[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Aepervius]

OK, we'll call that "Slowvehicle's #".

But Slowvehicle's # +1 is even larger than that.

But you can't beat Aepervius's # which is (last posted #)+1

 

[Giordano]

You know, I have trouble imaging 17; it is so angular a number and it is a prime, so I can't subdivide 17 match sticks into smaller groups in the image in my head.

Is 17 an "unimaginable number" or does it has to be unimaginable to Jabba, or to all 7 billion people on this planet?

Jabba, do you see your problem, yet? Do you seen that infinity is more, in a mathematical sense, than a really, really large number? And why science states that the number of consciousnesses is finite, based on the number of possible brains? Your definition of self relies on consciousness being unlinked to a physical brain, which is NOT the standard scientific model and will not be accepted by most here.

Jabba, also if you really had a proof, then you wouldn't constantly be changing it and your definitions as you are doing here. Perhaps we understand the math and neurobiology, and you don't.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, do you think there are infinite possible DVDs?

 

[Mojo]

Oh, yeah? Well watch this:

Slowvehicle's # +1 =Mojo's #.

Now, consider....

Slowvehicle's #^{Mojo's #}.

Somewhere a homoeopath is wondering where their supply of zeros has gone.

 

[dafydd]

Euler's equation that proves God exists:

a+b^n = x
x

 

[Monza]

No. You're thinking "way larger than humongous." We're talking about "humongous plus some."

I haven't checked, but I'm certain it's in the tables of the Department of Weights and Measures.

I hate to contribute to a derail, but don't you mean, "humongous^humongous"?

Perhaps you're right. I had forgotten about the Double Humung Number.

Back in Wales humongous squared was "mulgies".

Does anyone know the conversion from the SI unit humongous to the Imperial ginormous?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Does anyone know the conversion from the SI unit humongous to the Imperial ginormous?

one ginormous = 2 200 000 imp arseloads

one humongous = 1 000 000 SI. buttloads (2.2 arseloads to the buttload)

One humongouds is actually the same as one ginormous, leading to the use of the "long mongous" in US shipyards.

 

[Loss Leader]

- OK -- Once again, one last try...

- Effectively defining the "self" to which I am trying to refer seems either especially difficult, or effectively impossible. I think that I have a better chance of isolating and identifying this self by denotation and analogy than I do by definition.
- The denotation: this is the self that those who fear death perceive to be continuous during life, and which they hope is continuous after death.
- The analogy: this self is analogous to the disk of the DVD. It's the same disk after recording as it was before recording. One difference is that this self is what we call "mental."
- Some of us think that the lifetime continuation of this self is an illusion. We may also think that mental is just another form of physical.
- If the lifetime continuation is just an illusion, it is this illusion that I am referring to as the "self."

Why do you keep restating this? Everybody here knows what you personally mean by "self." Everyone here understands that billions of people believe that there is some sort of transcendent "self."

Nobody is confused by any of this. Nobody is benefiting from your DVD analogy.

At the same time, nobody here but you appears to believe that there is a "self" as you wish it existed. A person changes over his lifetime - even without traumatic brain injury - and the self dies when its physical body dies.

However, if you absolutely insist on using a poorly-defined and rejected definition of "self," then at least move on and stop restating your half-baked definition of the same.

Explain how a "self" that doesn't exist could be immortal.

 

[John Jones]

.
Why do you keep restating this? Everybody here knows what you personally mean by "self." Everyone here understands that billions of people believe that there is some sort of transcendent "self."

Nobody is confused by any of this. Nobody is benefiting from your DVD analogy.

At the same time, nobody here but you appears to believe that there is a "self" as you wish it existed. A person changes over his lifetime - even without traumatic brain injury - and the self dies when its physical body dies.

However, if you absolutely insist on using a poorly-defined and rejected definition of "self," then at least move on and stop restating your half-baked definition of the same.

Explain how a "self" that doesn't exist could be immortal.

This ought to be good.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

- OK -- Once again, one last try...

- Effectively defining the "self" to which I am trying to refer seems either especially difficult, or effectively impossible. I think that I have a better chance of isolating and identifying this self by denotation and analogy than I do by definition.

If you can't define your premises, how do you expect your conclusions to make any sense?

- The denotation: this is the self that those who fear death perceive to be continuous during life, and which they hope is continuous after death.

You need evidence for that, not wishful thinking.

- The analogy: this self is analogous to the disk of the DVD. It's the same disk after recording as it was before recording. One difference is that this self is what we call "mental."

Sorry, but I have to take issue with this as well. A DVD undergoes a physical change, just as a person's brain does over the course of a lifetime. I think what you mean is that it's still a DVD, not the exact same DVD. Are you the same person you were when you were 14 and first began pondering these questions? Do you still have the same exact knowledge, the same desires, fears, hopes and dreams?

- Some of us think that the lifetime continuation of this self is an illusion. We may also think that mental is just another form of physical.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest it is. Do you have any to the contrary?

- If the lifetime continuation is just an illusion, it is this illusion that I am referring to as the "self."

Then what do you hope to prove by asserting that an illusion lasts forever?

 

[zooterkin]

one ginormous = 2 200 000 imp arseloads

one humongous = 1 000 000 SI. buttloads (2.2 arseloads to the buttload)

One humongouds is actually the same as one ginormous, leading to the use of the "long mongous" in US shipyards.

I can never remember, are shedloads Imperial or Metric?

 

[Agatha]

Shedloads are metric, the imperial term would be caught by the autocensor.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why do you keep restating this? Everybody here knows what you personally mean by "self." Everyone here understands that billions of people believe that there is some sort of transcendent "self."

I think we all established this some time last year.

It seems that Jabba is so convinced he's right that he honestly believes that the only reason people could have for disagreeing with him is that they don't understand what he means.

 

[abaddon]

Jabba,

I have refrained from comment, but lurked this thread for quite a while as it is obvious to me that somehow you think that you will arbitrarily happen upon a rephrasing of your failed premise which might make sense.

It is not going to happen no matter how much you torture language into pretzels.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, do you think there are infinite possible DVDs?

Dave,
- Intrinsically speaking, yes; extrinsically speaking, it depends (at least) upon time being infinite. If the necessary external factors for producing DVDs exist forever, there is no limit to the number of DVDs possible.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- Intrinsically speaking, yes; extrinsically speaking, it depends (at least) upon time being infinite. If the necessary external factors for producing DVDs exist forever, there is no limit to the number of DVDs possible.

You don't understand at all that the Universe is finite, do you?

 

[Jabba]

- OK -- Once again, one last try...

- Effectively defining the "self" to which I am trying to refer seems either especially difficult, or effectively impossible. I think that I have a better chance of isolating and identifying this self by denotation and analogy than I do by definition.
- The denotation: this is the self that those who fear death perceive to be continuous during life, and which they hope is continuous after death.
- The analogy: this self is analogous to the disk of the DVD. It's the same disk after recording as it was before recording. One difference is that this self is what we call "mental."
- Some of us think that the lifetime continuation of this self is an illusion. We may also think that mental is just another form of physical.
- If the lifetime continuation is just an illusion, it is this illusion that I am referring to as the "self."

If you can't define your premises, how do you expect your conclusions to make any sense?

- At least one study concluded that we can effectively categorize things even when we can't say why. In this case, I'm thinking that a denotation and an analogy will distinguish what I'm talking about, even though I don't think that my attempted definitions do.

 

[Mojo]

Why do you keep restating this? Everybody here knows what you personally mean by "self." Everyone here understands that billions of people believe that there is some sort of transcendent "self."

Jabba is trying to keep open the possibility that he means something else, because he keeps running into trouble with this definition.

 

[Garrette]

- At least one study concluded that we can effectively categorize things even when we can't say why. In this case, I'm thinking that a denotation and an analogy will distinguish what I'm talking about, even though I don't think that my definitions have.

I sincerely hope you were never a teacher.

Once again: we understand perfectly what you are saying. Your failure is that what you are saying is neither precise nor extant, both of which characteristics are required for any subsequent proof.

If you will grant me the premise that there is an all pervasive, creator-and-destroyer essence in the universe, I can prove with Bayes that Vishnu kicks Yahweh's ass.

 

[jsfisher]

Dave,
- Intrinsically speaking, yes; extrinsically speaking, it depends (at least) upon time being infinite. If the necessary external factors for producing DVDs exist forever, there is no limit to the number of DVDs possible.

How do you figure? The resources to construct DVDs are finite, so even given infinite time, there still is an upper limit on the number of DVDs that can be constructed. But that aside, even with infinite time and infinite resources, you are still bounded to a finite number of unique DVDs.