[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

<most respectful snip>

Why is it that you are loath to present your evidence that the soul does, in fact, exist?

​

 

[Mojo]

John,
- I assumed that by “heat death of the universe,” you were accepting the end of energy. Consequently, I added “energy” to my hypothetical. I was saying that given the time, material and (now) energy needed we could keep making new DVDs forever. Or, in better words, my hypothetical becomes, “given an infinity of time, matter and energy, we could keep making DVDs forever.” There would then be an infinity of potential disks.

No, there would still only be a finite number of potential disks.

If you toss a coin and it lands on one side or the other, there are two potential results: heads and tails. It doesn't matter how many times you toss the coin, or how many coins you toss; there are still only two potential results.

 

[Jabba]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

My opening observation, this fine morning, is that, when you include contrafactual conditions in a hypothetical, it becomes less and less useful as an example of factual reality. If "time" were, in fact, "infinte", and if "material" were, in gact, "infiinite", and if "energy" were, in fact, infinite, it would, in that case be theoretically possible to build an infinity of DVDs.

The fact that "time" does not appear to be "infinite" (can you demonstrate otherwise?) makes your hypothetical contrary-to-fact, and therefore not very useful for contemplating reality.

The fact that "material" does not appear to be "infinite" (can you demonstrate otherwise?) makes your hypothetical contrary-to-fact, and therefore not very useful for contemplating reality.

The fact that "energy" does not appear to be "infinite" (can you demonstrate otherwise?) makes your hypothetical contrary-to-fact, and therefore not very useful for contemplating reality.

Not to mention, where will you keep alll the infinity of DVDs you will have made? Is "space" the next thing you will assume to be"infinite"?

Not to mention:

Would not the DVD be an analogy for the physical part of the soul, that is, the neurosystem of which consciousness is an emergent property?

Not to mention:

Adding "for this lifetime" to your attempt at an explanation simply (once again) assumes the conclusion you are trying to prove.

Why is it that you are loath to present your evidence that the soul does, in fact, exist?

Slowvehicle,
- Hypotheticals help us to isolate and clearly identify our different disagreements -- which should probably be the first objective in any effective debate. We can deal with their probability later.

 

[Akhenaten]

<toadying>

- In effect, I'm trying to show why that self is, in fact, equivalent to a soul -- with the souls implication of being immortal. The self I'm talking about carries no such implication on its own.

And you really "don't" think that everyone knows that this is exactly what "you've" been "talking" about all along?

- That's why I don't start off assuming a soul.

You not only started off assuming a soul, "Jabba", you started off assuming that it was "immortal".

 

[jsfisher]

No there wouldn't. There would be an infinite number of discs of finite variety.

[pedant]
Not even that. At no point in the process would there be an infinite number of DVDs. Each time a new DVD is made (whether different or the same as any DVD that went before), it adds only one DVD to what was a finite supply.

The quantity of DVDs could grow forever, but it would never exceed a finite number.
[/pedant]

 

[Akhenaten]

This means I don't get my infinite ham sammiches, doesn't it?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- I think that you do understand, what I mean by a "self" that at least appears to continue through a lifetime, and in that sense is the same self that started the whole thing. Many of your colleagues have made comments that sound like they don't understand what I mean by the "same" self.

Then you're misunderstanding the comments. Everybody understands what you mean.

Get on with it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

[pedant]
Not even that. At no point in the process would there be an infinite number of DVDs. Each time a new DVD is made (whether different or the same as any DVD that went before), it adds only one DVD to what was a finite supply.

The quantity of DVDs could grow forever, but it would never exceed a finite number.
[/pedant]

"....potentially an infinite number of discs of finite variety" is what I meant.

 

[pakeha]

- I think that you do understand, what I mean by a "self" that at least appears to continue through a lifetime, and in that sense is the same self that started the whole thing. Many of your colleagues have made comments that sound like they don't understand what I mean by the "same" self.

- In effect, I'm trying to show why that self is, in fact, equivalent to a soul -- with the souls implication of being immortal. The self I'm talking about carries no such implication on its own.
- That's why I don't start off assuming a soul.

You still have yet to demonstrate that consciousness exists independently of the brain.

 

[drelda]

Are you guys still at this - lol.

106 pages... 4228 posts... wow.

For some reason I'm reminded of this :

Though the difference is that implies 2 equally unreasonable sides to an argument - whereas that might not be the case here... .

- Drelda

Sorry for the interruption - carry on...

 

[Loss Leader]

- I think that you do understand, what I mean by a "self" that at least appears to continue through a lifetime, and in that sense is the same self that started the whole thing. Many of your colleagues have made comments that sound like they don't understand what I mean by the "same" self.

Nobody in this thread has shown any confusion about what you mean by the soul or "self". Some people have offered legitimate criticism of the concept, as it appears to violate several laws of the natural world. However, even these people understand your meaning.

Once again, you just restate what you've been talking about for pages and pages. Move on.

- In effect, I'm trying to show why that self is, in fact, equivalent to a soul -- with the souls implication of being immortal. The self I'm talking about carries no such implication on its own.
- That's why I don't start off assuming a soul.

Your thinking here is muddled. The self you speak of is a soul. Calling it a "self" is your personal, very odd habit.

Now, you've either created a useless rebranding or a tautological argument. If the "self" is just another word for soul, then it really doesn't matter what we call it. We could call it Larry.

However, if you assume that the "self" or soul is immortal, then you;ve just assumed your entire argument. "Assume the human soul is immortal; thus, the human soul is immortal."

So, either you're just playing with labels or you're trying to assume your argument. Either way, it's time for you to move on to the next step.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- Hypotheticals help us to isolate and clearly identify our different disagreements -- which should probably be the first objective in any effective debate. We can deal with their probability later.

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

I must demur, to this extent. If your hypothetical differs from observable reality in the very characteristic you are trying to claim does, in fact, exist (that is, if the difference between reality and your hypothetical is the thing that you are trying to demonstrate is true), then alll that the hypothetical demonstrates is the difference between what you hant to hypothecate into existence in order to demonstrate its existence, and what can, in fact, be demonstrated to exist.

Cut to the chase: IF the "soul" existed, and was "immortal", then the "soul" would exist, and be "immortal".

...now cook like moose.

Getting over that "IF" is going to require more than assumption.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I think that you do understand, what I mean by a "self" that at least appears to continue through a lifetime, and in that sense is the same self that started the whole thing. Many of your colleagues have made comments that sound like they don't understand what I mean by the "same" self.

- In effect, I'm trying to show why that self is, in fact, equivalent to a soul -- with the souls implication of being immortal. The self I'm talking about carries no such implication on its own.
- That's why I don't start off assuming a soul.

...just a "self" that is "equivalent to" a "soul", with the "equivalent" "implication" of "immortality".

meanwhile:

Evidence?

 

[Slowvehicle]

This means I don't get my infinite ham sammiches, doesn't it?

We had 'em yesterday, and we'll have 'em tomorrow--we never have 'em today.

 

[zooterkin]

We had 'em yesterday, and we'll have 'em tomorrow--we never have 'em today.

How about jam?

 

[Slowvehicle]

How about jam?

Ham, jam--comme ci, comme ça.

 

[Jabba]

Nobody in this thread has shown any confusion about what you mean by the soul or "self". Some people have offered legitimate criticism of the concept, as it appears to violate several laws of the natural world. However, even these people understand your meaning.

Once again, you just restate what you've been talking about for pages and pages. Move on.





Your thinking here is muddled. The self you speak of is a soul. Calling it a "self" is your personal, very odd habit.

Now, you've either created a useless rebranding or a tautological argument. If the "self" is just another word for soul, then it really doesn't matter what we call it. We could call it Larry.

However, if you assume that the "self" or soul is immortal, then you;ve just assumed your entire argument. "Assume the human soul is immortal; thus, the human soul is immortal."

So, either you're just playing with labels or you're trying to assume your argument. Either way, it's time for you to move on to the next step.

- Do you believe that "self" implies immortality, or that "soul" doesn't?

 

[Giordano]

John,
- I assumed that by “heat death of the universe,” you were accepting the end of energy. Consequently, I added “energy” to my hypothetical. I was saying that given the time, material and (now) energy needed we could keep making new DVDs forever. Or, in better words, my hypothetical becomes, “given an infinity of time, matter and energy, we could keep making DVDs forever.” There would then be an infinity of potential disks.
- I’m claiming that a self is a mental analogy to the disk part of a DVD. In that respect, the self that begins the experiencing is the same self that ends it – for that lifetime.

And if my Aunt Greta was a Harley-Davidson and there was an infinite number of Aunt Gretas, then we would all ride instead of walk. Hypotheses are not worth discussing if their probability is zero.

1. If we had an infinity of matter and energy and time, we could make an infinity of DVDs; in fact, under those conditions we can make an infinity of people. But we don't have an infinity of any of those 3 according to theory or our observations. We don't have an infinity of energy in the universe, or matter, or even time. All will end. You can't add more; the universe is all we have! Sorry, but there cannot be an infinity of potential blank plastic disks. Or people. Do you know what infinity means? It is more than a very large number.

2. Even if we could produce infinite quantities of blank DVDs (which we cannot) there are a finite limits to how much information that you can store on each one until you duplicate what you already stored (such as producing multiple copies of Mall Cop, my God). Thus, the number of DIFFERENT DVDs is also finite. Much more finite than the finite numbers of plastic disks you can in theory produce. But both are finite.

3. These facts absolutely contradict your analogy of DVDs as "selves." In fact, your very analogy supports the theory that you are trying to disprove and support my own: the DVD itself may look much like another (like human brains) but each varies physically microscopically (synapsis and action potentials) to account for the different information/movies stored on each (i.e. our ideas of self, which unlike the DVD coding, change with our development and our memories). Destroy a DVD and you destroy the information on it; the movie is lost with the DVD (just as our selves and memories are lost if you destroy our physical brains).

The DVD analogy supports my views, not yours, so you may wish to find a different analogy. Maybe you should choose "a rock." Rocks are each unique and, if not infinite and immortal, at least are a lot more permanent than a DVD (which is likely to last only a few decades). Or, as suggested, perhaps you might switch to considering the recorder, and not the recording, the self (given the self controls the nature of the memories we store). As I stated, the problem is that most current DVD recorders use essentially the same codes to store information early as later. But this is a lot closer to your idea of a self (unless your idea of a self is only limited to the information stored, which does not agree with your idea of a fundamental "self" that does not change during our life).

Your willingness to continue with your false analogy, and totally ignore what you have been told about DVD reality, tells me a lot about your "debating strategy." Most people would pick another, more correct analogy. Your persistence in continuing with a incorrect analogy confirms that your understanding, and your theory, is absolutely false.

 

[Garrette]

- Do you believe that "self" implies immortality,

Define a self that objectively exists and ask the question again.

or that "soul" doesn't?

Pretend "yes." The soul does not exist so the question is non-sensical. If your argument is that the soul exists, then present your evidence for it, as SlowVehicle has been suggesting for what seems like decades now. You cannot hypothesize the soul into existence in order to allow it to prove itself.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Do you believe that "self" implies immortality, or that "soul" doesn't?

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage!

I refuse to "accept" ANY "implication" of "immortality" in what you are trying to avoid calling the "soul", but what I have been calling the emergent property of a neurosystem. If you mean something other than the emergent property of a neurosystem, that is, consciousness, it is up to you to demonstrate that is exists at all independent of the neurosystem. Then and only then can you tackle demonstrating that it is, in fact, immortal.

This is why I keep asking about traumatic aphasia.