[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Monza]

You are the winner of one internet.

Here it is...

 

[Garrette]

Depending on the kind of porn pop-up, I would speak of that as the -40° point (where C and F intersect); that is, you might have it the sweet spot where "borked" and "optimized" are indistinguishable. Essentially.

Aahhh. Sort of extrinsically reprehensible but intrinsically satisfying. Now if only I had infinite stamina.

 

[Garrette]

Here it is...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/41875329de3524deb.jpg[/qimg]

Thank you. I shall put it on the shelf next to my consciousness.

 

[Loss Leader]

In fact, the SM implies that every human brain will inevitably form a "self," a self-perspective.

Every healthy human brain. It is possible to create a brain so diseased or damaged that it cannot create a coherent sense of self.

This, of course, actually bolsters your point. The sense of self is a property of the physical brain. As such, it is subject to physical rules. This includes the fact that brains cannot be created infinitely. Also, a consciousness cannot outlive a body.

 

[Giordano]

<sigh> And all it takes is a quick, "Oops, I was mistaken." But I don't think that will happen.
^TM.

In fact, has Jabba ever said, "Oops, I was mistaken?" Has he, at any time. responded to any error by correcting it?

I can't remember such a post.

Is this part of his "effective debate?" To never admit you were wrong, no matter how clear or basic your error was?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Every healthy human brain. It is possible to create a brain so diseased or damaged that it cannot create a coherent sense of self.

This, of course, actually bolsters your point. The sense of self is a property of the physical brain. As such, it is subject to physical rules. This includes the fact that brains cannot be created infinitely. Also, a consciousness cannot outlive a body.

Which is also why the question of the effect of physical damage to the brain must be addressed.

 

[Giordano]

Every healthy human brain. It is possible to create a brain so diseased or damaged that it cannot create a coherent sense of self.

This, of course, actually bolsters your point. The sense of self is a property of the physical brain. As such, it is subject to physical rules. This includes the fact that brains cannot be created infinitely. Also, a consciousness cannot outlive a body.

Yes, I did realize this, which is why I set the probability of a human brain giving rise to a "self" elsewhere in my post to be essentially 1. But I should have been even more careful and you are fully correct that not all human brains give rise to selves, although we could start a debate on the definition of "selves" and if animals have "selves" if you wish. But I must warn you that I need to wash my hair soon and may be busy...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

In fact, has Jabba ever said, "Oops, I was mistaken?" Has he, at any time. responded to any error by correcting it?

Yes. He then moves on to a different point for a couple of weeks before going back and repeating what he once admitted was wrong as if nobody will notice.

Again, we have to remember that his goal here is to use rhetoric to convince and invisible audience that he is correct.

 

[John Jones]

In fact, has Jabba ever said, "Oops, I was mistaken?" Has he, at any time. responded to any error by correcting it?

I can't remember such a post.

Is this part of his "effective debate?" To never admit you were wrong, no matter how clear or basic your error was?

No. He 'moves on' or 'agrees to disagree'. These of course are euphemisms.

 

[George]

- This is fun, but I gotta go. Seeya later.

Hi Jabba. I wonder do you have most of the people here on ignore? The intrinsic/extrinsic thing has been explained in several different fashions that should help anyone understand the possible errors in your logic.

I find it odd that you responds to both Slow Vehicle and Loss Leader. Both of them have posted clear, unambiguous, and correct explanations regarding poker hands and VWs in the past hour. Yet your latest comments seem as if you have not read these replies at all.

 

[Akhenaten]

- 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.

What makes you think that simply asserting the same thing over and over will change the fact that you're completely wrong about this?

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

No, it doesn't.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Oh.
- No.
- Or at least, not the "inconsistency" we're talking about here.
- Here, "inconsistency" just means a "difference." We can argue that both sets of possibilities are finite -- but, one set of possibilities is due entirely to the specified variables, the other set depends upon unspecified variables. There is a difference between the finiteness of those two sets of possibilities.

No problem you can't Rredefine your way out of, eh Jabba?

Are inconsistent extrinsic infinite variables worth more points than differential intrinsic finite variables? Where do extraneous differential infinities fit into the whole scheme of things?

 

[PixyMisa]

Removed - got confused and replied to an old post.

 

[xtifr]

It's weird, he responds to both Slow Vehicle and Loss Leader*. Both of them have posted clear, unambiguous, and correct explanations regarding poker hands and VWs in the past hour. Yet his latest comments seem as if he has not read these replies at all.


* Edited to add Squeegee Beckenheim, jsfisher, Giordano, and godless dave

At one point, he started asking me and a couple of other people by name what we thought of his arguments. I was startled the first time it happened because I didn't even remember posting in the thread, and even more startled the second time, because I thought I'd been pretty clear the first time why I wasn't impressed by his arguments.

He's never actually responded to one of my posts directly though. Which just makes the whole thing even odder. I've been trying to be polite (as I would generally do in any case), but I'm definitely starting to feel like I may have finally made it to his ignore list. But I really can't tell.

 

[Slowvehicle]

At one point, he started asking me and a couple of other people by name what we thought of his arguments. I was startled the first time it happened because I didn't even remember posting in the thread, and even more startled the second time, because I thought I'd been pretty clear the first time why I wasn't impressed by his arguments.

He's never actually responded to one of my posts directly though. Which just makes the whole thing even odder. I've been trying to be polite (as I would generally do in any case), but I'm definitely starting to feel like I may have finally made it to his ignore list. But I really can't tell.

I honestly do not think that Mr. Savage actually has an "ignore" list; that is, I do not think he uses the forum "ignore" function . I think that the mighty Pharaoh (may he post forever) actually has the right of it, in that Mr. Savage simply does not process posts he finds threatening, or critical, or impossible of response; and, by this technique, simply feels no need to deal with questions he has dismissed (xref the questions about the effect of physical damage to the neurosystem on the emergent property of consciousness).

He did the very same thing in the Shroud^TM and Son-of Shroud^TM threads. It may, in fact, be a defining characteristic of "Effective Debate" à la Sauvage.

 

[carlitos]

It's in his signature; he doesn't reply to posts that he finds to be caustic or impolite.

 

[Giordano]

It's in his signature; he doesn't reply to posts that he finds to be caustic or impolite.

I just want to be clear: correcting Jabba's theory or "proof" is considered by him inherently impolite. He has certainly not replied to my own posts that have pointed out a error without any other comment. Perhaps people would be even more polite to him if he was polite enough to respond to questions and concerns.

I generally am very polite, but I admit Jabba tries my patience by simply ignoring when people try to explain to him the flaws in his " logic." He just ignores these
concerns without arguing his points or changing his theories; he simply repeats his previously expressed posts.

Slowvehicle is unfailing polite, yet is also ignored.

 

[zooterkin]

It's in his signature; he doesn't reply to posts that he finds to be caustic or impolite.

I'm not seeing it myself, though his quoting of Charles Bukowski's paraphrase of Russell gives me a chuckle from time to time. Do you mean the Italian quote? I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that means he won't reply.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

It might be a feature of "effective debate," whereby Jabba decides that a particular point needs to be focused upon to the n.n.n.n.n.n.nth level. "Effective debate" is like Calvinball, but only Jabba is allowed to interpret the rules. Effectively.

 

[AdMan]

Jabba's arguments have never been honest in how he approaches discussions in this forum; he's admitted to that here and elsewhere.

It's never been about honest discussion with other forum members--he has never intended it to be.

It has always been to him as if he's arguing in front of a jury trial, with the jury in this case being invisible and actually likely existing only in his brain.

A trial lawyer will never admit that he's wrong. He's got to always stand by his client.

Jabba apparently imagines himself to be in some kind of jury trial, with maybe a large silent majority following this thread. (LOL)

It is useless to argue with someone with this mindset, who simply will be utterly closed to any rational argument that contradicts what he has decided to believe and attempt to defend, even while utterly failing.

That's why these threads go on forever and are an utter waste of time.