Proof of Immortality III

[The Sparrow]

...
- If we were somehow able to reproduce my brain, whose particular self awareness would we produce? We have no idea.

We don't?

 

[Mojo]

We don't?

No, we don't; in the same way that if my cat has kittens, science can't predict what those kittens' names will be.

 

[Jabba]

We know exactly whose self awareness we would produce: the one generated by that brain. That brain would tell us everything there is to know about its' self awareness.

Dave,
- This is where words seem to fail us...
- We could predict the characteristics of this new person, but we couldn't predict WHO this person would be. He wouldn't be me; he'd be somebody else; and, we'd have no idea who he would be.
- I think that Mojo addresses the problem in #1736 when he says, "It would just be the consciousness produced by that brain. The only way the question, "whose particular self awareness would we produce" could have meaning is if there was a selection of pre-defined selves to choose from." As it is, the WHO it produced would be brand new and ... meaningless ... before it was produced.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- This is where words seem to fail us...
- We could predict the characteristics of this new person, but we couldn't predict WHO this person would be. He wouldn't be me; he'd be somebody else; and, we'd have no idea who he would be.

I don't know what you mean by "who he would be". What information about this new person would we not have?

 

[jond]

Dave,
- This is where words seem to fail us...
- We could predict the characteristics of this new person, but we couldn't predict WHO this person would be. He wouldn't be me; he'd be somebody else; and, we'd have no idea who he would be.
- I think that Mojo addresses the problem in #1736 when he says, "It would just be the consciousness produced by that brain. The only way the question, "whose particular self awareness would we produce" could have meaning is if there was a selection of pre-defined selves to choose from." As it is, the WHO it produced would be brand new and ... meaningless ... before it was produced.

Jabba, we have no need to predict the WHO in question. Because the WHO is not an entity. It is an ongoing process generated by the brain. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I know you really WANT there to be an immaterial soul, but there is no evidence for them, nor is there any need for them within the scientific model you call OOFLam. They add nothing to the model, have no reason to be considered.

 

[Loss Leader]

- And, predictability of the self brings us back to Mt Rainier, and why the likelihood of the exact shape of Rainier -- given the natural laws of science -- is virtually one,

Jabba -

You keep ignoring my questions about this.

Do you believe worms live in the dirt in Mt. Rainier? Do you believe birds drop seeds that cause trees and other plants to grow? Do you believe I could go up to Mt. Rainier with a shovel and start throwing dirt around?

Wouldn't all of these things change the shape of the mountain? Or is it absolutely predetermined by natural laws exactly which dirt I throw where?

- We could predict the characteristics of this new person, but we couldn't predict WHO this person would be. He wouldn't be me; he'd be somebody else; and, we'd have no idea who he would be.

We have no way of predicting who you'll be in six months. Jabba 6 months from now will have all sorts of memories and priorities that Jabba Now doesn't have. Six months ago, I had no anxiety attacks about ending up back in the CICU because I hadn't been there yet. But I am plagued by anxiety today. I am not the same person as I was six months ago. 15 years ago I thought my purpose on earth was to lie to women. That person was not the me who exists today. Today, I'm married with two children. My fundamental priorities have changed.

So, how is cloning you any different than just comparing you at two different points in time?

For that matter, you keep talking about "who the self" would be. You have yet to define the term "self" in any way other than an illusion you feel of continuity.

 

[Nonpareil]

We could predict the characteristics of this new person, but we couldn't predict WHO this person would be. He wouldn't be me; he'd be somebody else; and, we'd have no idea who he would be.

Yes, we do.

Assuming a perfect replica of your brain, he would be a precise copy of you - albeit one which would begin to immediately diverge from you. In every way that matters, it would be another instance of you.

You are attempting to assert otherwise without stating any concrete basis for this claim. Presumably, you think it would be otherwise because you believe that you have a unique soul, but since the entire point of this thread is your attempt to establish that the soul exists, no one cares about any arguments based on assuming that it does.

 

[Rosencrantz]

Proof my cat Gigi has a soul:
- the chances of Gigi being born without a soul are extremely low
- if she were born with a soul, her birth was preordained
- since she was born, it must have been preordained and thus she has a soul
- therefore souls

Is that right, Jabba?

 

[Mojo]

- I think that Mojo addresses the problem in #1736 when he says, "It would just be the consciousness produced by that brain. The only way the question, "whose particular self awareness would we produce" could have meaning is if there was a selection of pre-defined selves to choose from." As it is, the WHO it produced would be brand new and ... meaningless ... before it was produced.

I think you're a little confused here. The WHO was not produced by a brain; it was established by the UN in 1948.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Dave,
- This is where words seem to fail us...

You not being able to reword your Woo enough to slip under the weakest intellectual radar is not word failing us.

We could predict the characteristics of this new person, but we couldn't predict WHO this person would be. He wouldn't be me; he'd be somebody else; and, we'd have no idea who he would be.

What is the difference between the "who" of the person and the characteristics of the person? You're adding qualifiers onto things for literally no other reason to make up a problem that doesn't exist that only your inane mathematic gymnastics can solve.

I think that Mojo addresses the problem in #1736 when he says, "It would just be the consciousness produced by that brain.

LEARN TO USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION! It's been a half decade! Do us all the basic courtesy of learning to properly use this board. It's not a PhD in String Theory the buttons are already there for you to use.

The only way the question, "whose particular self awareness would we produce" could have meaning is if there was a selection of pre-defined selves to choose from." As it is, the WHO it produced would be brand new and ... meaningless ... before it was produced.

This... makes... no... sense.

You throw out a handful of coins, count up all the heads and tails, and act as if this was all magically predetermined via probability before hand because this one particular totally arbitrary outcome is so improbable it has to have some quality outside of it's own definition.

It's insane.

 

[Jabba]

I don't know what you mean by "who he would be". What information about this new person would we not have?

Dave,

- As I said, words seem to fail us here...
- I'll keep trying.

- Above somewhere, you accepted that this new self would not be me. But then, who would it be instead of me? We have no idea.
- I think that this is an example of a concept that cannot be effectively conveyed to another person unless the other person has already experienced the concept.
- I'll be back.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,

- As I said, words seem to fail us here...- I'll keep trying.

- Above somewhere, you accepted that this new self would not be me. But then, who would it be instead of me? We have no idea.
- I think that this is an example of a concept that cannot be effectively conveyed to another person unless the other person has already experienced the concept.
- I'll be back.

Always trying to put words into the mouths of others.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- As I said, words seem to fail us here...
- I'll keep trying.

- Above somewhere, you accepted that this new self would not be me. But then, who would it be instead of me?

It would be a person exactly like you. There would be no difference between them. The two selves would be exactly the same.

 

[JayUtah]

This is where words seem to fail us...

No, this is where you play word games in order to obfuscate an otherwise straightforward question.

We could predict the characteristics of this new person, but we couldn't predict WHO this person would be.

The characteristics of that new person are, for all intents and purposes, "who" that person would be. You're now just trying to come up with another collection of weasel words to describe the soul you claim exists.

 

[JayUtah]

As I said, words seem to fail us here...

If they do, it's only because your argument consists entirely of word games and equivocation.

I'll keep trying.

Please don't. That is, please just address the statements that were made instead of trying to find some novel way to express your claim that hasn't changed in 4 years.

Above somewhere, you accepted that this new self would not be me. But then, who would it be instead of me? We have no idea.

Actually your critics have expressed in quite clear terms just exactly in what way the clone would be you, and in exactly what way it will not. The scientific model has no problem with those terms. You're trying to express your notion of a soul in new language ("who I am") and cram that notion into the scientific model as a straw man in order to attempt to falsify it.

It comes down to the same question it always has. If you believe there is some essence to life that is not a process of the physical organism, you must prove it. That includes your notion of "who I am."

I think that this is an example of a concept that cannot be effectively conveyed to another person unless the other person has already experienced the concept.

No, Jabba, your critics are not inferior to you. You do not possess any sort of special knowledge or insight, which your critics allegedly do not, that makes your argument suddenly work.

 

[carlitos]

- As I said, words seem to fail us here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[jond]

It would be a person exactly like you. There would be no difference between them. The two selves would be exactly the same.

Indeed, as has been pointed out so many times throughout this thread. A perfect duplicate of Jabba would be exactly the same as Jabba, and both would think they were Jabba. But from the moment of the duplication, the two Jabbas would diverge and both would think they were the real Jabba, and there would be no way to know which was which. But they would become different because they would each experience different things from the moment of duplication. (Gosh, it's almost as if that means the self is a separate entity but is instead an ongoing process?) It's rather amazing that this simple concept is impossible for Jabba to understand no matter how many times it's been pointed out.

 

[The Sparrow]

So if I make a bit by bit perfect copy of a CD, we will have no idea what music will come out when I play it on a stereo?
Presumably there are all kinds of musical pieces out there in the 'ether', just waiting to be magically linked to a CD?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Indeed, as has been pointed out so many times throughout this thread. A perfect duplicate of Jabba would be exactly the same as Jabba, and both would think they were Jabba. But from the moment of the duplication, the two Jabbas would diverge and both would think they were the real Jabba, and there would be no way to know which was which. But they would become different because they would each experience different things from the moment of duplication. (Gosh, it's almost as if that means the self is a separate entity but is instead an ongoing process?) It's rather amazing that this simple concept is impossible for Jabba to understand no matter how many times it's been pointed out.

I just saw these two videos a few days ago, and I'll share because they are relevant to the topic at hand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trqDnLNRuSc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17WiQ_tNld4

Very short, entertaining overviews on the philosophy of personal identity. They specifically address the transporter problem.

I should say that these issues are actually far more complex than they initially appear. However, Jabba isn't even scratching the surface (getting past the basic stuff), and instead inserting his own ideas about what's really going on, while displaying his own ignorance in every way he knows how.

 

[theprestige]

So if I make a bit by bit perfect copy of a CD, we will have no idea what music will come out when I play it on a stereo?
Presumably there are all kinds of musical pieces out there in the 'ether', just waiting to be magically linked to a CD?

I think that's basically it, yeah. Each musical recording is a unique immaterial object, that gets bound to a single CD at a time. Two CDs can't share the same recording.