Proof of Immortality II

[Slowvehicle]

First part: simple for you, having been certified in statistics:
A is a a subset of B. All A is also B, but not all B need also be A.

A example: red circles are a subset of circles. All red circles are circles, but not all circles are red. Biochemistry is a subset of ("comes from" or "includes") physics but not all physics is a subset of ("comes from" or "includes") biochemistry.

 

[Loss Leader]

I think I understand what Jabba is saying. The causal difference is in the steps that led up to the original self and the duplicate self existing. Those are the steps you would need to for calculations of likelihood. But I still don't see how you would get 1/infinity for either one.

You're absolutely right. All of this is completely irrelevant to Jabba's argument. He wants to say that since a duplicate would be different, there are an infinite number of possibilities. This is nonsense. Whether a duplicate would be the same person or not, there still could only be a finite possible number of people (bounded by time, space, parentage, causal pathways, and everything else). He can't get to infinity by counting, no matter how hard he tries.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Treating infinity as a number instead of a concept in a common Woo Slinger trademark.

If you ever seen an equation with infinity in it, run.

 

[Mojo]

He wants to say that since a duplicate would be different, there are an infinite number of possibilities.

I suspect that he wants to say that the "selves" produced by duplicate brains would be different because immortality requires that there is some aspect of consciousness that is not caused by the functioning of the brain, and which could therefore survive the death of the brain. He's trying to use his desired conclusion as a premise.

 

[Aepervius]

I suspect that he wants to say that the "selves" produced by duplicate brains would be different because immortality requires that there is some aspect of consciousness that is not caused by the functioning of the brain, and which could therefore survive the death of the brain. He's trying to use his desired conclusion as a premise.

This is stilla non sequitur, because that "immortal soul bit part" could be different for two identical brain generating two different persons and immortal soul despite the person being identical in apparence and gesture. Nothing in the "immortality" Jabba advanced up to now *necessite* that two persons are different (*).

No the reason he wants everybody differents and infinity is because he wants to misuse the Bayes theorem, starting with garbage then concluding garbage.

(*) I hold that it is holding the cart before the horse , that Jabba is missing still an infinite number of scenario, yada yada, but we have all been there, and we are still the second of february.

 

[xtifr]

- So, the difference between the two selves is not due to bio-chemistry -- it's due to physics. And, you -- at least roughly -- agree with Dave about location being the differentiating cause.
- Am I getting warm?

They're different because they're not the same object. Which, indeed, has absolutely nothing to do with biochemistry. Two different objects are never the same object, whether or not they're biochemical. Two identical lumps of iron are not the same lump, and all the properties of those two lumps are unique to each lump, despite the fact that the lumps and their properties are identical.

And yes, that basically boils down to physics, since it clearly doesn't have anything to do with biochemistry.

Don't forget, while you're contemplating all this, that teleportation is indistinguishable from destroying the original while creating the copy.

 

[Monza]

I suspect that he wants to say that the "selves" produced by duplicate brains would be different because immortality requires that there is some aspect of consciousness that is not caused by the functioning of the brain, and which could therefore survive the death of the brain. He's trying to use his desired conclusion as a premise.

Exactly. Somehow he keeps saying that this is the scientific model. Recently he said that this is what he thinks the scientific model should be. I mentioned a while back that it is really Jabba's model. His own model consists of the idea of an external "self" getting attached to a consciousness. By his own so-called proof, the probability of this is zero.

The past almost two years have been a run-around where Jabba misstates the scientific model and then tries to show that it is wrong. If he can't even understand what it is he is trying to disprove, there is no hope for him this thread.

 

[George]

This is the fourth incarnation of Jabba's... Some sort of god stuff. Will round five or six be any different? The man is crabs on the balls of enlightenment. Let the miserable bloody server finally go tits up and be done with it.

 

[John Jones]

[...]
The past almost two years have been a run-around where Jabba misstates the scientific model and then tries to show that it is wrong. If he can't even understand what it is he is trying to disprove, there is no hope for him this thread.

In other words, Jabba has been fighting a straw man for nearly two years, and still can't win.

Jabba, I hope you have been paying attention for once.

 

[pakeha]

- So, the difference between the two selves is not due to bio-chemistry -- it's due to physics. And, you -- at least roughly -- agree with Dave about location being the differentiating cause.
- Am I getting warm?

Not really, Jabba.
Those two selves, or more correctly those two senses of self, are emergent properties of functioning neurosystems.

 

[Mojo]

This is stilla non sequitur...

Jabba's argument is a whole series of non sequiturs. It's harder to spot the sequiturs.

 

[Mojo]

His own model consists of the idea of an external "self" getting attached to a consciousness. By his own so-called proof, the probability of this is zero.

He certainly hasn't presented any evidence for it.

 

[Giordano]

He certainly hasn't presented any evidence for it.

He doesn't need no stinking evidence- no evidence at all; if he just explains it right. According to him.

Even more remarkably, no one here, none of the experts he has emailed, agree with him (as far as I can tell). But if he can only find the right words to explain his theory, we will all instantly have the blinders removed from our eyes and see that what he is saying is so obvious that we will not require any evidence, any actual facts, etc. Interestingly, isn't it?

 

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

…Not "brings with it" or "takes on". The self is a part of consciousness. Just as leg-lifting is part of running…

- 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."

Though,

- 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.

- Anyway,

- The observers (selves) would have different SELVES. They could be identical except for their SELVES. The batches of brown ale would be totally identical.

- As would the leg lifts.

You're confusing two different meanings of "different" here. Different as in not sharing identity vs. different as in not having the same features.
The SELVES are distinct, but have the same features. The beers are distinct, but have the same features. There is no difference in the way they're different from each other. Each is distinct, but isomorphic (to throw in some random technical jargon). The SELF is just as much "totally identical" as the beer, and just as much not "totally identical", depending on whether you're referring to identity or form.

- (This is still the leg-lifting issue -- I just needed to back up a space or two.)
- But science requires a cause for any difference -- whether the difference is in what you're calling identity or in what you're calling form.
- Unfortunately, I'm not sure of what it is that you're calling "identity," and what it is that you're calling "form."

Everything needs a cause, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call a difference a thing. Elephants and squid need causes, but the difference between them just is. A difference isn't even an action!...

- The first glass of milk is white, while the second glass of milk is brown. There is a cause for the difference -- chocolate was added to the second glass of milk.
- There has to be a cause for the difference between the SELVES produced by two identical brains.

…Yes there is, and it's a simple one: the brains are different. They're not the same brain, so they're different brains, so they produce different SELVES.
This is really not a difficult concept.

- No, you’re right, it is not a difficult concept. All I’m saying is that while leg lifts are part of running, and SELVES are part of consciousness, they are not analogous to each other in this context. They are not “just as” each other re our discussion.
- And other than that, by accepting that there are two kinds of differences possible – features and identities – and that replica leg lifts and selves would differ in regard to their relationships with those, I think that you’re actually accepting that as parts of running and consciousness, leg lifting and selves are not alike – or, analogous.
- So, it seems to me that you are actually being inconsistent when you assert

…The self is a part of consciousness. Just as leg-lifting is part of running…

 

[Giordano]

Though,


- No, you’re right, it is not a difficult concept. All I’m saying is that while leg lifts are part of running, and SELVES are part of consciousness, they are not analogous to each other in this context. They are not “just as” each other re our discussion.
- And other than that, by accepting that there are two kinds of differences possible – features and identities – and that replica leg lifts and selves would differ in regard to their relationships with those, I think that you’re actually accepting that as parts of running and consciousness, leg lifting and selves are not alike – or, analogous.
- So, it seems to me that you are wrong to assert

Once again, you seem to feel the need to extensively quote yourself. As I pointed out, this is a waste of time and space. You do realize that your prior quotes are read by the participants, and remain on the Discussion Forum if we wish to review them?

Second, you are getting it wrong, and simply asserting your position without any evidence. As you have been told again and again, the sense of self is not a thing, but a process, an illusion created by the consciousness in the same way as leg lifting is a process created by the physical legs. This is an analogy, but not a bad one.

If you continue to disagree, then presenting some evidence in favor of your position would nice, and would be mandatory to convince anyone else.

 

[godless dave]

And other than that, by accepting that there are two kinds of differences possible – features and identities

I don't think xtifr is accepting that. I'm certainly not.

 

[John Jones]

- No, you’re right, it is not a difficult concept. All I’m saying is that while leg lifts are part of running, and SELVES are part of consciousness, they are not analogous to each other in this context. They are not “just as” each other re our discussion.
- And other than that, by accepting that there are two kinds of differences possible – features and identities – and that replica leg lifts and selves would differ in regard to their relationships with those, I think that you’re actually accepting that as parts of running and consciousness, leg lifting and selves are not alike – or, analogous.
- So, it seems to me that you are actually being inconsistent when you assert

Not content to misrepresent others and put words in their mouth, now you're telling people what they think.

Your interlocutors are the sole arbiters of what they think and believe - not Jabba

 

[Loss Leader]

All I’m saying is that while leg lifts are part of running, and SELVES are part of consciousness, they are not analogous to each other in this context.

Jabba - all you are saying is wrong.

Leg lifting is a process carried out by a material thing. The self is a process carried out by a material thing.

You want badly for the self to be a thing, but it isn't. It's just a process - like going 65 mph, running, becoming beer, or anything else.

For so long as you try to treat the self as a thing, rather than as a process, you will not be talking about the scientific model. You will also not be making an argument as to why science should see the self as a thing because you present no evidence. There is evidence that the self is a process. Without evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to abandon our default position.

So, either present evidence or accept that the logical outcome of the evidence we have is not consistent with your desires.

 

[Giordano]

Not content to misrepresent others and put words in their mouth, now you're telling people what they think.

Your interlocutors are the sole arbiters of what they think and believe - not Jabba

Maybe Jabba should simply post that obviously everyone here has converted to his theory, as has the SM, and then he should shut off his computer real quick and keep it off before the angry corrections are posted?

It is an easier and less painful approach than Jabba's current one of trying to twist people's words and misrepresent what they think at each step of a multistep 1.1.1.1.1 "proof" of his theories.

By the way, Jabba, not to jump the gun on your step by step approach, but exactly which unique features (the ones that make us "us") do you think will be reincarnated and thus remove your worry about dying?. Isn't providing this simple definition, let alone proving it, an important early step in your "proof?"

 

[jond]

Maybe Jabba should simply post that obviously everyone here has converted to his theory, as has the SM, and then he should shut off his computer real quick and keep it off before the angry corrections are posted?

It is an easier and less painful approach than Jabba's current one of trying to twist people's words and misrepresent what they think at each step of a multistep 1.1.1.1.1 "proof" of his theories.

By the way, Jabba, not to jump the gun on your step by step approach, but exactly which unique features (the ones that make us "us") do you think will be reincarnated and thus remove your worry about dying?. Isn't providing this simple definition, let alone proving it, an important early step in your "proof?"

It almost appears that Jabba is afraid to address your question. Just as he's afraid to address the issue of "thing vs. process." One almost wonders why.