[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[xtifr]

xtifr,

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

You appear to be getting close. I only have one immediate quibble. (I may have more later, but this is the only one that springs out at me.)

- 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.

The highlighted bit sounds wrong, but I'm also not entirely sure what you think that means. The PSoS just is at the moment it occurs. It's not a continuous thing. It happens when you think of yourself, or access your memories and consider them from the context of the present.

The PSoS is an event or activity, not an object. The PSoS you may experience today is not the same PSoS as the one you may have experienced five years ago. It's a series of neurobiological events that happen in your brain, just as running is a series of events that happen in your legs. Memory is what gives it the illusion of continuousness.

Saying your PSoS is "fully defined prior to its actual existence" is like saying that your running is fully defined prior to its actual existence. It makes no sense, at least to me. What does it mean to "define" a particular instance of running?

The rest of your statement there seems to be an accurate summary, though.

- 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?

That also sounds basically correct, although there's no reason to put Planck Length in quotes. It's just a name. (I'll ignore the misspelling, since that's a common and logical mistake.)

 

[Mojo]

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

I suspect that the thickness is more relevant than the length.

 

[Mojo]

The highlighted bit sounds wrong, but I'm also not entirely sure what you think that means.

The highlighted bit is something that Jabba is trying to imply that you agree with.

 

[xtifr]

The highlighted bit is something that Jabba is trying to imply that you agree with.

Yes, I got that. That's why I highlighted it and specifically mentioned that I couldn't say I did agree. I've been following this thread long enough not to fall into any obvious traps. But since I don't know what it means, I can't say for sure that I don't. As wrong as he frequently is, he sometimes says correct things in very funny ways that take me a while to parse. This might be one of those times. I suspect not, but I don't like to get ahead of myself.

Don't worry. I'll make sure he doesn't put words in my mouth.

 

[Humots]

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

According to Google Translate, the last sentence of Jabba's sig line (Jabba's Razor),

"Tra gli argomenti, colui che ricorre alla meno sarcasmo dovrebbe essere selezionata",

means

"Among the topics, the one who resorts to sarcasm should not be selected".

IIRC, it has been suggested that this is Jabba's excuse for ignoring anyone who is being mean to him = everyone who criticizes his arguments instead of agreeing with them.

 

[Slowvehicle]

According to Google Translate, the last sentence of Jabba's sig line (Jabba's Razor),

"Tra gli argomenti, colui che ricorre alla meno sarcasmo dovrebbe essere selezionata",

means

"Among the topics, the one who resorts to sarcasm should not be selected".

IIRC, it has been suggested that this is Jabba's excuse for ignoring anyone who is being mean to him = everyone who criticizes his arguments instead of agreeing with them.

Because, you see, holding Mr. Savage accountable for what he says (whether ironic, sarcastic, attempted humorous, or patient)is much, much ruder* and more disrespectful that Mr. Savage pretending that the corrections of his misstatements and mischaraterizations simply do not exist.

*(in his mind)

 

[Giordano]

Oddly, although Jabba is extraordinarily impolite by ignoring almost all corrections and errors that have been pointed out to him, I am not certain that he is consciously (like that term?) ignoring anyone because he considers their posts impolite. Instead, I think he simply has no way of responding to these fatal errors in his theory. So he simply ignores them, and ignores the associated posts, even the posts from extraordinarily polite individuals.

Instead, I think that he responds to whatever post he feels he can distort the most easily into something he CAN repond to. That is why I am very careful in what I post. I think this is why he keeps asking the same questions over and over again: hoping a mis-statement will give him a button on which he can sew a vest. Of course, at last resort, Jabba will simply state that a poster has said the opposite of what was clearly stated, or change a definition of an already agreed on word, or he will simply go back to a statement of his pet theory.

Obviously all of this require a certain level of intelligence and planning. So I am not certain: Jabba's responses may be due to more than simple mis-understanding.

 

[xtifr]

Instead, I think that he responds to whatever post he feels he can distort the most easily into something he CAN repond to. That is why I am very careful in what I post. I think this is why he keeps asking the same questions over and over again: hoping a mis-statement will give him a button on which he can sew a vest. Of course, at last resort, Jabba will simply state that a poster has said the opposite of what was clearly stated, or change a definition of an already agreed on word, or he will simply go back to a statement of his pet theory.

That sounds a little too much like deliberate trolling, and I don't think he's trolling. Though I admit that the results are sometimes hard to distinguish.

The odd thing, at least in my case, is that he somehow picked me out of the crowd long before he began responding directly to me. Early on in the thread, he mentioned me by name for no reason that I can determine. He didn't try to twist my words. He hadn't even responded directly to me at that point, nor I to him! I'd made two posts, responding to the only guy in the thread who has tried to defend Jabba's "logic" (a guy who I actually think probably was trolling, a bit). Here's my posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9619242#post9619242
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9621183#post9621183

On the basis of that, a couple of pages later, he wrote:

Jay, Humots, Lenny, xtifr,
- Any of you guys still around? I can't believe that you don't have any objections to my argument at this point.

Over 1000 posts in the thread at that point, and I'd made two, neither addressed to him, addressed by him, or in any way supportive, and somehow I'd already become one of the people whose opinion he was actually interested in. And I've been one of the people he's been willing to respond to ever since.

Based on my experience, my current working hypothesis is that he's simply got a purely idiosyncratic short-list of people he'll respond to. And I have no explanation how I or anyone else got on that short-list.

 

[Humots]

Of course, at last resort, Jabba will simply state that a poster has said the opposite of what was clearly stated, or change a definition of an already agreed on word, or he will simply go back to a statement of his pet theory.

I believe he's tried the last two options several times. Do his frequent "Do you agree that ..." and "Then you're saying that" statements qualify for the first?

Obviously all of this require a certain level of intelligence and planning. So I am not certain: Jabba's responses may be due to more than simple mis-understanding.

If Jabba is not misunderstanding us, is the only alternative that Jabba is at best being disingenuous? Perhaps the diagnosis is stonewalling?

I keep wondering if Jabba will say something like "Now I see! When you use the words identical and same you mean something other that what I mean!"

 

[Slowvehicle]

Oddly, although Jabba is extraordinarily impolite by ignoring almost all corrections and errors that have been pointed out to him, I am not certain that he is consciously (like that term?) ignoring anyone because he considers their posts impolite. Instead, I think he simply has no way of responding to these fatal errors in his theory. So he simply ignores them, and ignores the associated posts, even the posts from extraordinarily polite individuals.

Instead, I think that he responds to whatever post he feels he can distort the most easily into something he CAN repond to. That is why I am very careful in what I post. I think this is why he keeps asking the same questions over and over again: hoping a mis-statement will give him a button on which he can sew a vest. Of course, at last resort, Jabba will simply state that a poster has said the opposite of what was clearly stated, or change a definition of an already agreed on word, or he will simply go back to a statement of his pet theory.

Obviously all of this require a certain level of intelligence and planning. So I am not certain: Jabba's responses may be due to more than simple mis-understanding.

Mr. Savage has stated, here and in the Shroud^TM threads, that he does not respond to meat least, because I am "rude" and "condescending".

Horses for courses...

 

[Slowvehicle]

I believe he's tried the last two options several times. Do his frequent "Do you agree that ..." and "Then you're saying that" statements qualify for the first?

If Jabba is not misunderstanding us, is the only alternative that Jabba is at best being disingenuous? Perhaps the diagnosis is stonewalling?

I keep wondering if Jabba will say something like "Now I see! When you use the words identical and same you mean something other that what I mean!"

Prediction:

"You guys are using the "same" words I am using for the "same" things, but you are not using them in the "identical" way to mean the "identical" things..."

 

[John Jones]

- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.
- If this belongs in a different thread, or has already been done, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll present my case here.
--- Jabba

OK. Go ahead.

 

[John Jones]

Mr. Savage has stated, here and in the Shroud^TM threads, that he does not respond to meat least, because I am "rude" and "condescending".

Horses for courses...

I recall that. He called you rude for referring to him as Rich, and he called you rude for referring to him as Mr Savage.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I recall that. He called you rude for referring to him as Rich, and he called you rude for referring to him as Mr Savage.

...after suggesting that he would rather call me "slowmover" than my nym...

A brief PM put the kibosh on that, but I do not think he has even forgiven me.

Ah, well.

I wonder if we will ever be offered evidence?

 

[jsfisher]

I wonder if we will ever be offered evidence?

Evidence is for people who don't already know they are right.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Evidence is for people who don't already know they are right.

Well said!

 

[Jabba]

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

...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.

Dave,
- At this point, I think that my communication problem has to do with the word "replicate" (and "define"). I now think that you're saying that while replicating my particular brain would "replicate" (and wholly "define") my PSoS, it would not "recreate" or "reproduce" my PSoS. I've been using those three words ("replicate" and "recreate"/"reproduce") as if they were synonyms...
- Does that help?

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- At this point, I think that my communication problem has to do with the word "replicate" (and "define").

Your main communication problem is your constant need to use scare quotes. Every time you do it is an indication that the enclosed word is a special definition that only occurs in Jabbanese.

A close second is that you're only reading/responding to a tiny fraction of the posts made in the thread.

I now think that you're saying that while replicating my particular brain would "replicate" (and wholly "define") my PSoS, it would not "recreate" or "reproduce" my PSoS.

Do some more thinking.

I've been using those three words ("replicate" and "recreate"/"reproduce") as if they were synonyms...

They are synonyms.

You are the only one assigning wholly different meanings to them.

- Does that help?

No, you're still wrong from the outset.

More than that though, you're so hung up on this duplicate brains nonsense that you appear to have completely forgotten the actual topic.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- At this point, I think that my communication problem has to do with the word "replicate" (and "define"). I now think that you're saying that while replicating my particular brain would "replicate" (and wholly "define") my PSoS, it would not "recreate" or "reproduce" my PSoS. I've been using those three words ("replicate" and "recreate"/"reproduce") as if they were synonyms...
- Does that help?

Good morning, Mr. Savage!

Is this getting you any closer to presenting what you think is evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- At this point, I think that my communication problem has to do with the word "replicate" (and "define"). I now think that you're saying that while replicating my particular brain would "replicate" (and wholly "define") my PSoS, it would not "recreate" or "reproduce" my PSoS. I've been using those three words ("replicate" and "recreate"/"reproduce") as if they were synonyms...
- Does that help?

I'm not sure what you mean by "help". I understand what you mean. I disagree with you. I think you're wrong. More importantly for this discussion, I think you are claiming the scientific model says something it doesn't.