Proof of Immortality, VII

[godless dave]

When talking about the materialist model of reality, there is no possible scenario where making a copy of something would result in that something being in two places at once.

 

[JayUtah]

Obviously, I disagree.

Of course you disagree, but you can't come up with any rational reason for your disagreement. The reasons you give are irrational because (1) they commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, and (2) they beg the question that you differ from other matter because you have a soul. Your disagreement then simply devolves to denial.

I think that a neutral jury would generally disagree also.

No. Another poster was kind enough to find where you attempted these arguments in a forum where you couldn't insinuate the "biased skeptics" card. They reached the same conclusions as we did here: (1) your claim fails for a number of easily fatal flaws, and (2) you ignore everything that's said to you and seem just to want a pulpit to preach from.

In five years you have utterly failed to show any evidence that your claims would far any better in front of a different audience. And in fact all the evidence -- including that supplied by you -- demonstrates that everyone to whom you've shown this argument has given you the same reasons why it doesn't work.

Now how about you stop insulting your critics by blaming them your failure. Especially since you're so unkind as to ignore the actual reasons they're giving for disagreeing with you, which have nothing to do with the bias you're frantically trying to pin on them.

And could be that Caveman and Toon agree with those two conclusions of mine -- though, I doubt that they like my arguments.

Neither of them has a dog in your fight, and (last I checked) they had both repudiated your argument. While each of them has taken issue with some way in which your critics have addressed your proof, they do not accept that your proof is valid.

Would a perfect copy of my brain bring my particular self-awareness back to life?

"Back to life" and "particular self-awareness" (i.e., that self-awareness is a discrete) are not concepts in materialism.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Obviously, I disagree. I think that a neutral jury would generally disagree also. And could be that Caveman and Toon agree with those two conclusions of mine -- though, I doubt that they like my arguments.

- We know you disagree Jabba. You've just never actually bothered to explain anything beyond just stating it over and over.

- There is no mythical pool of neutral people silently agreeing with you. You know it, we know it.

- Caveman and Toon just run into this thread to take skeptics to tasks because they get off on it. They aren't on "your side."

Would a perfect copy of my brain bring my particular self-awareness back to life?

- This questions has been asked and answered countless times Jabba. Stop being rude. You're a grown man Jabba finally start acting like it.

 

[JayUtah]

When talking about the materialist model of reality, there is no possible scenario where making a copy of something would result in that something being in two places at once.

And by corollary, when talking about the materialist model of reality there is no possible scenario where making a copy of something would result in a copy that failed to exhibit all possible properties of the original except spacetime coordinates of the actual matter. By the definition of materialism, a copy must reproduce all that the original is.

 

[Belz...]

- That's what I wanted to know. I've been mistaken about assumptions before.

You forgot to follow that with an actual substantive post.

 

[Belz...]

No. Another poster was kind enough to find where you attempted these arguments in a forum where you couldn't insinuate the "biased skeptics" card. They reached the same conclusions as we did here: (1) your claim fails for a number of easily fatal flaws, and (2) you ignore everything that's said to you and seem just to want a pulpit to preach from.

In five years you have utterly failed to show any evidence that your claims would far any better in front of a different audience. And in fact all the evidence -- including that supplied by you -- demonstrates that everyone to whom you've shown this argument has given you the same reasons why it doesn't work.

Jabba doesn't seem to realise that many of us would absolutely love to be immortal, so we're actually biased in favour of his argument. It's just so poorly constructed that it doesn't even convince us.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba doesn't seem to realise that many of us would absolutely love to be immortal, so we're actually biased in favour of his argument. It's just so poorly constructed that it doesn't even convince us.

The irony is the potential for post-humanism immorality (or extremely long lifespans) is a favorite subject of mine.

There is absolutely without question a good discussion to be had in the possibility of maintaining the mental process longer either through improving the human body or transferring/copying the mental process to another system capable of supporting it.

 

[SOdhner]

I think that a neutral jury would generally disagree also.

Jabba, you appear to be suggesting that anyone that doesn't agree with you is no 'neutral'.

By a normal definition in this kind of context, we are a 'neutral jury'. But by all means, if there's some mythical group out there that agrees with you - find them!

Go! Find your neutral jury! You've accomplished less than nothing in the last five years here. I mean that literally. You not only haven't convinced anyone, your refusal to respond to criticism and habit of dishonest methods mean that you have actually destroyed any goodwill that was offered to you. You are in a worse place than when you started.

So go, and look for your neutral jury. I can't imagine you'll find what you're looking for but you certainly can't find it here so you may as well try elsewhere.

 

[John Jones]

In case anyone is interested, here is where Jabba took his case to a bunch of statisticians. It's not a pretty sight.

http://www.talkstats.com/showthread.php/60035-Immortality-amp-Bayesian-Statistics

 

[RoboTimbo]

- No, you didn't.
- I used "my particular self-awareness" in my question

Which, as you agree, is your immortal lie. How can what you've referred to as a process be "particular"? Is that like a Volkswagen going a particular 60 mph?

-- you had used "you" (referring to "me") in your previous answer. I wanted to make sure that we were talking about the same thing/process.

In the materialist model, which is what you're trying to falsify, it is a process. Lying about it and dishonestly conflating "thing/process" with a slash between the two incongruous words doesn't change that. As you agree.

- OK. I'll stick with the "brain" model, and avoid the "sperm+ovum" model.

Stick with the materialist model, whether you want to our not. That's what you're trying to falsify. Falsify something else all you want, that won't do you any good.

 

[JayUtah]

In case anyone is interested, here is where Jabba took his case to a bunch of statisticians. It's not a pretty sight.

http://www.talkstats.com/showthread.php/60035-Immortality-amp-Bayesian-Statistics

Jabba, will you please reconcile this evidence with your claim that your argument would fare better with a "neutral jury?"

 

[RoboTimbo]

- That's what I wanted to know. I've been mistaken about assumptions before.

More often, you've deliberately tried to obfuscate terms and shroud them in ambiguity. You get caught every time. Like dishonestly conflating "thing" with "process".

You've agreed that a sense of self is a process. It's just dishonest of you to then go back to putting a slash between them to refer to what you've admitted is a process.

 

[Belz...]

In case anyone is interested, here is where Jabba took his case to a bunch of statisticians. It's not a pretty sight.

http://www.talkstats.com/showthread.php/60035-Immortality-amp-Bayesian-Statistics

Wow, the OP is so dishonest, pretending to think he did something wrong when he in fact is convinced of the reverse.

ETA: Wait... he was 72 two years ago? He's as old as my parents. Befuddled old man my ass.

 

[Dancing David]

Dave,
- Re #1: OK.
- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.
- Re #3: The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!

Here try this, your parochial language usage is a deficit

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pubmed+neurology+of+self+awareness

 

[Steve]

Why would the consciousnesses produce by two identical brains be different? What would the difference be?

Now you've got me thinking.... do identical twins have identical brains? Is the identical part only skin deep or does it extend to organs etc.? Identical twins certainly do have different consciousnesses from each other.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Now you've got me thinking.... do identical twins have identical brains? Is the identical part only skin deep or does it extend to organs etc.? Identical twins certainly do have different consciousnesses from each other.

Identical twins have identical genes but they don't have identical brains and that is because learning leads to anatomical changes in the brain and even identical twins will have different social experiences, different learning experiences, and therefore will end up having different brains. Every single person in the world, as far as we know, has a slightly different brain than any other person because they've been exposed to somewhat different social and environmental experiences.

- Eric Richard Kandel (Neuroscientist and Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University. Recipient of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his research on the physiological basis of memory storage in neurons.)

https://www.dnalc.org/view/1200-Identical-Twins-Not-Identical-Brains.html

 

[Monza]

Now you've got me thinking.... do identical twins have identical brains? Is the identical part only skin deep or does it extend to organs etc.? Identical twins certainly do have different consciousnesses from each other.

The brain is constantly changing. Each thought and memory is accompanied by a complex action of neurons firing and new synapse connections being made. They can never actually be perfectly identical, as defined in this thought experiment we have been discussing.

This is why two perfect human copies of each other will diverge the moment they are exposed to some stimuli. Jabba can't get over the fact that each will still be a valid person with the same memories/experiences up to the point they diverged. It doesn't make one less of the the original than the other.

Another way to think of it: Would Gomer still be the same person if he had decided to join the Navy rather than the Army? Jabba looks at this by believing Army Gomer is the same person as the hypothetical Navy Gomer. The reality is that Gomer is not a static thing. The hypothetical Navy Gomer would have different experiences, friends, thoughts, memories, than Army Gomer. Yet, they are both still a valid Gomer, just the same (i.e. identical) Gomer.


ETA
Ninja'd by Joe Bently. I guess his reference to a Nobel prize-winning doctor is better than my reference to a TV doofus.

 

[Steve]

- Eric Richard Kandel (Neuroscientist and Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University. Recipient of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his research on the physiological basis of memory storage in neurons.)

https://www.dnalc.org/view/1200-Identical-Twins-Not-Identical-Brains.html

Thanks. Makes a lot of sense to me re learning resulting in physical changes to the brain.

This made me go off and do a little more research because I wondered at what stage of development these changes started. It seems that due to changes in the womb, "identical twins" are not identical at birth. In addition to brain changes, in-utero changes are responsible for such things as non-identical fingerprints.

A little learning is a good thing.

Edit - thanks to Monza for the additional info.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Oh. Like "bodies that could be you" is an a priori specification, and "the body that is you" is a posterior specification?

No. Both are a posteriori, because they include the known result in the specification.

Back when all the smart people believed the planets in the Sol system were the only planets that existed (because the bodies in the solar system were the only things they could see that moved), I might have said, "Not likely. It is unlikely that all we can see that moves just happens to coincide with all that exists. Plus, it is too ludicrously unlikely that a universe consisting of one paltry little collection of planets would have produced sentient life. There must be very, very many planets."

The smart people were wrong back then, but I would have been right.

It must be very satisfying to think how much cleverer you might have been. Personally I don't remember a time when all the smart people believed that.

Dave

 

[Mojo]

- And then, you claimed that my resistance to the sperm+ovum explanation for particular self-awarenesses was misguided...

Seriously, Jabba? The only person who has been suggesting a "sperm+ovum" explanation, or that there is such a thing as a "particular self-awareness" is you.

...but seemed to be accepting my explanation when you accepted that a perfect copy of my brain, or my sperm+ovum, would not bring ME back to life.

That's because, under the model that you claim to be trying to disprove, the "ME", "particular self-awareness", or whatever term you have decided to use to sneak the soul into your premises in the hope that nobody will notice, doesn't exist. Two completely identical people, if such could somehow be created, would have completely identical consciousnesses, but would not be the same person because there would be two of them. Producing a perfect copy of you would result in a second, identical, Jabba. Another one, not the same one.