What the hell does that mean? Did you answer truthfully or not?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
- Status
Is it true?
What would it take to convince you that you are mistaken?Jabba said:
What would it take to convince you that this is the case?Jabba said:
Show one instance of Slowvehicle misunderstanding, please. Of Giordan. Of Aepervius. Of any of the repeat posters here.Jabba said:
You said: "In that sense, there are two “yous”"
Which is precisely what I said some time ago. I will try to dig that post up. We understand that. I have understood it. We have said it exactly as you are saying now.
The point is not that we misunderstand; the point is that your claim of two selves is counter to the Scientific Model. That's it. It's not complicated; it is, in fact, a particularly easy concept. The Scientific Model does not posit a second self, and the self it does posit is not separable from the physicality of the brain.
That statement would be a lot more reasonable if one single human being in this thread was capable of following your train of thought.
If you and one person are having a disagreement, you can say they are "just not getting it."
If you and a good dozen people are having a disagreement and none of the are "just getting it" it is much more likely you just don't have anything to "get."
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good Morning, Mr. Savage!
I assume you will just ignore this post, and presume to continue to pretend that you are not being rude, and disrespectful.
Naetheless:
No. There is a single consciousness that emerges as a function of a health brain. Its characteristics change as the result of heredity and environment.
Absent dysfunction, there is, and has been, and will be, only one"you" resulting from your brain. Absent dysfunction, one neurosystem, one consciousness.
Feel free to present evidence (you know--practical, empirical, objective evidence) to the contrary. If you have none to present, at least admit you are simply asserting that your idea is reality. Have I ever mentioned the problem of assuming the consequent?
To WHOM is it "apparent" that the consciousness that is an emergent property of a specific neurosystem is "unaffected by environment"?
This is one of the reasons I (and others) continue to ask about the effects of trauma. "The environment" does, in fact, influence, even alter consciousness.
Do you drink coffee? Do you drink alcohol? Do you eat refined sugar? Have you ever been sleep-deprived? Have you any experience with recreational hallucinogens? Have you ever been in love? Have you ever experienced CNS trauma?
These and myriad other experiences demonstrate that "you" are "affected" by your "environment". Essentially.
No. The only "you" there is results from the physical characteristics of your neurosystem interacting with its environment. There are no "types" of "physicality". You need to demonstrate the "ghost in the machine" before you start making claims about it...
Please provide a citation, or a source, that demonstrates that the actual"scientific model" (not your dishonest cartoon of it) has anything at all to say about "previous 'representations' of a particular consciousness".
Until you provide some documentation that the actual scientific model holds that there is, in fact, a "first you", much less holds that the"first you" is "unlimited", this is just profoundly silly.
I assume you will just ignore this post, and presume to continue to pretend that you are not being rude, and disrespectful.
Naetheless:
No. There is a single consciousness that emerges as a function of a health brain. Its characteristics change as the result of heredity and environment.
Absent dysfunction, there is, and has been, and will be, only one"you" resulting from your brain. Absent dysfunction, one neurosystem, one consciousness.
Feel free to present evidence (you know--practical, empirical, objective evidence) to the contrary. If you have none to present, at least admit you are simply asserting that your idea is reality. Have I ever mentioned the problem of assuming the consequent?
To WHOM is it "apparent" that the consciousness that is an emergent property of a specific neurosystem is "unaffected by environment"?
This is one of the reasons I (and others) continue to ask about the effects of trauma. "The environment" does, in fact, influence, even alter consciousness.
Do you drink coffee? Do you drink alcohol? Do you eat refined sugar? Have you ever been sleep-deprived? Have you any experience with recreational hallucinogens? Have you ever been in love? Have you ever experienced CNS trauma?
These and myriad other experiences demonstrate that "you" are "affected" by your "environment". Essentially.
No. The only "you" there is results from the physical characteristics of your neurosystem interacting with its environment. There are no "types" of "physicality". You need to demonstrate the "ghost in the machine" before you start making claims about it...
Please provide a citation, or a source, that demonstrates that the actual"scientific model" (not your dishonest cartoon of it) has anything at all to say about "previous 'representations' of a particular consciousness".
Until you provide some documentation that the actual scientific model holds that there is, in fact, a "first you", much less holds that the"first you" is "unlimited", this is just profoundly silly.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
What you "need" to say, here, and everywhere else, is the demonstrable truth, not what you think you "ought" to say, or what you think you can get away with.
For instance, it is not now true, nor has it been true, that I (for one) disagree with your assumed consequent because I do not understand it. Your assumed consequent is simply aconsonant with observed reality, or with any facet of our understanding of neuroscience.
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,526
Obvious rabbit-up-the-sleeve is obvious
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
How is that not just another characteristic?
Do you have any evidence for any of this?
Your second bullet point does not follow from the first. My "me" is not unlimited according to the scientific model. It is limited by biology. There is only one combination of egg and sperm - combining in a specific way at a specific time - that would result in me. There are a finite number of ways any two humans can reproduce.
As I've explained numerous times.
Jabba, I'm pretty sure I understand you just fine. You are proposing mind-body dualism. You should know that mind-body dualism is not part of any currently accepted scientific model for cognition, consciousness, or anything else.
Last edited:
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Wait.
You mean, this is all sleight-of-hand to try to get away with the pretense that the "soul", and its "immortality" is part of "science"?
Whodathunkit?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
A Mr Fett I think it was.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
"Your Great Honors Guy:
Meesa theenkin weesa excludin alla prejudished jurors and march the goodses ones inna heres up front: 'Hutt two,three, four!' !"
Last edited:
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
No, rational person will agree with you. It's baloney for the myriad of reasons given to you that you have repeatedly ignored. Prove me wrong and get your "argument" published.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Set the first one loose upon the second then practice your hand-waving:
These are not the voids you're looking for.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- But, didn't you agree that if we were able to replicate your brain, it still wouldn't be you?
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good Morning, Mr. Savage!
How...odd...to read you pretending that it has not been pointed out to you that, even if the neurosystem could be exactly duplicated (a big, contrafactual "if"), the "duplicated "self" would immediately begin to diverge, as it would undergo different experiences than the "original" "self".
You should be careful not to let the things you tell yourself start to sound like evidence, inside your head.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Yes, but what does that have to do with it? The replica would be the result of a different event.
Talk about misunderstanding Godless Dave's carefully constructed post, either intentionally or unintentionally (A + ~A = 1) misunderstanding!
Re-read it- if you care at all what he said, let alone if you wish to learn something... In fact, I think we all said that if we replicated your brain, very soon it wouldn't be you. But not because of some magical mental "self." Because the environments would be different.
By the way- I think your question actually had to do with one self looking out of two sets of eyes.
- Status