[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Jabba]

- 1) If the brains of two different people were exactly the same, would they be the same person in the sense that they would share experiences (IOW, would each person be looking through two sets of eyes)?
A. Yes.
B. Probably
C. No idea
D. Probably not
E. No

- I asked this question to see who accepted that what appears to be a continuous self during a lifetime was not determined by anything physical. You (singular) may have answered this question previously, but tracking you all (plural) down regarding your previous answers would have taken me a long time.
- Now, I'll go back to see who said "No" -- and thereby accepts that what appears to be a continuous self during a lifetime was not determined by anything physical.

 

[godless dave]

1) If the brains of two different people were exactly the same, would they be the same person in the sense that they would share experiences (IOW, would each person be looking through two sets of eyes)?

- I asked this question to see who accepted that what appears to be a continuous self during a lifetime was not determined by anything physical. You (singular) may have answered this question previously, but tracking you all (plural) down regarding your previous answers would have taken me a long time.
- Now, I'll go back to see who said "No" -- and thereby accepts that what appears to be a continuous self during a lifetime was not determined by anything physical.

I don't understand how that has anything to do with your question. Two separate but identical pairs of eyes are physically separate.

 

[Loss Leader]

3) But the weakness of this explanation is already taken into account when I accept the "prior probability" of immortality as only 1%.

So, you're back to calling ~A "immortality" again? Didn't we spend a dozen or more pages on why you can't logically do that?

You said that you would show that all other ~A scenarios except immortality were impossible. You never did that. You eventually appeared to agree that your complement should be, "anything that is not one finite life." Are you changing that again?

You also said that you would show that there are an infinite number of possible souls. You never did that. You eventually appeared to accept that there are a huge but finite number of possible souls. Are you changing that again?

And, of course, you've never given any reason why the non-scientific model should have a probability as high as 1%. Most people here who expressed an opinion put that probability at "just shy of impossible."

In one post, you appear to have undone any and all progress and reverted back to your original claim. Is this what you are doing?

 

[Jabba]

2) Is there a way in which a self, at least, appears to be the same self throughout life?
A. Yes.
B. No.
C. Don't know.

- I asked this question in order to see who of you were on my page. If you are own my page, you answered A."

 

[Jabba]

So, you're back to calling ~A "immortality" again? Didn't we spend a dozen or more pages on why you can't logically do that?

- No. A ways back, I discarded ~A, and picked up B (immortality, including reincarnation) instead.

 

[Aepervius]

Joe,

- I'll try to ignore the *sigh* and answer your basic question.

1) My answer isn't very good -- I think we can call it "post hoc." Or maybe, a good (or bad) SF story.
2) I'm suggesting in my theory that there is such a thing as consciousness, which may be an emergent property of totally physical activity, but is itself "mental" and totally non-physical and non-physically existent prior to its physical "entrance." The brain is its "stargate" into physical existence, and determines its physical capacity.
3) But the weakness of this explanation is already taken into account when I accept the "prior probability" of immortality as only 1%.

- You (and others) will have numerous questions and objections about my answer, but I need to go back and focus on the older questions and objections about my two recent questions...

It is the usual brain-is-only-a-radio-receiver-from-the -soul-wave shtick.

Your idea is neither new , nor has validity, you can probably find an even more torough debunking the last time that idea was floated.

Problem is, you ahve to posit so many assumption (change in behavior is due to the antena being damaged, the transmission is out of the universe because otherwise in deep mines or deep under sea you would have problem, it isn't a normal wave we know because otehrwise in densily population there would be interference, and tehre is no energy exchange or based particle so it is unlike *everything* we know about science).

You might as well declare "it's magic" and stop right there.

"3) But the weakness of this explanation is already taken into account when I accept the "prior probability" of immortality as only 1%."

no absolutely NOT.

There are many natural phenomenon with less than having a 1% chance of hapenning *which do happen and are observed*.

Your 1% is way over rated. If youw ere honest you would rate your "probability of immortality" with a 10 to the exposant of a huge negative number. Like for example 10^-20 or even a bigger negative number.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- No. A ways back, I discarded ~A, and picked up B (immortality, including reincarnation) instead.

Because it's the label that created the logical problems, not the logic itself.

Tell you what, if you just call it "Christine", then I bet everybody would agree that it's rock-solid.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- Now, I'll go back to see who said "No" -- and thereby accepts that what appears to be a continuous self during a lifetime was not determined by anything physical.

If you want to determine who accepts that what appears to be a continuous self during a lifetime is not determined by anything physical, then ask who accepts that what appears to be a continuous self during a lifetime is not determined by anything physical. The question you asked does not do that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

In one post, you appear to have undone any and all progress and reverted back to your original claim. Is this what you are doing?

Yes, that's what Jabba does. It's the only way to debate effectively.

 

[godless dave]

No, you don't. You think consciousness can exist separately from a physical brain. We don't. We all understand this.

Since we all agree that in the scientific model of consciousness - proposition A - consciousness can't exist separately from a physical brain, go ahead and show your math for how there are an infinite number of possible consciousnesses in the scientific model.

Jabba, are you just stalling because you don't have an answer to this question?

 

[Loss Leader]

- I asked this question to see who accepted that what appears to be a continuous self during a lifetime was not determined by anything physical.
- Now, I'll go back to see who said "No" -- and thereby accepts that what appears to be a continuous self during a lifetime was not determined by anything physical.

Your question did not mention anything about a non-physical aspect of consciousness - not in any way whatsoever.

I answered "No," but I do not believe that "what appears to be a continuous self during a lifetime is not determined by anything physical." If that's what you wanted to ask, why didn't you just ask: Who here believes that the appearance of a continuous self is not determined by anything physical? The answer is, "nobody." Well, nobody here. I'm sure that the churches and mosques of the world are full of people who agree with that ridiculous statement.

- No. A ways back, I discarded ~A, and picked up B (immortality, including reincarnation) instead.

So, are you admitting that you cannot use a Bayesian formula to determine the probability of immortality? Are you admitting that A V B does not equal 1? Are you admitting that the only way to reach all possible outcomes is A, B and some unknown something else of unknown probability?

If A and B are two of any number of unknown other possibilities, how would that work mathematically?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I asked this question to see who accepted that what appears to be a continuous self during a lifetime was not determined by anything physical. You (singular) may have answered this question previously, but tracking you all (plural) down regarding your previous answers would have taken me a long time.
- Now, I'll go back to see who said "No" -- and thereby accepts that what appears to be a continuous self during a lifetime was not determined by anything physical.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

Do you intend to just ignore those of us who said that the question, as asked, soes not fit into the circular-reasoning set-up-to-assume-your-consequent boxes you provided?

Several of us answered, "None of the above".

Do you ever intend to address my question about the effects of physical trauma?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- No. A ways back, I discarded ~A, and picked up B (immortality, including reincarnation) instead.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

Does this mean that you are claiming ~A is, in fact, B, or ~A is part of B, or B is part of ~A, or B is part of A and ~A is everything else?

How does this help you?

Why not just start with evidence?

 

[Mojo]

- I asked this question to see who accepted that what appears to be a continuous self during a lifetime was not determined by anything physical.

If you want an answer to a question, you need to ask the question you want the answer to, not a different one.

This looks like one of yrreg's attempts at a "haha, gotcha" moment.

 

[PixyMisa]

Joe,

- I'll try to ignore the *sigh* and answer your basic question.

1) My answer isn't very good -- I think we can call it "post hoc." Or maybe, a good (or bad) SF story.
2) I'm suggesting in my theory that there is such a thing as consciousness, which may be an emergent property of totally physical activity, but is itself "mental" and totally non-physical and non-physically existent prior to its physical "entrance."

It's either an emergent property of physical activity, or it's non-physical. One or the other. I cannot be both; that's a logical impossibility.

Also, it cannot be non-physical, because it interacts with the physical world. That's another logical impossibility.

You can of course assert that the Universe is dualistic, and hence not logically consistent. However, if you assert that the Universe is not logically consistent you automatically lose all arguments, past, present, future, and otherwise, no matter what side you represent - and indeed no matter whether you are even taking part.

 

[Aepervius]

Because it's the label that created the logical problems, not the logic itself.

Tell you what, if you just call it "Christine", then I bet everybody would agree that it's rock-solid.

"Ya know Pepper, ya can't polish a turd. "

Did you accidentally chose that name , or did you have that quote in mind ?

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

2) Is there a way in which a self, at least, appears to be the same self throughout life?
A. Yes.
B. No.
C. Don't know.

B.

And, for instance, "Oh my God, what was I thinking?!" ought to address that one pretty well.

 

[Giordano]

Joe,

- I'll try to ignore the *sigh* and answer your basic question.

1) My answer isn't very good -- I think we can call it "post hoc." Or maybe, a good (or bad) SF story.
2) I'm suggesting in my theory that there is such a thing as consciousness, which may be an emergent property of totally physical activity, but is itself "mental" and totally non-physical and non-physically existent prior to its physical "entrance." The brain is its "stargate" into physical existence, and determines its physical capacity.
3) But the weakness of this explanation is already taken into account when I accept the "prior probability" of immortality as only 1%.

- You (and others) will have numerous questions and objections about my answer, but I need to go back and focus on the older questions and objections about my two recent questions...

I am deeply appreciative of you answering this question. Honestly! I will leave it to others to describe the problems with your answer. I am more of the mind that once you have invoked non-physic "magic" in your model (a "stargate connection" that has never been detected and which cannot be shielded by things that shield known physical connections, such as deep mines and Faraday cages) it really doesn't matter. I can't disprove magic, just as you cannot prove magic using scientific means.

If you tell me there is a unicorn in your garden, I can disprove your statement by just looking. If you tell be there is a magical unicorn in your garden that only you can see, not me, it is much harder to disprove. If I tell you there are no hoof prints there, you can just tell me that magical unicorns don't leave hoof prints. Etc.

But I thought you were going to use standard model statistics to essentially prove human immortality. That I can address here. Please go ahead and do so, now...

Also, there were 3 parts to my question, and you only addressed one. Would you please answer the other parts? I am especially interested in how your proof shows that specific card hands and lottery ticket numbers are immortal. Please tell me about this. Thanks.

Pl

 

[Giordano]

- I asked this question to see who accepted that what appears to be a continuous self during a lifetime was not determined by anything physical. You (singular) may have answered this question previously, but tracking you all (plural) down regarding your previous answers would have taken me a long time.
- Now, I'll go back to see who said "No" -- and thereby accepts that what appears to be a continuous self during a lifetime was not determined by anything physical.

1. As others have pointed out, your question does not lead to your answer in your post. Did you quote the wrong one?

2. I believe you repeatedly described in your other posts a "self" that does not change significantly during life. Now you are referring to a continuous "self." This is not the same thing at all. A continuous thing certainly can change radically. My main computer is very altered from what I first brought (different hard drive, optical reader, etc.)- yet was continuous by most definitions. Does it still possess an unchanged "self" by your view?

 

[Giordano]

- I asked this question in order to see who of you were on my page. If you are own my page, you answered A."

As noted, you already asked this question and got a lot of answers; you needed to just go back in the thread to see those answers. in fact, I think almost everyone disagreed with your idea of a "self." Near uniform disagreement should be easy to remember and would have not required even going back, let alone asking again.