[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
- Status
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Right. Each person is created out of nothing except, of course, for the exact conditions that brought about that person.
How long before the creation process was this state of nothing? I am a different person that I was before I ate breakfast. But I was substantially similar and the physical and psychological changes since eating breakfast were largely predictable.
My basic form was inherited from my parents - whom I quite resemble. My height is the average of my parents' height plus 1.5 inches (subtract for a female). My intelligence, while not to brag, certainly seems to come from my parents, both of whom are lawyers.
Other aspects of me were formed during gestation. I have a congenital heart defect which required many surgeries when I was young. I was otherwise well-nourished and full-term.
Still other aspects of me were formed as a young child. My physical disability kept me from playing sports and interacting with other children. This had a marked effect on my personality. My parents had no strong spiritual beliefs and this also encoded itself on me. They did have very strong beliefs about education which I embraced.
Frankly, I can imitate my father so well that other family members cannot tell the difference (over the phone, at least).
And then there are the exact molecules that were available to form me and reform me at each stage. Nowhere else in the universe were those exact molecules available.
So, each bit of me is conditioned upon the last. There were many, many paths that I could have gone down. This is the path I took, right up to the tea I'm sipping as I type.
Thus, each individual does not come from "nothing." Furthermore, even if they did, that doesn't mean the number of possible individuals is infinite. A null set is not an infinitely populated one. So, both factually and logically, you are wrong.
As predicted by many, this completely ignores the many, many counterpoints to this statement that were recently posted when you made it before! You have not even tried to respond to these near universal criticisms.
But of course, you also ignored the many, many objections to your definition of the " self." It is likely to be a problem for your proof of the self coming from nothing if the vast majority of us explained that we don't believe in your definition of the "self." But go ahead. This way you can prove the novelty of the self more easily if you can always make it a soft, magical definition. "I have my father's sense of humor!" Oh, you can say that is not the "self" I mean. " I love chocolate ice cream like my mom!" Oh, you can say that neither is the "self" I mean. In fact, even you can't give a specific definition of "self," without saying it is what some people think it to be.
Didn't you already agree that even your own-defined "self" was an emergent property of a well-functioning brain? Now you say it came from nothing? Aren't you even ignoring yourself?
George Carlin once had a joke that you land in an airplane and the stewardesses always say, "We would like to welcome you to L.A. ". George Carlin would say, "Oh please do...go ahead." But they never would actually welcome him. Same idea for Jabba. Don"'t tell us you will provide a proof, yet again. Go ahead and actually do so.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Xtifr,
- I hope that the above wasn't too confusing -- I should have said something about "given the scientific hypothesis."
- I also hope that our apparent progress hasn't been the result of me excluding that disclaimer...
Last edited:
You are going to prove something that is denied by the scientific hypothesis using the science hypothesis. Your proof must be smarter than all the scientist's thoughts all these thousands of years. Great!
Also, knowing from you how difficult these posts are for you, don't feel the need to waste your time repeatedly telling us what you intend to do. Please just do it. Thanks!
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
You have two sets of chemicals in exactly the same configuration. What makes them distinct is that there are two of them.
Physically identical, but distinct because there are two of them.
Chemically identical, but distinct because there are two of them.
Just like the cakes and all the other analogies we have used.
There is no essence of my self that identifies it as "me".
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Us guys can. Jabba, not so much.
Not to Jabba. They allow him to pretend that he's responded to all of the posts contained within his block of numbers.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Yeah, but I always wanted to use the word "otiose".*
*Although my phone, apparently, prefers the word "oriole".
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
It's a pity though that the thing for which you were "originally" trying to create an analogy was the simultaneous creation of identical somethings.
And this is different to mortality in that _____________________ ?
Everything is essentially what you've said before. And twisted.
Useful? Nah.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
So you're just going to ignore everything we've already discussed and repeat what you've already said?
Last edited:
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Help the rest of us to understand. Perhaps you could consult your highly effective post numbering index and use it to refer us to the posts where you were right.
You refuse to even acknowledge basic points of disagreement other than as inclusions in a meaningless block of numbers and the occasional "I'll get back to you on that".
I hope you got her an "i".
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba,
I have largely withdrawn from this pointless thread apart from observation only.
However, you have drifted so far from your original claim that surely even you must recognise that the "consciousness" of this thread has become something other than it originally was.
And so it is with actual consciousness. Even were it possible to duplicate exactly a human brain/consciousness/self/observer/whatever your term du jour might be, from the point of being identical, such consciousnesses will immediately diverge and this thread demonstrates that it will develop as it will according to the inputs it receives, regardless of whether you like it or not.
Of course, I expect no answer. As usual.
I have largely withdrawn from this pointless thread apart from observation only.
However, you have drifted so far from your original claim that surely even you must recognise that the "consciousness" of this thread has become something other than it originally was.
And so it is with actual consciousness. Even were it possible to duplicate exactly a human brain/consciousness/self/observer/whatever your term du jour might be, from the point of being identical, such consciousnesses will immediately diverge and this thread demonstrates that it will develop as it will according to the inputs it receives, regardless of whether you like it or not.
Of course, I expect no answer. As usual.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I assume it's due to trying to maintain a perception that losing 1-nil is better than losing 128 - nil.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Nothing like an each-way bet, eh Jabba?
Because that always works so much better than providing evidence and a cogent argument.
- Status