Proof of Immortality, VII

[Jabba]

Jabba, I don't agree with your 1 in 10¹⁰⁰ number. I do agree that, given all the possible ways the universe could have turned out starting from the Big Bang, my eventual existence was one of a very large number of possibilities. Just like every other specific thing that happened.

What I'm still not sure you're quite getting is that in the non-religious model, when I say "my existence", you could substitute "my physical body's existence" and it would mean exactly the same thing. That's why I keep bringing up Mount Rainier, grains of sand, and snowflakes. The non-religious hypothesis is that everything, including the human sense of self, is physical. When I talk about "my sense of self" I mean the parts of my brain involved in cognition. Not something attached to them, not even something produced by them, but the actual structures in the actual organ, doing whatever they do that results in them being able to conceive of abstract concepts and use language to describe them.

Dave,
- Whether physical or not, the sense of self involves the emergent property of awareness. It is a particular awareness that I've been referring to as "my existence." The non-religious model accepts the existence of awareness in you and me, but does not attribute awareness to Mount Rainier, grains of sand, or snowflakes.

 

[Belz...]

Dave,
- Whether physical or not, the sense of self involves the emergent property of awareness. It is a particular awareness

No, stop there. A property doesn't have instances. A property isn't an object or thing. It's a process. There's no such thing as a "particular" going 60 mph., and there's no such thing as a "particular" self.

The non-religious model accepts the existence of awareness in you and me, but does not attribute awareness to Mount Rainier, grains of sand, or snowflakes.

Dishonest. You have not set the property apart from any other property. Mountains have properties, too. First of all, you don't know whether they are conscious, and second, even if they're not, they have other properties. Consciousness is not "special" in that respect.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Whether physical or not, the sense of self involves the emergent property of awareness. It is a particular awareness that I've been referring to as "my existence." The non-religious model accepts the existence of awareness in you and me, but does not attribute awareness to Mount Rainier, grains of sand, or snowflakes.

So what? Being aware does not change how math works. It does not change how cause and effect works. I'm only aware because my brain exists and is functioning. My awareness only exists because my brain exists, because it's my brain that's aware.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, I don't agree with your 1 in 10¹⁰⁰ number. I do agree that, given all the possible ways the universe could have turned out starting from the Big Bang, my eventual existence was one of a very large number of possibilities. Just like every other specific thing that happened...

Dave,
- Do you figure that the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- is greater than 10^-100?

 

[Belz...]

Dave,
- Do you figure that the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- is greater than 10^-100?

The question is meaningless under H. We've been telling you this for years. You can't calculate the odds, in part because you have no idea how to do it. For all you know it's 1. It probably is.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Do you figure that the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- is greater than 10^-100?

I have no way of knowing enough of the initial conditions of the universe to answer that.

 

[JayUtah]

Whether physical or not, the sense of self involves the emergent property of awareness.

Special pleading. Under materialism there is nothing magical about this or any other emergent property such that it should be treated as somehow different than any other emergent property. The Mt Ranier examples are presented to you to show you how materialism thinks about it -- specifically that under materialism there is no magical difference between a human and a mountain, or a human and a Volkswagen.

One of the ways you misrepresent materialism is in claiming that one particular emergent property of humans is somehow different than all other emergent properties of all other kinds of objects.

It is a particular awareness that I've been referring to as "my existence."

Under materialism, self-awareness is not individualized. It is not "particular." You know this; we've pointed out that other properties such as "going 60 mph" are not particular or individualized. You offered only the feeble, laughable claim that such properties aren't properties. You know you're stuck here, so you just keep gaslighting.

Another way you misrepresent materialism is in trying to redefine what it means by a property.

The non-religious model accepts the existence of awareness in you and me, but does not attribute awareness to Mount Rainier, grains of sand, or snowflakes.

The materialist hypothesis has a blanket claim. All properties, emergent or otherwise, are caused only by the matter that makes them up and are proper to the matter. You're the one trying to conjure up a list of ad hoc exceptions that somehow, magically, makes your view of materialism work. Instead of doing that, perhaps you should pay closer attention to the chorus of skeptics telling you specifically in exactly what way that view misrepresents what they claim.

 

[Jabba]

So what? Being aware does not change how math works. It does not change how cause and effect works. I'm only aware because my brain exists and is functioning. My awareness only exists because my brain exists, because it's my brain that's aware.

- Even so, the non-religious model accepts that your particular awareness never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place. Given that model, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular awareness is unimaginably small.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave,
- Whether physical or not, the sense of self involves the emergent property of awareness.

You still don't seem to comprehend what an emergent property is if you're prefacing it with the words "whether physical or not". I'd like for you to define "emergent property" in your own words so that we can see that you have a better understanding of it than a three year old child.

It is a particular awareness that I've been referring to as "my existence."

Which you agree is an idiotic thing to do. Emergent properties aren't "particular" in the way that physical things are.

What you've actually been doing is trying to avoid using the word "soul" and your attempts have been child-like, naïve and easily seen through.

The non-religious model accepts the existence of awareness in you and me, but does not attribute awareness to Mount Rainier, grains of sand, or snowflakes.

Different material things have different emergent properties. This also ranks up there with "your" discovery of pronouns.

In materialism, what is the difference between one emergent property and another one? Remember Jabba, you are answering for materialism, not a model that you've invented.

 

[JayUtah]

Do you figure that the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- is greater than 10^-100?

Do not attempt to shift the burden of proof. You have claimed that P(E|H) < 10^-100 and you have provided zero proof for that assertion. You have further claimed that all your critics agree with you on this, when the facts clearly and loudly state the opposite. Do not therefore attempt to hide your blatant question-begging by making others responsible for declaring and defending some other value.

Further, you're still trying to argue your case only from within the framework and assumptions of your own model which has been rejected for stated reasons. You simply want to fiddle with the knobs and sidestep your admitted failure to deal with the errors of your model at its most fundamental level. And you want to limit your critics similarly. Your critics have disagreed with your entire approach and given you reasons why, which you cannot address. Do not propose to forestall that discussion by nit-picking only details.

 

[Thermal]

The question is meaningless under H. We've been telling you this for years. You can't calculate the odds, in part because you have no idea how to do it. For all you know it's 1. It probably is.

Mine is certainly 1. I am here.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave,
- Do you figure that the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- is greater than 10^-100?

What is the likelihood of the existence of a particular snowflake?

 

[godless dave]

- Even so, the non-religious model accepts that your particular awareness never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place. Given that model, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular awareness is unimaginably small.

No smaller than the likelihood of the current existence of anything that exists. "Never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place" is true of absolutely everything.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- Even so, the non-religious model accepts that your particular awareness never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place.

Given your penchant for lying, materialism asks that you stop trying to speak for it.

Given that model, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular awareness is unimaginably small.

"That model" is a strawman of your own invention. You're welcome to falsify it at your leisure, but you won't be any closer to falsifying materialism.

You won't be allowed to lie about materialism. Hope that helps.

 

[JayUtah]

- Even so, the non-religious model accepts that your particular awareness never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place.

No. There is no individualized "self-awareness" under materialism. Self-awareness is not an entity. It is a property of the organism, and must exist any time the organism exists. This is particularly true in the hypothetical case where the matter of an organism is reproduced with absolute fidelity.

One of the ways you misrepresent the materialist hypothesis is in assuming some ineffable distinction among specimens with identical matter, which is just poorly-concealed dualism. As has been pointed out above, you need to get used to the idea that you will not be able to lie about materialism or gaslight your critics into letting you.

That you can treat the occurrence of one possible configuration of matter as a numerator and the number of possible configurations as a denominator does not give rise to a meaningful probability. Meaning is dictated by non-arithmetic factors, which you have not supplied in your case. Identifying one specimen that has arisen, after it has arisen and only because it arose, commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You are conflating the purportedly small arithmetic value of a probability with a reckoning of its significance. The probability is estimated as small, yet the event happened, therefore the event "must" be significant for the proffered reasons. You have been asked many times to describe the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in your own terms, to assure your critics that you understand it. You are evidently incapable of understanding it, and thus evidently incapable of comprehending why your proof has failed.

You have variously argued that the Texas sharpshooter fallacy should not be a fallacy, or that you do have reason to consider "old" information when reasoning about the selection of one specimen. The former is simply special pleading. The latter conflates the difference between when information is known and when it becomes operative. You have declined to comment on that refutation, so it stands unchallenged.

 

[Jabba]

No smaller than the likelihood of the current existence of anything that exists. "Never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place" is true of absolutely everything.

- OK. But that is damned small. Unimaginably small. I don't think that you're disagreeing with me about the size of your likelihood given the non-religious hypothesis. I think that you're really talking about the sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[Belz...]

- Even so, the non-religious model accepts that your particular awareness never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place.

There is no such thing as a particular self-awareness.

Given that model, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular awareness is unimaginably small.

That doesn't follow at all. That makes no sense.

 

[godless dave]

- OK. But that is damned small. Unimaginably small. I don't think that you're disagreeing with me about the size of your likelihood given the non-religious hypothesis. I think that you're really talking about the sharpshooter fallacy.

Correct. I'm disagreeing that the size of my likelihood is in any way significant, because given the size and age of the universe, any particular event is unlikely when calculated from the beginning of the universe.

 

[Belz...]

- OK. But that is damned small. Unimaginably small.

You don't know that.

 

[halleyscomet]

Dave,
- Do you figure that the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- is greater than 10^-100?