Proof of Immortality, VII

[halleyscomet]

Visual representation of trying to find logic or integrity in Jabbas' approach to this thread:

 

[Toontown]

All right, since you're going to be following me around now, from forum to forum...

Nonsense. Ants know to avoid danger and they're not conscious in any way you or I would understand. Robots can do that too.

Well, good. You are relatively safe, as long as you don't start practicing what you preach.

Consciousness is not awareness. And you also apparently misunderstood what I said: consciousness is fleeting. It is not persistent because it keeps being reset, killed off and remade, and generated. It's like "going 60 mph" in that sense.

Sorry. I didn't know you were talking to yourself. I thought you were talking to me. And I was talking about sentience, so I just naturally assumed you thought I must be joking about sentience being persistent.

And now I'm beginning to think you're joking.

You don't know that. You have no way to know if the "sentience" that reads this word here is the same that began the sentence or the same that ends up here.

I guess we view "sentience" differently. I keep thinking sentience somehow manages to persist even as it changes. Just about everything else manages to persist through time that way, so I reckon sentience does too. Especially since I experience it doing that.

I think I am the same sentience that read both of those words. Therefore I am the same sentience that read both of those words.

The illusion of continuity is strong, but it is just that: an illusion. And as you may know, your consciousness is just an effect; an observer. It doesn't make decisions, so it's actually useless beyond giving us an inflated sense of importance.

Oooh, it's just an illuuuusion. Like evolution is just a theory?

Wait. What are you talking about? Are you back to conflating consciousness and sentience again? Well, for my money, that observer you're talking about is just an element of sentience, which is what I was talking about when I was so rudely interrupted.

Sentience gives rise to the "observer" effect. I'm sure sentience-me it has it's reasons for giving rise to observer-me. Maybe sentience likes to watch itself in action.

I'd bet against it, since I lost consciousness at the very least when I went to bed and for several hours. Who's to say that "me" today is the same "me" as yesterday or a second ago?

That's a 'who's to say' fallacy. Yes, there really is a 'who's to say' fallacy.

Who's to say the color of your eyes isn't an illusion?

Actually, it is. That's not a color, that's a wavelength. But it's still a representation of something real. And it is a real representation.

Sure, I have access to Belz...'s memories from yesterday and I have the feeling of being the same person, but how could I even tell the difference?

I see. 'You' are not Belz from day to day. 'You' merely have "access" to the Belz mockup. What is that 'you' you're talking about?

You're making an awfully big deal out of losing consciousness. Your observer effect shut down for a while, but apparently that did not result in a complete collapse and cessation of your sentience. You lucked out. This time.

There is no difference. Having the experience of being the same person is being the same person. It doesn't matter what the temporal intervals between the moments of experience are. What matters is the consistent effect of an experience which is consistent with and in interaction with an existing external reality.

 

[SOdhner]

There is no criticism. It's just the umpteenth unsupported repetition of the same simplistic misconception, but with the newest set of cosmetic changes and fluff.

Oooh, sorry Caveman! GOTO 2313.

Remember:

Caveman, if you can't replace the words in your post with "Goo goo ga-joob, I am the Walrus" and not sound like a crazy person your point is invalid.

This is every bit as valid as what you're doing by dismissing reality for not conforming to your terrible analogy.

 

[Belz...]

All right, since you're going to be following me around now, from forum to forum...

...what?

Well, good. You are relatively safe, as long as you don't start practicing what you preach.

How does that relate to what I said?

Sorry. I didn't know you were talking to yourself. I thought you were talking to me. And I was talking about sentience, so I just naturally assumed you thought I must be joking about sentience being persistent.

Again, what? Of course I'm talking to you.

I guess we view "sentience" differently. I keep thinking sentience somehow manages to persist even as it changes.

Science disagrees with you. We've discovered quite a few things about it over the years and it doesn't match our millennia-old assumptions at all.

Just about everything else manages to persist through time that way, so I reckon sentience does too. Especially since I experience it doing that.

Your experience is an illusion.

I think I am the same sentience that read both of those words. Therefore I am the same sentience that read both of those words.

That doesn't follow. And Descartes was wrong.

Oooh, it's just an illuuuusion. Like evolution is just a theory?

Can you construct an argument that isn't just dismissal or sarcasm?

Wait. What are you talking about? Are you back to conflating consciousness and sentience again? Well, for my money, that observer you're talking about is just an element of sentience, which is what I was talking about when I was so rudely interrupted.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I had to ask your permission to speak. Oh, wait. I don't.

Explain the distinction you see between the two. What do you mean by "sentience"? As you say we seem to have two different definitions.

That's a 'who's to say' fallacy.

No, it's a question, and I'd like an answer. How would you know?

Who's to say the color of your eyes isn't an illusion?

Actually, it is. That's not a color, that's a wavelength. But it's still a representation of something real. And it is a real representation.

And yet, yes, it's an illusion. An interpretation of a real thing.

I see. 'You' are not Belz from day to day. 'You' merely have "access" to the Belz mockup. What is that 'you' you're talking about?

Something like that. "Belz..." is actually the body generating consciousness. The consciousness is a process created by the body but it is not part of the decision-making aparatus.

Having the experience of being the same person is being the same person.

You say that with wonderful assurance, but can you back it up?

 

[zooterkin]

Unlike your moot caveat.

Er, what?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Reality exists" and "Death exists" are now classified as "simplistic."

Jesus Christ I get that there's just this... personality type that just can't resist running into Woo V Reality discussions to tsk tsk the 'Reality" side over whatever nitpicking nonsense they can find or make up but I will never understand the desire even the most Woo Apologetic person has to thread nanny this train wreck.

 

[Toontown]

Oh, well no fun there.

I lack evidence that it is the same as it was before...

I have plenty of evidence. But you won't be able to use it or acknowledge it's existence.

Using my subjective perspective, I surmise that IF your proposal was true, then this particular iteration of 'me' would not exist, with a certainty very nearly approaching 1.

If I had awakened one nanosecond earlier or later, a different iteration of 'me' would have come into temporary being, and this one would never have happened, IF your proposal is correct. But since this particular iteration of 'me' does exist, the correct assumption is that it is the same 'me' it was yesterday, and your proposal is utter hogwash.

 

[Belz...]

I have plenty of evidence. But you won't be able to use it or acknowledge it's existence.

Using my subjective perspective, I surmise that IF your proposal was true, then this particular iteration of 'me' would not exist, with a certainty very nearly approaching 1.

If I had awakened one nanosecond earlier or later, a different iteration of 'me' would have come into temporary being, and this one would never have happened, IF your proposal is correct. But since this particular iteration of 'me' does exist, the correct assumption is that it is the same 'me' it was yesterday, and your proposal is utter hogwash.

What's hogwash is the post I just quoted.

If your current consciousness (or "sentience", but so far you haven't told us what you mean by that) were only extant from moment to moment, each iteration would have no way of knowing that it's a different "consciousness" at the one before. They have literally no means of doing that. They each have "access" to the memories of the brain and are fed by its various processes, and of course they all "feel" identical since they're all constructed from the same source, and the body has continuity.

 

[Belz...]

Visual representation of trying to find logic or integrity in Jabbas' approach to this thread:

Did you watch until the end? The squirrel found some logic!

 

[halleyscomet]

Did you watch until the end? The squirrel found some logic!

I wanted to end on a note of hope that eventually this thread will go somewhere or peter out and die.

 

[Toontown]

That doesn't follow. And Descartes was wrong.

And the standard retort of the day is, "you don't know that". That will be my stock response to every hard claim you make, should I choose to respond at all.

Because this here is "human interaction".

And yet, yes, it's an illusion. An interpretation of a real thing.

An interpretation of a real thing is not an illusion. Converting wavelengths to colors is not deceptive. It is a very useful and very powerful ability.

 

[Belz...]

And the standard retort of the day is, "you don't know that". That will be my stock response to every hard claim you make, should I choose to respond at all.

Because this here is "human interaction".

So that's it, then? I've written long posts explaining to you in detail why you're wrong and you're so frustrated that someone would dare disagree with you that you respond like a child by retooling my own words and throwing them back at me without further thought?

I also want you to clarify your accusation of stalking towards me. If you're going to get that personal and ridiculous, at least justify your words; have the courage to defend them.

An interpretation of a real thing is not an illusion.

I didn't say they were. I made a precision, I didn't give a definition.

Converting wavelengths to colors is not deceptive.

Now you're just playing with words. I said nothing about deception. Furthermore, what you're talking about now has nothing to do with consciousness. Perception is not consciousness. Cameras do it.

 

[Toontown]

What's hogwash is the post I just quoted.

If your current consciousness (or "sentience", but so far you haven't told us what you mean by that) were only extant from moment to moment, each iteration would have no way of knowing that it's a different "consciousness" at the one before. They have literally no means of doing that. They each have "access" to the memories of the brain and are fed by its various processes, and of course they all "feel" identical since they're all constructed from the same source, and the body has continuity.

the highlighted part is utter, completely unsupported hogwash, and the poster I responded to had proposed a more daily disappearance, presumably the result of observer shutdown during sleep.

Your hogwash proposal is self defeating. Everything is only extant from moment to moment. Time and space are only extant from moment to moment. Everything exists in indivisible quantum packets. And yet time and everything else marches on.

Moment to moment sentience is persistent sentience. it keeps persisting from moment to moment. Each moment of sentience hands off the sentience to the next moment.

Jeez...

 

[Dancing David]

I have plenty of evidence. But you won't be able to use it or acknowledge it's existence.

Fair enough, I have just noticed large changes in any interior events.
They don't seem consistent over time.

 

[Toontown]

"Reality exists" and "Death exists" are now classified as "simplistic."

Jesus Christ I get that there's just this... personality type that just can't resist running into Woo V Reality discussions to tsk tsk the 'Reality" side over whatever nitpicking nonsense they can find or make up but I will never understand the desire even the most Woo Apologetic person has to thread nanny this train wreck.

Sometimes it's interesting to pick through the train wreck debris for a while. What else are you going to do with train wreck debris?

 

[Belz...]

the highlighted part is utter, completely unsupported hogwash

Do you understand the purpose of the word "if" in the English language?

Your hogwash proposal is self defeating. Everything is only extant from moment to moment.

No, my molecules are not remade every second. You're just twisting words to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth about consciousness.

Moment to moment sentience is persistent sentience.

Right. So when I start my car and start moving, it's the same moving as the last time I used it, and so the "moving" is persistent. No, that doesn't make any sense. You simply don't want to listen.

 

[Dabop]

I wanted to end on a note of hope that eventually this thread will go somewhere or peter out and die.

Proof of Immortality, VII p59

I think that answers your question

 

[Toontown]

Do you understand the purpose of the word "if" in the English language?

I understand that it's meaningless in the context of 'if there's a way you could be wrong, then you're wrong', which is what your argument amounts to.

No, my molecules are not remade every second. You're just twisting words to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth about consciousness.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's why individual atoms are not sentient. They're not spry enough. Or illusory enough, or whatever. Nor did I say anything about everything being remade every moment. There are no moments of nonexistence between those quantum packets.

I'm not at all uncomfortable that change is an essential part of sentience. Heck, it's exactly as if my sentience is not actually ceasing to exist every fleeting moment. Seems more like it's just propagating itself through time. Damn good illusion. I'll take it. I'm not that picky.

Right. So when I start my car and start moving, it's the same moving as the last time I used it, and so the "moving" is persistent. No, that doesn't make any sense. You simply don't want to listen.

No, it's more that I recognize the comparison of a car stopping and going with sentience as the utter hogwash that it is.

When's the last time "moving" solved a problem? When did "moving" become self-aware?

Hey Moving! you gonna answer that phone or not?

No, "Moving" is not ever going to answer the goddamn phone. It can't. It's just movement.

 

[Belz...]

I understand that it's meaningless in the context of 'if there's a way you could be wrong, then you're wrong', which is what your argument amounts to.

Absolutely not. It's crucial to the claim that you're trying to dismiss. Let me try to explain it another way:

A) If your consciousness is persistent and a single, continuous process, it has at moment X a single "image" of the current memories and other data fed to it by the brain.

B) If your consciousness is recreated every moment, the exact same thing applies.

So in either case the conscious "you" has no means to determine whether it is continuous or not, even if it were. It has the illusion of continuity because it has access to the brain's data which is used to generate it, but as you cannot be conscious in the past, and are only ever conscious of now, you have no means to go back a second ago and check. The conscious "you" at any given moment could be a "screenshot" of part of the brain's status at that time, and it would still have the illusion of continuity. Of course if it has continuity then the illusion matches reality, but not because of the feeling of continuity -- it's just a coincidence.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's why individual atoms are not sentient.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're saying here.

Nor did I say anything about everything being remade every moment.

No, I said that about consciousness, and in response to that you said that it applies to everything, which is not true, as you've just agreed.

I'm not at all uncomfortable that change is an essential part of sentience.

No but the conscious self is very resilient to the idea that it's not persistent, special or separate. It's very much made to feel that all those things are true.

No, it's more that I recognize the comparison of a car stopping and going with sentience as the utter hogwash that it is.

Ok, please demonstrate the essential difference between the two processes that makes them impossible to compare in this manner. Remember that I'm using this analogy to illustrate the continuity of the processes, not anything else.

When's the last time "moving" solved a problem? When did "moving" become self-aware?

If you paid attention to what I post rather than frantically look for ways to dismiss it, you'd know that these questions are irrelevant. Again, we're talking about continuity of process, which is where the analogy comes in.

 

[Toontown]

If you paid attention to what I post rather than frantically look for ways to dismiss it, you'd know that these questions are irrelevant. Again, we're talking about continuity of process, which is where the analogy comes in.

No. You are talking about continuity of process. I never was, and may never do so. I was talking about persistence. "Sentience is persistent"

You are wandering aimlessly in a yellow-highlighted netherworld of mootness. I don't need to be frantic to dismiss it. It's moot.

It doesn't matter how temporally continuous the process is. Nothing is temporally continuous. If the sentience persistently and consistently propagates through time (and it does) it is persistent.

It doesn't matter whether or not there are temporal gaps between moments of awareness. All that matters is that the moments of awareness are consecutive, consistent, and experienced.