[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

- So anyway, does anyone disagree that we have the sense of a continuous core self whose features are constantly changing?

- Apparently, most, if not all, of you agree -- though, for now, I'll drop the word "core," as it seems to confuse the issue.

1. You have no idea whatsoever about what most of us agree to. You only read every twentieth post and wilfully misunderstand even those.
   
   
2. What tends to confuse the issue is not so much your use of words like "core", but the fact that the underlying definitions of those words (as you use them) are unique to yourself.
   
   
3. There is no real confusion about the issue at all. You are attempting to convince people that there is such a thing as an immortal soul and that there's mathematical proof for its existence.
   
   
4. You're a day late and a dollar short 2,000 years too late and nowhere near the preacher that Paul was.

- Whatever, this is the self that I am claiming is both real and immortal.

This is your claim, Jabba:

1 Corinthians 15:51-55

⁵¹Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

⁵²In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

⁵³For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

⁵⁴So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

⁵⁵O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?​

​

The only thing that keeps it from being deathly dull in its repetitiveness and hopelessly depressing in its childlike lack of insight and critical thinking is the hilarity of your inept presentation.

Can you give me an appropriate source for believing that this self is an illusion?

 

[Giordano]

I can't tell if Jabba is trying to be clever here, or is just using an apologist method he has seen somewhere else. It is the same idea nonetheless: well, if you disagree with this statement, what if I put this qualifier on it. It that okay? Well, No. Okay, would it be sort of okay, with these additional restrictions? Sort of? Okay, you've agreed and now I will just eliminate the qualifiers and restrictions because they get in the way...

What is the point? We still disagree with the original statement. He will convince no one this way.

Also, Jabba promised to prove both immortality and the existence of "self" as he alone defines it. Where is the non-debunked proof?

We asked for non-debunked evidence in the very next post. Where is it? I must assume he has none.

 

[Giordano]

I can even disagree that there is a continuous sense of "self." Does anyone remember everything that happened last night while they sleep? Were you conscious the whole time? Or was your sense of "self" discontinuous each night while you slept? Yes, most of us woke up this morning thinking that we were still the same "me" as the night before but was it truly continuous while we were unconscious? Several times, in fact, I awoke with a very different sense of "self" than the night before, so my "self" was changed in addition to being non-continuous.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba reminds me of a really bad magician. We can all see the rabbit up his sleeve, but Jabba insists we can't because he needs to believe in magic.

Very good.

In fact, one kid at the party shouts out, "There is a bunny in your sleeve, I see it!" but the magician says, "There is no bunny up there." The other kids all shout, "Yes there is, I see a bunny... Oh, how cute...Oh, look at its little nose..." and the magician says, "We are all agreed then. There is no bunny up my sleeve. No bunny at all. Instead, I will make a bunny magically appear in this empty hat..."

 

[godless dave]

What if I call it a hare instead of a bunny?

 

[Akhenaten]

A "core" hare or the "raw awareness" of a hare?

 

[Agatha]

How about if it's essentially a hare, but with some frog-like characteristics? Is it still a rabbit if we ignore those minor quibbles?

 

[Giordano]

A core "hare" or a core "hair" (the spelling is just a distraction). So I gather everyone here is in favor of wigs, so I will talk about how you all agree there are infinite wigs...

 

[Garrette]

Susan Blackmore addressing Jabba's notion of self:

That was great. Thanks.

 

[Giordano]

How about if it's essentially a hare, but with some frog-like characteristics? Is it still a rabbit if we ignore those minor quibbles?

Well, they both hop. So maybe it is a slimy hairless hare, but essentially a hare at its core, even if you see a frog. Prove it is not a hare!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well, they both hop. So maybe it is a slimy hairless hare, but essentially a hare at its core, even if you see a frog. Prove it is not a hare!

And everyone knows how rabbits get when they are alone--no morals at all.

I guess this proves that the "solo" exists, and is "immoral"...

 

[Agatha]

I guess this proves that the "solo" exists, and is "immoral"...

Yep, he shot first. Never gave Greedo a chance, how is that moral?

Jabba, if we can drag this back on topic, could you please explain your understanding of the term 'emergent property' as it relates to consciousness?

 

[Garrette]

Yep, he shot first. Never gave Greedo a chance, how is that moral?

Jabba, if we can drag this back on topic, could you please explain your understanding of the term 'emergent property' as it relates to consciousness?

I will stop interfering after this, but I think I already addressed it. Jabba will agree that consciousness is an emergent property, and though he does not understand what that means he will pretend he does. But he will insist that there is a self -- characterized by the sense of self -- that is separate from the emergent consciousness.

Mind you, he did not know when he started this thread that he would be acknowledging emergent properties or postulating a self separate from consciousness, but it is where he has found himself as he tries desperately to keep his hope alive.

 

[pakeha]

Jabba thinks there are two selfs, consciousness as an emergent property and this amorphous sense-of-self. More accurately, Jabba thinks there is a sense-of-self and is willing to pretend that he understands and accepts consciousness as an emergent property, but he is pretending that only as a rhetorical route around our objections.

Because if it isn't independent of the brain, it will cease to exist when the brain ceases to function, and Jabba doesn't want that to happen.

Two ways of expressing the same idea: Jabba's trying to sneak immortality into the equation at all costs.

 

[John Jones]

Two ways of expressing the same idea: Jabba's trying to sneak immortality into the equation at all costs.

Jabba,

Would you care to comment on this?

Regards,

Jones

 

[AdMan]

Susan Blackmore addressing Jabba's notion of self:

Excellent talk--thanks for linking to it. Not that I expect an answer, but Jabba, if you watched this, as I hope you did because I think it would be well worth your time, what is your reaction to the talk?

Another question, Jabba, which I'm quite sure you will also ignore--where do you think you are in your attempt to essentially prove immortality that you began 17 months ago? Do you really believe you've moved forward even one bit? It seems to me that you are no closer after all this time to even define the "self" that you think is immortal.

 

[Aepervius]

I will stop interfering after this, but I think I already addressed it. Jabba will agree that consciousness is an emergent property, and though he does not understand what that means he will pretend he does. But he will insist that there is a self -- characterized by the sense of self -- that is separate from the emergent consciousness.

Mind you, he did not know when he started this thread that he would be acknowledging emergent properties or postulating a self separate from consciousness, but it is where he has found himself as he tries desperately to keep his hope alive.

As I mentionned earlier and I was most probably not the first one, by now Jabba had a lot of input he did not knew - was not aware of, understand, etc... That he stills pretend to continue his "proof" while his basic premise were utterly incomplete shows that it is a shame through and through.

Let us recapitulate :
* he set both "A" and "Not A" in such a way that an infinite amount of option where is hypothese is false are still not present in "not A" IOW , he missed an infinite number of scenario
* he was using completely utterly bonker arithmetic like 1/infinite
* he assumed his existence is infinitely improbable retroactively
* he had no idea on what is consciousness assumed to be in science, had no idea what an emergent property


And I probably forgot some.

Did he revisitate is hypotheses ? No. did he change his calculation ? No. Did he even pretend to say he would check ? Mo.

he just plowed ahead ignoring mostly whateverybody said, clamping on his "proof by bayesian" as a drowning man would on a buoy, because (IMNSHO) he is fearing death and the "end". (again IMNSHO) That "immortality" hypotheses give him enough modicum of hope to make the approaching end and the encroaching entropy bearable.



We are not debating mathematic, we are chidding somebody for fearing the dark.

 

[Mojo]

What is the point?

The point is that Jabba is terrified by the prospect of having to buy a new Volkswagen. For a start, he'd have to choose between an infinite number of potential Volkswagens so the likelyhood of him actually choosing one is zero. Therefore Volkswagens are immortal.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

The point is that Jabba is terrified by the prospect of having to buy a new Volkswagen. For a start, he'd have to choose between an infinite number of potential Volkswagens so the likelyhood of him actually choosing one is zero. Therefore Volkswagens are immortal.

He could do "one potato, two potato.... n potato" to help him decide, where 'n'* is an intrinsic infinity of potatoes






*be afraid

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Excellent talk--thanks for linking to it. Not that I expect an answer, but Jabba, if you watched this, as I hope you did because I think it would be well worth your time, what is your reaction to the talk?

If he hasn't got time to read a whole paragraph on Wikipedia, then I highly doubt he's got time to watch a video.