Proof of Immortality II

[mijopaalmc]

Jabba, really, another newly invented term?

Er...no and no.

 

[pakeha]

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.

No, Jabba.
What you call selves are actually sense of selves.
The sense of self is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.
Different neurosystem, different emergent property.

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.

Hmm.
While the bishop image is a good one, the word bishop connected to the topic of course brought me to the fourth Alien film and to perhaps my favourite scene from it, when Ripley destroys clones 1-7.

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

Yes, indeed. That video is one I've posted up to my FB page and 'shared' with my friends.

 

[Mojo]

Hmm.
While the bishop image is a good one, the word bishop connected to the topic of course brought me to the fourth Alien film and to perhaps my favourite scene from it, when Ripley destroys clones 1-7.

It was supposed to give you an uncontrollable craving for dead unjugged rabbit-fish followed by a slice of strawberry tart (without so much rat in it).

 

[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.

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

Dave,
- I never should have used the term, “self-awareness.” Apparently, "self-awareness" means something to me that it doesn’t mean to anyone else...
- The following is Wikipedia’s definition of what I’m calling the “SELF.”
…In phenomenology, it is conceived as what experiences, and there isn't any experiencing without an experiencer, the self. The self is therefore an "immediate given", an intrinsic dimension of the fact of experiencing phenomena…

- I’m saying that there seems to be no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular "experiencer," or SELF.
- In that regard, Mojo seems to agree with me.

... You don't exist until you exist, and the concept of the particular you doesn't exist until you exist and someone (this includes yourself, of course) is aware that you exist. There is no "pre-existing formula", and no "pool of selves" from which you have been selected...

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I never should have used the term, “self-awareness.” Apparently, "self-awareness" means something to me that it doesn’t mean to anyone else...
- The following is Wikipedia’s definition of what I’m calling the “SELF.”
…In phenomenology, it is conceived as what experiences, and there isn't any experiencing without an experiencer, the self. The self is therefore an "immediate given", an intrinsic dimension of the fact of experiencing phenomena…

Yes, you were calling that the observer a few months ago.

- I’m saying that there seems to be no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular "experiencer," or SELF.
- In that regard, Mojo seems to agree with me.

That really isn't relevant. The biological "formula" that creates a persons brain creates the self, because the brain produces the self. Each time that "formula" is followed (which, in the real world, is only once), a self is created according to that formula.

 

[godless dave]

To expound:

Just as every characteristic of a Volkswagen Beetle is the result of its design specs and the process used to build it, every characteristic of the brain - including the self or observer - is the result of the process that creates it.

If you create two of them, which is possible with Beetles but not brains, every characteristic would be identical. The only difference would be that one is made of this set of atoms over here, and the other made of that set of atoms over there. Each brain would observe from its own perspective - it would get data from the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin it is connected to.

Each one would think of itself as "me". Being identical would not change that.

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- I never should have used the term, “self-awareness.” Apparently, "self-awareness" means something to me that it doesn’t mean to anyone else...
- The following is Wikipedia’s definition of what I’m calling the “SELF.”
…In phenomenology, it is conceived as what experiences, and there isn't any experiencing without an experiencer, the self. The self is therefore an "immediate given", an intrinsic dimension of the fact of experiencing phenomena…

- I’m saying that there seems to be no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular "experiencer," or SELF.
- In that regard, Mojo seems to agree with me.

If you were to be duplicated, would you know which SELF you were without any external clues?

 

[Mojo]

I’m saying that there seems to be no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular "experiencer," or SELF.
- In that regard, Mojo seems to agree with me.

Not really, because your claim is that there is some part of the self that is not determined by brain chemistry, and I certainly don't agree with that.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- I never should have used the term, “self-awareness.” Apparently, "self-awareness" means something to me that it doesn’t mean to anyone else...
- The following is Wikipedia’s definition of what I’m calling the “SELF.”
…In phenomenology, it is conceived as what experiences, and there isn't any experiencing without an experiencer, the self. The self is therefore an "immediate given", an intrinsic dimension of the fact of experiencing phenomena…

- I’m saying that there seems to be no bio-chemical recipe exclusive to a particular "experiencer," or SELF.
- In that regard, Mojo seems to agree with me.

You are wrong. as explained multiple times here. Use whatever words you wish (and you have tried a lot; it is not the word you use that is the problem), we fully understand your idea and you are still wrong. You have been wrong since you first presented these ideas almost 2 years ago, and you have not changed or justified (with undebunked evidence) your theories in all that time one bit in spite of people repeatedly trying to correct you.

 

[John Jones]

Not really, because your claim is that there is some part of the self that is not determined by brain chemistry, and I certainly don't agree with that.

See, Jabba?

You're trying to shoe-horn your ideas into other people's mouth again. You've been trying this trick for 20 months and it's not working at all.

Try proving that souls actually exist. You're getting nowhere the way you are going.

 

[Giordano]

Again, I am struck by how many times Jabba has twisted a post from someone else to feign agreement when none exists. What is the point? Surely the poster will correct Jabba's mis-interpretation in a subsequent post, and this will only further undermine Jabba's beliefs and how other people think of him.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

What's the point?

Lies for Jesus

 

[Monza]

Getting back to the Bayesian formula, I'm not really sure where Jabba is trying to go with this anymore. I won't bother to type up the formula he was using, but it seems to me that Jabba is working himself into a corner.

The scientific model states that the self is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem. Because there are a finite number of atoms in the universe, there is a finite number of arrangements possible. The probability of a particular self coming into existence is astronomically small, but it is greater than zero.

In Jabba's model, there are a finite number of atoms in the universe so there is a finite number of arrangements possible to make a functioning neurosystem. But each one is somehow imbued with a special "self" that is not determined by the neurosystem biochemistry. Thus there is an infinite number of potential "selves". The probability of a particular self coming into existence is therefore one over infinity, which equals zero.

Result: The scientific model is within the realm of possibility (0 < p < 1), and Jabba's model is impossible (p = 0). Isn't this what he is arguing, even if it is not his intent?

 

[godless dave]

As far as I can tell, Jabba's claim is that what you're calling his model is the scientific model.

I'm not sure how he can justify that.

 

[Giordano]

As far as I can tell, Jabba's claim is that what you're calling his model is the scientific model.

I'm not sure how he can justify that.

I have repeatedly requested Jabba to explain whether he is referring in a post to his understanding of the scientific model, or if he is instead referring to his own (different) model. So far, he has absolutely ignored me. As I have said, it would be silly of me to tell Jabba that his own model is wrong: in Religion you can prepose any model you yourself wish and religion is by definition faith, and not proof. But if if he presenting his posts as the scientific model, which I believe, he is very wrong and I will continue to correct him.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I have repeatedly requested Jabba to explain whether he is referring in a post to his understanding of the scientific model, or if he is instead referring to his own (different) model. So far, he has absolutely ignored me. As I have said, it would be silly of me to tell Jabba that his own model is wrong: in Religion you can prepose any model you yourself wish and religion is by definition faith, and not proof. But if if he presenting his posts as the scientific model, which I believe, he is very wrong and I will continue to correct him

(let me finish that thought) because if you don't he declares victory and waddles off to claim the Million Dollar Prize

 

[John Jones]

(let me finish that thought) because if you don't he declares victory and waddles off to claim the Million Dollar Prize

There's certainly a precedent for it.

 

[Toontown]

Not really, because your claim is that there is some part of the self that is not determined by brain chemistry, and I certainly don't agree with that.

Identity is not determined by brain chemistry. Identical chemistries, occurring at different spacetime coordinates, or different branches of a multiverse, would result in different "selves".

Identity is recognizable by the specific spacetime paths of the atoms involved in the chemistry in question. The atoms themselves are identical, therefore interchangeable. The spacetime pattern they form is unique to each individual.

Which helps neither your nor Jabba's position. Neither of you is anywhere near addressing the implications of the conditional probability expressed in Jabba's formula, the kernel of which did not originate with Jabba. I first saw the essential idea expressed in print in a book on pragmatism published @1933.

 

[Giordano]

Identity is not determined by brain chemistry. Identical chemistries, occurring at different spacetime coordinates, or different branches of a multiverse, would result in different "selves".

Identity is recognizable by the specific spacetime paths of the atoms involved in the chemistry in question. The atoms themselves are identical, therefore interchangeable. The spacetime pattern they form is unique to each individual.

Which helps neither your nor Jabba's position. Neither of you is anywhere near addressing the implications of the conditional probability expressed in Jabba's formula, the kernel of which did not originate with Jabba. I first saw the essential idea expressed in print in a book on pragmatism published @1933.

I believe that the SM, the scientific model, predicts that two identical brain chemistries, occurring a different spacetime coordinates, would result in exactly duplicate "senses of selves" (selves,consciousnesses, thoughts, etc.) at two different locations. They couldn't be the "same" self because in our example, there would be two of them spatially removed from one another. Initially however they would think absolutely identically, and both would fully believe that they were the real Jabba (in our example). With time, they would likely have different experiences and develop different thoughts and perspectives.

I don't know what you mean when you say that "the spacetime pattern they form is unique to each individual." I think you are saying the same thing we are: that these duplicate "selves" are not the "same" self because there are two, not one, selves and their spatial location and history differ. But do you agree that the two will think the same thoughts at time zero, and that both will believe themselves to be the same person if not convinced otherwise?

 

[Toontown]

Getting back to the Bayesian formula, I'm not really sure where Jabba is trying to go with this anymore. I won't bother to type up the formula he was using, but it seems to me that Jabba is working himself into a corner.

The scientific model states that the self is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem. Because there are a finite number of atoms in the universe, there is a finite number of arrangements possible. The probability of a particular self coming into existence is astronomically small, but it is greater than zero.

"Astronomically small" is an understatement which conveys no understanding except an understanding of how blithely "but it is greater than zero" is subsequently stated.

In Jabba's model, there are a finite number of atoms in the universe so there is a finite number of arrangements possible to make a functioning neurosystem. But each one is somehow imbued with a special "self" that is not determined by the neurosystem biochemistry. Thus there is an infinite number of potential "selves". The probability of a particular self coming into existence is therefore one over infinity, which equals zero.

1/infinity does not equal zero. Rather, zero is the limit of x as x approaches infinity. But that limit can never be reached, because x can never reach infinity.

Therefore, 1/infinity cannot be equal to 0, but can be approximated to 0 for some practical purposes. The proof is 1/infinity, which is essentially a division of 1 into infinitely many parts. That infinity of parts, when summed, must equal 1, not 0. You can't make the 1 simply disappear by dividing it into any number of parts. Division is not subtraction. 1/infinity is not 1-1.

http://www.mathsisfun.com/calculus/limits-infinity.html

Result: The scientific model is within the realm of possibility (0 < p < 1), and Jabba's model is impossible (p = 0). Isn't this what he is arguing, even if it is not his intent?

Jabba's original argument was that his conditional perspective is so immensely unlikely under strict materialism as to rule out strict materialism as the sole accounting for his conditional perspective. I actually agree with this part, with the caveat that it is very unlikely that any of us understand all the metaphysical implications of strict materialism.

I don't know what Jabba is heading for now. I don't agree with the immortal soul business, which I consider an unnecessary violation of Occam's Razor.

At any rate, Jabba-as-an-immortal-soul does not account for Jabba's conditional perspective either. How many possible souls are there? Infinity? Well, those odds don't look good for any particular one graduating from the ranks of the merely hypothetically possible.

In sum, I don't think either strict materialism or the immortal soul hypothesis comes anywhere near accounting for Jabba's conditional perspective.