Proof of Immortality, VII

[John Jones]

[...]
- Re #2: I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I can't find anything on Google making that claim.

I can't find anything on Google supporting your claims about immortality. /thread.

 

[Belz...]

- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.

Of course if you look for something no one is arguing for, you won't find anything.

You continue to substitute your own words and concepts for those of people who are arguing with you here. Why do you do that, if not to deliberatey misrepresent?

 

[John Jones]

Ah, you forget the claimed army of silent, lurking supporters Jabba claims to have. What effect will this have on those?

Oh yeah. That army of lurkers. What ever happened to them?

Curley? Larry? Moe? Sing out!

 

[JoeMorgue]

There I guess that solves that.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You shouldn't see any reason to be shocked that you exist rather than someone else. You should, however, be shocked that you exist at all.

No, I shouldn't; that would be a prima facie example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. But in any case that's irrelevant, because it's not Jabba's argument; his entire "infinite pool of selves" concept is intended to address the fact that he exists rather than someone else.

The fact that one of those immensely unlikely things is "you" gives you a specific perspective, which gives rise to probabilistic significance.

No, it doesn't. To go back to your Putin analogy, "People whom Vladimir Putin want dead" is an a priori specification, and "people who are me" an a posteriori specification, when discussing the probability of there being a person who is me. Probabilistic significance requires an a priori specification.

If you don't think your specific body is the only one that could be you, then you are repeatable, therefore immortal in a sense.

And this is stretching definitions beyond breaking point. "Immortal" does not mean "capable of being reproduced," it means that the process of the self does not terminate. If your argument is based on redefining words then it's no more valid than if you redefined "Immortal" to mean "a pale shade of purple grey."

Dave

 

[aleCcowaN]

...
- Re #3: The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!

Yeah! Reader's Digest, which books and volumes?

Do you think we're that gullible?

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- Re #1: OK.
- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.
- Re #3: The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!

Remember: the "books on consciousness" Jabba has read seem to be books like the one he references here.

 

[sackett]

Jabba,* you're reduced to saying, "I claim that my claim is true because I claim that it's a true claim." I can't see much future in that.

* Kumar calls you Jebba. Don't put up with that!

 

[Jabba]

- So anyway.
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination. Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.
2. Though, I still don't accept that model myself.
3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property, what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness -- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME (my particular self-awareness). Where did I come from?

 

[Pixel42]

- So anyway.
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination.

No it doesn't.

Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.

No it isn't.

2. Though, I still don't accept that model myself.

Nobody cares what you do or don't accept.

3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property, what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness

What seems to you and what is actually the case are two very different things.

-- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME (my particular self-awareness).

Where did I come from?

If by "I" you mean your consciousness, it's an emergent property of your brain.

 

[jond]

- So anyway.
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination. Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.
2. Though, I still don't accept that model myself.
3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property, what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness -- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME (my particular self-awareness). Where did I come from?

You simply refuse to understand the concept of a process, don’t you?

 

[JayUtah]

I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination.

Do you really think we're not going to immediately see the straw man? Do you really think your critics are that stupid or inattentive? Even worse, this particular straw man has already been repudiated. You have to use the materialist model as it is already formulated, not as you redefine it.

Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.

No, you've proven no such thing. In fact, you haven't even offered a single numerical rationale for this number. You clearly just pulled it out of your kiester. No one is under any obligation to agree that this is the correct numerical value, or even that a probability-only argument determines whether something can or did happen.

Though, I still don't accept that model myself.

And this reveals just how little you really know about statistical inference. You don't have to believe it. You only have to assert it arguendo for determining P(E|H). You also get to assert ~H arguendo when you're determining P(E|~H), assuming you ever get that far. In that case it won't matter that your critics don't believe ~H. Again, your argument is not broken according to some easily-corrected detail. Your argument is broken right down to your ability to formulate a statistical inference correctly.

that a certain physical state produces (or "receives")...

NO

Entities don't "receive" properties. That's not what it means to be a property.

...which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness...

No. Properties are not discrete entities.

Where did I come from?

Ambiguous language. You suggest there is a metaphysical "you" that must be explained. Under materialism, all that is you is produced by the matter of your organism. You seem to think it would never be possible to have more than one you. Under materialism that's not a constraint. Every instance of your organism would be an instance of you.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- So anyway.
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness

And if you had honestly stopped here, you would have been fine.

that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination. Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.

But you keep dishonestly adding foolishness such as the above.

2. Though, I still don't accept that model myself.

You have to treat it as if it is correct if that's the model you're trying to falsify. Nobody really cares whether you accept it or not.

3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property

No, that's just stupid. The materialist model sees the sense of self as an emergent property. You still want to treat it as a separate thing. It only "seems" like it's closer to the materialist model because you've dishonestly tacked on a bunch of crap that doesn't belong to the materialist model.

what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness

No, you're trotting out your immortal lie again. You will always be called on it so you may as well stop doing it. You don't need to try to redefine the materialist model to include a soul.

-- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME MY SOUL (my particular self-awareness).

Why do you persist in your immortal lie of referring to what's you've called a process as "particular"?

Where did I come from?

Ask an eight year old. They likely will be able to tell you.

 

[Mojo]

- So anyway.
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination.

Yes, we are all aware that you are fully prepared to lie about the materialist model of consciousness if you think it will help your argument. It doesn't because everyone knows it's a lie.

Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.

Unsupported, and probably irrelevant.

2. Though, I still don't accept that model myself.

Nor does anyone else, because it's a strawman that you have made up.

3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property, what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness -- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME (my particular self-awareness).

That's "being described as that model" by nobody but you, because it's a lie you have made up.

Where did I come from?

Doesn't it say on your birth certificate?

 

[JoeMorgue]

- So anyway.

Oh stop it with the cutesy poo passive aggressiveness. You haven't earned it.

I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination. Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.

No one cares Jabba. You're speaking jibberish with no structure. It doesn't matter what you claim to accept or not you're just gonna jabber absurdisms over and over.

Though, I still don't accept that model myself.

And a thousand of the greatest writers writing for a thousand years in a dozen language could not describe how little that matters. You simply have not shown a strong enough intellectual grasp on... well anything for your opinion as to a concept's validity to mean diddlysquat. You're a parrot squawking at episode of Cosmo.

You, and I don't me a generic "you" I mean you specifically, not accepting something counts for absolutely nothing. You don't accept that process exist and that 1 and 2 aren't the same number.

3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property, what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness -- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME (my particular self-awareness). Where did I come from?

Jabba no one cares anymore. No one is going to waste time trying to explain toddler level concepts to you.

At this point Jabba just accept that the most basic concepts of how the universe works are too complicated for you to understand.

 

[Belz...]

- So anyway.

"So anyway"? Could you more blatantly say that you're ignoring what everyone is telling you? For someone who accused others of being rude, you're being downright insulting to your critics.

1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination.

That's not the materialist model.

Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.

PROVE IT.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Where did I come from?

You are the music playing on the orchestra of your body and brain, the result of a program running on your organic computer, a process that is self aware when it's running, thinks it's continuous but isn't.

Your self awareness isn't a thing at all. Like music or the output of a computer program it is the result of a process wholly dependent on the physical things that generate it. The orchestra doesn't "receive" the music from anywhere when it starts playing, and the music doesn't continue when the orchestra stops playing.

According to materialism, "You" are a process. An incredibly complex intermittently self-aware process, but nonetheless just a process that is completely generated by and dependent on your body and brain.

 

[Mojo]

You are the music playing on the orchestra of your body and brain, the result of a program running on your organic computer, a process that is self aware when it's running, thinks it's continuous but isn't.

Your self awareness isn't a thing at all. Like music or the output of a computer program it is the result of a process wholly dependent on the physical things that generate it. The orchestra doesn't "receive" the music from anywhere when it starts playing, and the music doesn't continue when the orchestra stops playing.

According to materialism, "You" are a process. An incredibly complex intermittently self-aware process, but nonetheless just a process that is completely generated by and dependent on your body and brain.

Don't expect Jabba to understand that; it's essential to his argument that he doesn't.

 

[Toontown]

No, I shouldn't; that would be a prima facie example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. But in any case that's irrelevant, because it's not Jabba's argument; his entire "infinite pool of selves" concept is intended to address the fact that he exists rather than someone else.

No it wouldn't. I think you're trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Back when all the smart people believed the earth was the entire universe (because the earth was all they could see), I might have said, "Not likely. It is unlikely that all we can see just happens to coincide with all that exists. Plus, it is too ludicrously unlikely that a universe consisting of one little planet would have produced sentient life. There must be very, very many planets."

The smart people were wrong back then, but I would have been right.

No, it doesn't. To go back to your Putin analogy, "People whom Vladimir Putin want dead" is an a priori specification, and "people who are me" an a posteriori specification, when discussing the probability of there being a person who is me. Probabilistic significance requires an a priori specification.

Oh. Like "bodies that could be you" is an a priori specification, and "the body that is you" is a posterior specification?

Back when all the smart people believed the planets in the Sol system were the only planets that existed (because the bodies in the solar system were the only things they could see that moved), I might have said, "Not likely. It is unlikely that all we can see that moves just happens to coincide with all that exists. Plus, it is too ludicrously unlikely that a universe consisting of one paltry little collection of planets would have produced sentient life. There must be very, very many planets."

The smart people were wrong back then, but I would have been right.

And this is stretching definitions beyond breaking point. "Immortal" does not mean "capable of being reproduced," it means that the process of the self does not terminate. If your argument is based on redefining words then it's no more valid than if you redefined "Immortal" to mean "a pale shade of purple grey."

Dave

I don't mind stretching that definition beyond the breaking point. It needs to be stretched beyond the breaking point. It is inadequate.

 

[SOdhner]

I'm sure it would violate the membership agreement, but I suspect I could make a bot that posts like Jabba. Give it some talking points, teach it to randomly quote people and then ask variations on the same questions with a few words from the other people's posts spliced in mindlessly...

- Okay so you agree that the process/entity/<VAR%> is attached to a specific <RAND (sperm-ova,brain,person)> then, correct?