Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Mojo]

If you were replicated, would you know whether or not you were the original you?

This is another major problem for Jabba: he has no way of knowing that he is the One True Jabba and not one of his infinite number of other "potential selves". And if he can't prove that he is the One True Jabba his "proof" fails.

 

[jt512]

One million. Except we were talking about getting new evidence from old data. What sample size should I select from the old data after the election is over? It seems to me that, in that condition, neither one nor a million adds any new evidence at all.

I meant some hypothetical future election. If you want to use the last US presidential election as an example, pretend it's November 1, 2016.

All water, everywhere.

Then you need a sample that is representative of all water, everywhere. We've been over this.

Just so, and why philosophy is a better tool.

No. Your problem is ill defined. You literally didn't define what water you were talking about. This has nothing to do with philosophy except for the fact that a philosopher should understand that he should actually define the problem he's seeking to solve.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm still waiting for educational examples of Bayes' theorem badly used, as anyone appealing to it here was taught in lecture rooms (Let someone at least dust a Schaum booklet... or their CliffsNotes... too many garage sales?)

There's some sort of radio silence from those previously so prolific in examples of that theorem being used in relation with immortality.

 

[Mojo]

I'm still waiting for educational examples of Bayes' theorem badly used...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248163

 

[Jabba]

Then you're talking about a self that doesn't exist at all under H.

Although I'd be curious what Susan Blackmore has to say about the ineffable self further on in that book.


Because two is more than one. There would be two selves for exactly the same reason that there would be two pairs of eyes.

Dave,

- I'm uncomfortable quoting very much...
- As I suspect you know, our rules suggest using single paragraphs -- and, that spreading quotes out doesn't excuse the overall usage.
- Here are two short quotes.


In other words, an illusion is not something that does not exist but something that is not the way it seems.
Blackmore, Susan. Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (Kindle Locations 864-865). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.

How can a physical brain, made purely of material substances and nothing else, give rise to conscious experiences or ineffable qualia?
Blackmore, Susan. Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (Kindle Locations 280-281). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.

 

[Mojo]

- I'm uncomfortable quoting very much...
- As I suspect you know, our rules suggest using single paragraphs -- and, that spreading quotes out doesn't excuse the overall usage.
- Here are two short quotes.


In other words, an illusion is not something that does not exist but something that is not the way it seems.
Blackmore, Susan. Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (Kindle Locations 864-865). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.

How can a physical brain, made purely of material substances and nothing else, give rise to conscious experiences or ineffable qualia?
Blackmore, Susan. Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (Kindle Locations 280-281). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.

Jabba,
- how do you think either of those quotations advance your case?

 

[Jabba]

How about the very next sentence after the bit Jabba quoted:



And yet Jabba is trying to foist such an "owner", "experiencer", or "self" on the scientific point of view, and quoting Blackmore as if she supports him.

Naughty Jabba!

Mojo,
- Trying to restrict my quotes to single paragraphs.
- Blackmore is an atheist, and doesn't believe that the self is real. I'm trying to show how unlikely even an illusional self is, given OOFLam,....

 

[Mojo]

No, you were very obviously trying to restrict your quotations so that it looked as if Blackmore supports your position.

 

[Mojo]

[Adds "quote-mining" to list]

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,

- I wasn't very clear...

- It's how the particular self comes about -- not selves in general -- to which I was referring.

<snip>

- But, most importantly, this particular self is brand new -- the offspring/result of a particular bit of consciousness, and no more limited than the number of consciousnesses possible. We're like recycled yellow Volkswagons, each of us having our own (new) VIN #.

But you don't have a "VIN #". So how do you know that you are the "particular self" you are talking about and not someone else? I notice, for example, that you were very cagey about whose fingers were typing your posts:

Mojo,
- I don't get your question. Somebody's fingers are (slowly) typing this message...

Not "your" fingers but just "somebody's" fingers. How do you know that they belong to "you" and not one of the infinite number of other "potential selves" that you claim could be occupying your body?

How do you know that you are "you"?

 

[jond]

Mojo,
- Trying to restrict my quotes to single paragraphs.
- Blackmore is an atheist, and doesn't believe that the self is real. I'm trying to show how unlikely even an illusional self is, given OOFLam,....

And yet you continue to ignore the fact that your scenario, which involves both a body AND a non-material soul (AND somehow they have to join up and make the brain do what it does during consciousness) is far less likely. Why is that?

 

[aleCcowaN]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248163

I know, but the bold part...

I'm still waiting for educational examples of Bayes' theorem badly used, as anyone appealing to it here was taught in lecture rooms (Let someone at least dust a Schaum booklet... or their CliffsNotes... too many garage sales?)

There's some sort of radio silence from those previously so prolific in examples of that theorem being used in relation with immortality.

... is what I was looking for (I'm starting to think the answer to that in the context of this thread could be the empty set)

 

[theprestige]

I know, but the bold part...



... is what I was looking for (I'm starting to think the answer to that in the context of this thread could be the empty set)

Jabba's bad use of Bayes has been discussed at length in this thread and its predecessors.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Jabba's bad use of Bayes has been discussed at length in this thread and its predecessors.

Allow me to be clear: I am looking for bad examples taught in academic settings as the participants learnt them, and I am especially interested in examples from those more adamant and talkative about Bayes' having something to do with immortality. I am interested also in any example of Bayes' used here and parent threads where a confidence interval was estimated.

I'm focused on the malevolent goal of learning whether people is taking all of this Bayesian talk from the top of their heads or the bottom of their rectums, to say it mildly, by simply making it difficult to find the proper query to google.

 

[Jabba]

No, you were very obviously trying to restrict your quotations so that it looked as if Blackmore supports your position.

Mojo,
- I must admit that my reflexes do push in that direction -- but, my goal is to avoid those reflexes and instead to be as "transparent" as possible... I know that you won't believe such a thing -- but, I swear to God (or, a reasonable facsimile thereof) that it's true.
- I also admit that Blackmore is an atheist, and believes that the "self" is an illusion.
- What I'm trying to argue here is that even if the self IS an illusion, according to OOFLam, my illusion will cease to exist, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place and whose likelihood of currently existing is infinitesimal.
- I'm also claiming that my illusion has feelings,and its existence matters to it.
- Also, I was using Blackmore to isolate the particular kind of self to which I've been trying to refer.

 

[jond]

Mojo,
- I must admit that my reflexes do push in that direction -- but, my goal is to avoid those reflexes and instead to be as "transparent" as possible... I know that you won't believe such a thing -- but, I swear to God (or, a reasonable facsimile thereof) that it's true.
- I also admit that Blackmore is an atheist, and believes that the "self" is an illusion.
- What I'm trying to argue here is that even if the self IS an illusion, according to OOFLam, my illusion will cease to exist, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place and whose likelihood of currently existing is infinitesimal.
- I'm also claiming that my illusion has feelings,and its existence matters to it.
- Also, I was using Blackmore to isolate the particular kind of self to which I've been trying to refer.

We all know what kind of self you're trying to refer. It is a process, and it is the result of your brain's functioning. The likelihood of your self existing is exactly the same as the likelihood of your body existing. And the only self you could have ever been is the one you are, because your "self" is the result of every expierience you've ever had.

Remember when you agreed that your bodies existence wasn't really all that unlikely and that "science does a good job of explaining our bodies existence"?

Remember when you said "I assume our selves require our bodies to communicate materialistically"?

How can you possibly think that your scenario (which involves both a body and a non material soul) is more likely than the scientific scenario, which only involves a body?

 

[Jabba]

Then you're talking about a self that doesn't exist at all under H.

Although I'd be curious what Susan Blackmore has to say about the ineffable self further on in that book.




Because two is more than one. There would be two selves for exactly the same reason that there would be two pairs of eyes.

Dave,
- And, the likelihood of your particular current existence -- given OOFLam -- is infinitesimal.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- And, the likelihood of your particular current existence -- given OOFLam -- is infinitesimal.

No it isn't at all.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- And, the likelihood of your particular current existence -- given OOFLam -- is infinitesimal.

Is the likelihood of the existence of my physical body infinitesimal?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Dave,
- And, the likelihood of your particular current existence -- given OOFLam -- is infinitesimal.

As is the likelihood of any particular banana existing.