[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

- The self I'm trying to discuss is not a "characteristic." It is the bare awareness of yourself, and has remained with you your entire lifetime of environments. It's that self I'm talkin about. It has changed in terms of characteristics, but it's still you. And, that bare awareness seems to have nothing to do with DNA or environment so long as your nervous system reaches, and remains at, the necessary complexity.

Is this your view of the standard model? If so, you are wrong- it is not. If this is your belief system, either prove it with non-debunked evidence, or move this thread into Religion. I am happy to repeat this concept in different ways an "infinite" number of times if you refuse to provide evidence (your definition of infinite).

 

[carlitos]

a-kilo-and-a-half of blancmange.

 

[Loss Leader]

- The self I'm trying to discuss is not a "characteristic." It is the bare awareness of yourself, and has remained with you your entire lifetime of environments. It's that self I'm talkin about. It has changed in terms of characteristics, but it's still you. And, that bare awareness seems to have nothing to do with DNA or environment so long as your nervous system reaches, and remains at, the necessary complexity.

My DNA told my body exactly how to grow a brain - what type of tissue to make it out of, how to structure it, what chemicals it needs to make to work, how to store memories, and more. How can my bare awareness of self have nothing to do with my DNA? That's like saying a Volkswagen has nothing to do with the blueprints for a Volkswagen.

Bare awareness of self is also not something that necessarily remains with you for your entire lifetime. People in comas have no awareness of themselves. People with severe mental illness may lose any awareness of themeselves. People with head injuries may suddenly have an entirely different awareness of themselves.

Heck, even being hungry changes the way to process and react to stimuli.

But you are attempting to compute odds within a scientific model. That means, whether you believe something or not, you must accept the current scientific understanding. So, you have exactly two options:

1) Agree that for the purposes of computing probability, there is no Platonic "self" that exists apart from the physical body; or

2) Admit that you have no interest in the scientific model and that you have come to your beliefs through faith and personal preference.

 

[Giordano]

- The self I'm trying to discuss is not a "characteristic." It is the bare awareness of yourself, and has remained with you your entire lifetime of environments. It's that self I'm talkin about.

No, no one here (I think) agrees with you. You continue to think that we must have just misunderstood what you said, so you change the words (perhaps also to obscure your real meaning). But again, no, we understand what you are trying to get at, but we disagree with it. We do not accept that a "self" exists that is unchanging with time, and especially we do not accept that this "self" exists independent of the physical brain.

Your continued posting without providing non-debunked evidence, despite repeated requests, strongly indicates that you have none. But again- convince me you are right- prove it!

 

[jt512]

- Surely, this will require a lot of tweeking to get any agreement at all -- but, this seems to be my basic syllogism for there being an infinity of potential selves.

- My claim is that according to the scientific model...

1. You guys may be right in claiming that consciousness is an emergent property of a living nervous system, and of nothing else. But since my claim includes that possibility, I'm happy to use it as my opening premise.
2. Next, I claim that there are two different types of things emerging from the nervous system: A) various characteristics of the person and B) the particular consciousness (self) of the person.
3. A person's characteristics are the result of specific DNA and experience/environment.
4. The person's specific consciousness, however, emerges when a living nervous-system reaches the necessary complexity -- with no dependence on the specific DNA or experience/environment -- so long as the necessary complexity of the nervous system is reached.
5. In other words, a person's particular consciousness (self) that emerges has no prior physical "representation" (I'm using quotes cause I'm not really satisfied with the term, but currently can't think of anything better) of any kind, or limitations.
6) In still other words, there is no physical limit on "who" the particular person will be -- you did not come from a limited pool of possible selves.

And that you're going to prove with Bayes' Theorem? This has become ridiculous.

7) And therefore, according to the scientific model, whatever the appropriate numerator, the denominator for your likelihood of existing is unlimited (infinite).

Then you don't need Bayes' Theorem. You've decided a priori that that your existence is impossible under the so-called scientific model. You're done. Go and enjoy your immortality.

 

[Humots]

- The self I'm trying to discuss is not a "characteristic." It is the bare awareness of yourself, and has remained with you your entire lifetime of environments. It's that self I'm talkin about. It has changed in terms of characteristics, but it's still you. And, that bare awareness seems to have nothing to do with DNA or environment so long as your nervous system reaches, and remains at, the necessary complexity.

These two statements are contradictory: (1) this bare awareness has changed in terms of characteristics, but (2) has nothing to do with DNA or environment.

If this bare awareness has nothing to do with environment, what determines the changes? Why has it changed at all?

What do you mean by characteristics? What are the characteristics of bare awareness?

The term bare awareness suggests a limited "I am I" that has no identity, memories or anything else to distinguish it. How is this an individual self of any kind?

Finally, please stop using words like "talkin", "tryin" or "y'all". This is just an annoying affectation.

 

[Monza]

- The self I'm trying to discuss is not a "characteristic." It is the bare awareness of yourself, and has remained with you your entire lifetime of environments. It's that self I'm talkin about. It has changed in terms of characteristics, but it's still you. And, that bare awareness seems to have nothing to do with DNA or environment so long as your nervous system reaches, and remains at, the necessary complexity.

So what about people with severe amnesia, or Alzheimer's, or any number of neurological disorders?

 

[zooterkin]

- Surely, this will require a lot of tweeking to get any agreement at all -- but, this seems to be my basic syllogism for there being an infinity of potential selves.

- My claim is that according to the scientific model...

1. You guys may be right in claiming that consciousness is an emergent property of a living nervous system, and of nothing else. But since my claim includes that possibility, I'm happy to use it as my opening premise.

You appear to fall at the first hurdle. You're claiming as part of the scientific model something which isn't part of the scientific model. Did you think you could smuggle that in without anyone noticing?

 

[JoeMorgue]

So what about people with severe amnesia, or Alzheimer's, or any number of neurological disorders?

I asked that same question a few pages back and got nothing that could be called a response yet.

 

[pakeha]

...2. Next, I claim that there are two different types of things emerging from the nervous system: A) various characteristics of the person and B) the particular consciousness (self) of the person. ...

No, Jabba.
Why continue pushing the idea of a self, as opposed to consciousness?

- The self I'm trying to discuss is not a "characteristic." It is the bare awareness of yourself, and has remained with you your entire lifetime of environments. It's that self I'm talkin about. It has changed in terms of characteristics, but it's still you. And, that bare awareness seems to have nothing to do with DNA or environment so long as your nervous system reaches, and remains at, the necessary complexity.

This bare awareness you mention is a process, not an identity.

 

[Jabba]

And that you're going to prove with Bayes' Theorem? This has become ridiculous...

Jay,
- Here, I was just outlining a non-Bayesian argument for the use of infinity in the Bayes formula. I was not trying to use the Bayes Theorem to prove that infinity is an appropriate entry to use in this application of the Bayes Theorem.

 

[Akhenaten]

Jay,
- Here, I was just outlining a non-Bayesian argument for the use of infinity in the Bayes formula.

It's not a non-Bayesian argument, nor any other kind of argument, at all.

It's an ongoing fantasy requiring that the immortality that you're trying to prove applies to incorporeal spirit entities for which not the slightest trace of evidence exists.

I was not trying to use the Bayes Theorem to prove that infinity is an appropriate entry to use in this application of the Bayes Theorem.

No, you're not.

What you're doing is far less legitimate than that.

You're trying to prove that infinity is a real number, based on your belief that something (souls, selves, observers, consciosnesses, raw awarenesses, etcetera) are able to exist beyond the physical limits imposed by the amount of time, space and matter that exist in the known Universe.

You're saying nothing more than "with God, anything is possible" and trying to dress it up as mathematics.

It's tragically transparent.

 

[Jabba]

- The main point I'm trying to argue right now is that your self had no prior "representation" -- i.e. it did not depend upon a specific sperm cell and a specific ovum. (I explained my usage of that paradigm(?) back in 5424.)
- That being the case, you came from nothing. You were a brand new pair of roller skates (or, a brand new key).

 

[jond]

- The main point I'm trying to argue right now is that your self had no prior "representation" -- i.e. it did not depend upon a specific sperm cell and a specific ovum. (I explained my usage of that paradigm(?) back in 5424.)
- That being the case, you came from nothing. You were a brand new pair of roller skates (or, a brand new key).

You haven't read any of the responses, have you?

 

[godless dave]

- The main point I'm trying to argue right now is that your self had no prior "representation" -- i.e. it did not depend upon a specific sperm cell and a specific ovum.

And you're still wrong.

 

[Akhenaten]

- The main point I'm trying to argue right now is that your self had no prior "representation" -- i.e. it did not depend upon a specific sperm cell and a specific ovum. (I explained my usage of that paradigm(?) back in 5424.)
- That being the case, you came from nothing. You were a brand new pair of roller skates (or, a brand new key).

When are you likely to answer the question that's been asked of you many times - where do these selves go when the brains of which they are an emergent property no longer exist?

 

[Agatha]

- The main point I'm trying to argue right now is that your self had no prior "representation" -- i.e. it did not depend upon a specific sperm cell and a specific ovum. (I explained my usage of that paradigm(?) back in 5424.)
- That being the case, you came from nothing. You were a brand new pair of roller skates (or, a brand new key).

But the 'self' does depend on the formation of the brain, and that in turn is dependent on the genes, which are obviously dependent on the specific sperm and egg.

Melanie songs notwithstanding, your understanding of neurobiology appears to be faulty.

 

[Akhenaten]

You haven't read any of the responses, have you?

He has a quick scan of the most recent post by the LCP™. Everything else is completely invisible, including most of his own posts.

 

[Loss Leader]

- The main point I'm trying to argue right now is that your self had no prior "representation" -- i.e. it did not depend upon a specific sperm cell and a specific ovum. (I explained my usage of that paradigm(?) back in 5424.)
- That being the case, you came from nothing. You were a brand new pair of roller skates (or, a brand new key).

That is nonsense.

A new key comes from a finite amount of metal mined out of the ground, which is purified and mixed to make a finite amount of alloy, which is poured to make a finite amount of blanks, which are shaped and sized based on a finite number of lock sizes, which are cut based on a finite number of tumbler positions.

The specific sperm and ovum may be only a part of what goes into making a person, but they are still a necessary part. They shape the entire system that, when functioning, composes a conscious person.

Nothing comes from nothing - not roller skates nor keys nor Volkswagens. Your argument will not advance until you accept this.

 

[jt512]

Jay,
- Here, I was just outlining a non-Bayesian argument for the use of infinity in the Bayes formula. I was not trying to use the Bayes Theorem to prove that infinity is an appropriate entry to use in this application of the Bayes Theorem.

I didn't say you were. I said that if you think the probability of your "data" is 0 under the model, then the probability of that model is 0. So you're done. Why didn't you just say that two years ago? You've been arguing all this time to a foregone conclusion.