Proof of Immortality, VII

[godless dave]

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."

In this discussions we've even had cognitive errors treated as virtues: eschewing a neutral, objective perspective for a personal, subjective one and estimating probabilities based on subjective assessments ("unimaginably small").

 

[John Jones]

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.

And fuzzy thinking.

 

[Jabba]

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.

- That was not all I said.
- Here's what I said about "who."
- 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?"

- But now, I'm thinking that I should have just said that "who" refers to the particular self-awareness. And not having a pool of potential self-awarenesses to draw from, how in the hell can we even guess who (what particular self-awareness) it will be?

 

[abaddon]

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.

I'm not sure about that. To me, rightly or wrongly, Jabba seems to fear his own mortality.

 

[godless dave]

- That was not all I said.
- Here's what I said about "who."
- 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?"

None of that adds to the explanation of what you mean by "who".

- But now, I'm thinking that I should have just said that "who" refers to the particular self-awareness. And not having a pool of potential self-awarenesses to draw from, how in the hell can we even guess who (what particular self-awareness) it will be?

It will be the self-awareness produced by that particular brain. That's who it is. Everything about it is determined by that particular brain. What information about it do you think we wouldn't have?

 

[JoeMorgue]

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."

Jabba go back to grade school, learn how pronouns work, and then you can try and rejoin the adults in conversation. These silly mental gymnastics you think you are just ohhhh so clever have passed from stale and boring to insulting.

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]

THIRD BASE!

 

[John Jones]

- That was not all I said.
- Here's what I said about "who."
- 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?"

- But now, I'm thinking that I should have just said that "who" refers to the particular self-awareness. And not having a pool of potential self-awarenesses to draw from, how in the hell can we even guess who (what particular self-awareness) it will be?

Ask them, or call them for dinner.

If you want empirical evidence, take their fingerprints - that would eliminate identical twins.

ETA: I'm not going to touch your "particular self-awareness" attempt at obfuscation. I would scrape it off my shoe if I stepped in it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm not sure about that. To me, rightly or wrongly, Jabba seems to fear his own mortality.

It would say that's the motivation and the intellectualism is the method.

But with Jabba it's hard to tell which the tale and which is the dog. All his threads seem to be performance pieces for his "Effective Debate Style" and his "Effective Debate Style" seems to exist to justify his pet causes.

Jabba might have created the first stable loop of bad argumentatives and bad arguments.

 

[jond]

- That was not all I said.
- Here's what I said about "who."
- 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?"

- But now, I'm thinking that I should have just said that "who" refers to the particular self-awareness. And not having a pool of potential self-awarenesses to draw from, how in the hell can we even guess who (what particular self-awareness) it will be?

- But now, I’m thinking you ignoring all the posts that address this pile of nonsense is intentional. And rude.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba,

"You" is a conceptual word, not a literal definition.

Let's say you're walking down the street and see your friend Steve and you give him a friendly way and a hearty "Hey You!" and a few minutes later you see your friend Bill and give him the same friendly wave and the same hearty "Hey You!"

Do you immediately fall to the pavement, clutching your head in existential confusion and terror over the idea the two "yous?"

The useage of the pronoun "You" in contexts doesn't define a singular thing.

HOW IN THE NAME OF PEPPI LE PEW IS IT THAT YOU STILL DON'T GET THIS?

 

[JayUtah]

- That was not all I said.
- Here's what I said about "who."
- 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?"

None of this matters.

But now, I'm thinking that I should have just said that "who" refers to the particular self-awareness.

None of this matters. You don't get to decide what materialism means by "who."

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

Because it is guaranteed under materialism to be identical to the first instance.

 

[JayUtah]

- But now, I’m thinking you ignoring all the posts that address this pile of nonsense is intentional. And rude.

It's very much intentional. Jabba's personal rules of "effective" debate say that he should pay attention to only one of possibly several critics, which coincidentally always happens to be the critic he thinks is the least critical. He also claims other posters are mean or rude to him, so he's justified in ignoring them.

 

[JayUtah]

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."

In the past Jabba has explicitly claimed that he's a "holistic" thinker while all his critics are merely "analytical" thinkers. Many fringe claimants, especially in alternative medicine, claim that they have some innate insight or special perception that enables their claims, while their critics must rely on "mere" science and its rote methods to compensate for the lack of inherent ability.

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

In the past Jabba explicitly claimed his evidence for a soul was invisible to science. That is, science's inability to find evidence for a soul was considered a liability of science. In a perverse sense he turned out to be right: his evidence for a soul was his own feelings of angst at the prospect of not having one. That is indeed invisible to science.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- That was not all I said.
- Here's what I said about "who."
- 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?"

Which is nonsense. And based on your history, it's dishonest nonsense. What you have called the process of self-awareness is a function of the organism in materialism, which is what you're trying to falsify. Did you want to falsify some other model?

- But now, I'm thinking that I should have just said that "who" refers to the particular self-awareness.

And there is your immortal lie again.

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

How can we even begin to guess which particular "going 60 mph" a Volkswagen will go?

Everyone is able to spot your dishonesty, Jabba. You just aren't clever at it.

 

[Jabba]

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.

LL,
- Do you accept that both sides are referring to the same kind of experience when we talk about particular selves.

 

[SOdhner]

LL,
- Do you accept that both sides are referring to the same kind of experience when we talk about particular selves.

I think this chatbot is broken.

 

[jond]

LL,
- Do you accept that both sides are referring to the same kind of experience when we talk about particular selves.

What an abosurd question. It’s almost like you didn’t read his post at all, and just randomly chose a post to respond to so you can pretend that you’re not ignoring all the other posts. (Ok, it’s exactly like that.)

 

[MRC_Hans]

- That was not all I said.
- Here's what I said about "who."
- 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?"

- But now, I'm thinking that I should have just said that "who" refers to the particular self-awareness. And not having a pool of potential self-awarenesses to draw from, how in the hell can we even guess who (what particular self-awareness) it will be?

"Who" equals the "particular self-awarness"; it is one and the same. It is shaped by your genes and the sum of your experiences up to and including the current moment.

It exists as physical states in your body, especially in your brain.

It thus follows that if your body and brain is perfectly copied, the copy will be the same "who" as you are, up to the time of the copying.

Hans

 

[Mojo]

"Who" equals the "particular self-awarness"; it is one and the same. It is shaped by your genes and the sum of your experiences up to and including the current moment.

It exists as physical states in your body, especially in your brain.

It thus follows that if your body and brain is perfectly copied, the copy will be the same "who" as you are, up to the time of the copying.

And before you post it, Jabba, no, it will not be one "who" looking through two sets of eyes; there will be two identical "whos".

 

[JayUtah]

Do you accept that both sides are referring to the same kind of experience when we talk about particular selves.

Equivocation. From your previous posts it is clear that you want the highlighted phrase to include your private concept of an individualized entity as the seat of self-awareness. I and others have made extremely clear that the materialist model does not allow for any such thing, and that such an interpolation is not, in fact, part of the data. So according to that analysis, no I do not accept that you and your critics are referring to the same "experience." Given the amount of objection your critics have generated, it is appalling that you would even think you had to ask.

In a proper statistical inference, E must be observable data only and must be the same for both P(E|H) and P(E|~H). E may not embody any hypothesis or proposal for the mechanism by which that data arose. It must be strictly an observation. In this case, we observe (or more accurately, stipulate) that each person is conscious and self-aware. To properly formulate your model, you may not demand that the stipulation include your notion of how that consciousness or self-awareness came to be. You may not insist that H explain the implications of ~H.

Do you accept that what you're trying to style as H is not, in fact, the materialist hypothesis?