[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

xtifr,

- Once again, I think that I understand what you're saying.

- You're saying that the reason the PSoS is fully defined prior to its actual existence is that it is defined by more than biology, or even chemistry -- it is defined by its specific location in space and time.
- Then you're saying that Zeno's paradox doesn't apply here -- and we can't keep shrinking the space/time location and getting evermore PSoSs -- because of "Plank Length."
- How am I doing?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

I have to ask; is "PSoS" the same thing as "consciousness", is it similar, or is it analogous? How does it fit in with all of the other terms you have put forward to avoid having to use the word, "soul"?

 

[Akhenaten]

- How am I doing?

As tragically badly as ever.

 

[godless dave]

7074

7077Dave,
- But you accept that my PSoS (particular sense of self) would not be recreated by an identical brain. An “identical” brain would be a different brain, and would result in a different PSoS. When I die, an identical brain will not bring “me” -- my PSoS -- back to life.

Yes.

- In other words, there is nothing to fully define a PSoS prior to its actual existence. It is in that sense that a PSoS comes from nothing.

No.

A particular sense of self is fully defined by the brain that produces it.

If you, somehow, had two perfectly identical brains, each would produce a sense of self. The two senses of self would be identical.

 

[pakeha]

7074

7077Dave,
- But you accept that my PSoS (particular sense of self) would not be recreated by an identical brain. An “identical” brain would be a different brain, and would result in a different PSoS. When I die, an identical brain will not bring “me” -- my PSoS -- back to life.
- In other words, there is nothing to fully define a PSoS prior to its actual existence. It is in that sense that a PSoS comes from nothing.
- Then, my PSoS coming from nothing, the likelihood of its current existence – given the scientific model – is infinitely small.

No, Jabba.
The PPoS is simply a function of consciousness.
Remember how consciousness is defined?

xtifr,

- Once again, I think that I understand what you're saying.

- You're saying that the reason the PSoS is fully defined prior to its actual existence is that it is defined by more than biology, or even chemistry -- it is also defined by its specific location in space and time.
- Then you're saying that Zeno's paradox doesn't apply here -- and we can't keep shrinking the space/time location and getting evermore PSoSs -- because of "Plank Length."
- How am I doing?

Jabba, why are you avoiding using the same term for sense of self for more than three consecutive posts?
" You're saying that the reason the PSoS is fully defined prior to its actual existence is that it is defined by more than biology, or even chemistry -- it is also defined by its specific location in space and time."
No, Jabba. The PPoS is your renaming of the sense of self, which is part of the activity of a functioning neurosystem.

...
chocolate > strawberry ...

This neurosystem of mine immediately conjured a vision of chocolate shavings cascading over a small pyramid of of freshly sliced strawberries.
Was that what you meant by chocolate > strawberry?

 

[Mojo]

But you accept that my PSoS (particular sense of self) would not be recreated by an identical brain.

Nope. Two identical brains would have identical properties; brains without identical properties would not be identical.

An “identical” brain would be a different brain, and would result in a different PSoS.

No, an identical brain would be identical to yours, and would result in an identical "PSoS". Otherwise it wouldn't be identical.

It occurs to me that it might be a good idea for you to find a dictionary and look up the definition of the word "identical".

When I die, an identical brain will not bring “me” -- my PSoS -- back to life.

Correct. It would produce a second "PSoS" identical to yours. It would not be you. Remember that two identical entities are two entities, not one.

In other words, there is nothing to fully define a PSoS prior to its actual existence. It is in that sense that a PSoS comes from nothing.

Consciousness is a property of the brain, and is the result of the state of the brian.

Then, my PSoS coming from nothing, the likelihood of its current existence – given the scientific model – is infinitely small.

 

[Mojo]

Once again, I think that I understand what you're saying.

- You're saying that the reason the PSoS is fully defined prior to its actual existence is that it is defined by more than biology, or even chemistry -- it is also defined by its specific location in space and time.

Nobody is saying that apart from you, therefore nobody is saying anything about the reason for it.

 

[Loss Leader]

- How am I doing?

If your goal is to make anyone with a knowledge of cause and effect weep, then I'd say you're right on track.

 

[PixyMisa]

- How am I doing?

Ten out of ten for grammar, but minus several million for making a coherent argument.

 

[Agatha]

^^ What they said.

Jabba, an identical brain in every respect will produce an identical (but separate) consciousness, and therefore an identical (but separate) sense of self. No matter how you try to reword your assertion that the sense of self is something separate that arrives from nowhere, you cannot get past this.

Identical things are identical, but still separate entities.

It is not possible to fully define an enormous number of things prior to their existence - people (together with their consciousnesses) being only one of a long list. That does not mean that people come from nothing (or thin air, as you erroneously describe it).

Your conclusion about 'senses of selves' coming from nothing does not follow from your premises.

Can you fully define a snowflake before it's formed? No. Does that mean the snowflake comes from nothing? No, it doesn't.

 

[Akhenaten]

xtifr,

- Once again, I think that I understand what you're saying.

It's apparent that you understand the individual words but the whole idea obviously continues to elude you.

- You're saying that the reason the PSoS is fully defined prior to its actual existence is that it is defined by more than biology, or even chemistry -- it is also defined by its specific location in space and time.

No.

Further, this PSoS nonsense isn't fully defined by anyone anywhere. It's just another nonsense term in a long list of nonsense terms that only exist in the Jabbaverse.

- Then you're saying that Zeno's paradox doesn't apply here -

Which one?

- and we can't keep shrinking the space/time location and getting evermore PSoSs -- because of "Plank Length."

Are the scare quotes meant to indicate that you don't know how to spell Planck or is there some deeper meaning?

 

[Akhenaten]

Can you fully define a snowflake before it's formed? No. Does that mean the snowflake comes from nothing? No, it doesn't.

Jabbanetics would dictate that it's the "specialness" of the snowflake that comes from nothing.

 

[Mojo]

It's apparent that you understand the individual words...

I disagree. He clearly doesn't understand the word "identical", for a start.

 

[Akhenaten]

I disagree. He clearly doesn't understand the word "identical", for a start.

Damn! Every time I try to be charitable it turns out that I was unjustified.

 

[Giordano]

xtifr,

- How am I doing?

Very badly.

 

[Giordano]

xtifr,

- Once again, I think that I understand what you're saying.

What you say indicates that you have no understanding at all about what "he" or the rest of us are saying. Since it has been explained to you in so many creative and simple ways I must conclude that you either do in fact understand and pretend you don't (for whatever purpose), or that you intentionally do not want to understand. It is possible that you are intentionally not reading anyone else's posts, or reading posts, like Dave's, with such a mindset that you cannot understand what he is actually saying.

In either case, this is clearly your decision, and not our lack of explaining things well. So I will simply tell you you are wrong. And you can believe whatever you wish, but if you mis-state the science model, I will tell you to read the other posts here to explain why you are wrong. There is no point to me trying to get you to understand what we are saying, at least for now; I cannot explain anything better than has already been posted. But if you ever want to understand us, then just read the other posts with an open mind. Thanks!

 

[Giordano]

If your goal is to make anyone with a knowledge of cause and effect weep, then I'd say you're right on track.

Possible.

 

[Giordano]

In all honestly, I have learned a lot from this thread. I have learned that if you exactly duplicate a vase, the duplicate would not be the same vase as the original. Who knew?

And apparently if you exactly duplicate a VW the duplicate would have a different VIN number from the original, but you can nonetheless make a infinity of VWs if only you had a infinitely of parts and energy (extrinsically finite) but you could not make an infinity of full houses (intrinsically finite) if you had an infinity of parts and energy. I presume each of the VWs would have a different VIN number, by the way?

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

If you want to get support for your theory, then just stop posting here. Your posts are only convincing more and more people of the errors in your theories. If you have another purpose, please carry on.

 

[John Jones]

Jabba,

If you want to get support for your theory, then just stop posting here. Your posts are only convincing more and more people of the errors in your theories. If you have another purpose, please carry on.

Especially his Effective Debate Theory. I haven't seen a single person persuaded by his Mortality or Shroud theories yet. Just the opposite.

 

[Giordano]

You know, I finally read Jabba's sig line. Especially the first sentence. Interesting what it seems to say.