Proof of Immortality II

[Giordano]

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.

It is even worse than that. Jabba needs there to be a non-physical self to even begin to argue that this self is reincarnated after the physical us dies. He doesn't know what that might be (as far as I can tell it is nothing that we would even consider to be us), or what might be reincarnated, but he has assumed everyone agrees with his idea. Realizing that this is not the SM, and that there is no evidence of such a thing, he has stalled out completely here, endlessly proposing an impossible experiment that everyone disagrees with him as to the result. So he is stuck, and only hopes that everyone else must disagree with him simply because they don't understand what he means. He can't accept that the problem is that he is wrong, fundamentally wrong.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

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.

Magical thinking, at best; at worst a dishonest attempt to coerce your correspondent into agreement.

 

[PixyMisa]

Jabba, if you have two (TWO) identical things, how many identical things do you have? Hint: The answer is TWO.

If your argument relies on the answer being anything else - which it does - then your argument is worthless - which it is.

 

[Jabba]

- I'm still struggling with

This is (amusingly, given what follows) perfectly true. In fact, you would have done well to stop here.
Includes. Not "brings with it" or "takes on". The self is a part of consciousness. Just as leg-lifting is part of running...

 

[Giordano]

- I'm still struggling with

I understand. This is an important part of the SM. From your posts, I think it would be very important for you to really understand this point before you state what the SM says, and before you agree or disagree with it.

Again, I suggest that you read (re-read??) all the posts on this topic in this thread (not just those by a favored few) and I believe they will help you resolve your struggle.

 

[godless dave]

Actually I would suggest reading up on the current scientific understanding of consciousness from a reputable popular science book, like this one.

Although I must say I'm puzzled that you didn't do this before presenting your proof. It seems like you would have to be familiar with the thing you are trying to disprove.

 

[jond]

- I'm still struggling with

That's because you keep insisting on the "self" being a THING instead of the processes that it is. Because ultimately, you insist that there really is a soul, even though there is zero evidence for it. Unless and until you address this central issue, you will never get anywhere in this discussion. Do you understand this, Jabba?

 

[Giordano]

Jabba may wish to understand that facts drive theories, and not the reverse.

 

[Monza]

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

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

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?

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.

Jabba, if you have two (TWO) identical things, how many identical things do you have? Hint: The answer is TWO.

If your argument relies on the answer being anything else - which it does - then your argument is worthless - which it is.

All of these directly address the problem that Jabba is having. I wish he would actually read these posts, think about them, and then respond. It's not that any of us do not understand what he is saying. We do, but we disagree.

Jabba cannot grasp the concept of a perfect clone. Sure, the cloned Jabba would look like Jabba and would sound and talk like Jabba. But in his mind, it is someone else and thus not identical. Of course, the cloned Jabba is thinking the same thing about him. He has all of the same memories and knows all of the same deepest inner thoughts. No one, not even Jabba's wife, could ever tell the two apart. Yet, Jabba is still hung up on thinking he is special because... well, it's him.

Imagine if there were two perfectly identical objects, say a baseball. The two baseballs are absolutely identical down to the atoms. One of them is video-taped live every Saturday night and broadcast on TV for one hour. When Jabba goes to see the two baseballs side by side, he will point at one and say, "That one is special. It is the one I saw on TV." But they are still identical and the only thing that distinguishes them is their spacial coordinates.

Jabba sets up a thought experiment where the initial state is two identical things. By definition there are two of them and they are identical. But then he wants to say they are not identical because this one object is this one. The identical object is that one. This one is the only this one. He does not understand that this is meaningless.

 

[Giordano]

Well, I learned from the Matrix movie that there is only "The One." If we duplicated perfectly Neo, would we have two "The One"?

What of Agent Smith, who seems to duplicate at will? But of course, he is a computer-generated, and thus lacks a "self." I guess.

 

[John Jones]

Jabba may wish to understand that facts drive theories, and not the reverse.

That was the epitome of the entire Shroud thread. The facts didn't support his conclusion, therefore the facts are wrong.

 

[Humots]

That was the epitome of the entire Shroud thread. The facts didn't support his conclusion, therefore the facts are wrong.

And it was perfectly reasonable to propose that the people providing the facts were incompetent or dishonest.

 

[pakeha]

- I'm still struggling with

This is (amusingly, given what follows) perfectly true. In fact, you would have done well to stop here.
Includes. Not "brings with it" or "takes on". The self is a part of consciousness. Just as leg-lifting is part of running...

Yes, Jabba.
The self, or rather the sense of self to be more accurate, is a part of the emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba may wish to understand that facts drive theories, and not the reverse.

On the evidence provided by this thread and its predecessor, that is the last thing he wishes to understand.

 

[xtifr]

- I'm still struggling with

This is (amusingly, given what follows) perfectly true. In fact, you would have done well to stop here.
Includes. Not "brings with it" or "takes on". The self is a part of consciousness. Just as leg-lifting is part of running..

Good. Then you've likely identified the point of disconnect between what you believe and what the rest of us believe, and the point you'll need to address if you want to have any hope of trying to convince us of your thesis. If you can't grasp this point, it's going to be hard for you to proceed.

And if you can't rebut the point, then it may be (as I've suggested in the past), that what you've really done is prove that immortality is more likely than some other model, and not the scientific model. Which is not exactly an achievement to brag about.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I'm still struggling with

I have no doubt you are. It is the exact antithesis of the immortal soul which underlies christian belief and, it appears, your personal beliefs. But if you do ever choose to acknowledge that consciousness is simply a function of a working brain (as speed is a function of a working car), you'll finally be on your way to seeing the world in a scientific light.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I'm still struggling with

This is (amusingly, given what follows) perfectly true. In fact, you would have done well to stop here.
Includes. Not "brings with it" or "takes on". The self is a part of consciousness. Just as leg-lifting is part of running...

I'd suggest you make a list. Perhaps Roman numerals would provide a breakthrough.

Also helpful would be to invent new definitions for LEG-LIFTING and RUNNING.

 

[Butter!]

And for wrong, while he's at it.

That would simplify everything!

 

[Hokulele]

Is that wrong, "wrong", wrong, or WRONG?

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]Also helpful would be to invent new definitions for LEG-LIFTING and RUNNING.

While Pharaoh's wit made me laugh aloud, at the same I was reminded that Jabba's posts show him quite capable of following this excellent advice.