Proof of Immortality, VI

[Mojo]

And why does it matter whether or not we agree with [the reincarnationists]? Even if we did, it would just mean that we disagree with the materialist hypothesis that you are trying to disprove. It wouldn't alter that hypothesis so that it includes the existence of souls. You still wouldn't be able to factor souls into your calculation of P(E|H).

Just to clarify, Jabba, when you are calculating P(E|H) it doesn't matter whether or not H is correct: you have to assume that H is correct and calculate the likelihood as if H is correct.

 

[The Sparrow]

...
- I think they would think that the original sense would not be brought back to life. It is the sense of self that they think does come back to life in reincarnation that they think would not come back in the perfect copy -- and, that's how the original and the perfect copy would be different.

That is because you are asserting the first would have your unique soul and the second would not. It would be missing something.
But if it were missing something it would not be a PERFECT copy. You only are struggling with this because you are starting with the presupposition that souls exist and there is a unique Jabba one.

- And, you should agree with them when it comes to the original and the perfect copy -- that particular, individual, sense of self awareness would not be brought back to life in the copy.

There would be 1 EXACTLY like it bought to life. Remember? 1+1 =2.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But if it were missing something it would not be a PERFECT copy. You only are struggling with this because you are starting with the presupposition that souls exist and there is a unique Jabba one.

And no matter what we do, no matter how we explain it Jabba simply cannot get beyond this.

This is why I've tried very hard to not fall into Jabba's "Have you stopped beating your wife" level questions with him trying to pin down "Would a totally new me be me" because it's Mu, it's not a valid question. The question is incomplete and wrong and if forced into a "Yes or No" answer in Jabba's head that's us admitting a difference no matter what answer we give him, and in that difference is where he's shoving the soul.

It really is absurd. "Perfect copy" by its very definition would be a... perfect copy. You can't beg the the concept of a perfect copy in one breath and lamb bleat "But it wouldn't be the saaaaammme" in the next as Jabba's entire "argument" is based on.

Right now there is one "Me" with "Me" being a continuous but ever changing neurological process in the 180 lb (190 during the holidays) sack of wet meat that makes up "Me." Right now that 180 lbs of wet meat is needed to support the 3 lbs of neurons and glia cells and other assorted grey matter in my skull that generates that neurological process. If that sack of wet meat is damaged to the point it can't support that 3 lbs of grey matter the process and therefore "Me" ends.

Right now our level of technological advancement doesn't allow that "me" to be transferred or copied to another sack of wet meat or some technologically based equivalent so its fine for use to talk about "me" being a singular thing on a practical day to day basis. "YOLO" is an off the cuff statement of practicality, not a deep philosophical truth.

10, 50, 100, a thousand years from now maybe "Me" could be copied and replicated. Maybe one day people will have multiple instance of "Me" running in different locations, backups of their "me" for safekeeping, hell different versions of a basic "Me" for different scenarios that they can shutdown, pause, and turn on as the need arises.

But for not those things are not possible and our linguistic, legal, and daily ways we view "self" do not account for them.

 

[Belz...]

- Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree.

BS. You know exactly where we disagree. You've been told hundreds of times.

 

[Belz...]

- I am learning a lot about the difficulty that we humans have when trying to discuss disagreements...

There is no difficulty except your utter unwillingness to accept that you're wrong.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The most insulting thing in this whole trainwreck is Jabba's continued insistence on speaking down to us as if we're pupils to his master, this attitude that we should be grateful he's still taking the time to try and teach his Patented Effective Debate style to us because he's been so patience with us as we struggle to grasp it.

I'm sure the character arcs Jabba has written for all us in his self insert fan fiction has us getting frustrated that he's been saying "Wax on, Wax Off" over and over and he's getting frustrated that we keep asking to do this scene over and over instead of moving ahead to Act 3 where we all realize he's been teaching us some amazing technique all along.

Accept this isn't a movie, Jabba is neither Mr. Miyagi or the director, and Jabba's "Wax On / Wax Off" isn't some amazing technique in disguise.

 

[John Jones]

[...]
I'm sure the character arcs Jabba has written for all us in his self insert fan fiction has us getting frustrated that he's been saying "Wax on, Wax Off" over and over and he's getting frustrated that we keep asking to do this scene over and over instead of moving ahead to Act 3 where we all realize he's been teaching us some amazing technique all along.
[...]

*golf clap*

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Jabba I would very much like you to answer a question for me please?

Lets say we get a hypothetical poster called Tom come to the forum. Tom thinks the moon is made from cheese and starts a thread discussing if it's a cow's milk cheese or a goats milk cheese. Then let's say we have a poster called sue. Sue responds to Tom by saying that his underlying assumption that the moon is made from cheese is completely wrong, so there is no point arguing what kind of cheese it is.

Is sue being rude?

Please Jabba, I genuinely would like an answer.

 

[The Sparrow]

And no matter what we do, no matter how we explain it Jabba simply cannot get beyond this.

This is why I've tried very hard to not fall into Jabba's "Have you stopped beating your wife" level questions with him trying to pin down "Would a totally new me be me" because it's Mu, it's not a valid question. The question is incomplete and wrong and if forced into a "Yes or No" answer in Jabba's head that's us admitting a difference no matter what answer we give him, and in that difference is where he's shoving the soul.

It really is absurd. "Perfect copy" by its very definition would be a... perfect copy. You can't beg the the concept of a perfect copy in one breath and lamb bleat "But it wouldn't be the saaaaammme" in the next as Jabba's entire "argument" is based on.

Right now there is one "Me" with "Me" being a continuous but ever changing neurological process in the 180 lb (190 during the holidays) sack of wet meat that makes up "Me." Right now that 180 lbs of wet meat is needed to support the 3 lbs of neurons and glia cells and other assorted grey matter in my skull that generates that neurological process. If that sack of wet meat is damaged to the point it can't support that 3 lbs of grey matter the process and therefore "Me" ends.

Right now our level of technological advancement doesn't allow that "me" to be transferred or copied to another sack of wet meat or some technologically based equivalent so its fine for use to talk about "me" being a singular thing on a practical day to day basis. "YOLO" is an off the cuff statement of practicality, not a deep philosophical truth.

10, 50, 100, a thousand years from now maybe "Me" could be copied and replicated. Maybe one day people will have multiple instance of "Me" running in different locations, backups of their "me" for safekeeping, hell different versions of a basic "Me" for different scenarios that they can shutdown, pause, and turn on as the need arises.

But for not those things are not possible and our linguistic, legal, and daily ways we view "self" do not account for them.

Sage words my friend.

 

[Jabba]

And that's where you're talking about the nature of the experience and not the experience itself.



And this is our disagreement. I think that two identical things can exist that are not different from each other.



I agree the original would not be brought back to life because an identical copy is separate from the original even if there is no difference at all between the original and the copy.

When you assert that there would be difference between the two selves is when you tack on something about the nature of the self. We both agree that we experience a sense of self. Where we disagree is on the nature of that experience.

Dave,

- Still hoping (against hope) that if I say this just right you'll see what I mean...

- Anyway, I disagree. I'm not tacking on anything about the nature of the self. It's the experience of self that you and the reincarnationists agree would not be brought back to life by the perfect copy.
- And, if the copy does not bring the original self back to life, isn't there a difference between the two selves -- other than there separateness?

 

[Mojo]

- And, if the copy does not bring the original self back to life, isn't there a difference between the two selves -- other than there separateness?

No, two identical people would be identical. All of their properties would be the same, including their consciousnesses.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- Still hoping (against hope) that if I say this just right you'll see what I mean...

- Anyway, I disagree. I'm not tacking on anything about the nature of the self. It's the experience of self that you and the reincarnationists agree would not be brought back to life by the perfect copy.
- And, if the copy does not bring the original self back to life, isn't there a difference between the two selves -- other than there separateness?

No. Their "separateness" is the only difference.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,

- Still hoping (against hope) that if I say this just right you'll see what I mean...

- Anyway, I disagree. I'm not tacking on anything about the nature of the self. It's the experience of self that you and the reincarnationists agree would not be brought back to life by the perfect copy.
- And, if the copy does not bring the original self back to life, isn't there a difference between the two selves -- other than there separateness?

No. Their "separateness" is the only difference.

SOdhner & Waterman,
- Do you agree with Dave?

 

[JayUtah]

Still hoping (against hope) that if I say this just right you'll see what I mean...

No, you're hoping you can come up with some turn of phrase that gets someone to express agreement, so that you can snap it back to your original claim. We know what you mean. We know the concept your trying to foist. It's simply wrong in that you're not describing materialism. You're describing something you've already admitted is not materialism, and trying to call it that.

I'm not tacking on anything about the nature of the self.

You exactly are.

It's the experience of self that you and the reincarnationists agree would not be brought back to life by the perfect copy.

This is the part where you tack something on. You're equivocating "experience" to mean "soul." Rather obviously so, I might add.

And, if the copy does not bring the original self back to life...

Your argument is exactly that a duplicate would not have the soul. Do you really think your critics are so stupid as not to see what you're doing?

 

[JayUtah]

SOdhner & Waterman,
- Do you agree with Dave?

Stop that. Stop individually polling your critics, probing for a perceived crack into which you can drive the wedge. Stop stalling the argument while waiting for individuals to respond. If you're so anxious about individual feedback, and insinuate that the argument can't proceed without it, give this a go.

 

[The Sparrow]

SOdhner & Waterman,
- Do you agree with Dave?

I do. Their attributes would be identical or the same, but they would be 2 separate independent discrete processes.

 

[jond]

Dave,

- Still hoping (against hope) that if I say this just right you'll see what I mean...

- Anyway, I disagree. I'm not tacking on anything about the nature of the self. It's the experience of self that you and the reincarnationists agree would not be brought back to life by the perfect copy.
- And, if the copy does not bring the original self back to life, isn't there a difference between the two selves -- other than there separateness?

- Yes, you are tacking something on. You and reincarnationists tack on a soul that materialists don't.

- If the copy thinks it's Jabba, with all Jabba's thoughts and memories, what is the difference between the original and the copy? Apart from the fact that there are now 2 of them with their own space time coordinates? You've been asked this question many times and have ignored it every time.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Still hoping (against hope) that if I say this just right you'll see what I mean/

For a third time I ask you, do you think we are stupid? Do you think we are not aware of what you are doing.

For someone who's very existence is a walking brag about their "Truly Effective Debate Style" and for whom every debate carries a heavy handed meta-context of you making a sad attempt to take skeptics and rationalists to task for how they argue you seem completely incapable of even making a statement to be argued, to say nothing of actually arguing it.

We know what you mean Jabba. You know we know what you mean. Trying to paint yourself as the exasperated teacher that just can't get through to the students is insulting to us.

You're still trying to write your story so it builds to some great "Eureka" moment for us, where we just all of a sudden for no reason decide to both understand your gibberish and agree with it.

Anyway, I disagree. I'm not tacking on anything about the nature of the self.

Yes you are. You've openly admitted you are.

You understand that right? That the people you are interacting with now are the same people who were in this discussion when you openly admitted what you are doing? As I've tried to tell you a "fringe reset" only works when at least some of the people in the discussion change.

It's like when my dog tries to get into the trash and I tell him to stop and he goes right back to the trash the very second I look away as if I have no memory or spatial awareness.

You've already openly admitted that this whole nonsense is a gamewhere you try to prove a soul without mentioning the word as if even if you didn't admit it anyone with a lukewarm IQ would fall for such obvious lingustic silliness.

This is real life Jabba. It's not a video game, not a deck of cards, not a play or a skit. You don't get to reshuffle the deck. You don't get to restart the game. You don't get to the scene over. No mulligans, no do-overs.

You've already let the genie out of the bottle in this argument and you don't get to put it back. You can't demand we all just pretend you haven't already let it slip what you are doing just because you wrote yourself into a corner you can't get out of.

It's the experience of self that you and the reincarnationists agree would not be brought back to life by the perfect copy.

Stop telling people what they agree with. Nobody agrees with the reincarntionist, nobody agrees with you, I'm not 100% sure you agree with the reincarntionists.

And, if the copy does not bring the original self back to life, isn't there a difference between the two selves -- other than there separateness?

Yes and that thing is the Woo Woo God Soul. The thing you think exists and we don't and you keep trying to pretend we agree with you.

Seriously Jabba do you think anyone here is going to fall for your "Well I'm telling you that you agree with me, therefore you agree that I'm right" game?

DO YOU THINK WE ARE STUPID?

SOdhner & Waterman,
- Do you agree with Dave?

STOP IT. Stop taking stock of where everyone is at. You're just going to make up who agrees with you or not anyway.

 

[jond]

Included for Reference:





Bolding mine
Ok….???
So you agree that:
The self is a process
This process may be altered through various mechanisms
This process may be suspended or halted

Your primary disagreement is defended by asserting that we are unlikely. Most people have agreed that the further back in time you go the more unlikely our individual existence becomes. However as time moves forward that probability converges on 1 with your birth and continued existence. The person you have become is shaped by your biology and experiences you were not predestined to have any of those. The unlikelihood of our individual existence has no bearing on the existence of an immaterial component of our being or immortality.

Do you understand the sentient puddle logical fallacy where in the puddle marvels at how well he fits the hole he finds himself in? You are marveling at the complexity of your life and all the factors had to come together to make you who you are. But you were not made to fit a Jabba shaped hole that was waiting for you. You were shaped by myriad of forces in world to be who you are. Circumstances provided an opportunity for a being to form in an available niche and the being that emerged happened to designate itself as Jabba.

Looks like we can add this to the list of posts that Jabba asked for a response and then ignored the answer. How unsurprising...

 

[Pixel42]

Dave,

- Still hoping (against hope) that if I say this just right you'll see what I mean...

We already see what you mean. Please stop assuming that the only reason we do not agree with you is that we don't understand you.

Anyway, I disagree. I'm not tacking on anything about the nature of the self. It's the experience of self that you and the reincarnationists agree would not be brought back to life by the perfect copy.

Only if there was such a thing as a soul, and the one in the original was not the same soul as the one in the copy, would there be any difference between the two.