[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

Who are you who is so prespicatious in the ways of "Effective Debate^JabbaStyleTM", good Sir Knight?

"Perspicacious?" Normally I would be insulted. But "T'is but a scratch."

 

[Slowvehicle]

"Perspicacious?" Normally I would be insulted. But "it is just a flesh wound."

"Maybe this here now new wonder drug, Chlorophyll^{TM© ®} will help with yo' perspicacity..."

 

[George]

"Perspicacious?" Normally I would be insulted. But "T'is but a scratch."

"Maybe this here now new wonder drug, Chlorophyll^{TM© ®} will help with yo' perspicacity..."

This is pleasing to the eye. I hope and expect Jabba will take the bait.

 

[Jabba]

- I'll try again to find a point in my syllogism where we tend to agree, and where we first diverge. I'll start with the following:

1. Specific chemistry produces what we call “consciousness.”
2. Consciousness naturally develops a specific “self.”
3. According to the scientific model, such a self may be a process, or even an illusion -- but whatever, it generally persists for a lifetime, never to exist again.

- Do you agree with any of that? If so, do you disagree with any of that?

 

[godless dave]

We already know where we diverge, Jabba. It's very clear.

We think the scientific model says the "sense of self" is produced by a functioning, healthy human brain.

It does not come from nowhere, it comes from the biological processes that result in a functioning, healthy human brain.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I'll try again to find a point in my syllogism where we tend to agree, and where we first diverge. I'll start with the following:

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

How sad that you are going to flail about here, hoping to stumble across what you hope is ambiguous enough to be passed of as the illusion of consensus. Oh, well. Perhaps we can simply rename this Shroud III^TM

1. Specific chemistry produces what we call “consciousness.”

Um, no.

Consciousness is an emergent property of a neurosystem. Consciousness is not "produced" by anything; instead, it appears to be an unavoidable by-product of the function of a sufficiently complex neurosystem.

Your "specific chemistry" dodge is more example that you do not understand how DNA works to form organisms; that you do not understand the interplay between heredity and the environment; that you do not understand the contingent nature of :hoe you came to be who you are"; and, I suspect, that you are still trying to use "identical selves" as someway to suggest "immortal souls".

2. Consciousness naturally develops a specific “self.”

Um, no.

Consciousness is a self. Where you do err is pretending that a "self" is the same thing as a "soul". That the "observer" is different from the consciousness. Self does not "develop" "out of" consciousness; instead, to be conscious is to be aware of a self.

If you were even pretending to be interacting with what is being said (with what I an saying), I would ask you to give an example of a consciousness absent "self".

3. According to the scientific model, such a self may be a process, or even an illusion -- but whatever, it generally persists for a lifetime, never to exist again.

Um, no.

The "scientific model" to which you incorrectly attribute so many silly things holds no such.

Consciousness is an emergent property, not a "process".

It is the permanence of self that is an "illusion" (do consider reading the material that was suggested to you while you were pestering the academics).

The "scientific model" to which you incorrectly attribute such silly things holds that there is no consciousness independent of a functioning neurosystem. I challenge you to find a single, actual scientist, or a single, actual, publication; to which can honestly be attributed your "never to exist again" line.

- Do you agree with any of that? If so, do you disagree with any of that?

Have you read any of this response?

 

[Akhenaten]

- I'll try again to find a point in my syllogism where we tend to agree, and where we first diverge.

Go back to Post #1. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

I'll start with the following:

1. Specific chemistry produces what we call “consciousness.”

Not if the specific chemistry is potassium chloride, it doesn't.

2. Consciousness naturally develops a specific “self.”

Consciousness is a specific self. Emergent properties do not have emergent properties.

3. According to the scientific model, such a self may be a process, or even an illusion -- but whatever, it generally persists for a lifetime, never to exist again.

There are no reasons, at least hypothetically, that the same self couldn't occur twice.

The odds of such a thing happening are gazillions to one against, but it's still possible.

More important, however, is that such an occurrence would have nothing to do with immortality.

- Do you agree with any of that? If so, do you disagree with any of that?

No, yes and who are you talking to?

 

[pakeha]

- I'll try again to find a point in my syllogism where we tend to agree, and where we first diverge. I'll start with the following:

1. Specific chemistry produces what we call “consciousness.”
2. Consciousness naturally develops a specific “self.”
3. According to the scientific model, such a self may be a process, or even an illusion -- but whatever, it generally persists for a lifetime, never to exist again.

- Do you agree with any of that? If so, do you disagree with any of that?

1. No, Jabba. Consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.
2. No, Jabba. A sense of self is due to the functioning of a given neurosystem.
3. No, Jabba. You've yet to demonstrate such a scientific model exists.

 

[Jabba]

We already know where we diverge, Jabba. It's very clear.

We think the scientific model says the "sense of self" is produced by a functioning, healthy human brain.

It does not come from nowhere, it comes from the biological processes that result in a functioning, healthy human brain.

Dave,
- How about #4 below?

1. Specific chemistry produces what we call “consciousness.”
2. Consciousness naturally develops a specific “self.”
3. According to the scientific model, such a self may be a process, or even an illusion -- but whatever, it generally persists for a lifetime, never to exist again.
4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self -- if we were able to develop a perfect replica of a person’s brain at 4 years of age, the two brains would not share the same self.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- How about #4 below?

1. Specific chemistry produces what we call “consciousness.”
2. Consciousness naturally develops a specific “self.”
3. According to the scientific model, such a self may be a process, or even an illusion -- but whatever, it generally persists for a lifetime, never to exist again.
4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self -- if we were able to develop a perfect replica of a person’s brain at 4 years of age, the two brains would not share the same self.

True but irrelevant. A perfect replica of one person wouldn't share a nose with the original either. That doesn't mean biology didn't determine the existence of their noses.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I'll try again to find a point in my syllogism where we tend to agree, and where we first diverge.

We diverge at the point where you attempt to infer that any sort of definition of person/consciousness/observer/soul/chemistry/recipe/neurosystem or anything else means that there are an infinite possible number of those things.

All of them are material. All of them are physical. Thus, none of them can be infinite.

We diverge at the point where you think "a really, really large amount" equals "infinity."

Continue to flounder about in the shallow end of your argument, by all means. Continue to try to get to some magic formula of words about what a person "is." You cannot avoid the fact that your next step is and always will be logically and mathematically wrong.

 

[Jabba]

We diverge at the point where you attempt to infer that any sort of definition of person/consciousness/observer/soul/chemistry/recipe/neurosystem or anything else means that there are an infinite possible number of those things.

All of them are material. All of them are physical. Thus, none of them can be infinite.

We diverge at the point where you think "a really, really large amount" equals "infinity."

Continue to flounder about in the shallow end of your argument, by all means. Continue to try to get to some magic formula of words about what a person "is." You cannot avoid the fact that your next step is and always will be logically and mathematically wrong.

Loss Leader,
- Hopefully, I will eventually get to those disagreements.

 

[pakeha]

Dave,
- How about #4 below?

1. Specific chemistry produces what we call “consciousness.”
2. Consciousness naturally develops a specific “self.”
3. According to the scientific model, such a self may be a process, or even an illusion -- but whatever, it generally persists for a lifetime, never to exist again.
4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self -- if we were able to develop a perfect replica of a person’s brain at 4 years of age, the two brains would not share the same self.

4. No, Jabba. Remember that the sense of self is simply part of the functioning of a neurosystem.

 

[godless dave]

Loss Leader,
- Hopefully, I will eventually get to those disagreements.

I don't believe you. You have had ample opportunity to get to them, but instead you just keep rehashing existing ones, starting over from the beginning after we point out problems with your hypothesis.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- How about #4 below?

1. Specific chemistry produces what we call “consciousness.”
2. Consciousness naturally develops a specific “self.”
3. According to the scientific model, such a self may be a process, or even an illusion -- but whatever, it generally persists for a lifetime, never to exist again.
4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self -- if we were able to develop a perfect replica of a person’s brain at 4 years of age, the two brains would not share the same self.

What would that have to do with immortality?

 

[Akhenaten]

Loss Leader,
- Hopefully, I will eventually get to those disagreements.

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never is, but always to be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

- Alexander Pope​

 

[Monza]

Dave,
- How about #4 below?

1. Specific chemistry produces what we call “consciousness.”
2. Consciousness naturally develops a specific “self.”
3. According to the scientific model, such a self may be a process, or even an illusion -- but whatever, it generally persists for a lifetime, never to exist again.
4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self -- if we were able to develop a perfect replica of a person’s brain at 4 years of age, the two brains would not share the same self.

Re: #4
Once again, two identical things are exactly alike. But they are separate, i.e. there are two of them. If you were able to develop a perfect replica of a person's brain, the two brains would each have a self. Those two selves would be identical to each other, identical but separate. They would cease to be identical as soon as the brains became physically different.

Note that brains are never physically static. Your brain is constantly changing; its physical makeup is dynamic. Your own brain is physically different now from what it was this morning when you woke up. That means your self is actually different from what it was this morning. Your self, thus, is constantly changing. Environment, nutrition, interactions, thoughts, all affect the physical structure of your brain. Your "self" is an emergent property of this physical structure.

 

[Giordano]

- I'll try again to find a point in my syllogism where we tend to agree, and where we first diverge. I'll start with the following:

1. Specific chemistry produces what we call “consciousness.”
2. Consciousness naturally develops a specific “self.”
3. According to the scientific model, such a self may be a process, or even an illusion -- but whatever, it generally persists for a lifetime, never to exist again.

- Do you agree with any of that? If so, do you disagree with any of that?

Are we making any progress in this thread?

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- How about #4 below?

1. Specific chemistry produces what we call “consciousness.”
2. Consciousness naturally develops a specific “self.”
3. According to the scientific model, such a self may be a process, or even an illusion -- but whatever, it generally persists for a lifetime, never to exist again.
4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self -- if we were able to develop a perfect replica of a person’s brain at 4 years of age, the two brains would not share the same self.

Nope, no progress.

 

[Giordano]

Loss Leader,
- Hopefully, I will eventually get to those disagreements.

Based on what evidence? I mean whether you will ever even get to those arguments, not that you will prove your position.