Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Re #2. We can use that model if you wish (that I am totally the result of my DNA, or ovum and sperm cell) -- though, I suspect that we should really use the model that consciousness naturally brings with it a brand new self-awareness, not out of any limited pool of potential self-awarenesseses, and is totally unlimited as to what particular self-awareness it will be.
Click to expand...


That model, the materialist model, is not something that Dave just suggests you use. You are explicitly trying to calculate the probability of that model. The problem is you then define the materialist model using non-materialist concepts in your attempt to show a "virtually zero" probability.

To be clear: The materialist model states that self-awareness is an emergent property of a functioning brain. It is not a thing that is brought in by consciousness.
 
Monza said:
To be clear: The materialist model states that self-awareness is an emergent property of a functioning brain.
Click to expand...

...and -- to be further clear -- only of the functioning brain. No externality allowed.

This facet of materialism implies that a perfectly reproduced brain must perfectly reproduce the sense of self. It does no good merely to wonder whether that would be the case. If the thought experiment is evaluated according to what materialism predicts would occur, the same sense of self must be produced. It's the very definition of materialism.

But as usual we must caution against "same" and "different" senses of self as if they were discrete entities. The sense of self under materialism is a property. "Same" for properties denotes that the description of the property is the same in both cases, just as I can have two cars and describe them identically as going 60 mph. The entities are discrete, but the property is not. In our thought experiment, the brains are discrete but the property of the sense of self is not.
 
Not that I think it will help, but...

Jabba, let's pretend for a moment that you're trying to talk about how likely or unlikely a specific event would be in the world of Sesame Street vs in the real world.

If part of your argument hinges on the fact that the Muppets are just a bit of fabric and foam with someone's hand shoved up there we have a problem:

In the context of the show, they're real creatures. In the real world they're fancy puppets, but not in the show. In the show they eat and sleep and are their own beings. If you're comparing the world of Sesame Street to the real world, you have to take it as it is presented.

Because otherwise you're comparing the real world to the real world and that's not what you set out to do.

That's what's going on here. You want to take the soul into account on both sides, and it DOES NOT EXIST in Materialism. It doesn't matter that you disagree - you still need to address it as it is defined.

If it helps to think of materialism as something obviously false like the world of Sesame Street then go for it, but you still have to accept the premise if you're talking about how likely something is in that particular setting.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Re #1. I'm happy to use 1/10100.
Click to expand...
Why should anyone use a made-up number? Made-up inputs are not going to lead to accurate outputs (otherwise known as GIGO).
Jabba said:
- Re #2. We can use that model if you wish (that I am totally the result of my DNA, or ovum and sperm cell)
Click to expand...
If you are reckoning P(H), that's the model you have to use.
Jabba said:
-- though, I suspect that we should really use the model that consciousness naturally brings with it a brand new self-awareness, not out of any limited pool of potential self-awarenesseses, and is totally unlimited as to what particular self-awareness it will be.
Click to expand...
None of that is part of reality, materialism or even your flawed idea of materialism that you call ooflam. It's stuff from ~H so has no place in reckoning P(H).
Jabba said:
- Re #3. Whatever, my claim is that going back to the beginning of time is appropriate.
Click to expand...
Even of you go back to the beginning of time, you still have to reckon P(H) with only the things that exist in a material universe. No souls, no nonsense about limited or unlimited pools, no potential things, no thinking of consciousness as a countable and discrete 'thing'.
Jabba said:
- Re #4. This refers to the Sharpshooter fallacy. My claim here is that I am, in fact, set apart from other possible targets. I think that Caveman agrees.
- Re #5. Again, my claim is that I am set apart, whereas Mt. Rainier is not.
Click to expand...
But under materialism, there is no concept of being 'set apart' in the way you are thinking.

You are still trying to use elements of ~H when reckoning P(H). You can't do that.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Re #1. I'm happy to use 1/10100.
Click to expand...

Nice. One googolth

The probability that you make sense in your next 100 posts is one googolplexth.

But you'll never admit that you maintain this threads alive revolving around the same nonsense just because it allows you the fantasy of dreaming that "the topic is still being discussed so you might be right".
 
Totally related Groundhog Day derail



Argumemnon said:
Does anyone know how many times Phil had to go through the time loop in Groundhog day? 'Cause I'm similarily knowledgeable about everything in this thread, due to repetition, and I'm ready to go home now.
Click to expand...

Monza said:
12,403 days. A little less than 34 years. At least that's what one person calculated.
Click to expand...

W.
T.
F.

:jaw-dropp

Local radio station was talking about this exact same thing earlier today. Talking about how the movie could have taken a very dark and disturbing turn. Murray robbing banks, shooting and killing people just to make sure he can feel.

And the discussion was happening between these two posts.

:covereyes:boxedin:

 
Toontown said:
A typical response.

Please describe the process of eternal nothingness.
Click to expand...

Jesus really dude? You're gonna make us explain the base concept of "a process stopping" to you as if you don't know?

Why am I explaining to two grown men now what death is and how it works?

You know how the world existed for a long, long time before you were born and you don't remember it because there was no mental process functioning that was you yet? Well it's like that but happening after you die.

There was an eternity before you were born you don't know, why is the existence of an eternity after you die any more different?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Would you like someone to take yet another attempt at telling you?
Click to expand...

You can't tell Jabba what you don't know.

Dave Rogers said:
Go and get yourself a deck of cards, and shuffle it thoroughly. You will now have some specific arrangement of cards. What is the likelihood that the arrangement you have actually exists? It would have to be, a priori, one divided by the number of possible combinations. How many possible combinations of cards are there? The answer is a little over 8x1067; so the probability that you got the arrangement you actually ended up with, is a number so small it has 67 zeroes after the decimal point before its first non-zero digit. By any everyday measure, that's virtually zero. So you've just carried out an operation, the probability of a specific result of which is virtually zero.
Click to expand...

No, the probability that you got the arrangement you got is 1. Ask anybody around here. People keep saying that all the time. They think it means something.

That's not the part that's unlikely. What you observe is definitely what you observe. Whether you would have observed what you've observed if X is true is an entirely different question. And your analogy with the deck of cards fails to address that point. You just instructed Jabba to shuffle a deck of cards for no reason, and then you said there is nothing surprising about the shuffled deck of cards.

Dave Rogers said:
But the point is, there has to be some final arrangement of the cards. All of the different arrangements have exactly the same probability, so there's nothing particularly surprising about the fact that one of them exists in that particular pack at that particular time, even though the probability is so low.
Click to expand...

It would be extremely surprising if a genie materialized and exclaimed "Congratulations! You are a YUGE winner! You had no idea that is your specific winning combination, but it is and always has been. Every time anyone shuffles that combination, I am compelled to grant you a wish! Anything you ask for! Strange, isn't it. You had no idea. And you even shuffled your own combination."

Dave Rogers said:
So that's all there is to it. The probability of the existence of you, a specific person, isn't relevant, because the probability of all the other possible people existing isn't significantly different, and people exist. To think otherwise would be to think that some outside agency is also intervening when you shuffle a deck of cards.
Click to expand...

The probability of him, a specific person, isn't relevant to you. But that doesn't mean it isn't relevant to him. The probabilistic significance of an observation is dependent on both the specifics of the observation and on the specific perspective of the observer.

Easy example: you may be blissfully unaware that your existence has any probabilistic significance - until it occurs to you to ask how likely it is that you would exist if Vladimir Putin wanted you dead. When you ask that question, you assume a specific perspective. From that perspective, you can conclude with good confidence that Putin probably doesn't seriously want you dead.
 
Last edited:
JoeBentley said:
Jesus really dude? You're gonna make us explain the base concept of "a process stopping" to you as if you don't know?

Why am I explaining to two grown men now what death is and how it works?
Click to expand...

Because you said eternal nothingness is a process. It's right there in black and white.

I had been of the opinion that a stopped process is not a process. I had hoped you would enlighten me.
 
Toontown said:
Because you said eternal nothingness is a process. It's right there in black and white.
Click to expand...

I said nothing of the sort. Please keep track of who says what.

As with Jabba I am not going to explain "a stopped process" to a grown man nor am I going to play any more games with the intentionally obtuse.

When Dave Rogers replied to your pedantic questioning of how "eternal nothingness" could be a place with "It's a process" he obviously was putting it in the context of a stopped process.

You know that's what he meant, stop being intentionally obtuse.
 
Toontown said:
Please describe the process of eternal nothingness.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as 'nothing'.

As to the actual intent of your question: consciousness stops at some point, when the brain ceases to work properly. At that point 'you' cease to exist. I guess you can call that nothingness but then it won't matter at that point since you don't experience things anymore.
 
Toontown said:
You can't tell Jabba what you don't know.
Click to expand...

Ah, another Texas Sharpshooter.

Toontown said:
No, the probability that you got the arrangement you got is 1. Ask anybody around here. People keep saying that all the time. They think it means something.
Click to expand...

Yes, a posteriori it's 1. A priori it's vanishingly small. The fact that the a priori probability is vanishingly small is irrelevant in assessing the expected result, however; there is no greater probability state as all states are equally likely. What specific, single overwhelmingly greater probability outcome was expected and did not occur as a result of Jabba's existence?[1] Unless you can answer that, the whole argument is specious.

Toontown said:
The probability of him, a specific person, isn't relevant to you. But that doesn't mean it isn't relevant to him. The probabilistic significance of an observation is dependent on both the specifics of the observation and on the specific perspective of the observer.
Click to expand...

Let me remind you, Jabba is trying to convince people who are not him that the soul is immortal. An argument that is purely subjective to him is hardly likely to do that. And that's another part of the problem; he's trying to argue that his subjective attachment to his own existence is an objectively convincing argument.

Toontown said:
Easy example: you may be blissfully unaware that your existence has any probabilistic significance - until it occurs to you to ask how likely it is that you would exist if Vladimir Putin wanted you dead. When you ask that question, you assume a specific perspective. From that perspective, you can conclude with good confidence that Putin probably doesn't seriously want you dead.
Click to expand...

:boggled:

I honestly don't know how to reply to that piece of irrelevant crap. I see no way it has any bearing whatever on the question we're discussing, which is whether the probability of Jabba coming into existence is overwhelmingly less under the assumption of materialism than under the assumption that materialism is not correct.

Dave

[1] By this, I am specifically excluding "Jabba does not exist," as this is the equivalent in the example of the pack of cards of "some other arrangement exists;" that simply begs the question, which more likely arrangement?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom