is not cause and effect traceable.

Except that it is. You can "claim" whatever the hell you want, but it won't be materialism. It'll just be your ongoing straw man.

I think you've agreed that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life.

No. Godless dave is speaking only about the abstract concept of distinction. He isn't buying into your soul-by-another-name. He has made this quite clear.

It's that YOU that I'm calling your "specific self."

Circular definition.

And, scientifically speaking he would be a brand new WHO, and totally untraceable.

No. Science does not embrace any of your gobbledy-gook. Scientifically speaking, all the properties of an organism would have to be present anytime the organism is present. Because that's what it means to be a property.

 

[zooterkin]

- Yeah, but it's the emergent property (of the specific self) that I'm claiming is not cause and effect traceable.

What are you basing that claim on, though?

- I think you've agreed that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring YOU back to life. It's that YOU that I'm calling your "specific self." The new specific self would not be YOU. And, scientifically speaking he would be a brand new WHO,

New, but identical to the one it was a copy of.

and totally untraceable.

Untraceable in what way?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Untraceable in what way?

In that "It's a soul but I don't want to call it that so please stop asking me please just somebody agree with me about anything please!" way untraceable.