[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Loss Leader]

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

1. Barney exists because children believe in him.
2. Barney exists.
Thus
3. Belief is all you need to bring completely imaginary things into reality.

 

[Loss Leader]

February is Jabba History Month.

(As always, these summaries are provided to show the sheer confusion of the ideas Jabba is attempting to prove. Personally, I have no doubt that he is a fine gentleman.)

- This is war, and you may have superior forces on this particular hill... - Consequently, I'm going to withdraw my forces, concede this hill to you guys (for now) and see if I can take your basecamp instead -- Whatever -- I'll be back.

I need to start with a conditional, but expressing it so that the audience will understand my intentions is difficult. Here's the best I can currently do. Hopefully, that can get us started.

- I don't think that's quite how to say it, but I think everybody knows what I mean.

I’ll go back and look it up.

I don't think that's quite how to say it, but I think everybody knows what I mean. I'll be back with one more piece for the summary.

There is more to say along these lines, but I’m having trouble with the wording, and want to leave you with something more to munch on before I drive my wife to a morning meeting.

Unfortunately, I just spent about an hour trying to answer your questions (immediately above), but somehow lost all my answers when I went to breakfast...

Per usual, I need to narrow the focus.

Would it make a difference by stating what the A I'm referring to says?

I thought you had made such a statement previously, but looking back, I couldn't find it.

But, you didn't answer my question.

- That seems like a strange question to me, but others have asked the same one -- so I guess I should quit ignoring it. (I have to ignore most(?) questions/suggestions/objections/comments in general cause I just don't have time to answer any more than I am.)

Hope all that communicates a little...

- I don't really understand your objection here.

I'll try to phrase my question better -- it isn't easy.

I think that I have found one little piece of a very LARGE puzzle.

And for the moment, that's all I'm trying to argue.

We're expecting another blast of frigidity tomorrow or the next day. I don't know about the snow.- Do you realize how much I would like to say in response to that one paragraph?!
- Do you accept that
1) There are numerous participants in this thread that strongly disagree with me, and tend to post a great many responses (questions, suggestions, objections and comments in general) per day. (I would try to figure out the average per day, but who has the time to do that?)
2) Each post addressed to me tends to have multiple, if not numerous, responses (that need responses) within it.
3) A lot of what I want to say is difficult for me to convey effectively, and takes up a lot of time.
4) I only have 2 or 3 hours a day to devote to this stuff.
5) Doing so is my favorite hobby.
6) I simply don't understand a lot of the responses I get -- and, trying to understand them takes up time.
7) Many of the responses that I do understand are difficult to answer anyway, and take up a lot of time.
8) Many have already been answered somewhere back in the past.
9) Many have been answered indirectly back in the past.
10) While a lot of the responses are largely redundant, they tend to have nuances that are new.
11) A lot of the responses are brand new.
- Sorry about all of that, but what'r'ya'gonn'do? I'm running out of time, and will have to leave your other responses to a later date.

- Unfortunately, That needs better expression. It isn't easy. I'll be back as soon as possible (I'm babysitting).

Consequently, I'm ready to move on to my numerical entry for P(me|A). I'll be back.

if I ever knew of a technical usage, I didn't remember it.

- I too have mentioned this issue multiple times, claiming it to be the only weak point in my argument.

This is the "chase" that I tried to "cut to" a while back -- but got distracted from.

- How many times have I had to change my wording?

- I think this is the part that is so difficult to convey.
- I'll try some more.

- I don't think it means what you think it means...

- Hopefully, you agree with me now about the difficulty in effectively expressing the nuances of this stuff we're talking about. I gotta get back to my chores -- but, I'll be back with another attempt.

- I'm sorry that you don't find your position difficult to express, cause I sure find mine that way... Hope that doesn't take us off on tangents.

Can I get an Amen?

- This is the part that's so difficult for me to express effectively. I'll have to try again. I'll be back.

- I'm trying to keep as narrow a focus as possible. Though not to worry, that will be my next attempt.

Would you agree with that?

- I suspect that I should be trying to describe two kinds of finiteness, rather than two kinds of infinity…

- Does anyone here accept that we can make a distinction between two kinds of finiteness along the dimension of extrinsic/intrinsic?

Is that true?

 

[carlitos]

Geez. Jabba will no doubt ignore my posts. Pathetic.

 

[pakeha]

Jabba: could be that we now have a Gostak.

Ah, that one's new to me and I'm a sci-fi fan since I was a child.

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.

Jabba, are you trying to define terms to your own satisfaction alone?

 

[Jabba]

That's right.

I believe I said as much two pages ago.

Dave,

- I doubt that we can effectively deal with the issue of the "self" (to which I'm referring) as being only an illusion. You could be right, only I don't think so...
- Could be that you found a way around "I think, therefore I am."
- I've figured, since about 1960, that I am the only thing that I know exists. I don't know what I am, but there is something there doing the thinking -- and in that sense, I must (currently) exist.
- But then, if the continuation of the same "self" during a physical lifetime is, itself, an illusion, can I know that I exist?

- Anyway, I'm ready to agree to disagree on whether or not there is an actual "self" that is actually continuous during a physical lifetime.
- However, if you wish to continue with that issue, I will try to oblige.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, are you trying to define terms to your own satisfaction alone?

Pakeha, I think that is what I'm trying to do -- at least in a sense. What I have tried to define, or denote, is the "self" that I'm talking about. I don't know a better word to use. (I know that last sentence makes for a great "straight line," but what'r'ya'gonna'do?)

 

[Jabba]

February is Jabba History Month.

(As always, these summaries are provided to show the sheer confusion of the ideas Jabba is attempting to prove. Personally, I have no doubt that he is a fine gentleman.)

- Wow!

 

[Jabba]

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

- From Wikipedia"
The self is the subject of one's own experience of phenomena: perception, emotions, thoughts. In phenomenology, it is conceived as what experiences, and there isn't any experiencing without an experiencer, the self. The self is therefore an "immediate given", an intrinsic dimension of the fact of experiencing phenomena. In some other trends of philosophy, the self is instead seen as requiring a reflexive perception of oneself, the individual person, meaning the self in such a view is an object of consciousness.

The self has been studied extensively by philosophers and psychologists and is central to many world religions. With the recent rise in technology, the self has been discussed under various new emerging fields, such as Technoself Studies.

Dave,
- This is the best "scientific" definition I could find, and I think that it does fit with what I have tried to define. My most recent "definition" invoking what we who fear oblivion mean by "self" is really a denotation, more than a definition.

 

[Pixel42]

Jabba, everyone accepts that the self exists, and the quoted definition is fine. It's your contention that there is some part of this self that is unchanging from birth to death (and possibly from before birth to beyond death) that is disputed.

 

[PixyMisa]

- But then, if the continuation of the same "self" during a physical lifetime is, itself, an illusion, can I know that I exist?

Sure. An illusion doesn't mean there's nothing real there, just that it's not what it appears to be.

You exist. But there is no part of you that is unchanging.

- Anyway, I'm ready to agree to disagree on whether or not there is an actual "self" that is actually continuous during a physical lifetime.

The problem is, this leaves us with the existing scientific model of the self, which allows for only a finite number of potential selves, which directly contradicts your premise.

 

[zooterkin]

- From Wikipedia"
The self is the subject of one's own experience of phenomena: perception, emotions, thoughts. In phenomenology, it is conceived as what experiences, and there isn't any experiencing without an experiencer, the self. The self is therefore an "immediate given", an intrinsic dimension of the fact of experiencing phenomena. In some other trends of philosophy, the self is instead seen as requiring a reflexive perception of oneself, the individual person, meaning the self in such a view is an object of consciousness.

The self has been studied extensively by philosophers and psychologists and is central to many world religions. With the recent rise in technology, the self has been discussed under various new emerging fields, such as Technoself Studies.

Dave,
- This is the best "scientific" definition I could find, and I think that it does fit with what I have tried to define. My most recent "definition" invoking what we who fear oblivion mean by "self" is really a denotation, more than a definition.

Could you highlight where it refers to a part of the self which survives after death?

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,

- I doubt that we can effectively deal with the issue of the "self" (to which I'm referring) as being only an illusion. You could be right, only I don't think so...

The self to which you're referring insofar as you believe it to be both immortal able to exist independently of a living brain is an illusion.

You do appear to be right about being able to effectively deal with it though. After 15 months and 100 pages of posts you're no closer to demonstrating the existence of such a self than you were when you started.

- Could be that you found a way around "I think, therefore I am."

Could it be that you'll return to the topic any time soon?

- I've figured, since about 1960, that I am the only thing that I know exists. I don't know what I am, but there is something there doing the thinking -- and in that sense, I must (currently) exist.

I think you've been told at least a hundred times that the probability of this is 1. Why you feel the need to point it out now is a bit of a mystery.

- But then, if the continuation of the same "self" during a physical lifetime is, itself, an illusion, can I know that I exist?

I think, for the purpose of the exercise, that you'll get away with asserting that you exist.

- Anyway, I'm ready to agree to disagree on whether or not there is an actual "self" that is actually continuous during a physical lifetime.

Since this isn't the issue under discussion, your agreement or otherwise is irrelevant.

- However, if you wish to continue with that issue, I will try to oblige.

Of course you will. It saves you from having to answer the multitude of questions you've ignored that relate to the actual topic.

 

[Akhenaten]

Jabba, are you trying to define terms to your own satisfaction alone?

Pakeha, I think that is what I'm trying to do -- at least in a sense.

Rramjet Rreturns!

What I have tried to define, or denote, is the "self" that I'm talking about.

You seem to be forgetting that you're also trying to define, or denote, the "self" that you're talking about as being immortal.

Or at least you were. You seem to have dropped that subject altogether of late, despite it being the thread topic.

I don't know a better word to use.

As you've been told, over and over, it doesn't matter what label you attach to it, you're still not a nanometre closer to an essential proof of its immortality than you ever were.

(I know that last sentence makes for a great "straight line," but what'r'ya'gonna'do?)

Address the topic?

 

[Jabba]

Could you highlight where it refers to a part of the self which survives after death?

- From Wikipedia"
The self is the subject of one's own experience of phenomena: perception, emotions, thoughts. In phenomenology, it is conceived as what experiences, and there isn't any experiencing without an experiencer, the self. The self is therefore an "immediate given", an intrinsic dimension of the fact of experiencing phenomena. In some other trends of philosophy, the self is instead seen as requiring a reflexive perception of oneself, the individual person, meaning the self in such a view is an object of consciousness.

The self has been studied extensively by philosophers and psychologists and is central to many world religions. With the recent rise in technology, the self has been discussed under various new emerging fields, such as Technoself Studies.
Dave,
- This is the best "scientific" definition I could find, and I think that it does fit with what I have tried to define. My most recent "definition" invoking what we who fear oblivion mean by "self" is really a denotation, more than a definition.

- That's the part that I claim continues after death.

 

[Akhenaten]

February is Jabba History Month.

(As always, these summaries are provided to show the sheer confusion of the ideas Jabba is attempting to prove. Personally, I have no doubt that he is a fine gentleman.)

- Wow!

It seems odd that you would express surprise. The summary for February is exactly the same as those for the preceding months and there's already ample evidence that March will be cast in exactly the same mould.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- I doubt that we can effectively deal with the issue of the "self" (to which I'm referring) as being only an illusion. You could be right, only I don't think so...
- Could be that you found a way around "I think, therefore I am."
- I've figured, since about 1960, that I am the only thing that I know exists. I don't know what I am, but there is something there doing the thinking -- and in that sense, I must (currently) exist.
- But then, if the continuation of the same "self" during a physical lifetime is, itself, an illusion, can I know that I exist?

- Anyway, I'm ready to agree to disagree on whether or not there is an actual "self" that is actually continuous during a physical lifetime.
- However, if you wish to continue with that issue, I will try to oblige.

I'm talking about the self as you defined it:

- Maybe, I should have called it an "aspect" of the self, or better yet, the "core" of the self. Whatever, it's the part of the self that does not change from it's first memory, at least, to its last. And probably, it doesn't change from conception to death -- at least.

That's what I'm saying doesn't exist.

The self I believe exists is made of neurons.

 

[Akhenaten]

Could you highlight where it refers to a part of the self which survives after death?

- From Wikipedia"
The self is the subject of one's own experience of phenomena: perception, emotions, thoughts. In phenomenology, it is conceived as what experiences, and there isn't any experiencing without an experiencer, the self. The self is therefore an "immediate given", an intrinsic dimension of the fact of experiencing phenomena. In some other trends of philosophy, the self is instead seen as requiring a reflexive perception of oneself, the individual person, meaning the self in such a view is an object of consciousness .

- That's the part that I claim continues after death.

You've completely ignored this bit of what you're claiming to be the definition, or denotation, of what you're talking about.



ETA: And this bit as well.

 

[dafydd]

The self I believe exists is made of neurons.

And Jabba believes that it is some kind of magical soul. This thread is now in the wrong forum.

 

[Akhenaten]

- From Wikipedia"

<snip>

Dave,
- This is the best "scientific" definition I could find, and I think that it does fit with what I have tried to define.

Only until you come up with another definition tomorrow as a reaction to all the posts (the two or three that you actually read) which point out that this one doesn't apply to what you're talking about any more than all the others you've tried to force fit.

My most recent "definition" invoking what we who fear oblivion mean by "self" is really a denotation, more than a definition.

In typical Jabba fashion, it seems that we now have a new definition of "definition".

 

[Jabba]

...You exist. But there is no part of you that is unchanging.

The problem is, this leaves us with the existing scientific model of the self, which allows for only a finite number of potential selves, which directly contradicts your premise.

Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.