[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
I find the into/unto muddle almost as annoying as the often misquoted "cry Havoc! and unleash (or loose) the dogs of war". I have been known to shout "let slip. Let SLIP. LET SLIP!!!". I'll get my coat. :o
 
Agatha said:
I find the into/unto muddle almost as annoying as the often misquoted "cry Havoc! and unleash (or loose) the dogs of war". I have been known to shout "let slip. Let SLIP. LET SLIP!!!". I'll get my coat. :o
Click to expand...
No need. That one bothers me, too.

What bothers me most is when other pedants look upon my own improvements to Shakespeare as if they were mistakes...
 
Jabba said:
9. The biology did not determine the “who.”
10. My biology did not determine “me.”
Click to expand...

Once again, this is where you are wrong. In the scientific model, biology does determine the "who". There is no aspect of a sense of self that is not defined by the physical brain. None. The sense of self associated with your brain is "you" by definition.
 
Agatha said:
I find the into/unto muddle almost as annoying as the often misquoted "cry Havoc! and unleash (or loose) the dogs of war". I have been known to shout "let slip. Let SLIP. LET SLIP!!!". I'll get my coat. :o
Click to expand...

My least favorite "bent bard" quotefuffle is when goodolebwahs with High School educations conflate Matt. 6:28 and Salisbury's speech from King John. From the pulpit.

"Gilding the lillies". Feh.
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
Once again, this is where you are wrong. In the scientific model, biology does determine the "who". There is no aspect of a sense of self that is not defined by the physical brain. None. The sense of self associated with your brain is "you" by definition.
Click to expand...

goddless dave: so you agree with Mr. Savage, then?
 
godless dave said:
Jabba, let's change the thought experiment slightly. Say the scientists perfectly replicate your brain while you're still alive, not after you're dead. Is the replica you living "again", even though both you and the replica exist at the same time?
Click to expand...
Dave,

- I accept that replicating my brain -- whenever that would be done -- would not replicate "me."
- But, that's actually one of my own premises...

- I'm claiming that my biology is not exclusive to me.
- Then, I'm claiming that according to the scientific model, my biology, just like that of anyone else, produces a brand new consciousness that takes on, or brings with it, a brand new self of its own. This brand new consciousness includes a specific self that had no preexisting exclusive recipe -- and, in that sense, came out of thin air. The consciousness was the result of my biology -- but, it was a brand new consciousness, and took on a brand new self of its own.

- Whether a process, or illusion, or whatever, my sense of self has lasted a relatively long time in relative harmony and I would hope that it continues, or comes again. Here, I'm not suggesting that hoping I'm immortal is evidence that I am immortal -- I'm just trying to fully identify what it is that I'm talking about, and show how being what we might call an illusion, doesn't change its relevance to immortality.
 
Jabba said:
I'm just trying to fully identify what it is that I'm talking about, and show how being what we might call an illusion, doesn't change its relevance to immortality.
Click to expand...


What you need to show is that it can exist in the absence of a functioning body.
 
Oh, the suspense.

One more post to see if Jabba adds or redefines a word to help us understand.
 
I know you relish the idea of reading my wise words multiple times, but in the interest of space and time that I am not actually saving, I have deleted the contents of this post because it is a duplicate of the previous.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,

- I accept that replicating my brain -- whenever that would be done -- would not replicate "me."
- But, that's actually one of my own premises...

- I'm claiming that my biology is not exclusive to me.
- Then, I'm claiming that according to the scientific model, my biology, just like that of anyone else, produces a brand new consciousness that takes on, or brings with it, a brand new self of its own. This brand new consciousness includes a specific self that had no preexisting exclusive recipe -- and, in that sense, came out of thin air. The consciousness was the result of my biology -- but, it was a brand new consciousness, and took on a brand new self of its own.

- Whether a process, or illusion, or whatever, my sense of self has lasted a relatively long time in relative harmony and I would hope that it continues, or comes again. Here, I'm not suggesting that hoping I'm immortal is evidence that I am immortal -- I'm just trying to fully identify what it is that I'm talking about, and show how being what we might call an illusion, doesn't change its relevance to immortality.
Click to expand...

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

What is, in your opinion, "evidence that [you are] immortal"?

Why not start there? You could make straight the gate, exalt the valleys, make the rough places plain...just present your evidence.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,

- Then, I'm claiming that according to the scientific model, my biology, just like that of anyone else, produces a brand new consciousness that takes on, or brings with it, a brand new self of its own. This brand new consciousness includes a specific self that had no preexisting exclusive recipe -- and, in that sense, came out of thin air. The consciousness was the result of my biology -- but, it was a brand new consciousness, and took on a brand new self of its own.
Click to expand...

Consciousness doesn't take on, or bring with it, a brand new self of it's own. It's all a process generated by the brain. It's constantly changing, as is the brain. The illusion that it stays the same is just that, an illusion.

- Whether a process, or illusion, or whatever, my sense of self has lasted a relatively long time in relative harmony and I would hope that it continues, or comes again. Here, I'm not suggesting that hoping I'm immortal is evidence that I am immortal -- I'm just trying to fully identify what it is that I'm talking about, and show how being what we might call an illusion, doesn't change its relevance to immortality.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to wish for anything you'd like, and you're welcome to believe anything you want. But are you finally acknowledging that you have no possibility of "proving immortality with Bayesian Statistics?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom