Proof of Immortality II

[Slowvehicle]

This thread is a continuation of Immortality and Bayesian Statistics. This new thread has been formed in order to improve the forum's performance. The cut-off point of the previous thread was arbitrary. Feel free to quote from any older posts in this thread. It remains moderated for the time being. Thank you.

Posted By: Loss Leader

For many people, it is simply the result of eating the wrong sorts of food. Broccoli or beans for some. That must be what Jabba is referring to.

Now, now...

 

[HighRiser]

- To what extent do you guys accept strong emergence?

As others have said; it depends on how you define strong emergence. Would you mind doing that?

 

[Giordano]

- Re #2: Sure.
- Re #1: This is where the words fail us (or maybe, they just fail me).
- Whatever. I’m claiming that each brain copy would produce a different “identity.” IOW, there is something about this sense of self that is not defined by brain chemistry.
- For the moment at least, I’m accepting that the identity could be defined by space/time coordinates -- but only at the instant of consciousness. I include the caveat(?) because each of us experiences (an, at least, illusion of) identity continuity over a lifetime. In the major sense, our identities appear to stay the same over our lifetimes. Our different “characteristics” change from instant to instant, but not our apparent identities.

Could you repeat that again? I'm not sure I got it the first 5 times you posted it. Maybe louder?

 

[Giordano]

Yup, he made a concession! Dude! That's, like, unprecedented!

Well, ok, technically, he conceded that he might have to make a concession. But that's still very nearly almost progress! Or closer to being very nearly almost progress than we've seen in thousands of previous posts.



Well, he tried, but, of course, it wasn't actually evidence. And now, finally, we've very nearly almost gotten him to agree that it wasn't, and very nearly almost gotten him to admit that he might need a better argument. We've very nearly almost reached a tiny, incremental advance in the debate! I'm so excited!



Like I said before, I'm just here for the laughs.

I think you are too optimistic here. Every time in the past, ever time, I thought Jabba finally conceded what others told him about problem with his theory, his very next post bought us back to square one. I hope it has been fun for you, because I think that is all you will get out of Jabba.

 

[xtifr]

Any chance of a link to Jabba's attempt to provide evidence that the soul exists? I seem to have missed it among all of his sidetracks, evasions, and attempts to beg the question.

What, you missed the whole thing about how a copy wouldn't be the same individual as the original, and therefore there must be something mystical about consciousness, because it's not purely dependent on biochemistry? I thought that was a pretty significant part of the discussion.

I never said it was a good attempt (let alone good evidence).

 

[Giordano]

- To what extent do you guys accept strong emergence?

????? Oh, before you define it: why would I care?

 

[abaddon]

...and this has...what to do with the existence of the "soul", or its "immortality"?

Jabba will not answer.

This is not our first rodeo, Mr. Savage.

What do you, personally, think you mean when you say, "strong emergence"?

If you are going to claim that the "soul" is a supervenient property, an "extra" not directly dependent upon the physical limitations of the system out of which the property emerges, and that that somehow lets you sneak the "soul" in as the metaphysical prize in an existential Cracker Jack^® box, then I, for one, deny it. Absolutely flat deny it. It's a "superproperty-of-the-gaps" argument.

Please do not ignore this question. An honest answer from you could save us four pages of pointless OT circular argument.

Jabba will not answer.

That is my recollection as well. He also referred to cases of alleged reincarnation, and past lives regression. IOW, woo.

Jabba will not answer.

Sadly it is common for people to think that bad evidence alluded to vaguely is somehow better then bad evidence outright stated.

Jabba will not answer.

To what extent do you define "strong emergence"?

Jabba will not answer.

For many people, it is simply the result of eating the wrong sorts of food. Broccoli or beans for some. That must be what Jabba is referring to.

Jabba will not answer.

TY. I had forgotten the "I'm Napoleon" arguments...

Jabba will not answer.

Now, now...

Jabba will not answer.

As others have said; it depends on how you define strong emergence. Would you mind doing that?

Jabba will not answer.

Could you repeat that again? I'm not sure I got it the first 5 times you posted it. Maybe louder?

Jabba will not answer.

I think you are too optimistic here. Every time in the past, ever time, I thought Jabba finally conceded what others told him about problem with his theory, his very next post bought us back to square one. I hope it has been fun for you, because I think that is all you will get out of Jabba.

Jabba will not answer.

I trust my answers are sufficient?

 

[HighRiser]

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

I trust my answers are sufficient?

Hope springs eternal... essentially.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

I trust my answers are sufficient?

True. But I suspect that we are not really talking to him. However you are right and I am very puzzled by why I post. Maybe I am used to being ignored in real life?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

Jabba will not answer.

I trust my answers are sufficient?

So, whaddarya tryinta say, exactly?

 

[Loss Leader]

- To what extent do you guys accept strong emergence?

Jabba, really, another newly invented term?

 

[Slowvehicle]

True. But I suspect that we are not really talking to him. However you are right and I am very puzzled by why I post. Maybe I am used to being ignored in real life?

WHAT?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Jabba, really, another newly invented term?

Oh, it's a legitimate term; I am just unconvinced that Mr. Savage knows what it means.

 

[abaddon]

Jabba, really, another newly invented term?

Sure, why not. I am not extracting the michael here. Jabba really will not answer. You are stuffed, I am stuffed, Slowvehicle is stuffed, Giordano is stuffed, xtifr is stuffed, donn is stuffed, all of us are stuffed. Jabba will only interact with the one currently appointed. Not only that, you can't even guess who that might be because it frakkin changes from moment to moment.

So what exactly is it that we have before us? I can tell you. What we have is a bovine crapfest which is protected by mod and may not be identified for what it is.

 

[Humots]

Humots, you left of the "if" part of his second statement. He was actually using that second statement as a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Or at least that's how it reads to me.

You are correct.

It is that “part” of the self, or “sense” of the self, that I’m claiming cannot come from the chemistry of the brain – If it did, “I” would be brought back to life by producing an exact copy of my brain as it was when it first began to sense its self.

But his reductio ad absurdum was incorrect. He was saying that if the sense of self did come from the chemistry of the brain, he would be brought back to life.

No, he wouldn't. It would be, as we keep saying, an identical self but not the same self.

 

[xtifr]

- For the moment at least, I’m accepting that the identity could be defined by space/time coordinates -- but only at the instant of consciousness.

There is no "instant of consciousness". Consciousness is a process. It continues until it stops, like running.

In the major sense, our identities appear to stay the same over our lifetimes.

Except when we switch bodies. Oh wait, that never happens, so this is not even slightly evidence of something not directly tied to a particular body and brain. So that doesn't even slightly begin to address the location issue.

Oh, and of course, people who suffer brain trauma and can no longer identify with their previous selves. Which again, puts the brain back dead center.

- To what extent do you guys accept strong emergence?

As defined in the Wikipedia article? Not at all. Not one bit. In fact, I would call it the boundary between religion and science. Science doesn't use the term "strong emergence" (and I'd never heard the term before reading that article) because the only form of emergence that's relevant to science is what WP calls "weak".

So-called "weak" emergence is not only the only type of emergence that's been demonstrated to exist, I believe it's the only kind that can be. Pretty much by definition.

 

[Loss Leader]

Oh, it's a legitimate term; I am just unconvinced that Mr. Savage knows what it means.

Oh, there's very little chance he does because I just read the Wikipedia article and I still don't understand it - but at least this thread accidentally provided me an opportunity for education.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Oh, there's very little chance he does because I just read the Wikipedia article and I still don't understand it - but at least this thread accidentally provided me an opportunity for education.

Try this:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/emergenc/

Enjoy!

 

[HighRiser]

Oh, there's very little chance he does because I just read the Wikipedia article and I still don't understand it - but at least this thread accidentally provided me an opportunity for education.

I had learned a little about the philosophical aspects of emergence, and just got back from a little Wiki refresher reading. I suspect the "god of the gaps" argument is imminent.

 

[John Jones]

- To what extent do you guys accept strong emergence?

Nobody answer this until he defines his understanding of the term, or else Jabba will quote you as agreeing with him after re-defining the term. It's what he does.