Proof of Immortality, VII

[MRC_Hans]

- What can I call the kind of thing/process that would not be me in my copy? I could call it "soul" with the stipulation that by definition, it may not be immortal.
- Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists, but not according to you. I need a word for that concept.

"Soul" works fine.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

- If a perfect copy of your brain would not bring back your specific self-awareness, neither should your sperm and ovum, and science must be stuck with figuring that each bit of consciousness naturally brings with it, or creates, a brand-new self-awareness .

Why not?

- How about perfect copies of your sperm and ovum?
- And, if science/materialism considers, or would consider, your particular sperm and ovum to be the cause of your particular self-awareness, I'm happy to use that model instead.

They would, under the right conditions, combine to form a blastocyst which would develop into an embryo which would eventually start forming a brain. This brain would not be exactly like mine because various factors in the womb influence how a fetus develops. But regardless, a copy is separate from the original. 1+1=2. What makes my self awareness my particular self awareness is that it's the one my particular brain is producing...

- So, you agree with me in that the combination of your particular sperm and ovum-- even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb -- would not produce your particular self-awareness. Your particular self-awareness must not be simply the result of chemistry.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- So, you agree with me in that the combination of your particular sperm and ovum-- even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb -- would not produce your particular self-awareness. Your particular self-awareness must not be simply the result of chemistry.

Inveterate lying is a sin and means your soul is mortal.

 

[JayUtah]

So, you agree with me...

Do not grovel for agreement. It's annoying.

...in that the combination of your particular sperm and ovum-- even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb...

I've highlighted the part where you clearly (and probably deliberately) misrepresent godless dave's post. He said the same organism would not arise because the factors in the womb are different. You're trying to apply his answer to a new hypothetical case in which factors in the womb are the same.

To claim he agrees with you in this manner is a bald-faced lie, for which you should be ashamed, Jabba.

In any case, godless dave has made abundantly clear that the only difference that is operative in his formulation of materialism -- which is a correct one, by the way -- is the distinction arising from there being two nevertheless identical organisms. And you carefully edited away the part where he pointed out how irrelevant human embryology is to the question.

I think you're being deliberately dishonest. What evidence can you show to suggest you aren't?

would not produce your particular self-awareness.

There is no such thing as "particular self-awareness" in materialism.

Your particular self-awareness must not be simply the result of chemistry.

Straw man. Materialism does not argue that properties are solely the product of chemistry. The are solely properties of the material, but that involves more than just chemistry.

 

[jond]

- So, you agree with me in that the combination of your particular sperm and ovum-- even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb -- would not produce your particular self-awareness. Your particular self-awareness must not be simply the result of chemistry.

Only if you ignore the infinite number of times it’s been pointed out that the self is a combination of chemistry and the ongoing experiences that your functioning brain has. If we duplicated every experience you’ve had, including all the posts you’ve intentionally ignored, there would be two identical Jabbas. Both equally wrong and equally absurd.

 

[godless dave]

- So, you agree with me in that the combination of your particular sperm and ovum-- even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb -- would not produce your particular self-awareness.

No, that's not what I said. The sperm and egg that produced me would produce me. Well they already did 47 years ago.

Exact copies of that sperm and egg would be separate from the originals and would thus produce a blastocyst separate from the original blastocyst.

Because a copy of something is separate from the original.

Your particular self-awareness must not be simply the result of chemistry.

That doesn't follow at all and I don't understand why you think it does.

My self awareness is the result of a particular brain. A copy of that brain would not be the same brain. It would be a different particular brain.

One self cannot be in two places at once.

Would you agree that a loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry?

 

[The Sparrow]

No, that's not what I said. ...

What??!!? You mean Jabba foisted a different meaning onto something you clearly stated?

I am shocked...Shocked I tell you!

 

[Toontown]

Easy example: you may be blissfully unaware that your existence has any probabilistic significance - until it occurs to you to ask how likely it is that you would exist if Vladimir Putin wanted you dead. When you ask that question, you assume a specific perspective. From that perspective, you can conclude with good confidence that Putin probably doesn't seriously want you dead.

I honestly don't know how to reply to that piece of irrelevant crap.

Sorry you feel that way. Hopefully your mouth will eventually straighten back out.

Because of your card deck analogy, I didn't think you knew that the posterior observation of your existence could have any probabilistic significance, so I quickly conjured up one of many possible perspective-based examples.

I see no way it has any bearing whatever on the question we're discussing, which is whether the probability of Jabba coming into existence is overwhelmingly less under the assumption of materialism than under the assumption that materialism is not correct.

I can answer that. From everyone else's perspective, the answer is no. Jabba's existence is no more significant to everyone else than a random grain of sand on Mars.

End thread.

BUT - Jabba's subjective perspective on his existence is not the same as everyone else's perspective on him, and from his perspective, the answer is yes. He should be absolutely shocked that he exists, if he assumes the prevailing materialistic explanation.

Where Jabba went wrong, IMO, was in believing he could develop a compelling alternate explanation, let alone one which could be objectively proved to others. That would have to be a scientific theory, possibly requiring a new branch of mathematics to express it.

I've talked to Jabba about this, as to the futility of the attempt. As nearly as I can guess, I think his plan is to show that his subjective perspective is valid. Then, I suppose, he will endeavor to show that anyone else can, at will, also assume a similar perspective, and arrive at a similar conclusion, not entirely unlike repeating an experiment.

Why he picked this crowd to try that on is a mystery even greater than the mystery of his existence.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I can answer that. From everyone else's perspective, the answer is no. Jabba's existence is no more significant to everyone else than a random grain of sand on Mars.

End thread.

Up to this point, we agree, especially the last statement.

BUT - Jabba's subjective perspective on his existence is not the same as everyone else's perspective on him, and from his perspective, the answer is yes. He should be absolutely shocked that he exists, if he assumes the prevailing materialistic explanation.

And this is where we disagree. Putting myself in the same place, I see no reason to be shocked that I exist rather than someone very much like me but in some significant ways different. Suppose you were transported to an alternate universe where the only difference was, say, that I preferred cheddar to other kinds of cheese; would that be a more, less, or equally likely probability universe than the one we live in? I would submit that it would be roughly the same probability, therefore there is no particular reason why one should have been preferred over another. By extension, none of the other possible variations on who I could have been are particularly more or less likely, so there's no reason to be surprised that I ended up as this particular "me." That, I think, is the gist of what Jabba is trying to get at with his infinite pool of potential selves; the question of "Why did I end up as this specific self?" The answer to this is, quite simply, "Why not?"

Dave

 

[MRC_Hans]

- So, you agree with me in that the combination of your particular sperm and ovum-- even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb -- would not produce your particular self-awareness. Your particular self-awareness must not be simply the result of chemistry.

Your current self is defined by your genes and some combination of all the influences and experiences you have had up to the current moment. This includes also the inferences that your brain might have made from its experienses. So some of it is indeed immaterial, but it is still stored in, and bound to, the chemistry that is your physical brain.

Hans

 

[Mojo]

BUT - Jabba's subjective perspective on his existence is not the same as everyone else's perspective on him, and from his perspective, the answer is yes. He should be absolutely shocked that he exists, if he assumes the prevailing materialistic explanation.

If Jabba is observing his existence, what is the likelihood that he exists?

 

[Mojo]

Your current self is defined by your genes and some combination of all the influences and experiences you have had up to the current moment. This includes also the inferences that your brain might have made from its experienses. So some of it is indeed immaterial, but it is still stored in, and bound to, the chemistry that is your physical brain.

Hans

The stuff about the "self" being determined by genetics is just another attempt to sneak in the idea of the "self" as a constant thing rather than a transient process.

 

[wea]

This brain would not be exactly like mine because various factors in the womb influence how a fetus develops.

- So, you agree with me ... even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb -- would not produce your particular ...

A, B are brains
C_A are the "womb factors" encountered by A

godless dave: A ≠ B because C_A ≠ C_B

Jabba: So, you agree with me that even if C_A = C_B, A ≠ B

Jabba, did I get it right?

 

[Jabba]

- So, you agree with me in that the combination of your particular sperm and ovum-- even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb -- would not produce your particular self-awareness. Your particular self-awareness must not be simply the result of chemistry.

No, that's not what I said. The sperm and egg that produced me would produce me. Well they already did 47 years ago.

Exact copies of that sperm and egg would be separate from the originals and would thus produce a blastocyst separate from the original blastocyst.

Because a copy of something is separate from the original.




That doesn't follow at a
ll and I don't understand why you think it does.

My self awareness is the result of a particular brain. A copy of that brain would not be the same brain. It would be a different particular brain.

One self cannot be in two places at once.

Would you agree that a loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry?

- A particular loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry. Your particular self-awareness would not be produced by a new combination of your exact chemistry -- and therefor, would not be simply the result of your chemistry.

 

[SOdhner]

Your particular self-awareness would not be produced by a new combination of your exact chemistry -- and therefor, would not be simply the result of your chemistry.

1. Stop saying "particular self-awareness like that's a thing. We've all taken the time to explain this to you many, many times now. You're being exceptionally rude.

2. A perfect copy would be a perfect copy. You're deliberately getting things all muddled up with talk of whether or not the same result would come from the starting point of a sperm and egg, even though it has been explained to you many times why that's wrong.

This is stupid. I don't know why I keep reading this thread. What the hell is wrong with me?

 

[RoboTimbo]

- A particular loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry. Your particular self-awareness

You agree with me that referring to what you've called the process of self-awareness as "particular" is very dishonest on your part?

would not be produced by a new combination of your exact chemistry -- and therefor, would not be simply the result of your chemistry.

How would it differ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

- A particular loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry. Your particular self-awareness would not be produced by a new combination of your exact chemistry -- and therefor, would not be simply the result of your chemistry.

So, you agree that an exact copy of me would have an identical self-awareness to mine, as this arises purely from the chemistry of my brain.

(See, the rest of us can do it to you too.)

Dave

 

[godless dave]

- A particular loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry. Your particular self-awareness would not be produced by a new combination of your exact chemistry -- and therefor, would not be simply the result of your chemistry.

A particular loaf of bread would not be produced by a new combination of the same chemistry that produced the first one.

 

[wea]

- A particular loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry. Your particular self-awareness would not be reproduced by a new combination replication of your exact chemistry -- and therefor, would not be simply the result of your chemistry.

FTFY. "chemistry" here means replicated neurons/neurotransmitters/action potentials configuration. Identical neuron sequence firing = identical self-awareness process.

 

[The Sparrow]

- A particular loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry. Your particular self-awareness would not be produced by a new combination of your exact chemistry -- and therefor, would not be simply the result of your chemistry.

If you keep repeating it to yourself, maybe you'll actually believe it.