• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Akhenaten said:
Sounds like the infamous Brontosoulus to me.

I recall seeing model of one of those fellows at Selfridges.

Coincidence? I think not!
Click to expand...

Mighty One (may you post forever!)

please accept this correction form your humble servant:

Since each self is unique, the current, accepted terminology is...

Apartosoulus.

As ever, I remain,

Respectfully your humble servant.
 
Akhenaten said:
Sounds like the infamous Brontosoulus to me.

I recall seeing model of one of those fellows at Selfridges.

Coincidence? I think not!
Click to expand...

Mighty One (may you post forever!)

please accept this correction form your humble servant:

Since each self is unique, the current, accepted terminology is...

Apartosoulus.*

As ever, I remain,

Respectfully your humble servant.

*A Brontosoulus with a non-identical head
 
Akhenaten said:
I don't even know what the bloody theory is any more.
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon, it's simple. Jabba wants to prove that souls are required by the scientific model, and that finite souls are infinitely improbable, so he can use that information to hide the President of the Universe and his stolen spaceship.

Unless I'm getting this thread mixed up with Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. :)
 
Jabba said:
- Note that the soul is what I'm trying to 'prove.' Obviously, the soul is not part of the scientific model -- I'm trying to show that it should be.

- Nah -- I think that's nit-picking at best. I'm talking about an illusion "going away."

- Note also that I'm talking about the continuous self being an illusion -- I'm not talking about the "self," itself being an illusion.

- I accept that if time is finite, the number of actual selves possible is also finite. I'm just claiming that that is not the number that belongs in our formula...
- If you accept my other claims in this post, I'll try to describe and support the 'number' that I claim belongs in our formula.
Click to expand...

Jabba, remember that the self is not a thing but a a sensation, an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.
 
xtifr said:
Oh c'mon, it's simple. Jabba wants to prove that souls are required by the scientific model, and that finite souls are infinitely improbable, so he can use that information to hide the President of the Universe and his stolen spaceship.

Unless I'm getting this thread mixed up with Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. :)
Click to expand...

Or The Sound of Music.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Mighty One (may you post forever!)

please accept this correction form your humble servant:

Since each self is unique, the current, accepted terminology is...

Apartosoulus.*

As ever, I remain,

Respectfully your humble servant.

*A Brontosoulus with a non-identical head
Click to expand...


I'm amazed at how edumacational this direplodicus of a thread can be sometimes.

Apartosoulus it is!

​
 
pakeha said:
Jabba, remember that the self is not a thing but a a sensation, an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.
Click to expand...

I don't think Jabba understands what an emergent property is enough to meaningfully differentiate it from basically magic.
 
JoeBentley said:
I don't think Jabba understands what an emergent property is enough to meaningfully differentiate it from basically magic.
Click to expand...

To be fair, emergent properties can and do often look like magic.

Jabba simply stops at that point and refuses to look further, since magic is the answer.
 
Akhenaten said:
Sounds like the infamous Brontosoulus to me.

I recall seeing model of one of those fellows at Selfridges.

Coincidence? I think not!
Click to expand...
If you think of human identity as brontosaurus-shaped when viewed as a three-dimensional time/interaction manifold, it's actually kind of poetic.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
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?
Click to expand...

7556
godless dave said:
Yes, you have said this several times. And I have asked you several times to explain where the scientific model includes such a thing.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- For the moment, at least, I'm accepting that this sense of a continuous self could be just a process or an illusion. Doesn't that fit with the current consensus scientific model?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- For the moment, at least, I'm accepting that this sense of a continuous self could be just a process or an illusion. Doesn't that fit with the current consensus scientific model?
Click to expand...

That's not the part I'm questioning. I'm questioning this:

Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do you think two identical brains wouldn't produce two identical selves?

That's my question.
 
Last edited:
Jabba. You have used up one post of your self imposed daily quota. You have only one left. Use it wisely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom