[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Garrette]

To summarize the latest shenanigans:

1. Jabba distinguishes between self and soul yet says when someone else makes the same distinction it exhibits a lack of understanding.

2. Jabba also does NOT distinguish between self and soul.

3. Jabba wants to demonstrate the probability of his self given the Scientific Model and yet wants to use a definition of the self which is counter to the Scientific Model.

4. Jabba is epiphanically transcendent and we are left-brained.

Is that about it?

 

[John Jones]

To summarize the latest shenanigans:

1. Jabba distinguishes between self and soul yet says when someone else makes the same distinction it exhibits a lack of understanding.

2. Jabba also does NOT distinguish between self and soul.

3. Jabba wants to demonstrate the probability of his self given the Scientific Model and yet wants to use a definition of the self which is counter to the Scientific Model.

4. Jabba is epiphanically transcendent and we are left-brained.

Is that about it?

5. Scientists are notoriously incompetent and dishonest.

6. Jabba is the best man in this fight.

 

[Aepervius]

- At least most of you guys think that my arguments are stupid, so I'm not sure why you're hanging in there... You should be able to find better, and more enjoyable, mind experiments elsewhere.

Because here, at JREF, the E in the acronym for education. So we try (to the best of our individual abilities) to educate you a bit out of your ignorance.

Note that i said ignorance, not stupidity. I do not consider you stupid (previous jabs out of frustration non withstanding). I consider you to be ignorant of some stuff which you think you know , you think you studied for decades, (like statistic, or even how science works and the shroud) but very obviously did nothing of the sort, you just made up an explanation, found that explanation to be nice, then never checked against science's explanation or even tryed to falsify your e3xsplanation or anything whatsoever. Evidence of this is your continuous pretention of defining a probability as 1/infinity

Whether or not YOU will learn from your ignorance , is up to you.

But coming here and asking us why we are in such a thread, that's just .... galling.

 

[Jabba]

6. The appropriate ‘number’ of potential selves to be inserted into our Bayes formula is the intrinsic number.

Why?

6.1. There not being a preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self would be “brand“ new – with no limit on “who” exactly it would be…

Dave,
- If there is no preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self is brand new -- coming from nothing -- and, how can we put a limit on the number of things that can come from nothing?

 

[jsfisher]

Dave,
- If there is no preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self is brand new -- coming from nothing -- and, how can we put a limit on the number of things that can come from nothing?

Coming from nothing? Seriously? That's your position?

 

[Pixel42]

Dave,
- If there is no preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self is brand new -- coming from nothing -- and, how can we put a limit on the number of things that can come from nothing?

They don't come from nothing, they are an emergent property of brains. And the number of possible brain configurations, though very large, is not infinite.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- If there is no preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self is brand new -- coming from nothing -- and, how can we put a limit on the number of things that can come from nothing?

The problem here, Jabba, is that once the egg has been fertilized, there really is only one possible self that can result. Only one self can possibly have the combination of genes and experiences that make up a self. So unless and until you demonstrate the existence of this fictional "self/soul" that you desperately need to believe in, you are simply wrong.

 

[Jabba]

They don't come from nothing, they are an emergent property of brains. And the number of possible brain configurations, though very large, is not infinite.

- First of all, I thought that you didn't think that the same brain would produce the same self. If we could deliberately produce the same brain over and over again, we'd get different selves each time.

 

[jond]

- First of all, I thought that you didn't think that the same brain would produce the same self. If we could deliberately produce the same brain over and over again, we'd get different selves each time.

That's because every single thing you experience is part of your self. This has been explained to you over and over, and you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[Jabba]

Coming from nothing? Seriously? That's your position?

- Coming from nothing in the sense that there is no set of possible selves to come from. That being the case, there should be no intrinsic limit on the possible number of selves. Any limit would come from other factors.

 

[jsfisher]

- Coming from nothing in the sense that there is no set of possible selves to come from. That being the case, there should be no intrinsic limit on the possible number of selves. Any limit would come from other factors.

You are now describing a self made of intangible nothingness. That's not a very workable working definition.

Will you be starting over soon?

 

[Loss Leader]

- If there is no preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self is brand new -- coming from nothing -- and, how can we put a limit on the number of things that can come from nothing?

You didn't answer the question. Assuming your new math is in any way right, why is your intrinsic number the value that should be put into the Bayes equation?

You are attempting to determine the chance that you would exist for one finite time in the universe as science understands it. So, why would you equate "the universe as science understands it" with "the total number of people there could be in the unscientific, pretend universe of infinite matter, time and energy"?

 

[Pixel42]

- First of all, I thought that you didn't think that the same brain would produce the same self. If we could deliberately produce the same brain over and over again, we'd get different selves each time.

The number of possible experiences which could lead identical brains to develop slightly different selves is also finite, hence the total number of potential selves is finite.

There is a finite set of brain configurations, which are produced by a combination of genes and experiences.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- Coming from nothing in the sense that there is no set of possible selves to come from. That being the case, there should be no intrinsic limit on the possible number of selves. Any limit would come from other factors.

You've just created a tautology. You've defined "self" as coming from an infinite pool, and then used that definition to reach the conclusion that there's an infinite pool of "selves".

And you completely ignored where both I and Loss Leader carefully explained why you are applying different standards to what you're considering "intrinsic" and "extrinsic", and why your definitions therefore don't work.

 

[Aepervius]

- First of all, I thought that you didn't think that the same brain would produce the same self. If we could deliberately produce the same brain over and over again, we'd get different selves each time.

No. You are again confusing same and identical.

You could build two identical persons , with the same neuron pathway, same potentials, and they would maybe react identically before diverging, but they are not the same persons (aka, not one person looking thru different eyes).

it is the same as having two decks of cards and taking two different hands of poker from it, you may accidentally find the same hand value, but they are definitively two different hands of poker from two card sets.

Human come from a vastly greater pool, but the number of different configuration of packing neurons in such a space is limited , the networking is also limited even if a big numbers.

And that's counting all configuration, if you count only meaningful different it is probably much less.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Even though my hypothetical is sort of crazy, if you would answer it, I'd know whether or not we're on the same page.

Good Morning,Mr. Savage.

I have (you may have noticed) been off the forum for a few days...

As such, I am a bit behind the party. I will be catching up today. In order not to miss anything, or put any donkeys between me and umption, I will be starting fromwhere I left off. If, therefore, I make comments about things that the rest of the thread has already moved on from, so be it.

This post reaquires comment. Unless by "on the same page", you mean "agree me that the kind of soul I have been talking about is the kind of soul that actually exists, and is immortal:, you are doing the same thing you did in the Shroud threads. It is my opinion that most everyone here knows what you say you are talking about--that is, is "on the same page" with you as far as the concept of the soul that you have built.

The fact that I disagree with your concept; the fact that you have yet to produce a scintilla of evidence that anything resembling your concept exists in the real world, does not give you leave to claim that I am"not on the same page" as far as that about which you are talking. What it ought to do, instead, is awaken in you a serious determination to present your evidence. Your practical, empirical, objective evidence.

Otherwise, you are simply spinning yarns about how you wish things were.

(my apologies in advance to any and all who have already made this point)

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- My question may be silly, but if you would answer it, I'd know whether or not we're on the same page.

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

If you were actually reading my posts, you would see that I have, in fact, answered it, and repeatedly. Please do not give yourself the liberty of pretending that the fact that I will not let you impose a "yes" or "no" answer means that you are free to ignore the answers.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Squeegee has it right.

Mr. Savage:

Once again, I know what you are talking about.

I simply, profoundly, disagree that such a thing could exists, much less does exist.

I offer a novel proposition: Why not simply present your evidence for such a thing?

 

[tsig]

"Given an infinity of ham, bread and butter we could keep making ham sammiches forever." There would then be an infinity of potential ham sammiches.


What a monumentally stupid observation.

You gonna eat all those sammiches yourself?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- No. Before I try to do that, I want to know if you and I are talking about the same "self" to begin with. The existence of the "soul" is my conclusion. To be able to appreciate my conclusion, you need to understand my premises -- and, I don't think that you understand what I mean by "self" (the primary concept in my premises).

Mr. Savage:

"We"are not talking about the "same kind of soul". I venture to surmise that "we" understand the "soul" to which you refer, but "we" are unwilling to simply grant its existence so that you can merrily go about assuming your consequent.

What you really ought to do is simply present you evidence, your objective, practical, empirical evidence, that the immortal pig in the invisible poke you are trying to sell does, in fact, exist.

In real life, consciousness acts as if it were an emergent property of a neurosystem. Why not simply get on with demonstrating why that is not correct?