[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[John Jones]

And if you're aunt had testicles she'd be you're uncle.


And they'd both likely have some stern words to say about you're grammar.

LOL. You owe me a keyboard. The one I had until a moment ago didn't deal we'll with having coffee spewed into it.

 

[John Jones]

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

[mercy snip]

Your first task/question is in the subject of this thread. Essentially prove immortality, like you said you could do more than a year ago.

 

[John Jones]

- 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

.

No. That is just wrong. Our basic disagreements are that you make claims that you have never been able to support through logic, statistics, or evidence.

The fact that you gave it your best shot earns you no honor if your best shot was impotent, and more than a little disingenuous.

You repeat this intellectual misconduct in every thread in which I've seen you participate - if the word 'participate' even applies.

 

[John Jones]

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

Like the one in the subject line?

 

[HighRiser]

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

Ok, thanks. Please correct this if I'm wrong:

Your goal in this thread is to essentially prove, with mathematics, a syllogistic premise that, in order to be introduced into the argument, must first be accepted without evidence, and which may or may not be true to begin with.

In a science forum.

 

[Jabba]

Ok, thanks. Please correct this if I'm wrong:

Your goal in this thread is to essentially prove, with mathematics, a syllogistic premise that, in order to be introduced into the argument, must first be accepted without evidence, and which may or may not be true to begin with.

In a science forum.

HighRiser,
- I was giving you my understanding of what a syllogism is, and just wanted to make clear that (in my understanding) being a real syllogism does not require that its premisses be correct. It's just that the conclusion of a real syllogism will probably be wrong if any of its premisses are not correct.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

<snip>

- After posting this list, I'll probably receive many new questions and objections to answer.

Never mind. Just keep posting more lists.

In fact, I'd say we're long overdue for a list of all the lists that you've made.

- Surely, you will think that I missed some, and misstated others in the above list.

What's more sure is that people are bound to wonder why, after more than a year, so many questions remain unanswered.

- Most of these Q/Os are not easily answered, and require significant time to answer (or, just TRY to answer).

That's because they're the result of a muddled, poorly thought out set of ideas that make no sense when subjected to critical analysis.

In attempting to explain the inexplicable rather than admit to your errors you're simply going further and further down the rabbit hole with every post.

What you need to realise about a lot of these questions is that there are no logical answers but your refusal to see that some (if not most or all) of your ideas are wrong compels you to attempt answers anyway - answers that, because they make no sense, generate even more questions. The whole thing is a giant snowball of fail.

- If you guys can somehow come up with some sort of consensus on what to answer next, I'll give it a try.

This post, which was made within an hour of you creating the thread more than 13 months ago is as about how I view the consensus here:

Good to see that your posting habits haven't changed, Jabba. You create a brand new thread and in the OP, rather than saying what you created the thread to say, you tell everybody that you will, at some indeterminate point in the future, post something connected to what it is that you want to say.

I wait your next post, in which you give us a bullet-pointed list as to why you're not saying what you want to say, but will any day now, honest, with bated breath.

Otherwise, I'll try to decide the most appropriate Q/O myself, and give THAT a try.

This really does beg the question: "What the hell have you been doing up to now then?"

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

Mr. Savage:

At the risk of being accused of being condescending, when you sniff the milk at night, and it is sour, do you put it back in the 'fridge to see if it'll still be sour in the morning?

How long does something have to not work before you realize it's not working?

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle,

- I haven't gotten anywhere...

Then you obviously need to keep doing the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result.

- But, in my opinion, that's due to a lack of "discipline" on my part.

In everybody else's opinion it's because you're wrong.

That's consensus for you.

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.

Mainly because you attempt to explain one lot of made-up nonsense with another lot of made-up nonsense.

Hopefully, I can be more careful in the future and make sure that I continue one branch (direction) to its end before abandoning it.

That's what you said in the now-abandoned Tablecloth of Turin thread.

- If you, or others, continue to be disappointed with my baby step strategy, maybe I should stick with that branch.

I don't think "disappointed" is the right word since that would imply that people had at some stage held an expectation that you'd support the claim made in the OP.

Although I suppose it's a bit of a let-down that instead of the giant, entertaining leaps of illogic that these threads are sometimes famous for all we've had is more than a year of shuffling around in a very, very small circle.

Unfortunately, that would mean that we wouldn't be dealing with the real issue yet...

It matters not. There is no real issue since immortality does not exist.

The only question that might need an answer here is whether or not you will ever come to this conclusion yourself.

Perhaps we could use Bayes' Theorem to calculate the odds of that unlikely event.

- Nothing's easy.

Maybe you should do that then. It would be at least as productive as this thread has been.

 

[Akhenaten]

- 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.

Jabba, your record speaks for itself and what it says is that you are in absolutely no position to be telling people what constitutes an effective debate.

For Isis' sake, you posted this less than 12 hours ago:

Slowvehicle,

- I haven't gotten anywhere...

^ This ^, Jabba, is testament to your ability to conduct an effective debate.

To be effective, a debate, or a branch of a debate, does not need to end in agreement...

It appears that your rules say a debate should never end at all.

In any case, I really don't see what debate has to do with this thread. You offered proof. Where the hell is it?

Each opponent just needs to believe that they have given it their best shot.

Codswallop. The results of a debate are never determined on the basis of the participants' beliefs. Those are what start the debate in the first place.

 

[Akhenaten]

HighRiser,
- I was giving you my understanding of what a syllogism is, and just wanted to make clear that (in my understanding) being a real syllogism does not require that its premisses be correct. It's just that the conclusion of a real syllogism will probably be wrong if any of its premisses are not correct.

What exactly are the premises (please note the spelling) on which you base your conclusion that immortality exists?

 

[John Jones]

Never mind. Just keep posting more lists.

In fact, I'd say we're long overdue for a list of all the lists that you've made.






What's more sure is that people are bound to wonder why, after more than a year, so many questions remain unanswered.






That's because they're the result of a muddled, poorly thought out set of ideas that make no sense when subjected to critical analysis.

In attempting to explain the inexplicable rather than admit to your errors you're simply going further and further down the rabbit hole with every post.

What you need to realise about a lot of these questions is that there are no logical answers but your refusal to see that some (if not most or all) of your ideas are wrong compels you to attempt answers anyway - answers that, because they make no sense, generate even more questions. The whole thing is a giant snowball of fail.






This post, which was made within an hour of you creating the thread more than 13 months ago is as about how I view the consensus here:

​

This really does beg the question: "What the hell have you been doing up to now then?"

*Stands in awe*

 

[Ladewig]

Then you obviously need to keep doing the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result.

I view the repetition thus: He makes a claim, everyone describes why the claim is false or at best unsupported. He then says, let me break my first claim down into two pieces and discuss the first piece. Again, everyone descibes why that claim is false or at best unsupported. Jabba then offers to break that claim into two "baby-step" pieces.......

OMG, Jabba is the reincarnation of Zeno !

 

[Filippo Lippi]

He's hoping to dine upon billy-goat

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- If you guys can somehow come up with some sort of consensus on what to answer next, I'll give it a try.

My vote is for you posting what you consider to be proof of the existence of immortality.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- If you, or others, continue to be disappointed with my baby step strategy, maybe I should stick with that branch.

Or maybe you should quit the pointless stalling and just post your proof.

 

[Mojo]

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.

How could they have exactly the same experiences if they weren't in the same body? Even if they went around joined at the hip they would still have slightly different viewpoints.

 

[Mojo]

If we could produce two brains with the very same characteristics, would they share consciousnesses?

If I had a pair of identical plimsolls, would they be the same plimsoll?







Obscure reference included for the pharaoh.

 

[Slowvehicle]

If I had a pair of identical plimsolls, would they be the same plimsoll?

Obscure reference included for the pharaoh.

So your sneakers are immortal?

 

[godless dave]

I would like to address this by saying that even if two brains could, in fact, be produced with identical characteristics, from the moment of their creation forward, their characteristics, particularly the exigent circumstances of their existences, would vary; thus they would no longer be "identical", and could not be said to support "identical" emergent properties.

ETA: Ninja-ed by Agatha!

Even if they had identical characteristcs, they would still be separate objects, so they wouldn't share a consciousness.