[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

Xtifr,

- We seem to disagree on just about everything – so, it hardly matters where I begin...

- Dr Blackmore only got back to me that one time. And, I’m sure that she is saying more than I understand, but based upon what I think that I understand, what she claims makes sense, at least in a sense. In a sense at least, the continuity of the self seems to be an illusion…
- My first objection is that such doesn’t matter – if the continuous self is some kind of illusion, it is still 1) what I’m talking about, 2) what I am mostly enjoying and 3) what science says will go away (indirectly accepting that it does currently exist) to never return…

Hi ( from someone else),

Okay... No one stated that you cannot continue to have that illusion. But an illusion makes a poor starting point for a mathematic proof. Right? If I think I see one line longer than another in an optical illusion, even if I am currently enjoying it, can I use that as proof that the line is really longer than the other?

 

[Loss Leader]

3) what science says will go away (indirectly accepting that it does currently exist) to never return…

Science says no such thing.

If you keep having to completely misrepresent the scientific model to get your ideas to work, you're probably on the wrong track.

 

[xtifr]

- We seem to disagree on just about everything – so, it hardly matters where I begin...

At no point have I expressed a personal opinion here. If you mean you disagree that the scientific model says what it does, then show me where the soul is to be found in the scientific model.

You're welcome to believe in the soul all you want. No skin off my nose. What you don't get to do is arbitrarily inject the soul into the scientific model in an attempt to prove that the scientific model is self-contradictory because of the presence of souls. You either have to prove the existence of souls, or prove that the scientific model fails even without the existence of souls.

- My first objection is that such doesn’t matter – if the continuous self is some kind of illusion, it is still 1) what I’m talking about, 2) what I am mostly enjoying and 3) what science says will go away (indirectly accepting that it does currently exist) to never return…

"Go away" is misleading. It will stop occurring. And yes, that's an important distinction.

But it's not the self that's illusory; that's a real electro-chemical reaction in a real brain at a real set of space/time coordinates. It's just the continuity that's illusory. Like the illusion of motion in a "moving" picture.

Anyway, if it didn't seem real, it would hardly be an illusion, would it?

Bottom line, the scientific model says that the consciousness and sense of self occur in a particular brain at a particular location. Which means the possible number of potential consciousnesses/senses of self/whatever you want to call it is finite. If your proof of immortality fails because of that, then I think we're done here. Otherwise, it's long past time to move on to the next point.

 

[Humots]

3) what science says will go away (indirectly accepting that it does currently exist) to never return…

Jabba, this is way out of line.

 

[pakeha]

Xtifr,

- We seem to disagree on just about everything – so, it hardly matters where I begin...

- Dr Blackmore only got back to me that one time. And, I’m sure that she is saying more than I understand, but based upon what I think that I understand, what she claims makes sense, at least in a sense. In a sense at least, the continuity of the self seems to be an illusion…
- My first objection is that such doesn’t matter – if the continuous self is some kind of illusion, it is still 1) what I’m talking about, 2) what I am mostly enjoying and 3) what science says will go away (indirectly accepting that it does currently exist) to never return…

Having a functioning neurosystem is great, isn't it?
An emergent property of functioning neurosystem is consciousness, a part of which is a sense of self.
A sense of self doesn't go away, never to return.
It simply ceases to exist once the neurosystem ceases functioning.

 

[abaddon]

3) what science says will go away (indirectly accepting that it does currently exist) to never return…

Weasel words. By "go away" you mean to inject the notion that science says it will go somewhere else. The correct word is "cease".

ETA: Is the parrot sketch appropriate yet?

 

[Giordano]

It would pine for the fords. Sorry-I had to.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Weasel words. By "go away" you mean to inject the notion that science says it will go somewhere else. The correct word is "cease".

ETA: Is the parrot sketch appropriate yet?

The Parrot Sketch is always in order.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It would pine for the fords. Sorry-I had to.

Something about never going against a New Mexican when euphemisms about DEATH are on the line...


(...and the Ford would have to be a Woody...)

 

[Mojo]

Dr Blackmore only got back to me that one time. And, I’m sure that she is saying more than I understand, but based upon what I think that I understand, what she claims makes sense, at least in a sense.

Did you do the reading she recommended?

 

[PixyMisa]

Jabba, would it surprise you to learn that the squawk goes away when the parrot snuffs it?

 

[AdMan]

Dr Blackmore only got back to me that one time. And, I’m sure that she is saying more than I understand, but based upon what I think that I understand, what she claims makes sense, at least in a sense.

Did you do the reading she recommended?

I'd hazard a guess:

No, he did not.

Jabba, did you?

 

[Akhenaten]

Xtifr,

- We seem to disagree on just about everything – so, it hardly matters where I begin...

What might have mattered, years ago, was for you to have begun at all.

Alas!

- Dr Blackmore only got back to me that one time. And, I’m sure that she is saying more than I understand, but based upon what I think that I understand, what she claims makes sense, at least in a sense.

Isis wept.

In a sense.

In a sense at least, the continuity of the self seems to be an illusion…

Cold hearted orb that rules the night,
Removes the colours from our sight,
Red is grey and yellow white,
But we decide which is right.
And which is an illusion.

- My first objection is that such doesn’t matter – if the continuous self is some kind of illusion, it is still 1) what I’m talking about, 2) what I am mostly enjoying and 3) what science says will go away (indirectly accepting that it does currently exist) to never return…

Your first objection (of which, somewhat paradoxically, you appear to have three) is irrelevant because:

1. The fact that you're talking about something doesn't in any way, shape or form entitle it to be entered into the catalogue of reality. In fact, considerable evidence exists to the contrary.
   
   
2. 
   
   
3. Science is completely silent with regard to the nonsense contained in your various claims.

 

[Jabba]

Whether continuity of self is an illusion or not isn't really relevant to this. My self comes from my brain. My brain determines all the properties my self has. That's the scientific model.

Dave,
- But to me, there is something different between the selves of identical, but separate brains (I'm calling it “identity”) – and, this difference would be there from the very beginning of memory. This thing/process/illusion of identity will remain the same for a lifetime.
- I think that a while back you said that this t/p/i was not an aspect of the self. 1) Is that correct? 2) Do you still believe it? 3) Are “aspect” and “property” the same?

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- But to me, there is something different between the selves of identical, but separate brains (I'm calling it “identity”)

Since there's no such thing as identical but separate brains it's a bit of a moot point, isn't it?

– and, this difference would be there from the very beginning of memory.

If such a difference exists then you aren't talking about identical brains.

This thing/process/illusion of identity will remain the same for a lifetime.

Can't wait to see the evidence to support this assertion.

- I think that a while back you said that this t/p/i was not an aspect of the self. 1) Is that correct? 2) Do you still believe it? 3) Are “aspect” and “property” the same?

I'll bet a million quatloos that nobody, anywhere has ever said that t/p/i was or wasn't an aspect of the self.

It's gibberish and your questions are meaningless.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- But to me, there is something different between the selves of identical, but separate brains (I'm calling it “identity”) – and, this difference would be there from the very beginning of memory.

Yes, you have said this several times. And I have asked you several times to explain where the scientific model includes such a thing.

This thing/process/illusion of identity will remain the same for a lifetime.
- I think that a while back you said that this t/p/i was not an aspect of the self. 1) Is that correct? 2) Do you still believe it? 3) Are “aspect” and “property” the same?

Self-awareness is a property of the brain. Identifying the self with the brain it comes from is just a consequence of coming from that brain.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- But to me, there is something different between the selves of identical, but separate brains (I'm calling it “identity”) – and, this difference would be there from the very beginning of memory. This thing/process/illusion of identity will remain the same for a lifetime.
- I think that a while back you said that this t/p/i was not an aspect of the self. 1) Is that correct? 2) Do you still believe it? 3) Are “aspect” and “property” the same?

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage:

IF (and that's a BIIIIIIG "if") the brains in question were, in fact, identical, there would be no way to tell them apart.

There.

Would.

Be.

No.

Way.

To.

Tell.

Them.

Apart.

Be that as it may, since (as you are, it is to be fervently hoped) it is, even theoretically, impossible to "duplicate" brains, thei entire gavotte has been less than useless.

No more of this, if you please.

Present your evidence, your empirical, practical, concrete, objective evidence, that the "soul" exists at all; and if it does, that it is "immortal".

 

[John Jones]

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage:

IF (and that's a BIIIIIIG "if") the brains in question were, in fact, identical, there would be no way to tell them apart.

There.

Would.

Be.

No.

Way.

To.

Tell.

Them.

Apart.

Be that as it may, since (as you are, it is to be fervently hoped) it is, even theoretically, impossible to "duplicate" brains, thei entire gavotte has been less than useless.

No more of this, if you please.

Present your evidence, your empirical, practical, concrete, objective evidence, that the "soul" exists at all; and if it does, that it is "immortal".

*golf clap*

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- But to me, there is something different between the selves of identical, but separate brains (I'm calling it “identity”) – and, this difference would be there from the very beginning of memory. This thing/process/illusion of identity will remain the same for a lifetime.
- I think that a while back you said that this t/p/i was not an aspect of the self. 1) Is that correct? 2) Do you still believe it? 3) Are “aspect” and “property” the same?

Jabba,
- Did you do the reading Dr Backmore recommended?

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- But to me, there is something different between the selves of identical, but separate brains (I'm calling it “identity”) – and, this difference would be there from the very beginning of memory. This thing/process/illusion of identity will remain the same for a lifetime.
- I think that a while back you said that this t/p/i was not an aspect of the self. 1) Is that correct? 2) Do you still believe it? 3) Are “aspect” and “property” the same?

Welcome back!
1. We realize that to your thinking, there would be something different between the "selves" of identical, but separate brains. But you would be wrong based on the SM and on the opinion of most everyone else here. The only difference between them at time zero would be which chairs the two exact duplicates are sitting in (the spacial coordinates if you will, assuming you duplicate their clothes too). You might be right, if we and the SM are wrong. But the actual experiment cannot be done right now (maybe never) and we cannot actually test your model. So, repeating again your idea will not help prove it to anyone. Just provide some evidence if you hope to prove you are right and the SM is wrong. And make it clear in your proof that the SM predicts something different from your theory.

2. What makes you think the "t/p/i" will remain unchanged during a lifetime, when people have explained that it does change? What is the t/p/i anyway? You are in Religion and it is now okay to call it the spirit or soul, if that is what you mean. But again, what part of me is it, if it is not my memories, preferences, loves, or even who I consider to be me? You have never answered this question; combined with the absence of a word that you are happy to use to describe it, I must think it does not exist in reality.

3. I will not speak for Dave, except that I thought that he, and us, agreed that the t/p/i was part of the consciousness (didn't grow out of the consciousness as a separate entity, but died when the consciousness died). As others have pointed out, the SM states that the t/p/i is a process, not an entity. I'm even confused by the question: are you saying an illusion of self is not an aspect of the self? This is as confusing as your proposal of a real illusion.

4. Ignoring the rest of us is highly impolite. Are you just trying to convince Dave, or prove your idea more broadly?