Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
It's cute that after nearly a year of avoiding the question of how many potential "going 60 mph" there are, he's suddenly convinced himself that as of today, "going 60 mph" is not an emergent property. Bluster and denial seem to be all he's capable of these days.
Click to expand...

At least it's something new, denying that an emergent property is an emergent property. I think getting called on the lying is finally making him realize just how obvious it is to everyone. He's getting frustrated.

Not enough to change that particular behavior but he's making more than one non-responsive post per day now.
 
Jabba said:
- Yeah.
- While the two systems may be identical, they are not the same -- and, they do not produce the same self. Your self will not be looking out your copy's eyes.
Click to expand...
The driver of the original VW going 60 will not be looking out of the copy VW's windshield. So what?
 
Jabba said:
- They would be looking out different eyes.
Click to expand...


You're just saying that they would have different locations, not how one consciousness would differ from the other. A perfect copy must be identical to the original in all its properties, otherwise it isn't a perfect copy. There would be two of them, and they would be identical.

To ask an analogous question, if you had been perfectly replicated, how would one set of eyes differ from the other?
 
godless dave said:
How would the eyes differ?
Click to expand...
Dave,
- In location, molecules and what they were transmitting...

- Here, I'm trying to communicate a particularly subtle -- but exciting -- concept. Fortunately, its recognition is probably not necessary for determining that the posterior probability of OOFLam is unimaginably small. The concept is about the "self" coming out of nowhere, and therefore, being totally unpredictable and infinitely unlikely...
- Each new 'clump' of consciousness naturally involves a brand new self. It naturally creates a brand new self. There was no pool of potential selves to draw from.
- Anyway, I think that you already accept that the likelihood of the current existence of your self -- given OOFLam -- is no larger than 10-100. Is that correct?
 
Jabba said:
- In location, molecules
Click to expand...

So far, they differ in the same way as the VW.

and what they were transmitting...
Click to expand...

They are not transmitting anything. The mind is a process of the brain just like "going at 60 mph" is a process of the car.

- Here, I'm trying to communicate a particularly subtle -- but exciting -- concept.
Click to expand...

Subtle as a hammer.

Fortunately, its recognition is probably not necessary for determining that the posterior probability of OOFLam is unimaginably small. The concept is about the "self" coming out of nowhere, and therefore, being totally unpredictable and infinitely unlikely...
Click to expand...

But it's not out of nowhere: it's a process of the brain. Under H, it comes out of the brain.

- Each new 'clump' of consciousness naturally involves a brand new self.
Click to expand...

You're treating the self like a thing again.

- Anyway, I think that you already accept that the likelihood of the current existence of your self -- given OOFLam -- is no larger than 10-100. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

No one's accepted that. Nobody. Ever. This number is a total invention. In fact most of us told you that the odds are 1:1. Stop trying to gaslight us. No one will be fooled.
 
Last edited:
Nasty stomach bug for a few days. What have I missed? Oh, I see. Nothing...
 
jond said:
Nasty stomach bug for a few days. What have I missed? Oh, I see. Nothing...
Click to expand...



Jabba keeps trying to find a way to cram a soul into materialism. He’s lying through his teeth to do it and behaving in such a dishonest way I suspect if there IS a deity Jabba will get smacked but good in the afterlife for working so hard to make religious folk look like a bunch of feeble liars who can’t conduct themselves with even basic honesty.

I’m also starting to suspect Jabba has blocked me, so I’m pretty sure anything I say is basically a tangential discussion.
 
halleyscomet said:
Jabba keeps trying to find a way to cram a soul into materialism. He’s lying through his teeth to do it and behaving in such a dishonest way I suspect if there IS a deity Jabba will get smacked but good in the afterlife for working so hard to make religious folk look like a bunch of feeble liars who can’t conduct themselves with even basic honesty.

I’m also starting to suspect Jabba has blocked me, so I’m pretty sure anything I say is basically a tangential discussion.
Click to expand...

Same as it ever was...
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- In location, molecules and what they were transmitting...

- Here, I'm trying to communicate a particularly subtle -- but exciting -- concept.
Click to expand...
Actually, you're trying to use as many equivocal words as you possibly can. It isn't particularly subtle but I'm not sure you've grasped that yet. Everyone else has, years ago.

Fortunately, its recognition is probably not necessary for determining that the posterior probability of OOFLam is unimaginably small. The concept is about the "self" coming out of nowhere, and therefore, being totally unpredictable and infinitely unlikely...
Click to expand...
This is a particularly egregious lie since you've previously stated that you accept that the "self", as you naively use it, refers to the process that is a result of consciousness of an organism in materialism.

Now you've ham-fistedly tried to equivocate it to mean a soul. You won't be allowed to lie about it, Jabba.

- Each new 'clump' of consciousness naturally involves a brand new self. It naturally creates a brand new self. There was no pool of potential selves to draw from.
Click to expand...
Consciousness doesn't come in 'clumps'. You're trying to make it be a separate entity, in a sort of school child kind of way.

- Anyway, I think that you already accept that the likelihood of the current existence of your self -- given OOFLam -- is no larger than 10-100. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Another particularly egregious lie - the JILpu (Jabba Immmortal Lie per usual) where you try to shove agreement into the mouths of your critics who specifically deny such agreement.

Are you able to understand the criticism of your errors, Jabba? Also, once you stop lying, I will stop pointing it out.
 
Jabba said:
- Here, I'm trying to communicate a particularly subtle -- but exciting -- concept. Fortunately, its recognition is probably not necessary for determining that the posterior probability of OOFLam is unimaginably small. The concept is about the "self" coming out of nowhere, and therefore, being totally unpredictable and infinitely unlikely...
Click to expand...


OK, if this is true then the likelihood of your current existence, under the hypothesis that you have a "self that comes out of nowhere", is infinitely small.

But it doesn't apply to hypotheses in which 'selves' are not required, such as the model in which consciousness is simply the result of brain processes.

You just 'essentially' disproved immortality.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
You have a different 'clump of consciousness' than you did five minutes ago. What happened to the 'self' you had five minutes ago?
Click to expand...
- There is a way in which it will still be here. It's the way it will not be here when you die (according to materialism).
 
Jabba said:
- There is a way in which it will still be here. It's the way it will not be here when you die (according to materialism).
Click to expand...

Stop strawmanning materialism.

There is no such way. The you from now is different from the you a minute ago, in exactly the same way as the you copy is different. Stop ignoring this essential fact.
 
Mojo said:
OK, if this is true then the likelihood of your current existence, under the hypothesis that you have a "self that comes out of nowhere", is infinitely small.

But it doesn't apply to hypotheses in which 'selves' are not required, such as the model in which consciousness is simply the result of brain processes.
You just 'essentially' disproved immortality.
Click to expand...
- But, materialism does accept the process of selves.
- But, according to materialism, that process that you are currently enjoying will shortly cease, will never proceed again, never proceeded before and never had to proceed in the first place.
 
Belz... said:
Stop strawmanning materialism.

There is no such way. The you from now is different from the you a minute ago, in exactly the same way as the you copy is different.
Click to expand...


This needs some clarification to prevent Jabba spuriously claiming agreement. The copy would be the same at the moment of duplication. It would immediately start diverging from the original as both change, and the copy and original would, after a minute, be different from each other and would both be different from the way they were at the moment of duplication.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom