Proof of Immortality II

[Jabba]

- This time my absence has been mostly due to confusion over missing posts. I had wanted to respond to a few of them...

xtifr,
- Did I misread you, or did you agree with my claim, trivial as it may be, that my particular sense of self is not defined by biochemistry?

 

[Agatha]

Not to speak for xtifr and his/her current position as LCP, but I really think that nobody agrees with your claim that your 'PSOS' is not (wholly) defined by biochemistry.

What else could it be defined by, given that consciousness (and the 'PSOS') is an emergent property - a process - of the functioning neurosystem? There's no magic here, it is all entirely explicable by naturalistic means.

And yes, I stopped responding for a while because this thread is going nowhere, and getting there fast very slowly, because Jabba is not responding to anyone other than his current LCP, and not actually reading the replies from that poster, never mind anyone else.

 

[Giordano]

- This time my absence has been mostly due to confusion over missing posts. I had wanted to respond to a few of them...

xtifr,
- Did I misread you, or did you agree with my claim, trivial as it may be, that my particular sense of self is not defined by biochemistry?

I too hesitate to speak for xtifr. But you, Jabba, are wrong again. Both I and the SM have told you repeatedly that your particular sense of self is fully determined by biochemistry: the biochemistry defined by genetics and changed by experience. This is not "trivial" but gets to the very heart of why your theory of reincarnation is wrong.

 

[Giordano]

- This time my absence has been mostly due to confusion over missing posts. I had wanted to respond to a few of them...

xtifr,
- Did I misread you, or did you agree with my claim, trivial as it may be, that my particular sense of self is not defined by biochemistry?

Again, I refuse to speak for xtifr, but didn't "he" just tell you (last page) that:

Consciousness is entirely dependent on the brain. If you create a new brain, you get a new consciousness. It doesn't matter if it's identical. The bodies are identical, but not the same body. The consciousnesses are identical, but not the same consciousness. There's no difference between those cases. There's no special mystical property "allowing" an entirely separate brain to have an entirely separate consciousness. That's simply what happens when you have a working brain."

That seems to suggest that your particular sense of self is defined by the biochemistry of a working brain. What part of this did you misread as agreeing with you?

 

[xtifr]

xtifr,
- Did I misread you, or did you agree with my claim, trivial as it may be, that my particular sense of self is not defined by biochemistry?

I still don't know what you mean by "defined by". Consciousness is a purely biological function, associated with a particular brain. So in that sense, it's most definitely "defined by" biochemistry. And the sense of self is part of the consciousness (it's an event that can occur as part of the process).

The whole thing about perfect copies is a red herring, because two separate-but-identical instances of a biochemical process are still separate processes. They involve a different set of atoms. But the process is still "defined by" biochemistry, if that's how you want to describe it.

If you have some other meaning for "defined by", then I don't know, since I don't know what you mean by the term.

 

[pakeha]

- This time my absence has been mostly due to confusion over missing posts. I had wanted to respond to a few of them...

xtifr,
- Did I misread you, or did you agree with my claim, trivial as it may be, that my particular sense of self is not defined by biochemistry?

Jabba, why are you persisting in ignoring how consciousness is defined?

 

[Toontown]

No, many people stated that he can believe whatever he wants. I think our problem has something to do with Jabba's title of this thread.

Good thing he didn't state he could fly off cliffs by flapping his arms; I gather I shouldn't disappoint him by contradicting his belief.

At what point in history will you consider his beliefs sufficiently contradicted? And now you have these crazy scientists talking about quantum immortality, multiverses, and such. And you have yet to silence one single Hutt in all these months.

 

[Giordano]

At what point in history will you consider his beliefs sufficiently contradicted? And now you have these crazy scientists talking about quantum immortality, multiverses, and such. And you have yet to silence one single Hutt in all these months.

As I have said before, I will stop when Jabba simply states that he believes his theory personally, but stops claiming that science states certain things that are not accepted by science, and when he stops using math incorrectly. Now that he is in the religion section, he can state whatever he believes, but he can be challenged for any errors if he tries to prove it to others.

Are your other points relating to other threads? I don't recall multiverses or quantum immortality being raised by Jabba. If so, would you please point out these posts here; thanks.

 

[Toontown]

As I have said before, I will stop when Jabba simply states that he believes his theory personally, but stops claiming that science states certain things that are not accepted by science, and when he stops using math incorrectly. Now that he is in the religion section, he can state whatever he believes, but he can be challenged for any errors if he tries to prove it to others.

And if he doesn't stop?

Seems to me he would have no choice except to stop if you'd all stop soliciting responses from him. He'd look pretty silly posting to himself. So it seems to me all of your various bemoanings of Jabba's obtuseness is playing to an imaginary crowd of hawkish observers.

Face it. The vast majority of humanity gives a rat's ass less what you or Jabba believe.

Are your other points relating to other threads? I don't recall multiverses or quantum immortality being raised by Jabba. If so, would you please point out these posts here; thanks.

Jabba did not specify any mechanism of immortality in his formula, as I recall, so the mechanism is open for speculation.

I propose a deal. Jabba drops his insistence on Bayesian immortality and accepts quantum immortality. You offer no resistance to quantum immortality, since it doesn't involve the use of Bayesian inference, happens in infinite Higgs space where the wave function lives, and requires one fewer assumption than wave function collapse.

I don't see why the both of you shouldn't be happy with this solution. Jabba gets his immortality, you get leading edge science. Of course, on the inside you'll know it's just a hypothesis. Nobody lives forever. Heck, the vast majority of yous won't even live to see 90. But you can provisionally accept quantum immortality in the interest of peace.

Unless you just want to argue endlessly and fruitlessly, in which case...yippeeyiyay.

 

[Giordano]

If I needed others to care what I say, I would probably stop posting here.

But if Jabba used quantum immortality in his posts as proof of his immortality, I would feel free to point out any flaws in his arguments that I might see.. But I think he should create another thread for it using a more appropriate titled. If quantum immortality is advocated by others, particularly outside of this forum, I probably would listen, but can't guarantee I would agree or disagree. It depends on their arguments. But I certainly don't have the time to argue with everyone who might be wrong. Or right. Particularly if they don't post here.

 

[Jabba]

...Whatever. I’m claiming that 1) each brain copy would produce a different “identity.” IOW, 2) there is something about this sense of self that is not defined by brain chemistry...

Yes, I know that you're claiming that. My question - again - is, what is your support for this claim?

Dave,
- Which of the above wordings are you asking about? Both?

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- Which of the above wordings are you asking about? Both?

I'd say the biggest problem here is that you've presented two completely different claims and pretended that they're both the same.

The first one may or may not be correct depending on which meaning of 'different' you're using today.

The second is complete rubbish in any language.

 

[Aepervius]

Dave,
- You haven't responded. Do you now accept that there is something about this sense of self that is not defined by brain chemistry; are you just otherwise busy; or, are you just getting tired of my density?

The emergent property of a leg muscle contracting is solely due to its chemistry and physic.

You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever it is different for the brain. Everything coming out of the brain is an emergent property of the brain. Everybody keep telling you it is the same, everything is dictated by the chemistry (well physic), which is WHY we keep telling you once your brain is dead it is game over and it is also WHY we gave you the analogy of the twins, and the copy-brain analogy. Because everything is dictated by the chemistry and physic as far as evidence showed us.

So really, speaking of density what part do you not understand ? Everything is dictated by the physic of the brain (atom, chemistry, electro chemical potential etc...), there is no evidence otherwise. ALL OF US state this. YOU are the one with a different idea. provide evidence of YOUR claim and stop trying to get us to say "Do you now accept this and that".

And for pity's sake, let us finally go over the second of february....

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Which of the above wordings are you asking about? Both?

The second one. The first one I may or may not agree with, depending what you mean by "different". Each brain produces a separate identity. Two absolutely identical brains (which doesn't occur in nature) would produce two separate, identical identities.

So I'm asking you, what is your support for the claim that there is something about each sense of self that is not defined by brain chemistry.

 

[LashL]

This thread has been closed for clean up. As always, do not start new threads to discuss the subject matter in the interim; you will have to wait until a Mod has time to take care of the clean up and until the thread is subsequently re-opened.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Locknar]

I have made a initial sweep of the last 2 pages, off-topic/bickering has been moved to AAH. I am not done, but do not want to keep the thread closed longer so for now it is going to be Moderated. When the clean up is finished this thread will close (due to size), and a new un-Moderated continuation thread will follow.

Posted By: Locknar

 

[Jabba]

- Whatever. I’m claiming that 1) each brain copy would produce a different “identity.” IOW, 2) there is something about this sense of self that is not defined by brain chemistry.

Yes, I know that you're claiming that. My question - again - is, what is your support for this claim?

Dave,
- Which of the above wordings are you asking about? Both?

The second one. The first one I may or may not agree with, depending what you mean by "different". Each brain produces a separate identity. Two absolutely identical brains (which doesn't occur in nature) would produce two separate, identical identities.
So I'm asking you, what is your support for the claim that there is something about each sense of self that is not defined by brain chemistry.

- The following comes from private messages during thread cleaning.

Dave,
- Hopefully, this can work till the thread comes back...
-You might have answered this question already -- but if so, I can't remember your answer, and it would be hard to look it up...
- While there is a biochemical formula exclusive to an identical "me," there is no such formula for the same "ME."
- If that is understandable, do you agree?
-Thanks.

I agree, but that doesn't help your case at all. All it's saying is that two identical things are two distinct things.

- OK. Do you accept that there is an exclusive, pre-existing, physics formula for the same ME?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

We are finite, Our lives end, All things end in time.

The world/universe existed and functioned perfectly fine before anyone in this thread was born and will continue to function long after we are gone.

 

[abaddon]

- The following comes from private messages during thread cleaning.

OMG. I sincerely hope that you asked for, and recieved, permission to post PM's publicly.

- OK. Do you accept that there is an exclusive, pre-existing, physics formula for the same ME?

Well, more or less. It's hard to tell what you are getting at. The formula for you can be used to produce many identical yous. Of course the created identical yous will immediately diverge at the moment of their creation since it is impossible for each created you to have the same experience as any other you by dint of them having different experiences to any other created you.

In fact, in order to create a you which remained identical to the original you, one would have to create a whole world in which EVERYTHING was the same. You would have to create an abaddon just for this created "you" who replied exactly as I have above. Were there any difference between my reply and the created abaddon's reply, the created "you" would have a different experience and would no longer be identical to the original "you".

This is where it falls apart. The created "you" will be identical to the original "you" only at the moment of creation. In order to continue that absolute correspondence, one must create the entire universe again, identical in every particular to the current universe and ensure that whatever happens in this universe also happens exactly in the created universe.

 

[Jabba]

We are finite, Our lives end, All things end in time.

The world/universe existed and functioned perfectly fine before anyone in this thread was born and will continue to function long after we are gone.

Nay Sayer,
- Your statement suggests that we humans are pretty close to understanding and explaining everything -- that we're not missing anything important. Is that what you believe?