Proof of Immortality, VII

[abaddon]

Mojo,
- "Shortly" covers the next 100 years or so.

Jabba, I will return to an example I provided to you years ago.

You exist now.
Your two parents must therefore also have existed. You now have 2 ancestors.
Their parents must also have existed (two each, your grandparents). You now have 4 more ancestors.
Their parents must also have existed (two each, your great-grandparents). You now have 8 more ancestors.
And so forth.

By the time you get back to the time of jebus, you alone had 147,573,952,589,676,412,928 ancestors living in or around the same time.

That is more ancestors that humans that have ever lived in the history of Earth, and there are 7,000,000,000 billion of us each having the very same number of ancestors. Therefore, at the time of the Romans there were 147,573,952,589,676,412,928 x 7,000,000,000 ancestors of all of us living on the Earth.

That is 1,033,017,668,127,734,890,496,000,000,000 of us at the time of the Romans.

That works out as 6,904 billion people per square meter over all of the land area of earth just to account for all of our ancestors.

Where were they all living?

But it gets worse. Human history does not stop at the Romans, oh no. Actual human history does not go back to the Romans, it goes at least 100,000 years back and that will make your problem even bigger. But let us ignore that and just even going back as the mythical Noah causes a huge problem.

Every time I raise this, you claim you will think about it and get back to me, but you never do.

The math is solid, but it has a fatal flaw much like your argument. Can you identify what that flaw actually is?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- In location, molecules and what they were transmitting...

Just like the senses of self.

- Here, I'm trying to communicate a particularly subtle -- but exciting -- concept. Fortunately, its recognition is probably not necessary for determining that the posterior probability of OOFLam is unimaginably small. The concept is about the "self" coming out of nowhere, and therefore, being totally unpredictable and infinitely unlikely...
- Each new 'clump' of consciousness naturally involves a brand new self. It naturally creates a brand new self. There was no pool of potential selves to draw from.

We know. We understand the concept. It's called mind-body dualism. That concept is not part of the non-religious hypothesis. This discussion started when you asked for examples of you misrepresenting the non-religious hypothesis. This concept that you call subtle and exciting is not part of the non-religious hypothesis. At various times you have acted as if it were.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- According to materialism, it's here now in the way that it won't be here after your body dies. You accept that there is a process that will quit -- never to go again -- when your body dies.

You accept that the specific going 60 mph will quit - never to go again - when my Volkswagen goes to the crusher.

Do you also agree that the phrasing you use sounds inane?

 

[Dabop]

Same as it ever was...

reminds me of the chorus of Once In A Lifetime by Talking Heads
to quote....

Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Look where my hand was
Time isn't holding up
Time isn't after us
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- "Shortly" covers the next 100 years or so.

Evasion noted.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- In location, molecules and what they were transmitting...

- Here, I'm trying to communicate a particularly subtle -- but exciting -- concept. Fortunately, its recognition is probably not necessary for determining that the posterior probability of OOFLam is unimaginably small. The concept is about the "self" coming out of nowhere, and therefore, being totally unpredictable and infinitely unlikely...
- Each new 'clump' of consciousness naturally involves a brand new self. It naturally creates a brand new self. There was no pool of potential selves to draw from.
- Anyway, I think that you already accept that the likelihood of the current existence of your self -- given OOFLam -- is no larger than 10^-100. Is that correct?

Just like the senses of self.



We know. We understand the concept. It's called mind-body dualism. That concept is not part of the non-religious hypothesis. This discussion started when you asked for examples of you misrepresenting the non-religious hypothesis. This concept that you call subtle and exciting is not part of the non-religious hypothesis. At various times you have acted as if it were.

Dave,
- Mind-body dualism is not the concept I'm trying to convey. The non-religious hypothesis accepts the emergent property of consciousness and the "self" that consciousness naturally entails.
- If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place and was not drawn from a pool of potential selves, any particular sense of self is brand new and came out of nowhere --
which is quite exciting.

 

[jsfisher]

...
- If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self ...

It is not a thing. There is no particular sense of self.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave,
- Mind-body dualism is not the concept I'm trying to convey. The non-religious hypothesis accepts the emergent property of consciousness and the "self" that consciousness naturally entails.

What exactly are you referring to as a "self"? You're making it sound like a thing, which materialism won't allow you to do.

- If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self

You're lying about a sense of self being a thing in materialism. There is no "particular" sense of self any more than a Volkswagen goes a "particular" 60 mph. This is your lie which you won't be allowed to attribute to materialism.

never existed before, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place

The process of consciousness doesn't have a separate existence from the organism in materialism. You won't be allowed to lie about materialism.

and was not drawn from a pool of potential selves, any particular sense of self is brand new and came out of nowhere --
which is quite exciting.

Processes don't come from pools of processes and are also not particular. I just don't think you are able to grasp the simplest concepts.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- Mind-body dualism is not the concept I'm trying to convey. The non-religious hypothesis accepts the emergent property of consciousness and the "self" that consciousness naturally entails.
- If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place and was not drawn from a pool of potential selves, any particular sense of self is brand new and came out of nowhere --
which is quite exciting.

No, if materialism is true it doesn't "come out of nowhere", it is entirely the result of, and determined by, the physical and chemical state of the brain. As you have been told many times.

Perfectly replicating you would result in two Jabbas, identical in all respects, including their consciousnesses, because the consciousnesses would be being produced by identical brains. OK, one of them would be very confused, and the other, suddenly finding himself somewhere other than where he remembered being a moment before, would probably become even more confused. But at the instant of replication they would be identical in all respects.

 

[carlitos]

- Agatha,

- It would seem that I perceive (or, imagine) a concept that you and the others on this forum do not perceive (or imagine).

- From my perspective, the replication would bring a new "self-hood." It probably wouldn't be me, it probably wouldn't be you and it might not be anyone else who is currently represented in a body (alive). I'll try to explain that later...

- Otherwise, we would have no idea "who" (what self-hood) it would be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul?wprov=sfti1

Soul
Essence of an individual
In many religious, philosophical and mythological traditions, there is a belief in the incorporeal essence of a living being called the soul.

 

[Belz...]

Dave,
- Mind-body dualism is not the concept I'm trying to convey. The non-religious hypothesis accepts the emergent property of consciousness and the "self" that consciousness naturally entails.
- If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place and was not drawn from a pool of potential selves, any particular sense of self is brand new and came out of nowhere --
which is quite exciting.

The "NR" hypothesis (science) doesn't accept any of that.

The self doesn't "exist". You just agreed that its a property, not a thing. If you could address the bringing back to life of "going 60 mph" it might help.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Mind-body dualism is not the concept I'm trying to convey. The non-religious hypothesis accepts the emergent property of consciousness and the "self" that consciousness naturally entails.
- If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place and was not drawn from a pool of potential selves, any particular sense of self is brand new and came out of nowhere --
which is quite exciting.

That is not what the non-religious hypothesis says. In the non-religious hypothesis the same causes that resulted in the physical body resulted in the sense of self. Everything about the sense of self is determined by the body. It did not come out of nowhere.

 

[jond]

Jabba: remember when you agreed that the sense of self is a process generated by a functioning brain? You are back to trying to make the self a separate entity in the materialistic model. It is not. We know where the sense of self comes from, it is generated by the brain. Why do you continue this nonsense about the self coming out of nowhere?

 

[JayUtah]

If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self...

The sense of self is not particularized or individualized in materialism. You know that. That's why you had to scramble to declare other non-individualized properties of other systems as somehow not properties. You're trying very had to make materialism look liked dualism when by its very definition it isn't.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- In location, molecules and what they were transmitting...

- Here, I'm trying to communicate a particularly subtle -- but exciting -- concept. Fortunately, its recognition is probably not necessary for determining that the posterior probability of OOFLam is unimaginably small. The concept is about the "self" coming out of nowhere, and therefore, being totally unpredictable and infinitely unlikely...
- Each new 'clump' of consciousness naturally involves a brand new self. It naturally creates a brand new self. There was no pool of potential selves to draw from.
- Anyway, I think that you already accept that the likelihood of the current existence of your self -- given OOFLam -- is no larger than 10^-100. Is that correct?

Dave,
- Is that correct?

 

[Jabba]

...
- Here, I'm trying to communicate a particularly subtle -- but exciting -- concept. Fortunately, its recognition is probably not necessary for determining that the posterior probability of OOFLam is unimaginably small. The concept is about the "self" coming out of nowhere, and therefore, being totally unpredictable and infinitely unlikely...
- Each new 'clump' of consciousness naturally involves a brand new self. It naturally creates a brand new self. There was no pool of potential selves to draw from...

...
We know. We understand the concept. It's called mind-body dualism. That concept is not part of the non-religious hypothesis. This discussion started when you asked for examples of you misrepresenting the non-religious hypothesis. This concept that you call subtle and exciting is not part of the non-religious hypothesis. At various times you have acted as if it were.

Dave,
- Mind-body dualism is not the concept I'm trying to convey. The non-religious hypothesis accepts the emergent property of consciousness and the "self" that consciousness naturally entails.
- If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place and was not drawn from a pool of potential selves, any particular sense of self is brand new and came out of nowhere --
which is quite exciting.

That is not what the non-religious hypothesis says. In the non-religious hypothesis the same causes that resulted in the physical body resulted in the sense of self. Everything about the sense of self is determined by the body. It did not come out of nowhere.

- Do you agree that they resulted in the emergent property of consciousness?

 

[godless dave]

- Do you agree that they resulted in the emergent property of consciousness?

Yes because that's something a living human brain produces.

 

[abaddon]

Dave,
- Is that correct?

No. It is not even wrong, it is so confused a concept.

We have spent 5 years telling you that nobody agrees with your made up numbers. 5 years of telling you over and over and over and over....

 

[abaddon]

Yes because that's something a living human brain produces.

The mantle of LCP has apparently passed to you. My condolences.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave,
- Is that correct?

Even your questions are lies.