Proof of Immortality II

[Jabba]

2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".

Includes. Not "brings with it" or "takes on". The self is a part of consciousness...

- I don't think that I have a problem with that. I would include being a part of consciousness under "Each new consciousness brings with it."
- Accepting the "part of" description, I still argue that "while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite."
- I'll try to get to "Just as leg-lifting is part of running." in my next dispatch to you. I need further thought on that.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- For some reason, I thought you had agreed with #2...

I don't know what could have given you that impression.

- How about ... "Each separate consciousness has its own, separate, sense of self?"

Sure - and it comes from the brain, just like the rest of the consciousness. It is not drawn, taken on, or brought along. It is produced by the brain.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- For some reason, I thought you had agreed with #2...
- How about ... "Each separate consciousness has its own, separate, sense of self?"

That's no surprise, given the way you distort and misrepresent what people have actually said.

 

[Jabba]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.
2. Each separate consciousness has its own, separate, sense of self.3. There is no pool (or set) of potential selves.
4. (Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)
5. Therefore, each particular self, in part, comes out of nowhere.
6. IOW, each particular self is "created on the spot" – it has no complete “representation” prior to its inception.
7. That being the case, there is no limit on “who” each new self will be. The possibilities are unbounded -- or infinite.
8. Therefore, while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite.

#2 is not part of the scientific model, and I don't understand why you think it is.

Dave,
- For some reason, I thought you had agreed with #2...
- How about ... "Each separate consciousness has its own, separate, sense of self?"

I don't know what could have given you that impression.
Sure - and it comes from the brain, just like the rest of the consciousness. It is not drawn, taken on, or brought along. It is produced by the brain.

- Note above that I have revised #2. What's your next objection.

 

[godless dave]

I object to #3. All the human brains that could potentially be created through human reproduction are the potential selves.

#5 is a related objection. The sense of self doesn't come from nowhere, it is produced by the brain.

That means 6, 7, and 8 won't work either.

 

[Mojo]

- Note above that I have revised #2. What's your next objection.

You are using "self" and "consciousness" as different terms, but you still haven't defined them or explained how they differ.

 

[Giordano]

godless dave: you are extremely patience! Prior experience does not suggest this will end well. But good luck!

 

[godless dave]

While I'm here I'll also address this:

(Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)

As a practical matter, there is an exclusive "formula" for each self. That's because with current technology it is not possible to exactly duplicate a human brain. Every human being that has ever lived has been unique.

Theoretically, at some point in the future it might be possible to clone a human embryo and then ensure that both embryos develop under precisely identical conditions. If that happened, you would have two identical selves. This isn't really relevant, though, because there is no reason two selves couldn't be identical.

As a practical matter, each human self is unique and is the result of a unique set of circumstances.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

- Note above that I have revised #2. What's your next objection.

I was tempted to refer back to my "bad conjurer" post, but I think I'll keep the powder dry on that one.

 

[pakeha]

- I don't think that I have a problem with that. I would include being a part of consciousness under "Each new consciousness brings with it."
- Accepting the "part of" description, I still argue that "while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite."
- I'll try to get to "Just as leg-lifting is part of running." in my next dispatch to you. I need further thought on that.

- Note above that I have revised #2. What's your next objection.

2. Each separate consciousness has its own, separate, sense of self.

No, Jabba.
Remember?
Consciousness, or sense of self, is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Someone you convinced me! Maybe it was the 5th repetition of your unaltered theory- I do not know. But just to be certain I understand what you are proposing: what exactly of me will be reincarnated after I physically die so that the essential ME will continue? My appearance, my loves and hates, who I see myself to be, my preferences for certain foods, my preferences for certain political opinions, my preferences for certain books, my likes of certain hobbies, my choise of career, what exactly? If I believe that "this" part of me, the essential part of ME must continue after my physical death, exactly what is it?

 

[Loss Leader]

- Note above that I have revised #2. What's your next objection.

Nothing comes from nowhere. Once you say that it does, you are no longer talking about the scientific model.

 

[Monza]

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.

2. Each separate consciousness has its own, separate, sense of self.

- Note above that I have revised #2. What's your next objection.

For clarity...

1a. The physical situation is never static. The physical formula/recipe/prescription that results in a consciousness is constantly changing. Thoughts, memories, and external stimuli result in a physical change to the brain. For example, a functioning brain is physically different now than it was before it read this sentence.

2a. Should two separate consciousnesses be identical, they will have separate but identical senses of self.

 

[Monza]

- Try this for the scientific model.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that, somehow, results in what we call consciousness.
2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".
3. There is no pool (or set) of potential selves.
4. (Which means that there are no specific and exclusive physics formulas for the different particular potential selves.)
5. Therefore, each particular self, in part, comes out of nowhere.
6. IOW, each particular self is "created on the spot" – it has no complete “representation” prior to its inception.
7. That being the case, there is no limit on “who” each new self will be. The possibilities are unbounded -- or infinite.
8. Therefore, while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite.

Whoops. It looks like you made a typo there. Your eight points seem to be stating your personal model, not the accepted scientific model. For example, in #8 you are correct that the number of different selves is finite. This is due to the finite number of atoms in the universe and a resulting finite number of potential arrangements of those atoms. Since the scientific model states that the self is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem (i.e. an arrangement of atoms), there is therefore a finite number of potential selves.

I haven't read all of the responses yet, but I'm surprised no one has pointed that out to you yet. I expect you'll correct your summary now and state the correct scientific model... or perhaps just keep it simple and post evidence for a self being separate from the brain. That would probably go a long way toward supporting your model for consciousness.

 

[xtifr]

- Accepting the "part of" description, I still argue that "while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite."

You already accepted* that the number of possible consciousnesses is finite. If the self is part of consciousness, how can it possibly be separately infinite? It's not separate! Such a claim is nonsensical on its face.

- I'll try to get to "Just as leg-lifting is part of running." in my next dispatch to you. I need further thought on that.

I look forward to it. Just don't try the old "you can be aware of your own awareness, so awareness is special" trick. I'm a computer programmer, so that argument is not going to fly with me! That's simply recursion, and the number of recursive algorithms that can be implemented in this universe is very much finite (albeit mind-crogglingly huge).

* Two can play at this game.

 

[Giordano]

- I'll try to get to "Just as leg-lifting is part of running." in my next dispatch to you. I need further thought on that.

I hope you are writing down all the things you have promised to "get back to" for different posters. You seem to be building up quite a commitment that you have yet to fulfill.

 

[Akhenaten]

2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".

#2 is not part of the scientific model, and I don't understand why you think it is.

Dave,
- For some reason, I thought you had agreed with #2...

A charitable view would be that the reason is nothing more than wishful thinking. A less charitable but more accurate opinion might be that you simply can't, or won't, understand anything that you read here.

- How about ... "Each separate consciousness has its own, separate, sense of self?"

How about "No"?

How about you acknowledge what you've been told repeatedly - that each separate consciousness, for all practical purposes, is its own separate sense of self?

 

[Akhenaten]

2. Each new consciousness brings with it – or, takes on -- a new, particular, sense of self (hereafter, referred to as simply a new, particular "self)".

Includes. Not "brings with it" or "takes on". The self is a part of consciousness...

- I don't think that I have a problem with that. I would include being a part of consciousness under "Each new consciousness brings with it."

Are we supposed not to notice that your statement above claims agreement with the LCP and then blithely restates the very point that he's made about the incorrectness on your part?

- Accepting the "part of" description, I still argue that "while the number of different actual selves possible is, itself, finite (if time is finite), the number of different potential selves is still infinite."

You're still wrong.

- I'll try to get to "Just as leg-lifting is part of running." in my next dispatch to you.

You aren't writing dispatches to a particular person, Jabba; you're at least superficially taking part in a group discussion. Your continuing pretence that the vast majority of the group isn't even here is the height of ignorance.

I need further thought on that.

Yeah, because nobody has ever tried to explain emergent properties to you before now, have they?

 

[John Jones]

Whoops. It looks like you made a typo there. Your eight points seem to be stating your personal model, not the accepted scientific model. For example, in #8 you are correct that the number of different selves is finite. This is due to the finite number of atoms in the universe and a resulting finite number of potential arrangements of those atoms. Since the scientific model states that the self is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem (i.e. an arrangement of atoms), there is therefore a finite number of potential selves.

I haven't read all of the responses yet, but I'm surprised no one has pointed that out to you yet. I expect you'll correct your summary now and state the correct scientific model... or perhaps just keep it simple and post evidence for a self being separate from the brain. That would probably go a long way toward supporting your model for consciousness.

It's been pointed-out to him dozens of times over the last 20 months or so. He just doesn't react to it.

What confounds me is why he eventually gave up on the Tablecloth of Turin thread, but persists in this Bayesian Proof Of Immortality nonsense.

His reasoning is getting butchered even worse than in the Turin thread. His evidence is utterly absent, yet he keeps repeating the arguments that have failed him countless times before.

I would address Jabba with these specific questions, but it's obvious he only replies to his two Least Critical Posters of the Moment (LCPM).

Go figure.

 

[Giordano]

I think that the soul is not a product of the physical brain and I think Akhenaten's posts agree with me on this.

Okay, perhaps I should not have used "not" above.

How am I doing?