[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

- I agree with both of you except That it doesn't matter that I haven't applied my criteria consistently. In a sense, that's the whole point -- I'm saying that we can set up a situation in which the possibilities are intrinsically finite, and others where the possibilities are only extrinsically finite.
- The main point is that the limits on the number of possibilities possible can be determined by factors solely "internal" to the situation defined, or, they can be determined by factors external to the situation defined.
- Poker hands and lottery tickets are "closed" by definition; Volkswagens are "open."


outsidethe situations' definitionunder certain circumstances, things

Just to make this very clear to you:
You are wrong.
There is no intrinsic vs. extrinsic limit.
VWs have limits for the SAME reasons you apply to poker hands and lottery tickets. Visa versa they all would have no limit by the SAME "rationale" you used for VWs. That is why you have been called inconsistent. Poker hands, lottery tickets, and VWs are limited in exactly the same way. Like it or not, this is true.

As to your last sentence, I quote Dumbledore: "Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!"

 

[jt512]

- If I understand your question, the selves are the data.

But we have no evidence that the types of "selves" you have been referring to actually exist. Therefore, they are not data. So, if you are using their existence as data, your entire argument is invalid.

 

[Mojo]

No. Again, because of the physical limitations at the small end due to the Planck length, there are a finite number of possible arrangements of matter in the universe. It's the permutations of an already mind-croggling number (the amount of quanta in the universe), so it's an even more mind-croggling number, but it is still finite. And only a subset of those finite arrangements can reasonably be described as a Volkswagen. Therefore, the number of potential Volkswagens is not infinite. "Intrinsicly", "extrinsically", or otherwise.

Ditto for "selves".

Yes, I think everyone knows this apart from Jabba. I was just pointing out that by his own arguments his "proof" of immortality applies as just as much to Volkswagens as it does to souls "selves".

 

[PixyMisa]

Dave,
- I don't understand your question. Immaterial selves are not part of the scientific model. The scientific model deals with "selves" of some sort -- just not immaterial selves.

In the scientific model, self is a function of the brain. It is evanescent.

Your notion of an unvarying self is, under the scientific model, simply an illusion. There is and can be no such thing.

To put it simply, you are explicitly starting your argument from false premises. Your argument is also logically invalid. There is no way for you to reach any sound conclusion at all.

 

[Jabba]

Extrinsic v Intrinsic/Distinguish?

No, Jabba.
It DOES matter that you haven't applied your criteria consistently.
It matters because you've crossed a line from science to religion, where anything goes.

- I don't understand how the ability to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic finiteness would take us into religion.

 

[godless dave]

That's not what pakeha said.

However, it is like religion in that you are just making things up without justification.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I don't understand how the ability to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic finiteness would take us into religion.

That's because you haven't narrowed your focus enough.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

That's because you haven't narrowed your focus enough.

And yet he's clearly wearing blinkers*





*blinders

 

[Loss Leader]

- I don't understand how the ability to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic finiteness would take us into religion.

That's what you want to talk about now? Whether your idea is science or religion? It doesn't matter. Either your statements are justifiable or they're not.

Please return to the topic. Answer the criticisms of your intrinsic/extrinsic notions, primarily:

- that your intrinsic/extrinsic definitions are merely artifacts of you having imposed artificial limits in one case while having artificially removed limits in another.

- that you have defined the "self" as both material and immaterial in your scientific model.

- that you have stated that the "intrinsic" number should be used in your denominator without any rationale or justification.

and

- that you have introduced the notion of a continuous self into a scientific model wherein such notion is not proven and, in fact, where it appears to have been disproven.

 

[Jabba]

Extrinsic v Intrinsic/Distinguish?

That's what you want to talk about now? Whether your idea is science or religion?...

- I thought Pakeha was saying that by trying to distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic finiteness, I was bringing us into a discussion re religion. And since my current focus is the claimed validity of making that distinction, I was right on topic. I accept that discussing religion at this point would not be on topic, but I still don't understand why Pakeha would see the extrinsic/intrinsic issue as being religious in nature.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I thought Pakeha was saying that by trying to distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic finiteness, I was bringing us into a discussion re religion. And since my current focus is the claimed validity of making that distinction, I was right on topic. I accept that discussing religion at this point would not be on topic, but I still don't understand why Pakeha would see the extrinsic/intrinsic issue as being religious in nature.

So, you continue to talk about this at the expense of other issues. It is my fervent hope that nobody here engages you on this silly side-track about titles. It appears that you are consciously avoiding difficult issues; and I hope nobody enables this behavior any further.

 

[godless dave]

- I thought Pakeha was saying that by trying to distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic finiteness, I was bringing us into a discussion re religion. And since my current focus is the claimed validity of making that distinction, I was right on topic. I accept that discussing religion at this point would not be on topic, but I still don't understand why Pakeha would see the extrinsic/intrinsic issue as being religious in nature.

I think you can probably figure out what pakeha meant by reading his comment:

No, Jabba.
It DOES matter that you haven't applied your criteria consistently.
It matters because you've crossed a line from science to religion, where anything goes.

Bolding mine.

 

[Jabba]

Please return to the topic. Answer the criticisms of your intrinsic/extrinsic notions, primarily:

- that your intrinsic/extrinsic definitions are merely artifacts of you having imposed artificial limits in one case while having artificially removed limits in another...

- I'll try again.
- There are 52 playing cards in the normal deck of playing cards. There is a finite number of potential, different, 5-card combinations of cards in that deck. That number is very large (2,598,560) but intrinsically finite.
- Such is not the case regarding the number of potential Volkswagens.

 

[Jabba]

Extrinsic v Intrinsic/Distinguish?

I think you can probably figure out what pakeha meant by reading his comment:



Bolding mine.

Dave,
- I may be dense, but that doesn't help.

 

[godless dave]

- I'll try again.
- There are 52 playing cards in the normal deck of playing cards. There is a finite number of potential, different, 5-card combinations of cards in that deck. That number is very large (2,598,560) but intrinsically finite.
- Such is not the case regarding the number of potential Volkswagens.

Why not? There is finite material to produce Volkswagens. There are a finite number of Volkswagen factories. There are finite resources available to build new factories. There are a finite number of people available to staff those factories.

At any given time (an essential element in any probability calculation), there are a finite number of Volkswagens that can be produced.

 

[Jabba]

Extrinsic v Intrinsic/Distinguish?

I think you can probably figure out what pakeha meant by reading his comment:


Originally Posted by pakeha
No, Jabba.
It DOES matter that you haven't applied your criteria consistently.
It matters because you've crossed a line from science to religion, where anything goes.


Bolding mine.

Dave,
- I may be dense, but that doesn't help.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I may be dense, but that doesn't help.

It's like religion in that anything goes. Only in theology can you apply criteria inconsistently and get away with it.

 

[Jabba]

Why not? There is finite material to produce Volkswagens. There are a finite number of Volkswagen factories. There are finite resources available to build new factories. There are a finite number of people available to staff those factories.

At any given time (an essential element in any probability calculation), there are a finite number of Volkswagens that can be produced.

- Sure. But you have added variables. Such is not necessary re possible poker hands.

 

[godless dave]

- Sure. But you have added variables. Such is not necessary re possible poker hands.

What variables have I added?

 

[Mojo]

- I'll try again.
- There are 52 playing cards in the normal deck of playing cards. There is a finite number of potential, different, 5-card combinations of cards in that deck. That number is very large (2,598,560) but intrinsically finite.
- Such is not the case regarding the number of potential Volkswagens.

Are you agreeing that your "proof" that selves are immortal can equally validly be applied to Volkswagens?