[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten,
- Does Agatha agree with you?

Truth be told, 'tis me agrees with she, although the absolute bottom line is that we both agree with reality.

You should give it a try.

 

[Akhenaten]

This is a message board. It's a textual medium. You can just post your entire chain of reasoning in one go, and then people can say what they do or don't agree with.

Or you can continue posting the same small amount of stuff over and over again and we'll all still be here having made no progress whatsoever in another year's time. I'm getting old. I don't want to die before you've said anything at all on the JREF.

Squeegee,
- As you know, I disagree with you re the effectiveness of the two approaches.

I'm thinking now, that keeping a list of unanswered, or insufficiently answered, questions and objections, is what I've been missing in making my baby step approach work.

I know Squeegee's already answered this, but another, more radical approach than his has occurred to me.

Maybe you could give straightforward answers to questions as they're asked and instead of taking baby steps maybe we could take proper, grown-up steps - just like the adults that we actually are.

Too far outside the box for you?

 

[Akhenaten]

Agatha,
- Somehow, I still haven't effectively communicated what I mean by "self" or "consciousness."

That's because what you mean by "self" or "consciousness" is completely different to what everyone else in this discussion (and probably most of the planet) means by those terms.

Or, to put it more simply:

If the two brains had the same consciousness, they would have had the same experiences.

But this can't happen - for all of the reasons that have been explained to you at least dozens of times.

It's bizarre that you seem have this completely backwards belief that experience is shaped by consciousness.


ETA: Damn! Ninja'd by Slowvehicle.

Two bodies sharing the same mind.

We are not the Borg. You will not be assimilated. Resistance is not only anticipated, it is de rigueur and a great part of what makes our species so successful.

 

[Slowvehicle]

That's because what you mean by "self" or "consciousness" is completely different to what everyone else in this discussion (and probably most of the planet) means by those terms.

Or, to put it more simply:

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Bork.jpg[/qimg]​

But this can't happen - for all of the reasons that have been explained to you at least dozens of times.

It's bizarre that you seem have this completely backwards belief that experience is shaped by consciousness.


ETA: Damn! Ninja'd by Slowvehicle.



We are not the Borg. You will not be assimilated. Resistance is not only anticipated, it is de rigueur and a great part of what makes our species so successful.

All Kudos, Mighty One! (May you post forever!)

As we here in the North celebrate any one of a number of midwinter excuses to partay, I and mine wish you and yours the best of days; the best of times; the best of life. We'll keep the fires burning...

 

[pakeha]

Agatha,
- Somehow, I still haven't effectively communicated what I mean by "self" or "consciousness." If the two brains had the same consciousness, they would have had the same experiences. Two bodies sharing the same mind.

Happy Christmas, Jabba.
Could you explain how two brains could have the same experiences, please?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Agatha,
- Somehow, I still haven't effectively communicated what I mean by "self" or "consciousness."

Yes you have. Everybody knows what you're talking about...

If the two brains had the same consciousness, they would have had the same experiences. Two bodies sharing the same mind.

...but that doesn't mean you're not wrong.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip for focus>

Merry Christmas, Mr. Savage!

 

[Ladewig]

Squeegee,
- As you know, I disagree with you re the effectiveness of the two approaches. I'm thinking now, that keeping a list of unanswered, or insufficiently answered, questions and objections, is what I've been missing in making my baby step approach work.

Have you considered the possibility that the reason the baby step method isn't working is simply that you are wrong?

Not a rhetorical question
Not a complicated question
Not a question that has to be added to a list

RSVP

...........
ETA
I am it trying to convince you that you are wrong. I am trying to understand why you think this approach will result in our agreeing with your position when there is so much evidence against that happening

 

[Agatha]

Agatha,
- Somehow, I still haven't effectively communicated what I mean by "self" or "consciousness." If the two brains had the same consciousness, they would have had the same experiences. Two bodies sharing the same mind.

But two brains don't ever have the same consciousness, for two reasons. So your "if" statement fails at the first hurdle.

Firstly, because no two people can possibly have identical brains. Even if the physical structure were identical, their experiences (which is part of what shapes the consciousness) have to be different. Even if those two people were conjoined twins, their experiences would differ sufficiently for them to develop two different consciousnesses.

Secondly, two bodies don't ever share the same mind. Either physically or mentally. There's no possible way that this could happen. If you think that such a thing is possible, explain how you think this could occur.

All of this is really going quite far away from your original assertion that an individual consciousness could transcend death, though.

 

[Jabba]

Have you considered the possibility that the reason the baby step method isn't working is simply that you are wrong?

Not a rhetorical question
Not a complicated question
Not a question that has to be added to a list

RSVP

...........
ETA
I am it trying to convince you that you are wrong. I am trying to understand why you think this approach will result in our agreeing with your position when there is so much evidence against that happening

Ladewig,

- Prior to your question, I probably never had actually considered that possibility.
- Now considering your question, I do believe that I could be wrong, but I do not believe that baby steps not working could be caused by being wrong. I honestly believe that taking baby steps is the best way to find out if I'm wrong -- and if I'm wrong, where and why I'm wrong.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Mr. Savage:

At the risk of being considered condescending, or being ignored:

How far do you, personally, think you have gotten, taking your zero-span "baby steps"?

 

[Akhenaten]

Have you considered the possibility that the reason the baby step method isn't working is simply that you are wrong?

Ladewig,

- Prior to your question, I probably never had actually considered that possibility.

True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance.

- Pharaoh Akhenaten​

- Now considering your question, I do believe that I could be wrong, but I do not believe that baby steps not working could be caused by being wrong. I honestly believe that taking baby steps is the best way to find out if I'm wrong -- and if I'm wrong, where and why I'm wrong.

Here is the 'where':

- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.

The 'why' is that you began this entire futile exercise with a foregone conclusion that immortality exists and have been attempting ever since to work backwards towards your premise.

I don't know that the length of your stride has much to do with this abject failure of logic.

 

[Ladewig]

Ladewig,

- Prior to your question, I probably never had actually considered that possibility.
- Now considering your question, I do believe that I could be wrong, but I do not believe that baby steps not working could be caused by being wrong. I honestly believe that taking baby steps is the best way to find out if I'm wrong -- and if I'm wrong, where and why I'm wrong.

Remarkable. Simply remarkable.


Thanks for the prompt answer.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Ladewig,

- Prior to your question, I probably never had actually considered that possibility.
- Now considering your question, I do believe that I could be wrong, but I do not believe that baby steps not working could be caused by being wrong. I honestly believe that taking baby steps is the best way to find out if I'm wrong -- and if I'm wrong, where and why I'm wrong.

At what point do you determine that you need to spend more time away from the thread (aka "ran away") as you did when you failed to prove the Turin Tea Towel was a 1st century artifact of a miracle?

 

[Jabba]

- The following is my current list of questions and objections to answer -- and, i haven't yet read this morning's comments:

- What are you talking about -- scientific model, scientific method, consensus scientific opinion, or what?
- Why is "non-A" essentially immortality?
- How do you expect this thread to end?
- Your estimates are wrong (various issues).
- Are you talking about "souls" when you refer to "selves," or "consciousnesses"?
- How could two brains experience both lives?
- Where's your prior evidence (data) for immortality.
- Why should a particular consciousness be determined by a particular brain?
- What do you mean by a particular "consciousness," or "self" anyway?
- We have "periods of consciousness" within each lifetime; how does that term distinguish separate lifetimes?
- Where's your logic?
- What does any of this have to do with reality?
- Why should we pay any further attention?
- You should post you're whole argument.
- You aren't even making baby steps.
- In "taking notes," you are finally doing what we've been suggesting all along.
- What do you mean by "potential selves"?
- Why should there be an infinity of potential selves.
- What is "one over infinity"?
- What's this "intrinsic vs extrinsic" infinities?
- Even clones want experience both lives.
- Why does there need to be a physical explanation for different selves?
- What do YOU mean by syllogism?
- How could two different brains have the same experience?
- Quit giving us all these lists, and start answering our questions and objections.

- After posting this list, I'll probably receive many new questions and objections to answer.
- Surely, you will think that I missed some, and misstated others in the above list.
- Most of these Q/Os are not easily answered, and require significant time to answer (or, just TRY to answer).
- If you guys can somehow come up with some sort of consensus on what to answer next, I'll give it a try. Otherwise, I'll try to decide the most appropriate Q/O myself, and give THAT a try.

 

[Jabba]

Mr. Savage:

At the risk of being considered condescending, or being ignored:

How far do you, personally, think you have gotten, taking your zero-span "baby steps"?

Slowvehicle,

- I haven't gotten anywhere...

- But, in my opinion, that's due to a lack of "discipline" on my part. After each baby step, I get new Q/Os to answer, and end up taking a lot of baby steps -- but in a lot of different directions. Hopefully, I can be more careful in the future and make sure that I continue one branch (direction) to its end before abandoning it.
- If you, or others, continue to be disappointed with my baby step strategy, maybe I should stick with that branch. Unfortunately, that would mean that we wouldn't be dealing with the real issue yet...
- Nothing's easy.

 

[Jabba]

- I think that by taking baby steps to the end of a branch, we will be able to nail down (fully clarify) our basic disagreements -- which is exactly what we need to do in order to have effective debate. To be effective, a debate, or a branch of a debate, does not need to end in agreement... Each opponent just needs to believe that they have given it their best shot.

 

[HighRiser]

That's coherent enough, but clarify your idea of syllogism, please.

If it's not too much trouble, please.

- The following is my current list of questions and objections to answer -- and, i haven't yet read this morning's comments: (snipped for brevity)

- Quit giving us all these lists, and start answering our questions and objections.

- If you guys can somehow come up with some sort of consensus on what to answer next, I'll give it a try. Otherwise, I'll try to decide the most appropriate Q/O myself, and give THAT a try.

Just do it. You don't need permission. You are completely oblivious to any and all suggestions put forth so far as to how to progress this and other discussions, so why bother to ask for guidance?

 

[Jabba]

If it's not too much trouble, please.



Just do it. You don't need permission. You are completely oblivious to any and all suggestions put forth so far as to how to progress this and other discussions, so why bother to ask for guidance?

HighRiser,
- Certain assumptions are proposed as premises, which by deductive reasoning lead to a conclusion. The assumptions are not necessarily true.

 

[Ladewig]

- The following is my current list of questions and objections to answer -- and, i haven't yet read this morning's comments:

- What are you talking about -- scientific model, scientific method, consensus scientific opinion, or what?
- Why is "non-A" essentially immortality?
- How do you expect this thread to end?
- Your estimates are wrong (various issues).
- Are you talking about "souls" when you refer to "selves," or "consciousnesses"?
- How could two brains experience both lives?
- Where's your prior evidence (data) for immortality.
- Why should a particular consciousness be determined by a particular brain?
- What do you mean by a particular "consciousness," or "self" anyway?
- We have "periods of consciousness" within each lifetime; how does that term distinguish separate lifetimes?
- Where's your logic?
- What does any of this have to do with reality?
- Why should we pay any further attention?
- You should post you're whole argument.
- You aren't even making baby steps.
- In "taking notes," you are finally doing what we've been suggesting all along.
- What do you mean by "potential selves"?
- Why should there be an infinity of potential selves.
- What is "one over infinity"?
- What's this "intrinsic vs extrinsic" infinities?
- Even clones want experience both lives.
- Why does there need to be a physical explanation for different selves?
- What do YOU mean by syllogism?
- How could two different brains have the same experience?
- Quit giving us all these lists, and start answering our questions and objections.

- After posting this list, I'll probably receive many new questions and objections to answer.
- Surely, you will think that I missed some, and misstated others in the above list.
- Most of these Q/Os are not easily answered, and require significant time to answer (or, just TRY to answer).
- If you guys can somehow come up with some sort of consensus on what to answer next, I'll give it a try. Otherwise, I'll try to decide the most appropriate Q/O myself, and give THAT a try.

Fascinating and awe inspiring, but not unexpected.