Proof of Immortality, VII

[Jabba]

Dave,
- I didn't mean what I think you thought I meant.
- By "who," I didn't mean which self-awareness was which. Instead, I was referring to the type of process/thing that we call "you" or "me." We know that the new self-awareness will not be you or me, but we have no idea "who" it will be. That's what I meant by "who." And not having a pool of potential self-awarenesses to draw from, how in the hell can we even guess who it will be?
- I'm thinking that effectively communicating about this stuff may be just about impossible (or maybe impossible) for people coming from different belief systems.

What else could you possibly mean?



We know what type of process the copy would have. What else could "who" mean besides which one it is? That's what the word "who" means. What is it you think we wouldn't know about the copy?




But you are talking about the materialist model. Your belief system does not matter when describing the materialist model, just as my belief system doesn't matter when describing a model that includes reincarnation.

- I tried to tell you what I meant by "who," but either what I mean by that word is meaningless -- or, I'm not able to communicate the meaning to you.
- Could be that "different belief systems" was the wrong phrase, but there is something I perceive that I can't seem to communicate to you so far. Would seem that either I'm imagining something or you're just not able to see it. Either I'm sort of hallucinating or you're sort of color blind.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave,
- I didn't mean what I think you thought I meant.
- By "who," I didn't mean which self-awareness was which. Instead, I was referring to the type of process/thing that we call "you" or "me."

In the materialist model, which is what you're trying to falsify, it's a process. Your immortal lie of conflating a process with a thing is your dishonesty.

We know that the new self-awareness will not be you or me, but we have no idea "who" it will be.

It will be the process of that functioning brain. Putting "who" in quotes doesn't imbue the material with a soul.

That's what I meant by "who."

Yes, you mean soul. There is no such animal in the materialist model, which is what you're trying to falsify.

And not having a pool of potential self-awarenesses to draw from, how in the hell can we even guess who it will be?

The very question would be non-sensical if posed by someone who was being honest. From you, it is just more of your dishonesty.

- I'm thinking that effectively communicating about this stuff may be just about impossible (or maybe impossible) for people coming from different belief systems.

No, everyone understands perfectly well that you mean to poke a soul into the materialist model. You're frustrated that you can't get away with it.

You have permission to falsify any model you choose, including one of your own making. It won't do you any good here, though.

 

[jond]

- I tried to tell you what I meant by "who," but either what I mean by that word is meaningless -- or, I'm not able to communicate the meaning to you.
- Could be that "different belief systems" was the wrong phrase, but there is something I perceive that I can't seem to communicate to you so far. Would seem that either I'm imagining something or you're just not able to see it. Either I'm sort of hallucinating or you're sort of color blind.

No, Jabba. You continue to insist that selves are separate entities from the brain, not a process that the brain does. Your dishonest continuing use of process/thing indicates that you refuse to even consider this fatal flaw in your argument.

Godless Dave knows full well what you mean by “who” and has made it perfectly clear that under materialism “who” is a process in the brain. Thus “who” you are is a direct one to one connection with your functioning brain. You could not have been Napoleon, you could only have been Jabba.

You will, of course, ignore this. But any neutral party will not, and I assure you that they will understand it even if you petulantly refuse to.

 

[godless dave]

- I tried to tell you what I meant by "who,"

This is all you said:

Instead, I was referring to the type of process/thing that we call "you" or "me."

That's what I'm referring to as well. "Who" is a pronoun. It refers to "what or which person or people". So in this case, it would mean which sense of self.

 

[Dave Rogers]

- I tried to tell you what I meant by "who," but either what I mean by that word is meaningless -- or, I'm not able to communicate the meaning to you.

For the purposes you're pursuing, it doesn't matter what you mean by the word "who"; it matters what materialism means by it. What you still seem to be trying to do is confuse the two.

Dave

 

[Mojo]

- I tried to tell you what I meant by "who," but either what I mean by that word is meaningless -- or, I'm not able to communicate the meaning to you.
- Could be that "different belief systems" was the wrong phrase, but there is something I perceive that I can't seem to communicate to you so far. Would seem that either I'm imagining something or you're just not able to see it. Either I'm sort of hallucinating or you're sort of color blind.

No, Jabba, you're not hallucinating and nobody is colour blind: you are just wrong. And continue to be wrong despite repeated and careful correction.

The communication issues are entirely on one side. Everyone knows what you mean, despite your attempts to conceal it. You appear unable to understand the perfectly clear replies you have been given. Whether or not this is intentional on your part, it makes you look ill-equipped for constructive debate.

 

[JayUtah]

I didn't mean what I think you thought I meant.

Jabba, please stop trying to tie your critics up in knots. You're being deliberately obtuse in hopes that one of your critics will accidentally agree to something you can spring on him. Your critics are being very precise in their language. Please do us the courtesy of doing the same.

By "who," I didn't mean which self-awareness was which.

Numerical separation of the organisms is the only difference that would arise in materialism.

Instead, I was referring to the type of process/thing...

It's a process, not a thing. Remember the whole Jabba/child-molester example I showed you earlier?

...that we call "you" or "me." We know that the new self-awareness will not be you or me, but we have no idea "who" it will be.

Hogwash. Materialism expressly embodies exactly the opposite concept. Under materialism, reproducing the organism would have to reproduce all the properties of the organism. That includes everything that could be identified as you or me.

That's what I meant by "who."

That's what you mean by "who," but that's not materialism. So it means you're not reckoning P(E|H). You're reckoning P(E|some crap you made up).

And not having a pool of potential self-awarenesses to draw from, how in the hell can we even guess who it will be?

Because materialism predicts that a perfect copy must be absolutely indistinguishable in its observable properties from the original. Such a prediction necessarily follows from the definition of materialism. There is no "pool" of proto-organisms in materialism. And as far as a "pool" of non-yet-existing properties is concerned, that doesn't even make sense. That's like saying the Utah highway system doesn't have a pool of "going 60 mph," so there must be an infinite number of them and each one is unique. It's gibberish.

I'm thinking that effectively communicating about this stuff may be just about impossible (or maybe impossible) for people coming from different belief systems.

Knock it off, Jabba. The problem isn't that your critics are so much differently situated, or impossibly blinkered by their preconceptions, or any of the other veiled ways you've tried before to suggest that you're just so much smarter than everyone else. Stop trying to blame everything on them or on the supposedly inherent difficulty of the problem. It's really, really childish.

The problem is quite obviously that you obviously don't know what you're doing, and a number of people you've specifically sought out for advice have told you the same thing. Specifically, the thing you don't know how to do is to properly formulate a statistical inference. One of the many errors you're making in your formulation is that you don't know how to formulate the P(E|H) term properly, using H as it is hypothetically formulated. You're using word games and rhetorical shenanigans to try to get your critics to accept a different hypothesis for H. You're trying to interpolate parts of ~H into the data E. All these errors have been spelled out countless times for you.

Your most egregious error is that you think so little of your critics that you don't accept that they can see right through all your transparent nonsense. I can prove you know this list exists, and therefore I can prove that you're deliberately ignoring it. From there it's a short inductive hop to conclude that you can't answer any of those and have tacitly accepted that you have nothing to show besides tap-dancing. How do you think that looks against your claims that it's all your critics' fault you can't succeed, or that you're just having honest "communication problems?"

You've already conceded defeat, although not in so many words. You already admit that you can't prove immortality mathematically because you've moved on to the next step. Now, just as you did in your Shroud of Turin thread, you're trying to come up with some face-saving excuse, some reason why it's not your fault you couldn't do what you promised to do. The ostensible reason you have failed is because you lack the knowledge of mathematics and logic to do it -- or more accurately, to realize that such a proof cannot be constructed in the way you're attempting. The egregious reason you have failed is because your cheap theatrical tricks aren't working anymore, if they ever did.

 

[JayUtah]

I tried to tell you what I meant by "who,"...

When computing P(E|H), it doesn't matter what you mean. It matters what H means.

...but either what I mean by that word is meaningless -- or, I'm not able to communicate the meaning to you.

It isn't necessary that you communicate your intended meaning to anyone. It's necessary that you stick with what H says produces the sense of self.

Could be that "different belief systems" was the wrong phrase, but there is something I perceive that I can't seem to communicate to you so far.

Nothing so noble. You're just having a hard time convincing your critics that you suddenly don't mean what you said earlier about avoiding the word "soul" because it would too obviously beg the question.

Would seem that either I'm imagining something or you're just not able to see it.

You're imagining something that isn't part of materialism and your critics are correctly refusing to let you staple that straw man to their hypothesis.

Either I'm sort of hallucinating or you're sort of color blind.

Neither. You're simply being deliberately dishonest.

 

[JayUtah]

Why are you posting Jabba if you just ignore everyone's response?

Oh, this one's easy. One of the principles of rhetoric, when you're trying to get people to buy into whatever hogwash you're spewing, is never to go on the defensive. Acknowledging criticism puts you on the hook to explain. As Ronald Reagan once said, "If you're explaining, you're losing." And Jabba knows he would lose outright in a battle of explanations. So instead he remains on the offensive, spewing his trite affirmations as a non-response to everything around him. As vacuous and facile as is, "But wouldn't reproduce ME!" it does tend to be repeatable and memorable, and that's the key -- not to winning a debate, but to convincing casual spectators that you won it.

 

[SOdhner]

As vacuous and facile as is, "But wouldn't reproduce ME!" it does tend to be repeatable and memorable, and that's the key -- not to winning a debate, but to convincing casual spectators that you won it.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. No matter how casual the observer they couldn't help but see through Jabba's comments and see the wealth of criticisms. So in this case even this tactic is doomed to failure.

On the other hand, we clearly have nothing better to do - or are so stubborn that we'll keep at this despite our other obligations - and so if he just enjoys attention regardless of whether or not it's negative then he's totally winning.

 

[jond]

Something else for Jabba to ignore, despite the multiple times it's been suggested he read this book. From VS Ramachandran's "The Tell Tale Brain."

Autism reminds us that the uniquely human sense of self is not an "airy nothing" without "habitation and a name". Despite its vehement tendency to assert its privacy and independence, the self actually emerges from a reciprocity of interactions with others and with the body it is embedded in. When it withdraws from society and retreats from its own body it barely exists; at least not in the sense of a mature self that defines our existence as human beings. Indeed, autism could be regarded fundamentally as a disorder of self- consciousness, and if so, research on this disorder may help us understand the nature of consciousness itself.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- I tried to tell you what I meant by "who," but either what I mean by that word is meaningless -- or, I'm not able to communicate the meaning to you.

Yes, you mean soul. You're just too dishonest to say it.

- Could be that "different belief systems" was the wrong phrase, but there is something I perceive that I can't seem to communicate to you so far.

Maybe it would help if you said "soul" when you mean "soul" rather than trying to disguise it with ambiguous words. Soul isn't part of the materialist model.

Would seem that either I'm imagining something or you're just not able to see it. Either I'm sort of hallucinating or you're sort of color blind.

Whatever you imagine, it isn't part of the materialist model. You can scuttle it for now. Nobody is color blind to your obfuscation. Everyone can see through you as if you were single strength glass.

 

[Dancing David]

Dave,
- I didn't mean what I think you thought I meant.
- By "who," I didn't mean which self-awareness was which. Instead, I was referring to the type of process/thing that we call "you" or "me." We know that the new self-awareness will not be you or me, but we have no idea "who" it will be. That's what I meant by "who." And not having a pool of potential self-awarenesses to draw from, how in the hell can we even guess who it will be?
- I'm thinking that effectively communicating about this stuff may be just about impossible (or maybe impossible) for people coming from different belief systems.

A vague definition with no actual corollary in reality is a definite god of the gaps argument.

"you", "I", "me" all refer to a physical body

 

[Dancing David]

- I tried to tell you what I meant by "who," but either what I mean by that word is meaningless -- or, I'm not able to communicate the meaning to you.

Then maybe you don't know what you actually think.

"If you can't read and write you can't think. Your thoughts are dispersed if you don't know how to read and write. You've got to be able to look at your thoughts on paper and discover what a fool you were."
Ray Bradbury

 

[JayUtah]

Then maybe you don't know what you actually think.

He wants people to think he's just confused or befuddled, because that's a position from which he can curry sympathy and defuse criticism. And it would work, if he hadn't already made fairly plain what he actually thinks. What he means by "who" is an immortal soul. And he's said as much. And he goes on to say that he doesn't want to come out and just call it a soul for fear that he'd be seen to beg the question. So his plan seems to be to continue to beg the question, but to hide the begging behind a different obtuse word or phrase every day in hopes that some skeptic at some point will say, "Yeah I agree that's what the self is under materialism," and Jabba can spring his trap. He knows what he thinks. He just thinks we don't.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I tried to tell you what I meant by "who," but either what I mean by that word is meaningless -- or, I'm not able to communicate the meaning to you.
- Could be that "different belief systems" was the wrong phrase, but there is something I perceive that I can't seem to communicate to you so far. Would seem that either I'm imagining something or you're just not able to see it. Either I'm sort of hallucinating or you're sort of color blind.

Jabba -

Come on. That's nonsense and you know it. The problem couldn't be more clear: If you want to use the materialist model in your probability equation, then you have to abide by the assumptions of that model on that side of the equation. That model says nothing about "particular" selves or anything of the kind. It says that the ego is an ever-changing illusion created by the brain.

We know you don't agree with that. We know you think people have souls. But that has nothing to do with the fact that you have to calculate odds on that side of things strictly according to its rules, whether you believe them or not.

Your refusal to do so has nothing to do with your hallucinations nor our blindness. It's just bad math.

 

[halleyscomet]

- I tried to tell you what I meant by "who," but either what I mean by that word is meaningless -- or, I'm not able to communicate the meaning to you.
- Could be that "different belief systems" was the wrong phrase, but there is something I perceive that I can't seem to communicate to you so far. Would seem that either I'm imagining something or you're just not able to see it. Either I'm sort of hallucinating or you're sort of color blind.

The confusion is caused entirely by your instance upon prevaricating about the shrubbery. You're talking about a "soul" but tyring to do so in materialistic terms, which is an absurd proposition because a materialistic model has no room for a soul.

Cut the half-assed crap. Commit to being open and honest about what you're discussing or shove off. Nobody is fooled. Everyone sees through your veneer of pretense. All you're doing is making religious people look like not just liars, but incompetent liars.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba has successfully subdivided the argument into equating the "soul" with the pronoun "who."

Stunning. Simply stunning.

It simply doesn't matter what we say, was arguments we make, or even what Jabba pretends to agree with or understand. He's just gonna keep coming back to "But it wouldn't be the same."

 

[Dancing David]

He wants people to think he's just confused or befuddled, because that's a position from which he can curry sympathy and defuse criticism. And it would work, if he hadn't already made fairly plain what he actually thinks. What he means by "who" is an immortal soul. And he's said as much. And he goes on to say that he doesn't want to come out and just call it a soul for fear that he'd be seen to beg the question. So his plan seems to be to continue to beg the question, but to hide the begging behind a different obtuse word or phrase every day in hopes that some skeptic at some point will say, "Yeah I agree that's what the self is under materialism," and Jabba can spring his trap. He knows what he thinks. He just thinks we don't.

My beloved mother always said "If you can't write it clearly then you don't know what you think"
and it was not a compliment

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've long opined that a lot, perhaps even most, Woo is a sort of subconscious anti-intellectual performance piece. There's still a deeply ingrained image of science, rationalism, and skepticism as old and stodgy, something that is good for getting you "facts" from its test-tubes and beakers but is useless for meaningful "truth" in the "real world."

A lot of Woo arguments and Woo apologetics make a lot more sense when you look at them in the context of a person writing a narrative, where the moral we're supposed to be taking away from it is that "being right" in the scientific sense is over valued.

"Science was wrong before" "Science is rigid and inflexible" "Science can't deal with ambiguity" These are all variations on that theme.

Jabba has just abandoned the subtext and made that his text with his whole obvious "writing a story" shtick.