[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

- Could be that we now have a working definition of the "self" to which I'm trying to refer -- maybe a working denotation. This self is what people who fear death see as continuous during their physical lifetimes, and hope to continue after their physical lifetimes. Whatever, I suspect that it's the best I can do towards identifying it.
- Now, I'll go back to trying to show why science would think that the number of potential selves is infinite.

No! I don't agree with your working definition and I disagree with there being a self. What other people, probably not here on this forum, believe has nothing to do with us accepting definitions, working or not. You would first need to prove a "self" exists before going any further.

And I notice that you continue to claim that you will show why science thinks the number of potential selves is infinite. Science is not bound by your views and does not think there is a self- a terrible and fatal flaw in any argument you might make. You can't propose a ridiculous claim for science, then show it is wrong! That is your debating style? Even if science accepted a "self," which it does not, others here have told you why science does not "think" that the number of potential selves is infinite. Shall we define a unicorn as "what other people believe is a unicorn" and show scientifically that four can fit on the head of a pin?

By the way, how do you propose to create mathematically a proof when you can't even clearly state what you intend to prove?

 

[sackett]

Not meaning any disrespect here -- on the contrary, I begin to feel some compassion -- but Jabba is demonstrating not merely circular reasoning but what I want to call spiral reasoning.

Spiraling inward, to be specific, like matter approaching a black hole.

To a religious person, the loss of faith is more to be feared than the loss of life; for him, the analogy with a black hole is perfectly apt.

I don't mean to mock, Jabba. I think you've lost some of your former placid obtuseness -- and that, b'god, is a good sign.

 

[Garrette]

Not meaning any disrespect here -- on the contrary, I begin to feel some compassion -- but Jabba is demonstrating not merely circular reasoning but what I want to call spiral reasoning.

Spiraling inward, to be specific, like matter approaching a black hole.

To a religious person, the loss of faith is more to be feared than the loss of life; for him, the analogy with a black hole is perfectly apt.

I don't mean to mock, Jabba. I think you've lost some of your former placid obtuseness -- and that, b'god, is a good sign.

This.

 

[Garrette]

Five year old boy to his parents: There's a monster in my closet.

Parents: No, son. There aren't any monsters at all, and we looked in your closet so there definitely aren't any there.

Five year old boy: Maybe it's under my bed.

Parents: No. There aren't any monsters at all, and we looked under your bed, too.

Five year old boy: Maybe it's...

Parents: No. There aren't any monsters anywhere.

Five year old boy: But I'm scared of monsters. Can I sleep with you?

Parents: Of course. Climb in.

Five year old boy: Even though there aren't any monsters?

Parents: Of course.

....

....

Five year old boy: So we agree there might be a monster just in the closet?

 

[sackett]

Calling Jabba, come in, Jabba. Over.

Five year old boy to his parents: There's a monster in my closet.

Parents: No, son. There aren't any monsters at all, and we looked in your closet so there definitely aren't any there.

Five year old boy: Maybe it's under my bed.

Parents: No. There aren't any monsters at all, and we looked under your bed, too.

Five year old boy: Maybe it's...

Parents: No. There aren't any monsters anywhere.

Five year old boy: But I'm scared of monsters. Can I sleep with you?

Parents: Of course. Climb in.

Five year old boy: Even though there aren't any monsters?

Parents: Of course.

....

....

Five year old boy: So we agree there might be a monster just in the closet?

This right back at you.

 

[Giordano]

Jaaba,

Just to be sure: there is only one of you using this name to post here?

It is just that you often appear to contradict yourself in your postings here.

Do you believe in a single, unchanging model to prove, or do you keep changing your mind?

 

[dafydd]

By the way, how do you propose to create mathematically a proof when you can't even clearly state what you intend to prove?

"Essentially" prove, which translates as "fail to prove".

 

[Jabba]

- Now, I'll go back to trying to show why science would think that the number of potential selves is infinite.

How are you going to do that when science doesn't think they exist?

Dave,
- Are you referring to "a pool of potential selves"?

I'm talking about the self as you've defined it.

Dave,
- I "defined" "self" as that which people who fear death perceive as having been continuous during their physical life, and which they hope will continue after their physical death. So, I think that you're suggesting that science considers the self that such people perceive as being continuous during their physical life is just an illusion -- the hope that this perceived self will continue after death is certainly not an illusion.

 

[PixyMisa]

Dave,
- I "defined" "self" as that which people who fear death perceive as having been continuous during their physical life, and which they hope will continue after their physical death. So, I think that you're suggesting that science considers the self that such people perceive as being continuous during their physical life is just an illusion -- the hope that this perceived self will continue after death is certainly not an illusion.

So you're going to prove that you hope that you're immortal?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I "defined" "self" as that which people who fear death perceive as having been continuous during their physical life, and which they hope will continue after their physical death. So, I think that you're suggesting that science considers the self that such people perceive as being continuous during their physical life is just an illusion.

That's right.

I believe I said as much two pages ago.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I "defined" "self" as that which people who fear death perceive as having been continuous during their physical life, and which they hope will continue after their physical death. So, I think that you're suggesting that science considers the self that such people perceive as being continuous during their physical life is just an illusion

Who is this "science" person you speak of? I don't know him. Of the world's scientists, I expect some would agree and some might disagree. To be sure, the concept of a continuous self isn't even testable. Can you design a test that would show some core self to exist if it were positive, but would show this core self not to exist if it were negative?

I doubt that you or any scientist could. The main reason is that you have no definition of what this "self" even is. What survives at the core of a person when you take away experience, memory, hormonal states, and the brain's physical state? Saying the word "core" doesn't give us or science any information about what that core might be.

-- the hope that this perceived self will continue after death is certainly not an illusion.

Without question, there are many people on earth who hope that their essential selves continue after their death. I would estimate that these people number in the billions.

I have noticed tall, pointy structures in Egypt devoted specifically to that hope.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- I "defined" "self" as that which people who fear death perceive as having been continuous during their physical life, and which they hope will continue after their physical death. So, I think that you're suggesting that science considers the self that such people perceive as being continuous during their physical life is just an illusion -- the hope that this perceived self will continue after death is certainly not an illusion.

I think you are right!

Wait- are we doing psychology now? Some people perceive commercial airline flights to be more risky than driving. They are wrong. An illusion, if you will.

 

[John Jones]

- Does anyone agree that one aspect of the self stays the same during the lifetime of the self? (You don't need to say anything if you don't agree -- I'm already assuming that you don't, and you probably can't really account for everyone listening.)
- In regard to what that one aspect is, that's what I've been trying to describe for the last month or so -- with, apparently, no success.

Not unless you can describe that aspect.

 

[John Jones]

- I was just referring to we who do fear death. I was not referring to you guys. I know that you guys do not fit into that category. There are plenty of us humans out her that do.

How are your Immortality and Bayesian Statistics arguments playing in that crowd?

I'm willing to bet that they would just as likely accept Barney The Purple Dinosaur proofs.

 

[John Jones]

- Never have I suggested that there must be life after death because I fear oblivion -- or even have I suggested that there must be life after death because so many humans fear oblivion.

That's the only argument you've ever had. You just dance around the topic because you know it's indefensible.

 

[John Jones]

- If you think I said that, you misunderstood what I was saying.

We understand you quite well, Jabba.

 

[John Jones]

- Could be that we now have a working definition of the "self" to which I'm trying to refer -- maybe a working denotation. This self is what people who fear death see as continuous during their physical lifetimes, and hope to continue after their physical lifetimes. Whatever, I suspect that it's the best I can do towards identifying it.
[...].

Wishful thinking, then. Good luck with that.

In the mean time, please Please PLEASE get back to your proof of Immortality and Bayesian Statistics!

 

[jsfisher]

Some time back you said this:

- Now, I'll go back to trying to show why science would think that the number of potential selves is infinite.

How about finally doing just that?

 

[godless dave]

Some time back you said this:

- Now, I'll go back to trying to show why science would think that the number of potential selves is infinite.

How about finally doing just that?

Because since then he has clarified what he means by self, and it isn't the scientific definition of self.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Submitted For Your Consideration

How are your Immortality and Bayesian Statistics arguments playing in that crowd?

I'm willing to bet that they would just as likely accept Barney The Purple Dinosaur proofs.

PROOF: That it is vanishingly unlikely that "Barney" is not, in fact, "The Devil".

1. Refer to the Beast in his actual title, converted to ecclesiastical Latin characters:

CVTE PVRPLE DINOSAVR​

2. Cross out every character that is not a Roman Numeral:

CV TE P V RP L E DI NOSA V R​

3. Add the Roman Numerals:

D + C + L + V + V + V + I​

4. Hide in your homes, sheeple!