[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
godless dave said:
You haven't shown that the likelihood of someone existing is one over infinity.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- OK.
- But, if I were to do that, would it be sufficient to make you suspect that the scientific model is wrong? If not, would it make you wonder?
 
Akhenaten said:
This really is where both Jabba and Toontown are adamant about making a huge mistake and sticking to it.

Even a dummy like me can see that the difference between 1/billions and 1/∞ is, in fact, ∞.
Click to expand...

I'm sure every you-identified clown in the thread knows that, for whatever you think it's worth. But you're still not going to win the lottery. Forget it. Not happening. Civilization is more likely to collapse first.

That's the practical difference.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- OK.
- But, if I were to do that, would it be sufficient to make you suspect that the scientific model is wrong? If not, would it make you wonder?
Click to expand...

You haven't done it yet, so we won't be holding our breath. We'll stick with science.
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,

- You're welcome.

- Per usual, I need to take this one baby step at a time. Mostly, I need to make sure that I understand what you're saying.
- If our number of iterations were infinite, would you consider that immortal?
Click to expand...

Mr. Savage:

No.

"Immortality", lexicographically, is "living forever without dying", not, "living in lots of different, unconnected, unrelated iterations".
 
Akhenaten said:
Which bit of 'multiple iterations of the consciousness that you, personally, are experiencing now are not, in any way, "immortality"' is giving you the most trouble?
Click to expand...
Akhenaten,
- I suspect that my iterations are infinite (in some sense...) and really just the physical reflection of a continuous consciousness.
 
Jabba said:
Akhenaten,
- I suspect that my iterations are infinite (in some sense...) and really just the physical reflection of a continuous consciousness.
Click to expand...

Your suspicions are not proof. They belong in the made up realm of religion, not science
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
So, you're going to stick with obscure allusions and vague assertions, rather than actually attempting to explain what you're talking about?
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. That's exactly what I'm going to do. I wanna be a clown too.

Besides, I said at the beginning of the thead I wouldn't present my interpretation of the probabilistic observations Jabba has brought up, because I knew then that there would never be any agreement in this clown convention that said probabilistic observations are valid or informative. So why would I go to interpretation? To provide clown chowder?

I ain't these clowns' daddy.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Mr. Savage:

No.

"Immortality", lexicographically, is "living forever without dying", not, "living in lots of different, unconnected, unrelated iterations".
Click to expand...
Slowvehicle,
- OK.
- While my best guess is what I just suggested to Akhenaten, I would still consider infinite iterations -- without consciousness in between -- immortality in effect, because the period in between, in effect, wouldn't exist.
- But also, I'm happy to accept infinite iterations even if that can't be considered immortality, and I'll revise my claim accordingly.
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- OK.
- While my best guess is what I just suggested to Akhenaten, I would still consider infinite iterations -- without consciousness in between -- immortality in effect, because the period in between, in effect, wouldn't exist.
- But also, I'm happy to accept infinite iterations even if that can't be considered immortality, and I'll revise my claim accordingly.
Click to expand...

Good. Now we are getting somewhere. You've realized that making up your own definitions of word will get us nowhere. If I had an identical brain to one that has existed in the past, then why can't I remember it?
 
Slowvehicle said:
Still foundering on the prediction hurdle...
Click to expand...

There was no prediction, and need not be any prediction. There is an observaton of a bullet hole in a target placed by the unique brain assumption, and an expected likelihood of the hit implied by the unique brain assumption, which at this point no longer qualifies even as a hypothesis, particularly in view of the fact that no one even understands what it is, or pretends not to.

Which is convenient, because the goal all along has been to reject the unique brain assumption, leaving only the corollary, which I do not intend to interpret.

So whatever you think you've proved was based on an assumption I've rejected from the outset. You never even understood what was being questioned.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
Yeah, right. That's exactly what I'm going to do. I wanna be a clown too.

Besides, I said at the beginning of the thead I wouldn't present my interpretation of the probabilistic observations Jabba has brought up, because I knew then that there would never be any agreement in this clown convention that said probabilistic observations are valid or informative. So why would I go to interpretation? To provide clown chowder?

I ain't these clowns' daddy.
Click to expand...


You'd probably be doing yourself a favour to get off that particular bandwagon, let me and dafydd do the jokes and leave yourself free to either continue promising to leave the thread or attempt some meaningful responses to those posters who have pointed out the obvious and fatal flaws in your own and Jabba's silly claims.

As it is, all you appear to be doing is attempting (poorly) to gainsay someone whom you consider has nothing worthwhile to say in the first place. A fool's errand if ever there was one.
 
Last edited:
The possible combinations of a deck of cards is 52!. That means that if you shuffle a deck then you can be sure that no deck in the world has ever been in that order before. Now think about the possible combinations of cells in the brain. The identical brain theory is a non-starter. Sorry for bringing science into this discussion.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
Good. Now we are getting somewhere. You've realized that making up your own definitions of word will get us nowhere. If I had an identical brain to one that has existed in the past, then why can't I remember it?
Click to expand...

You didn't, and even if you had, it died, along with it's memory bank. You don't even have the identical brain you had when you were born.
 
Jabba said:
Akhenaten,
- I suspect that my iterations are infinite (in some sense...) and really just the physical reflection of a continuous consciousness.
Click to expand...
dafydd said:
Your suspicions are not proof. They belong in the made up realm of religion, not science
Click to expand...
dafydd,
- Keep in mind that I have never claimed that I could prove immortality -- I only claimed that I could essentially prove it.
- Above, I was trying to answer Akhenaten's question --
"Which bit of 'multiple iterations of the consciousness that you, personally, are experiencing now are not, in any way, "immortality"' is giving you the most trouble?"
- I think that I used the word "suspect," and not something stronger, because multiple iterations minus any non-physical continuity is also a possibility...
 
Akhenaten said:
You'd probably be doing yourself a favour to get off that particular bandwagon, let me and dafydd do the jokes and leave yourself free to either continue promising to leave the thread or attempt some meaningful responses to those posters who have pointed out the obvious and fatal flaws in your own and Jabba's silly claims.
Click to expand...

That's unlikely. They admittedly have no idea what I'm talking about, and demonstrate it repeatedly with their various bogus pointings out of bogus "fatal flaws".

Anyway, thanks for your undoubtedly well-intended advice, but the nice guy step-and-fetch-it phase is over, as per your previous undoubtedly well-intended explanation of the clowns' behavior. Remember?

Akhenaten said:
As it is, all you appear to be doing is attempting (poorly) to gainsay someone whom you consider has nothing worthwhile to say in the first place. A fool's errand if ever there was one.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what you're doing? Or is it just the other clowns doing that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom