[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Sideroxylon]

What them mob said.

 

[Agatha]

I am in agreement with the previous posters.

I am glad you watched the entire video, Jabba. I hope it helped you understand some of the things people are saying in this thread.

 

[Mojo]

I am in agreement with the previous posters.

I am glad you watched the entire video, Jabba. I hope it helped you understand some of the things people are saying in this thread.

Or at least it may have helped him understand that he doesn't understand some of the things that people are saying in this thread:

- I watched the whole video, and have to admit that there's a lot in it that I don't really understand.

 

[Agatha]

The realisation that one does not understand should be the first step in learning. It should be, but Jabba has in the past showed himself resistant to learning, so perhaps I am being over-optimistic.

 

[Jabba]

- Dr Hoerl did respond, saying that he didn't find my argument convincing so far, but that he would be studying it some more.
- He didn't want me to quote him...
- The following was my response -- several days ago. I had forgotten that I needed to follow up.

Roger,
Good. You brought up what I see as the weakest link in my chain. My buddies on the forum find more weaknesses -- but so far, I don’t see them as being real. What I need to do is show why MY existence is “special,” and why I shouldn’t be considered just “anyone.”
I had written up a few more paragraphs dissecting this thing, but accidentally erased them. I had best go take a nap.
I’ll be back, and thanks again.
Rich

 

[tsig]

Pixy,

- I watched the whole video, and have to admit that there's a lot in it that I don't really understand. I wish I could ask Dr Blackmore some questions.

- In regard to free will, I accept that what most of us think of as free will doesn't make any sense. Unfortunately, I can't really remember the variations on that standard, but I ended up thinking that they didn't really help...
- Though, I doubt that one needs to know much about neuroscience in order to realize that free will doesn't seem to make sense. If every nuance of every event is caused, we're just rifles doing what the previous events have us doing.
- For us to enjoy life, we need to do what will lead to enjoyment over the long term. All I can do is hope that my conclusions and decisions -- based upon my DNA and lifetime environment -- will be functional. But then, even that hope in me was determined at the big bang, or before...
- Unfortunately(?), I still tend to believe in free will even though it doesn't make sense.

- I'll get back on topic (the illusion of self) when I come back.

The 'long term' is just a lot of short terms strung together.

 

[Jabba]

- My first thought following the Blackmore video is that I do accept that "dualism" may be an illusion -- at least in the possibility that what we're calling consciousness is in fact physical, just that it's an emergent property, and a different kind of physical... It could be that "immaterial" is an illusion.

 

[PixyMisa]

- My first thought following the Blackmore video is that I do accept that "dualism" may be an illusion -- at least in the possibility that what we're calling consciousness is in fact physical, just that it's an emergent property, and a different kind of physical...

No.

It's not a different kind of physical at all. It's exactly the same kind of physical as everything else in the Universe. There is - there can be, by definition - only one kind of physical.

And it's not a possibility that consciousness is physical. It's an established fact.

 

[Mojo]

The 'long term' is just a lot of short terms strung together.

"Microterm" and "macroterm" are quite different. Only the former has been observed by selves. The latter is, of course, too long for selves to observe.

 

[Jabba]

- Another thought is that I need to go back and try to study what Dr Blackmore was saying -- she presented a lot to think about, and to try to understand.
- However, I think I can limit my study to the first half, as I seem to have little to disagree with about her take on free will (and the little would take a lot of discussion).
- If there is something in that second half that you believe is critical to understanding her position on the "self," let me know.

- Otherwise, I think that the first question I would have re the first half would be something like the following. "I assume that according to your conclusion, my particular illusion of self never existed before, and will never exist again. Is that correct?"

 

[Jabba]

No.

It's not a different kind of physical at all. It's exactly the same kind of physical as everything else in the Universe. There is - there can be, by definition - only one kind of physical.

And it's not a possibility that consciousness is physical. It's an established fact.

- "Mental" is not just a special kind of physical? It sure seems different than what we normally think of as physical.

 

[PixyMisa]

- "Mental" is not just a special kind of physical?

Once again:

It's the same kind of physical as everything else. There is - and can be - only one kind of physical. If you are even thinking in terms of different kinds of physical you are making a huge mistake.

 

[Loss Leader]

"I assume that according to your conclusion, my particular illusion of self never existed before, and will never exist again. Is that correct?"

- "Mental" is not just a special kind of physical? It sure seems different than what we normally think of as physical.

Once again, you feign agreement just to later slip in some weasel words so you can maintain your own opinions. You want a special pleading for the brain - it is the same as everything else but "different." Do you have any evidence for this difference? No. Has it been explained that there is no difference? Yes. Do you need there to be a difference so as to slip some non-physical mind into the equation? You sure do.

The mind is the brain in process. A running Volkswagen is not a special kind of physical Volkswagen. It is a Volkswagen in which all the parts are working together to turn fuel into motion. Understand this.

 

[pakeha]

Pixy,

- I watched the whole video, and have to admit that there's a lot in it that I don't really understand. I wish I could ask Dr Blackmore some questions. ...

You might try sending her an e-mail, Jabba.
Her addy is public and found here: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/

 

[Sideroxylon]

"The wine-barley-cheese drink stands, moving" - Heraclitus

 

[George]

- Another thought is that I need to go back and try to study what Dr Blackmore was saying -- she presented a lot to think about, and to try to understand.
- However, I think I can limit my study to the first half, as I seem to have little to disagree with about her take on free will (and the little would take a lot of discussion).
- If there is something in that second half that you believe is critical to understanding her position on the "self," let me know. - Otherwise, I think that the first question I would have re the first half would be something like the following. "I assume that according to your conclusion, my particular illusion of self never existed before, and will never exist again. Is that correct?"

No probs. Start half way through and watch it till the end. Repeat as necessary.

 

[Mojo]

- For us to enjoy life, we need to do what will lead to enjoyment over the long term.

To paraphrase John Maynard Keynes, over the long term we are all dead.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba.


I second (third?) what PixyMisa and Loss Leader said. The conscious is the same physics, it is all the same physics, as the brain. The human brain is specialized to use the movement of ions and the release of neurotransmitters and the presence of their receptors to "think-" to process information and decide what the organism should do under different circumstances. An spider's brain does the same. In fact, the nerve down your leg uses the same physics to tell your toe muscle to twitch and help you run away from the lion. Same physics-slightly different specializations.

With this process of thinking comes a conscious and an illusion of "self"- that I am me and not my brother or sister. Actually, this idea of "self" helps in our survival and in evolution of us as a species: we are intensely interested in our "self-survival" first, although we will often help those we love or who help us (not coincidentally we especially help to survive those with some of our own genes: siblings, our children, etc.-evolution againt). Presumably honey bees also have some idea of self, although they have a broader idea of self-interest and are willing to die to defend the hive (interestingly, composed of others with the same genes as themselves).


So, our consciousness and self come from the same physics as anything else- it is just that this illusion of self is very handy in our lives and has been selected for during evolution.

 

[carlitos]

- Dr Hoerl did respond, saying that he didn't find my argument convincing so far, but that he would be studying it some more.
- He didn't want me to quote him...
- The following was my response -- several days ago. I had forgotten that I needed to follow up.

Roger,
Good. You brought up what I see as the weakest link in my chain. My buddies on the forum find more weaknesses -- but so far, I don’t see them as being real. What I need to do is show why MY existence is “special,” and why I shouldn’t be considered just “anyone.”
I had written up a few more paragraphs dissecting this thing, but accidentally erased them. I had best go take a nap.
I’ll be back, and thanks again.
Rich

You sent a college professor a note to tell him that you had some thoughts, but that you deleted them, and that you were going to take a nap.

Again, try making your point without all the special formatting. No ALLCAPS, no scare quotes. See if you can make your point using just the English language, as we all use it.

 

[Giordano]

- Another thought is that I need to go back and try to study what Dr Blackmore was saying -- she presented a lot to think about, and to try to understand.

I think that the first question I would have re the first half would be something like the following. "I assume that according to your conclusion, my particular illusion of self never existed before, and will never exist again. Is that correct?"

Good idea-study it all carefully and understand it please.

I think I can predict her answer as a "yes," but you can email her this very question yourself and find out for sure. If you care, my answer is a very strong yes. I think everyone here would answer "yes."