Proof of Immortality II

[godless dave]

I doubt that very much.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- It's my opinion, so far, that if I could express my position better, you would agree with it and not need any evidence.

Add that to the long list of things you are wrong about.

 

[Jabba]

I can't see your problem. Why should each new consciousness NOT involve a separate self?

Hans,
- I'm accepting that they should -- even though the two brains are bio-chemically identical.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- I think that you had agreed that a bio-chemically perfect replica of my brain would produce an "identical" me, but not the SAME ME -- it wouldn't be ME looking out of two sets of eyes.

You are the only one who thinks anyone has said this, including poor bloody Dave.

As usual, you are wrong.

- Unfortunately, it's the SAME ME that houses my "identity." The identical me does not. Maybe that has caused the confusion?

Only one person is confused here and the blame for that lies solely with his refusal to read the damned thread and take part in the discussion.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- It's my opinion, so far, that if I could express my position better, you would agree with it and not need any evidence.

Your position is perfectly clear, despite your inability to express it without resort to using Jabbanese.

You claim that souls exist and that they are immortal.

How you could possibly hope that this claim will stand without any supporting evidence is beyond perplexing.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hans,
- I'm accepting that they should -- even though the two brains are bio-chemically identical.

It's way past the time you should have dropped this ridiculous red herring of identical brains. There's no such thing.

 

[Mojo]

I'm accepting that they should -- even though the two brains are bio-chemically identical.

But you seem to be claiming that the selves produced by two completely identical brains would not be identical. Is that what you are claiming?

 

[Giordano]

Hans,
- I'm accepting that they should -- even though the two brains are bio-chemically identical.

What do you mean by "should" and by "accepting?"

Are we talking about what you think "should" be or what you think actually "is?" The first cannot be shown wrong ("I should be handsome"), but the latter clearly is wrong ("I am handsome").

I am also confused by your use of the term "accepting" given no one else here has proposed this theory. Are your "accepting" your own theory? Do you mean "believing?"

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- It's my opinion, so far, that if I could express my position better, you would agree with it and not need any evidence.

Wrong. Do you know of any theory that is accepted without any evidence?

 

[godless dave]

Hans,
- I'm accepting that they should -- even though the two brains are bio-chemically identical.

Why would them being biochemically identical imply that they wouldn't produce separate, but identical, selves?

 

[pakeha]

- I suspect that the key at this juncture is how the self -- or sense of self – relates to consciousness.
- I swear that there are concepts and principles that are impossible -- or at least, ALMOST impossible – to communicate effectively. This is one of those principles. What’re ya gonna do…?

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that 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)".

- It’s #2 causing the problem. I’m claiming that the scientific model should hold that 2.1) each new instance of consciousness naturally involves a new particular self (or, sense of self), 2.2) each of these selves has a different “identity” than does any other self, and 2.3) a particular new identity IS simply a natural part of a new consciousness.
- But then, this difference in identity doesn’t seem to have a bio-chemical explanation – at least most of us have been thinking that a perfect replica of a particular brain will not produce the same identity as that of the original brain.
- Here, it seems to me that our biggest problem is the meaning of "identity." What I mean by identity has nothing to do with the features (or, characteristics) of the person.

- Could be that there is a physics explanation, but that seems to have problems too – which I’ll be happy to discuss if we can ever agree upon (for a moment at least) the bio-chemical issue.

No, Jabba.

1. There is a general physical situation (formula/recipe/prescription) that 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)".

The sense of self forms part of consciousness which in turn is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.
There is no situation where consciousness 'brings' or 'takes on' a new sense of self.
Both are part of an emergent property, not things in themselves.

Dave,
- I think that you had agreed that a bio-chemically perfect replica of my brain would produce an "identical" me, but not the SAME ME -- it wouldn't be ME looking out of two sets of eyes.
- Unfortunately, it's the SAME ME that houses my "identity." The identical me does not. Maybe that has caused the confusion?

No, Jabba. The confusion arises because consciousness isn't a thing, but rather a process. It can't house a sense of self, which forms part of the same process.

Dave,
- It's my opinion, so far, that if I could express my position better, you would agree with it and not need any evidence.

This is quite impossible, Jabba, because you are trying to force the forum to accept a false idea, that consciousnes sis a thing rather than a process.

 

[Hokulele]

Hans,
- I'm accepting that they should -- even though the two brains are bio-chemically identical.

If you were faced with two separate, but identical, selves, how would you know which one was which? How would they know?

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- It's my opinion, so far, that if I could express my position better, you would agree with it and not need any evidence.

Please disabuse yourself of this thought immediately. Everything requires evidence. Nothing incapable of producing evidence exists. If your ideas are right, there is evidence of them. Please stop being wrong.

 

[John Jones]

Please disabuse yourself of this thought immediately. Everything requires evidence. Nothing incapable of producing evidence exists. If your ideas are right, there is evidence of them. Please stop being wrong.

Someone please nom this for TLA. I'm afraid I will jinx it if I try.

 

[xtifr]

- Could be that there is a physics explanation, but that seems to have problems too – which I’ll be happy to discuss if we can ever agree upon (for a moment at least) the bio-chemical issue.

How about you discuss the physics issue now, and we come back to the bio-chemical issue if it still seems justified after that. Because it seems to me that the physics issue is the primary point of disagreement between you and everyone else.

To be precise, many of us, including me, think the whole bio-chemical issue is a red herring because you're ignoring the physics.

 

[Mojo]

To be precise, many of us, including me, think the whole bio-chemical issue is a red herring because you're ignoring the physics.

The biochemistry is a result of the physics, when it comes down to it.

Physics --> biochemistry --> self.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Just curious: I thought you were limited to two posts a day, but today I see more. Did you earn a credit by not posting on Friday or Saturday, or am I wrong?

The reason I ask if it you are limited to a certain number of postings a day, you probably should be certain that each posting is very carefully designed to argue your position carefully and convincingly. Don't post without thinking first very carefully about the point you are trying to make. Any re-iteration of old points, or asking questions that you already know the answer to, would be a real waste of your quota.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- It's my opinion, so far, that if I could express my position better, you would agree with it and not need any evidence.

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage!

The only way you could express "your position" in such a way that we would agree with it would be to alter "your position" to reflect reality.

Get it right, and the agreement will come.

You will still, however, need to present your evidence for the existence of the"soul", and its "immortality".

Why not start with that?

 

[xtifr]

The biochemistry is a result of the physics, when it comes down to it.

Physics --> biochemistry --> self.

Exactly. The physics includes the biochemistry, so if we look at the physics, we'll still be looking at the biochemistry!

So how about it Jabba? Willing to finally discuss the physics? You've been saying you want to for months! And I honestly don't think there's any other way we're going to get to the heart of the disagreement here.

 

[John Jones]

-[...]
- Could be that there is a physics explanation, but that seems to have problems too – which I’ll be happy to discuss if we can ever agree upon (for a moment at least) the bio-chemical issue.[...]

This pathetic thread was originally about essential proof of immortality via Bayesian statistics. It's been many weeks since you have even pretended to address that topic.

You have abandoned the Bayesian argument, and now expect your interlocutors to do likewise regarding biochemistry arguments?

Why should we? We've got you on the run. Your position lies in metaphorical ruins.

The only lack of agreement on the biochemical issue seems to be between you and everybody else. Get your thoughts together on that issue, and then we can see your argument regarding physics - if you have one.