[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Jabba]

Yes. If you had infinite time and infinite resources, you could make an infinite number of DVD's. And an infinite number of them would contain "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" with director's commentary.

What possible difference does any of this make?

- I'm trying to show what I mean by "self," and why there should be an infinite # of potential selves.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- The reason I keep trying to make sure that you guys understand what I mean by "self" is that while you keep assuring me that you do, you also keep saying things that you wouldn't be saying if you really understood what I meant...

Then respond to those specific things by explaining, clearly and concisely, how that poster is mistaken.

How it actually seems to me is that everybody knows what you're talking about, but your own grasp on it is so ill-thought-out and nebulous that you can't adequately express yourself when talking about it.

 

[Akhenaten]

- The reason I keep trying to make sure that you guys understand what I mean by "self" is that while you keep assuring me that you do, you also keep saying things that you wouldn't be saying if you really understood what I meant...

It would seem to be a more parsimonious explanation that you are the one who doesn't understand us.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I'm trying to show what I mean by "self," and why there should be an infinite # of potential selves.

Maybe explaining where the selves that have already had a turn at being people are would help us to understand where the potential ones are hiding.

 

[Giordano]

- I was responding to Frozenwolf’s question as to how my conclusions could make sense if I can’t define my premises. My claim is that I can identify and communicate a concept within a premise -- with denotation and analogy -- even If I’m having trouble defining the concept. And consequently, my argument can make sense without a definition of the particular concept.
- As you say, “labeling” does give me a way of talking about the concept – and, that’s what I want to do.
- I am not claiming that labeling a concept makes the premise -- in which the concept appears -- true.

1. We have yet to see a citation for that article about categorization, as requested. Are you going to supply one? One article may or may not be accurate.

2. The article, if it exists, as you cite it, talks of categories. We are talking about definitions, not categories. Does the article even say that one can talk about a concept without being able to define it?

3. You promised to use math to prove we are immortal. Have you ever seen a math statement or equation that starts with an undefined component?

4. More day-to-day language: how can you prove something if you can't even describe it?

 

[Giordano]

- I'm trying to show what I mean by "self," and why there should be an infinite # of potential selves.

As Akhenaten already said, have you considered the possibility that we do understand and that you are simply wrong?

 

[Giordano]

- I'm trying to show what I mean by "self," and why there should be an infinite # of potential selves.

By your DVD analog you have just shown the opposite: that the number of possible DVDs is NOT infinite and therefore, by your analogy, the number of possible "selves" is not infinite. In fact. nothing physical is infinite, because matter, energy, and even time is not infinite. So much for your analog.

So far, you have convincingly shown:

Your knowledge of Bayesian statistics is wrong.

Your knowledge of math more broadly is wrong.

Your knowledge of physics and cosmology is wrong.

Your knowledge of neuroscience is wrong.

Your knowledge of how DVDs are made is wrong.

Your knowledge of how information is stored on DVDs is wrong.

Your knowledge of the idea of a self is so wrong you can't even define it.

I am purposefully trying to be blunt, because I don't know how to otherwise get through to you. Your problems with these issues have been patiently and politely explained to you, yet you refuse to even acknowledge these corrections, let alone make the required corrections to your proof.

Again, what is your purpose here? When you began, everyone looked forward to your proof. If it was convincing, you might have even convinced the worse skeptic here. But now, you have proven that you cannot even begin your proof without major errors. You will therefore convince no one here, and are likely to convince anyone still undecided that you are wrong.

 

[Giordano]

Again, I ask: how is your "proof" of an immortal self different from what appears to be the same proof, presented here, that a particular card hand sequence or particular lottery ticket number are also immortal? They are all very unlikely by posterior probability calculations, yet the chance of having a actual card sequence or an actual ticket number in your hand after they are dealt out is close to 1. Maybe I don't get it, but this would seem to invalidate your proof.. Isn't this by use of your same math?

Or maybe you are just ignoring this question and haven't responded either because the explanation is trivial (indulge me) or you have no counter-argument.

 

[Giordano]

Re #1 -- I'm not sure that there is any such evidence.
Re #2 -- Not off hand. But if this "self" is just an illusion, it's a mighty effective illusion.


- Again, in accepting that what I perceive as a continuing self may be an illusion, I was just trying to "nail down" what I was referring to. I don't think that it is an illusion.

Are you now trying to prove that immortality may be an illusion? If the "self" may be an illusion, and the "self" is immortal (by your "proof") then...

I might help you on that.

One thing to keep in mind, the Fata Morgana is a mighty effective illusion that is widely believed in, but I wouldn't try to climb the "stairs" to one of its "turret rooms." And even though the Fata Morgana an illusion, many people have no trouble defining it.

 

[godless dave]

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.

At any given point in time, are there an infinite number of possible DVDs?

 

[Mojo]

- The reason I keep trying to make sure that you guys understand what I mean by "self" is that while you keep assuring me that you do, you also keep saying things that you wouldn't be saying if you really understood what I meant...

It is apparent that most, if not all, of the people posting in this thread understand exactly what you mean by "self", no matter how much you try to muddy the waters.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- The reason I keep trying to make sure that you guys understand what I mean by "self" is that while you keep assuring me that you do, you also keep saying things that you wouldn't be saying if you really understood what I meant...

- I'm trying to show what I mean by "self," and why there should be an infinite # of potential selves.

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage!

I truly hope this does not feel to you like "piling on".

However:

The "thing" you say "we" are saying, that "we" "wouldn't be saying if [we] really understood what [you] meant...", is, of course, that the non-physical part of the infinite possibilities (or whatever) does not exist.

This is the very reason I have, for a not-inconsiderable time now, been suggetion that you should simply start with a demonstration that the "soul" about which you are making claims can, in fact, be shown to exist at all. I do not mean for you to repeat that in your opinion, it is much less likely that observable reality is "true" than that the "soul" exists". I mean, show me the evidence. Demonstrate an existing "soul". Ding an sich, and all that jazz...

 

[John Jones]

- The reason I keep trying to make sure that you guys understand what I mean by "self" is that while you keep assuring me that you do, you also keep saying things that you wouldn't be saying if you really understood what I meant...

We get it, Jabba. We got it a long time ago.

It doesn't take a lot of acumen to understand your point. You simply haven't demonstrated this point.

 

[dafydd]

- The reason I keep trying to make sure that you guys understand what I mean by "self" is that while you keep assuring me that you do, you also keep saying things that you wouldn't be saying if you really understood what I meant...

We do understand. You are talking about a soul. Take this to the religion forum please.

 

[Jabba]

Even past the heat death of the universe? You must have a different definition of forever than the rest of us. That would explain this thread.

- How about if I added energy to time and material?

 

[dafydd]

- How about if I added energy to time and material?

And cook for how long? What kind of energy? It comes in various forms.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- How about if I added energy to time and material?

How about you accept that we all know what you're talking about and just get one with it?

 

[Akhenaten]

- How about if I added energy to time and material?

How in the name of Horus are you going to add energy to the Universe, Jabba?

 

[dafydd]

How in the name of Horus are you going to add energy to the Universe, Jabba?

Pour slowly.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- How about if I added energy to time and material?

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage.

Please sit down.

If any of a necessary component of a process is finite, the process is, by nature, limited. Limited to a finite amount.

Pretend you have an in finite number of eggs, and an infinite amount of sugar and flour, and an infinite supply of energy to power an infinitely existing oven (don't worry about how the oven will survive entropic heat death--you'll see why), but have only a finite number of chocolate chips, you can only make a finite number of chocolate chip cookies.

What is fatal to your analogy is that, as far as can be determined, "time" is NOT infinite;and "material" is most definitely NOT infinite.

Pretending that "energy" is infinite does not help your cause...