[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
- Status
Jabba,
Maybe you should go back even further to find out where we all agree, and the point where we diverge? How about the idea of the atom? Or even further. Perhaps you should ask the posters about their idea of rocks. Perhaps you should ask if we all agree that there are rocks? Perhaps if we all agree that there are rocks, you can interpret that in your next post to mean that we all agree on unicorns.
Maybe you should go back even further to find out where we all agree, and the point where we diverge? How about the idea of the atom? Or even further. Perhaps you should ask the posters about their idea of rocks. Perhaps you should ask if we all agree that there are rocks? Perhaps if we all agree that there are rocks, you can interpret that in your next post to mean that we all agree on unicorns.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Ummmm, No.
How many times must you be told that "reproducing the exact structure" (what you seem to be trying to finesses with "specific chemistry") of a brain,
even if (biiiig "if") it were possible would not reproduce the consciousness that would be an emergent property of that brain because consciousness is affected by the experiences of the brain .
How long do you intend to waste on this dead-end hypothetical before you actually present the first scintilla of evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
We should start a pool.
This^^^^.
Is Jabba addressing the OP at a point infinitely long from now one of the choices in the pool? If so, is that choice already taken? Or can I bet it?
Or is the pool more specific, as to whether Jabba will repeatedly just start again by ignoring all our arguments?
Last edited:
Consider that his posts on these dead-end topics, rather than on his "proof," may actually reflect Jabba's "goals" in this thread. Perhaps...
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
I'm open to suggestions.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
I am afraid that his "goal" was to have me, and people like me, and everyone on this forum, "see the light", and admit that we might have stood in darkness but for his leadership and guidance to the understanding that the "soul" exists in eternity, and the "observer" was "installed" in this body this time, but next time might be "Napoleon"...or something.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
The only thing stopping you is yourself.
Don't pretend that we are engaged in some back-and-forth where we are clarifying uncertain terms. Everybody here is certain of exactly what all the relevant terms mean. Nobody here is engaging with you in any way. The only person you're debating is yourself.
Why do you believe that the uniqueness of each individual means that there are an infinite number of possible individuals?
Good luck in trying to pin him down to a direct answer and moving the thread forward.
Bonne chance! 祝你好運 Boa sorte! Guid Luck! Удачи! Etc. You will need it.
xtifr
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,299
Jabba, is there really a point to all this nitpicking? You're not going to get to divide by infinity when considering the scientific probability of a particular consciousness, because the scientific model doesn't allow it. There are a finite number of possible arrangements of all the particles in the universe. Period, end statement. So if that's still where you're trying to get, you might as well just move on, and see if your premise still works without that. Otherwise, you're done.
As someone else pointed out, the persistence is the illusion. But again, is this relevant? Whether it's persistent or not, there's still a finite possible number of selves.
(Oh, and "never to exist again" is simply a matter of statistics. There's no inherent reason why a "self" couldn't exist again. It's just mind-bogglingly improbable. But only because the universe isn't likely to last long enough for it to happen naturally.)
In any case, this doesn't get around the fact that there are a finite number of possible arrangements of particles in the universe, and the total number of possible selves (however you want to define that) is a subset of that finite number of arrangements.
Even the set of sequential combinations of the arrangements of particles in the universe over a finite period of time (i.e. the changes that a supposedly persistent self might undergo during a lifetime) is still finite!
You're not going to get to divide by infinity.
"Develops"? No. Consciousness is self. But really, is this relevant?
As someone else pointed out, the persistence is the illusion. But again, is this relevant? Whether it's persistent or not, there's still a finite possible number of selves.
(Oh, and "never to exist again" is simply a matter of statistics. There's no inherent reason why a "self" couldn't exist again. It's just mind-bogglingly improbable. But only because the universe isn't likely to last long enough for it to happen naturally.)
Semantically ambiguous. The selves would be distinct-but-identical. Whether they're the same depends on what you mean by "same". English simply doesn't cope with this concept very well, because it's completely outside of our experience.
In any case, this doesn't get around the fact that there are a finite number of possible arrangements of particles in the universe, and the total number of possible selves (however you want to define that) is a subset of that finite number of arrangements.
Even the set of sequential combinations of the arrangements of particles in the universe over a finite period of time (i.e. the changes that a supposedly persistent self might undergo during a lifetime) is still finite!
You're not going to get to divide by infinity.
Sure he can. He will simply write 1/infinity yet again. See, we can't stop him from doing so. No matter how often we tell him it is meaningless. Were you expecting a learning experience or discussion?
Yes, I think Jabba has a point to all this nitpicking. I can't say what I think his point is, but it does have the effect of avoiding getting to his "proof of immortality" and reincarnation. I also wonder if the idea is to kill off the minds of the "opposition" to eventually leave the "courtroom" all to himself. But of course I don't know him or his motivation.
Interesting point about the theoretical (if small) probability of creating two identical selves. Some of the research on identical twins suggests that it already has partly occurred in that two brains can think similarly. So, perhaps depending on the level of detail studied, two brains might in theory think "alike" if enough brains were available for the comparison.
xtifr
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,299
Fair enough. What I meant was that he can't persuade anyone that it belongs in his equations, no matter how he might twist and turn.
As I said earlier, I'm just here as an observer of human nature.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You are just adding an additional step 4 to an argument that you have been told is wrong in steps 1, 2 and 3 (and you have been told why it's wrong). It's like someone who, having done a database search for a bunch of terms and found nothing, just adds another term to the same search. you need to correct your initial steps, not just add to the wrong.
As for your point 4, if you could somehow produce two brains that were identical in all their properties, including chemistry (i.e. one of them would be a "perfect replica" of the other), then the selves they would produce would also be identical.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
But let's put the goal posts there anyway.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
The selves would be immediately identical (since they would emerge from identical chemistry), but would begin to diverge immediately due to different experiences and would become two distinctly different selves. I'm not sure if Jabba doesn't understand this, or if he does, what exactly he's trying to argue.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
They would be identical for as long as the brains producing them continued to be identical. That would involve their environments and experiences being identical. The fact that this is impossible is just one of the reasons that we're talking about a hypothetical situation here. The point is that the "self" is an emergent property of the brain, so brains with identical properties will have identical "selves".
Jabba wants the "self" to be an independent entity that somehow infests functioning brains. He has no evidence whatsoever that this is the case, so he's reduced to using the sort of 'argument' he has been posting in this thread.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I suspect that what Jabba wants to argue is that because identical brains produce different "selves", the "self" cannot be simply the result of the functioning of the brain, so must be produced by something else. Therefore it exists independently of the brain, and voila! Immortality. That's why he keeps posting stuff like "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"; he thinks that if he posts the same assertion enough times with enough different wordings, people will accept it in the absence of any supporting evidence.
Precisely. To do so, he must repeatedly ignore that if this impossible replication occurred it would produce identical selves, even if the identicality lasted only for the instant of replication. That's why he won't acknowledge that part of the criticism.
I will reiterate and modify a (possibly mistaken) observation I made long ago.
Jabba displays all the traits of someone who has enjoyed the status of family sage, and he has enjoyed that status for so long that he cannot imagine it to have been mistaken. For decades upon decades Jabba has, I surmise, put forth his views about immortality, the Shroud of Turin, and probably dozens of other such lofty subjects and has never, to his mind been challenged. There are those who are awed by his intellectual prowess; he knows of them. There are those who politely nod and do not challenge because they see no point; he thinks they belong to the first group. And there are a few who challenge him, but he takes their eventual frustration at his shortcomings as surrender.
So Jabba took it to the internet, fully expecting the same perceived reception: awe at his insight. Our reaction can only mean that we have been deceived, otherwise it means that his loved ones have been wrong and Jabba's position as family sage was a fraud.
He does not accept that he is wrong because he cannot accept that he is wrong.
- Status