Proof of Immortality II

[Mojo]

1. We’ve been talking about two different kinds of “self.” There is 1) the self that is all the person’s characteristics -- and then, there is 2) the SELF that is the person’s self-awareness.

That looks suspiciously like another attempt to force your desired conclusion into the argument by means of an unsupported assertion. The "SELF that is the person’s self-awareness" is just something that results from the functioning of the brain. Brains in identical states will therefore produce identical "selves", identical "SELVES", identical "selves", identical "selves", identical "selves" and even identical "SELVES".

Changes to the typography won't make any difference. You need to provide some evidence that the soul (for this is undeniably what you mean here, and since we are now in R+P you have no further need to deny it) exists.

2. We accept that could we perfectly replicate a person’s brain, we could replicate the person’s self – but, not the person’s SELF.

You claim this; I can see no indication that anyone other than you accepts it.

3. IOW, there is no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular SELF.

You haven't established this. There is no reason to suppose that consciousness is not the result of brain function, and that identical brains will not produce identical consciousnesses.

4. And, while we can safely say that a self is defined by its brain, we cannot safely say the same about a SELF.

You have provided no reason that we cannot say the same about a SELF, and no evidence that there is some special sort of "SELF" that is not the result of the functioning of the brain.

5. Bio-chemically speaking, a SELF comes out of nowhere…

Biochemically speaking, the self is the result of the chemistry of the brain at a particular moment. You haven't established that the "SELF", as you call it, exists.

6. And, if bio-chemistry is all we can call on to define a SELF, there is no pre-existing, exclusive recipe for a particular SELF.

If you cannot establish that the SELF exists, it's not really worth worrying about whether there is a "pre-existing, exclusive recipe for a particular SELF", is it?

7. And, even if time and space are finite, a new SELF is brand new, and does not come from a pre-existing pool (limited by the number of possible recipes) of potential SELVES.

Evidence that there is some sort of "SELF" that does not result from brain chemistry, please. If you can't provide it, none of your points in this iteration of your argument is supported.

8. And, while the number of actual SELVES possible in a finite universe would be finite, the number of potential SELVES would be infinite.

Nope, because you have failed to establish that the "SELF" exists, or that there is any component of the self that is not the result of brain function. In a finite universe, or even for brains of a finite size in an infinite universe, there will only be a finite number of possible states in which a brain can be. Your "proof of immortality" therefore requires brains to be of infinite size. They are demonstrably not (and it would probably be rather impractical if they were. Even Marvin only had a brain the size of a planet, not an infinite one).

In any case, since you failed to support the assertion you made in point 1, none of the points you made following from it have any validity.


Incidentally, you keep saying "we", for example:

We accept that could we perfectly replicate a person’s brain, we could replicate the person’s self – but, not the person’s SELF.

You and who else?

 

[Mojo]

Jabba, why are you ignoring the definition of a sense of self?
Why attempt to construct a premise around a false definition of a sense of self?

Jabba is trying to prove that the eternal soul exists. He has no evidence for its existence, and no convincing argument for its existence, so he is trying to insert it as a premise to his argument, giving it a different name in the hope that nobody notices.

Everybody has noticed.

 

[Pixel42]

1. We’ve been talking about two different kinds of “self.” There is 1) the self that is all the person’s characteristics -- and then, there is 2) the SELF that is the person’s self-awareness.
2. We accept that could we perfectly replicate a person’s brain, we could replicate the person’s self – but, not the person’s SELF.
3. IOW, there is no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular SELF.
4. And, while we can safely say that a self is defined by its brain, we cannot safely say the same about a SELF.
5. Bio-chemically speaking, a SELF comes out of nowhere…

6. And, if bio-chemistry is all we can call on to define a SELF, there is no pre-existing, exclusive recipe for a particular SELF.
7. And, even if time and space are finite, a new SELF is brand new, and does not come from a pre-existing pool (limited by the number of possible recipes) of potential SELVES.
8. And, while the number of actual SELVES possible in a finite universe would be finite, the number of potential SELVES would be infinite.

This must be at least the tenth time you have stated this nonsense, or something very similar to it. If the other 9 times are anything to go by you will ignore all the patient explanations as to why it is nonsense, and in a week or two simply state it all again. If you are not prepared to learn or adjust your views in any way when the fundamental mistakes which underlie them are pointed out to you, why should we bother to keep doing so? AFAIKS the only reason posters continue to respond to you at all is because the last time they got fed up with banging their heads against this particular brick wall you took the lack of response as agreement and declared victory. Is that what you're hoping will happen again if you continue to repeat the same mistakes and misrepresentations over and over and over again?

 

[PixyMisa]

1. We’ve been talking about two different kinds of “self.” There is 1) the self that is all the person’s characteristics -- and then, there is 2) the SELF that is the person’s self-awareness.

Self-awareness is most definitely a characteristic of a person.

2. We accept that could we perfectly replicate a person’s brain, we could replicate the person’s self – but, not the person’s SELF.

Self-awareness is brain function. If you precisely replicate a person, you precisely replicate their brain, and you precisely replicate their self-awareness. And, significantly,

YOU NOW HAVE TWO PEOPLE

3. IOW, there is no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular SELF.

Self-awareness is brain function.

4. And, while we can safely say that a self is defined by its brain, we cannot safely say the same about a SELF.

Self-awareness is brain function..

5. Bio-chemically speaking, a SELF comes out of nowhere…

Self-awareness is brain function..

6. And, if bio-chemistry is all we can call on to define a SELF, there is no pre-existing, exclusive recipe for a particular SELF.

Self-awareness is brain function.

7. And, even if time and space are finite, a new SELF is brand new, and does not come from a pre-existing pool (limited by the number of possible recipes) of potential SELVES.

Self-awareness is brain function.

8. And, while the number of actual SELVES possible in a finite universe would be finite, the number of potential SELVES would be infinite.

Self-awareness is brain function. The number of potential brains is finite. No matter how many times you repeat your argument, you will always be wrong.

 

[Jabba]

1. We’ve been talking about two different kinds of “self.” There is 1) the self that is all the person’s characteristics -- and then, there is 2) the SELF that is the person’s self-awareness...

Isn't the self-awareness one of those characteristics? ...

Dave,
- What I call "characteristics" are determined by brain chemistry -- "self awareness" (apparently) is not. Not unless -- like xtifr -- you accept that specific atoms are part of brain chemistry and are responsible for the difference between SELVES.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- What I call "characteristics" are determined by brain chemistry -- "self awareness" (apparently) is not. Not unless -- like xtifr -- you accept that specific atoms are part of brain chemistry and are responsible for the difference between SELVES.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

That coffee cup certainly brings out the color of your eyes!

Rather than simply post more reasoned, detailed responses to your lack of response, I simply encourage you to read:

This must be at least the tenth time you have stated this nonsense, or something very similar to it. If the other 9 times are anything to go by you will ignore all the patient explanations as to why it is nonsense, and in a week or two simply state it all again. If you are not prepared to learn or adjust your views in any way when the fundamental mistakes which underlie them are pointed out to you, why should we bother to keep doing so? AFAIKS the only reason posters continue to respond to you at all is because the last time they got fed up with banging their heads against this particular brick wall you took the lack of response as agreement and declared victory. Is that what you're hoping will happen again if you continue to repeat the same mistakes and misrepresentations over and over and over again?

Self-awareness is most definitely a characteristic of a person.
Self-awareness is brain function. If you precisely replicate a person, you precisely replicate their brain, and you precisely replicate their self-awareness. And, significantly,
YOU NOW HAVE TWO PEOPLE

Self-awareness is brain function.

Self-awareness is brain function..

Self-awareness is brain function..

Self-awareness is brain function.

Self-awareness is brain function.

Self-awareness is brain function. The number of potential brains is finite. No matter how many times you repeat your argument, you will always be wrong.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- What I call "characteristics" are determined by brain chemistry -- "self awareness" (apparently) is not.

In the scientific model self awareness is caused by brain chemistry.

Not unless -- like xtifr -- you accept that specific atoms are part of brain chemistry and are responsible for the difference between SELVES.

Self awareness is caused by brain chemistry. The difference between two identical selves would be that they are two separate brains, each one possessing self awareness.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- What I call "characteristics" are determined by brain chemistry -- "self awareness" (apparently) is not. Not unless -- like xtifr -- you accept that specific atoms are part of brain chemistry and are responsible for the difference between SELVES.

I can't help but think that you are ignoring intentionally what many here have posted. In any case, "self awareness" as you mean it is determined by biochemistry! If one was to duplicate the biochemistry of a brain, the physics of a brain, exactly, you would end up with two identical self-awarenesses: both would think they were the original in all ways and they would have the same self-awareness. The only difference would be their locations after the duplication, and the atoms out of which they were made. If we duplicated you, both Jabbas would think they were Jabba. Neither would realize they were not the original, they would have no reason to think that they were not the original, unless they were told or due to their locations in space.

 

[John Jones]

1. We’ve been talking about two different kinds of “self.” There is 1) the self that is all the person’s characteristics -- and then, there is 2) the SELF that is the person’s self-awareness.
2. We accept that could we perfectly replicate a person’s brain, we could replicate the person’s self – but, not the person’s SELF.
3. IOW, there is no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular SELF.
4. And, while we can safely say that a self is defined by its brain, we cannot safely say the same about a SELF.
5. Bio-chemically speaking, a SELF comes out of nowhere…

6. And, if bio-chemistry is all we can call on to define a SELF, there is no pre-existing, exclusive recipe for a particular SELF.
7. And, even if time and space are finite, a new SELF is brand new, and does not come from a pre-existing pool (limited by the number of possible recipes) of potential SELVES.
8. And, while the number of actual SELVES possible in a finite universe would be finite, the number of potential SELVES would be infinite.

You're once again trying to put words in other peoples' mouth. Who is the 'we' you are discussing? I'm not one of them.

 

[John Jones]

This must be at least the tenth time you have stated this nonsense, or something very similar to it. If the other 9 times are anything to go by you will ignore all the patient explanations as to why it is nonsense, and in a week or two simply state it all again. If you are not prepared to learn or adjust your views in any way when the fundamental mistakes which underlie them are pointed out to you, why should we bother to keep doing so? AFAIKS the only reason posters continue to respond to you at all is because the last time they got fed up with banging their heads against this particular brick wall you took the lack of response as agreement and declared victory. Is that what you're hoping will happen again if you continue to repeat the same mistakes and misrepresentations over and over and over again?

^^What she said.

 

[Giordano]

^^What she said.

^^What he said she said.

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- What I call "characteristics" are determined by brain chemistry -- "self awareness" (apparently) is not. Not unless -- like xtifr -- you accept that specific atoms are part of brain chemistry and are responsible for the difference between SELVES.

If you were to undergo a replication process, and if no one told you what exactly happened, would you know whether you were the original, or the duplicate? If so, how?

 

[Mojo]

If you were to undergo a replication process, and if no one told you what exactly happened, would you know whether you were the original, or the duplicate? If so, how?

He would look at his "living VIN number".

I imagine it's a bit like bishops having their diocese tattooed on the back of their neck. So he would probably need a couple of mirrors, or something.

 

[Monza]

We’ve been talking about two different kinds of “self.” There is 1) the self that is all the person’s characteristics -- and then, there is 2) the SELF that is the person’s self-awareness.

Last month I posted the following bit of non-sense. It was a mild attempt at humor, but it now seems I was closer than I knew.

To help the thread move forward, I suggest we all use the following terminology so that we can get on the same page:


ME = the original 'same' me

me = a duplicate of ME, but not the 'same' me

me = a copy of me with the 'same' PSoS

Me = a replicated me made after I die that has an identical (but not the same) observer

ME^me = a chemically identical me without the 'same' self but with a similar indistinguishable consciousness that can't see out of both sets of eyes

 

[Giordano]

Just to get back to the topic of this thread (remember that???) I would have to say that Jabba's postulated reincarnated self would, by his own definition, not fit his concept of duplicated self-awareness, whereas the duplicated self-awareness from the hypothetically perfectly physically duplicated brain would.

1. The physically duplicated self-awareness would fully believe it was Jabba, the reincarnated self-awareness would not, but would believe it was some other person and identify as that other person.

2. The physically duplicated self-awareness would, at the time of duplication, have exactly the same appearance. memories, preferences, loves and hates as Jabba, the reincarnated self-awareness would not.

3. Both are made up of different atoms from the present Jabba.

I could go on, but I already think Jabba is way too stuck on this duplication idea. Instead, I am emphasizing the ways that the reincarnation that Jabba proposes is even more different than the proposed duplicated Jabba, including "self-awareness."

But a lot of this stems from Jabba's repeated refusal on this thread to detail what he thinks is reincarnated, other than his vague definition as "the thing that other people think is an immortal soul." I and others have repeatedly asked what is this, and he has never responded except to stay that there is no real word for it. This is why he probably keeps changing the words he uses for it, and soon finds that none of these words describe it. Again: if there is no word for it, then it probably doesn't exist. If you can't define it, except by circular reasoning, you certainly can't use it in a proof.

I have no clue for why Jabba believes this reincarnated "soul" would mean that Jabba was "reborn" in some way different from the physically duplicated Jabba. The reincarnated Jabba would be a lot less like the current Jabba than the duplicated one. It would not even think of itself as Jabba. Even if reincarnation happens, the "self" that Jabba proposes will not be Jabba.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba.

Again what is reincarnated in your theory such that your concern about dying would be overcome by this reincarnation? Surely you have thought about this already?

 

[Giordano]

He would look at his "living VIN number".

I imagine it's a bit like bishops having their diocese tattooed on the back of their neck. So he would probably need a couple of mirrors, or something.

Is it written in reverse numbers so he can easily read it in a mirror?

 

[xtifr]

Dave,
- What I call "characteristics" are determined by brain chemistry -- "self awareness" (apparently) is not. Not unless -- like xtifr -- you accept that specific atoms are part of brain chemistry and are responsible for the difference between SELVES.

Jabba, everyone here accepts that. Saying that it's a different set of atoms is simply another way of stating what countless people have said: the copy, despite being identical, is a separate person. I didn't say something unique; I simply said it in a way that finally made sense to you.

And there is no difference between the SELVES of perfect copies except for the fact that they're not the same person. Their toes are identical, but not the same toe; if one copy stubs his toe, the other won't feel the pain, but that doesn't mean there's a difference between them (except that one is now injured and the other isn't). That's exactly the way the SELVES work. Both will think they're you, and remember your life, in exactly the same way. Like the toes, the SELVES are identical. But separate.

Should we have a poll? I don't want to swamp the mods, but maybe if you guys (other than Jabba, of course) are going to post anyway, you could mention whether you agree that the fact that a perfect copy would be made of a separate set of atoms is a sufficient explanation for why it's not the original.

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing, but perhaps Jabba can.

And while we're at it, perhaps you, Jabba, can try to answer a question I asked earlier. If the SELF is so special and unique, how do you distinguish making a perfect copy at a new location from teleporting the original and leaving a perfect copy in its place? (Atoms have no identifying marks.)

eta: hmm, apparently the thread is no longer moderated, so I guess there's no danger of swamping the mods.

 

[Mojo]

What I call "characteristics" are determined by brain chemistry -- "self awareness" (apparently) is not.

Nope. Self awareness, like the rest of consciousness, is the result of the functioning of the brain.

 

[jond]

Jabba, did you watch the video that PixyMisa posted? You really should.