Proof of Immortality III

[JayUtah]

As for the term "holistic," the only time I've heard it used properly is in describing a practice of medicine in which many specialists in different areas consult each other on a patient's care.

Indeed I hasten to differentiate between this legitimate label and the "holistic medicine" that falls under alternative medicine, which is what I refer to above.

 

[abaddon]

Indeed I hasten to differentiate between this legitimate label and the "holistic medicine" that falls under alternative medicine, which is what I refer to above.

The term is one which has a legitimate meaning in medicine, but it has been so comprehensively hijacked by new age buffoonery that I avoid it at all costs.

This is, of course, a great shame. In legitimate medicine, it is a laudable approach. In fact, I have direct experience of it in the case of both of my long since departed parents. The real holistic approach gave them a quality of life they otherwise would not have had. This includes right up to what is euphamistically termed "end-of-life" care, which in real terms means you are about to croak your last, but dammit, the entire team will do their utmost to ensure you want for nothing and are engaged in every way right up to your end of life.

This even extended to my father having all of the staff form an ad hoc guard of honour as his gently cooling corpse was wheeled away to the funeral home, many of them in tears. Moving as it was, looking around the range of people there makes you realise the true meaning of "holistic" treatment. The number of different disciplines represented was astounding. As were the individual practitioners just as persons in their own right.

And this is why I really object to the new age crackpot hijacking of the term. It isn't just dishonest, it takes a massive <redacted> on those who actually know what they are doing and why.

 

[Toontown]

The universe had one chance to make Jabba's specific brain (or yours). That specific brain had to be one specific organization of mass/energy, occurring at one specific set of spacetime coordinates (x,y,z,t). Any similar brain occurring at any other spacetime coordinates would be another, identical brain. In science, the spacetime location of different objects plays a critical role in differentiating between different objects, especially identical objects.

Therefore, the size, age or number of universes have absolutely no bearing on the prior probability that Jabba's specific brain would emerge from the universe-wide quantum shuffle beginning at 10 ^-43 seconds. Any identical brain occurring at any other spacetime coordinates would be another brain.

It was wrong when you said it the first time. It's wrong every other time you said it. Again, there are plenty of treatises by mathematicians explaining this particular common fallacy. Avail yourself of one.

Izzatafact.

There are treatises by reputable mathematician(s) that explain that a brain identical to Jabba's brain, but occurring at a different time and place, or even in a different universe, as implied by Loss Leader, would be the same brain?

Yeah, I haven't seen one, but they may be out there. But I think it's far more likely that you just skimmed over the post, missed both the context and the point, grabbed a paragraph, chopped it off, and then issued a non-sequitur response.

 

[JayUtah]

There are treatises by reputable mathematician(s) that explain that a brain identical to Jabba's brain, but occurring at a different time and place, or even in a different universe, as implied by Loss Leader, would be the same brain?

No, I said there were treatises by mathematicians explaining your fallacy.

 

[Toontown]

The universe had one chance to make Jabba's specific brain (or yours). That specific brain had to be one specific organization of mass/energy, occurring at one specific set of spacetime coordinates (x,y,z,t). Any similar brain occurring at any other spacetime coordinates would be another, identical brain. In science, the spacetime location of different objects plays a critical role in differentiating between different objects, especially identical objects.

Therefore, the size, age or number of universes have absolutely no bearing on the prior probability that Jabba's specific brain would emerge from the universe-wide quantum shuffle beginning at 10 ^-43 seconds. Any identical brain occurring at any other spacetime coordinates would be another brain.

Yeah, right. And so what?

The predictability of you (or Jabba, or me) is virtually zero.

Still we exist. And from that we can conclude exactly what?

Hans

You can't conclude anything, other than the fact, which you've conceded, that Loss leader's claim about the universe having millions of chances to create Jabba's specific brain is wrong.

What I might conclude, and what I might try to convince you of, are two quite different things.

The purpose of my post was to debunk Loss Leader's claim. Nothing more.

 

[JayUtah]

The purpose of my post was to debunk Loss Leader's claim. Nothing more.

It's cute that you think you did that. You conflated identity with identicality. Loss Leader did not.

 

[Toontown]

It's cute that you think you did that. You conflated identity with identicality. Loss Leader did not.

You should go back and read that conversation. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[SNIP]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed added portion to comply with Rule 12

 

[JayUtah]

You should go back and re-read that conversation. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Says the guy who pops in only occasionally to take pot-shots at Jabba's critics. You're welcome at any time to prove I don't know what I'm talking about. Both you and Jabba have conflated identity with identicality. Loss Leader has not. He correctly attributes to each aspect of being the properties that are operative in the hypothesis.

 

[Toontown]

Says the guy who pops in only occasionally to take pot-shots at Jabba's critics. You're welcome at any time to prove I don't know what I'm talking about. Both you and Jabba have conflated identity with identicality. Loss Leader has not. He correctly attributes to each aspect of being the properties that are operative in the hypothesis.

Being disagreed with really annoys you, doesn't it. But now you've gone and made me disagree with you again.

I've also taken potshots at Jabba. However, there are far more critics of Jabba to take potshots at.

Butt should I continue to be surprised if I win the lottery after having played a couple billion times?

Left out from your diatribe is any thought that the lottery has been going on for 13.5 billion years on billions of planets in billions of galaxies and that's just in our universe. If Jabba doesn't know how many tries the universe took to make him, how can be correctly calculate odds? His perspective doesn't matter because he lacks necessary information.

Proof, you want? It was right there in front of you all along.

The quote above sure looks like Loss Leader thinks Jabba's specific brain could have been created billions of years ago in a galaxy far, far away. Or a billion years in the future in another distant galaxy. Or universe.

That seems to be conflating identity and identicality.

Therefore, the size, age or number of universes have absolutely no bearing on the prior probability that Jabba's specific brain would emerge from the universe-wide quantum shuffle beginning at 10 ^-43 seconds. Any identical brain occurring at any other spacetime coordinates would be another brain.

On the other hand, my paragraph above doesn't look like I'm conflating identity with identicality, does it.

Sure does make it look like you don't know what you're talking about though, doesn't it.

 

[JayUtah]

Being disagreed with really annoys you, doesn't it.

No, not really. Debate is why we're here.

That seems to be conflating identity and identicality.

No, the paragraph you quote here questions the numerical basis of Jabba's calculation. Your response to it conflates identity with identicality by claiming that even if another brain can have arisen having all the properties that pertain to the self, it would still be different. But the properties you say would be different pertain only to identity, not to anything that anyone has shown pertains to the self.

Sure does make it look like you don't know what you're talking about though, doesn't it.

You're trying very hard to make it seem that way, without really saying much beyond personal insults.

 

[Jabba]

Can you just try answering the question "In what way would the two selves be different?"

Dave,

- I guess it doesn't look like it, but that's what I've been trying to do!

- I'll keep trying -- but I need to ask at least one question first. Do you sense an aspect of your self that seems to be non-physical, but that you think is just an illusion?

 

[JayUtah]

Do you sense an aspect of your self that seems to be non-physical, but that you think is just an illusion?

Begging the question.

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave,

- I guess it doesn't look like it, but that's what I've been trying to do!

- I'll keep trying -- but I need to ask at least one question first. Do you sense an aspect of your self that seems to be non-physical, but that you think is just an illusion?

What does 'non-physical' mean?

 

[JayUtah]

I need to ask at least one question first.

Why do you?

First, of what relevance is the question to the one Dave asked? You directly disputed that an identical brain would have an identical awareness and sense of identity. It is entirely proper for him to have asked that question at that time, and this is the second time you have avoided answering it.

Second, in what way does your question test anything? How would someone be able to determine that an "aspect of [his] self is non-physical?" Describe to us what "non-physical" feels like, and how you were able to determine that your feeling was correct. Commensurately, how would someone be able to determine that an "aspect of [his] self ... is just an illusion?"

Explain why a reasonable reader would interpret this as a serious question and not just another obstacle you're placing in the path of describing, to a discernible level of detail, exactly what constitutes the soul you argue exists?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- I guess it doesn't look like it, but that's what I've been trying to do!

- I'll keep trying -- but I need to ask at least one question first. Do you sense an aspect of your self that seems to be non-physical, but that you think is just an illusion?

No.

 

[Loss Leader]

The quote above sure looks like Loss Leader thinks Jabba's specific brain could have been created billions of years ago in a galaxy far, far away. Or a billion years in the future in another distant galaxy. Or universe.

You have completely misunderstood me. My point was not that Jabba specifically could have been created at any time or place. My point was that there is nothing special about Jabba being here now. What he should be calculating is the chance that anything ever could come into existence anywhere in the universe that has the capacity to type on a computer.

My point was that Jabba and you are both engaged in the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You look at Jabba's existence after the fact as some sort of near miraculous confluence of events. Meanwhile, had Jabba never existed, in four years there might be a user called "Boba" who makes the same argument. And you would be right there saying how amazingly small the chance is that "Boba" came to exist when he did.

And in both realities, you would be wrong.

- I'll keep trying -- but I need to ask at least one question first. Do you sense an aspect of your self that seems to be non-physical, but that you think is just an illusion?

Who cares what we sense or think? My senses tell me the earth is flat. My senses tell me that wine in an expensive-looking bottle tastes better than the same wine in a cheep bottle. My mind tells me that my sons are the two most important people who have ever lived in the tide of times. In all cases, it's not necessarily real. It is only what we can test that matters.

Do you have a test for a non-physical self? Or even a functional definition?

 

[Nonpareil]

You have completely misunderstood me. My point was not that Jabba specifically could have been created at any time or place. My point was that there is nothing special about Jabba being here now. What he should be calculating is the chance that anything ever could come into existence anywhere in the universe that has the capacity to type on a computer.

My point was that Jabba and you are both engaged in the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You look at Jabba's existence after the fact as some sort of near miraculous confluence of events. Meanwhile, had Jabba never existed, in four years there might be a user called "Boba" who makes the same argument. And you would be right there saying how amazingly small the chance is that "Boba" came to exist when he did.

And in both realities, you would be wrong.

This has been said, almost word for word, to both Jabba and Toontown ad nauseum.

To this day, neither of them seems to be able to grasp it.

 

[abaddon]

What does 'non-physical' mean?

Oh, to be clear, that is the default claim to make any unfounded declaration. Once 'non-physical' is invoked, one can be sure that abject woo will follow. It's just one of the many code words via which woo slingers attempt to hijack your brain.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What does 'non-physical' mean?

The non-physical and the non-existent seems to share all the same qualities.

Woo Slingers love to spin this into the same old tired clichéd "Scientist/Skeptics/Rationalist/Materialist are cold, hard people who don't believe in anything they can't put up on their exam tables and dissect" nonsense. As noted it's nothing but the Eleventy-billionth attempt to reword "Making stuff up" into nobility or trying paint "Not making stuff up" as somehow closed minded.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You can't conclude anything, other than the fact, which you've conceded, that Loss leader's claim about the universe having millions of chances to create Jabba's specific brain is wrong.
.

Mmm oh, welcome back.

Note the word predictability. It is different from probability.


The chances of creating a given person is not small, but predicting the event is.

Hans