[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[godless dave]

Yes, but what does that have to do with it? The replica would be the result of a different event.

...plus it would be a replica, a separate object.

Do you expect me to repeat all the analogies we've used to illustrate this obvious point? Desktop computers, tablets, Volkswagen Beetles?

How about fruit? Two apples from the same tree can be genetically identical, but if I eat one the other doesn't disappear.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,

- There is a single “you” that continues looking out while your characteristics are changing.

I'll bet you have a really hilarious explanation for schizophrenia.

- In that sense, there are two “yous” – or maybe, two aspects of “you.” There is a you that remains the same – and, a you that is constantly changing. That first you is unaffected by environment -- and is, apparently, not the result of your specific DNA.

Read this Jabba, and see if you can figure out why people are nonplussed by your being 10,000 years late and a dollar short.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_concept_of_the_soul​

- In other words, while that first you is probably the result of some type, or level, of physicality (an emergent property), it is not the result of your specific physicality.

That's just plain gobbledygook Completely devoid of meaning.

Jabberish, in other words.

- We have always agreed that, according to the scientific model, you had no previous existence. Now, we should agree that you had no previous “representation” either.

Ooh look! Yet another word being used to mean "soul".

- In still other words, who that first you would be was unlimited – according to the scientific model.

Just no.

 

[Garrette]

Is it true?

What would it take to convince you that you are mistaken?

What would it take to convince you that this is the case?

Show one instance of Slowvehicle misunderstanding, please. Of Giordan. Of Aepervius. Of any of the repeat posters here.


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.

Jabba, here is my post 5688 in which I explain that your position is one requiring two selves.

Do you still claim that we have misunderstood you?

- But, didn't you agree that if we were able to replicate your brain, it still wouldn't be you?

Not going to acknowledge that we have, indeed, understood you?

 

[Loss Leader]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/JabbaJury.jpg[/qimg]​

I would be less surprised by a jury made up entirely of Hutts than one in which, not just one, but three men wear ties.

 

[Jabba]

Yes, but what does that have to do with it? The replica would be the result of a different event.

- It means that a finite number of specific sperm and ovum combinations will not be restricted to a finite number of possible selves.

 

[Akhenaten]

- It means that a finite number of specific sperm and ovum combinations will not be restricted to a finite number of possible selves.

Which in turn means that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- It means that a finite number of specific sperm and ovum combinations will not be restricted to a finite number of possible selves.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

I do wish you would understand that a finite number multiplied by a finite number is a finite number.

 

[godless dave]

- It means that a finite number of specific sperm and ovum combinations will not be restricted to a finite number of possible selves.

Why not?

Remember, it's not just the combinations that are finite. The amount of sperm and eggs available is finite.

 

[Jabba]

- To me, the claims you guys are making seem to prove that you are not understanding what I'm saying. For instance...

...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...

- The self that I've been referring to is continuous during your lifetime.

 

[godless dave]

- To me, the claims you guys are making seem to prove that you are not understanding what I'm saying. For instance...

- The self that I've been referring to is continuous during your lifetime.

That is not relevant. Even if two identical selves are continuous, they are still separate identical selves. Even if they somehow remained unchanged throughout their lives - which, according to the scientific model, they don't - they would still be two separate identical selves. Two. Not one.

 

[Akhenaten]

- To me, the claims you guys are making seem to prove that you are not understanding what I'm saying. For instance...

I see no reason to suppose we're any better or worse than any other random group would be at deciphering nonsense.

- The self that I've been referring to is continuous during your lifetime.

Yes we know. We also know that the self you're referring to (especially in its immortal manifestation) doesn't exist.

You only choose to characterise this as a misunderstanding because you lack any logical answer to it.

 

[Garrette]

- It means that a finite number of specific sperm and ovum combinations will not be restricted to a finite number of possible selves.

You are speaking, of course, of how the selves will develop based on our explication of the fact that divergent experience causes divergent self-development.

There are at least two points you are missing.

1. The number of possible experiences is also finite. Again, it is an extremely large number, but it is in fact finite. Ergo, the potential selves, aside from being a mistakenly applied label, is still finite.

2. And this is the critical point here: By acknowledging that divergent experience causes divergent self-development, you are acknowledging that the self is not unchanging, i.e., that there is no core self. Your argument fails not only scientifically, but also legally, your preferred method.

 

[PixyMisa]

Dave,

- There is a single “you” that continues looking out while your characteristics are changing.

That you is you. If your characteristics are changing, your characteristics are changing.

- In that sense, there are two “yous” – or maybe, two aspects of “you.” There is a you that remains the same – and, a you that is constantly changing. That first you is unaffected by environment -- and is, apparently, not the result of your specific DNA.

Of course you are affected by your environment - if you're not, you don't exist.

Of course you are the result of your specific DNA.

Why do you persist with this drivel?

- In other words, while that first you is probably the result of some type, or level, of physicality (an emergent property), it is not the result of your specific physicality.

Wrong. See above.

- We have always agreed that, according to the scientific model, you had no previous existence. Now, we should agree that you had no previous “representation” either.

Irrelevant.

- In still other words, who that first you would be was unlimited – according to the scientific model.

What you are saying has nothing whatsoever to do with science. It's just wrong.

 

[Garrette]

- To me, the claims you guys are making seem to prove that you are not understanding what I'm saying. For instance...

- The self that I've been referring to is continuous during your lifetime.

We know. We have always known. We have said it directly multiple times. WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!

You, however, do not understand us: What you are saying is wrong under the Scientific Model. It does not exist.


See this:

Yes we know. We also know that the self you're referring to (especially in its immortal manifestation) doesn't exist.

You only choose to characterise this as a misunderstanding because you lack any logical answer to it.

And this:

You are speaking, of course, of how the selves will develop based on our explication of the fact that divergent experience causes divergent self-development.

There are at least two points you are missing.

1. The number of possible experiences is also finite. Again, it is an extremely large number, but it is in fact finite. Ergo, the potential selves, aside from being a mistakenly applied label, is still finite.

2. And this is the critical point here: By acknowledging that divergent experience causes divergent self-development, you are acknowledging that the self is not unchanging, i.e., that there is no core self. Your argument fails not only scientifically, but also legally, your preferred method.

 

[PixyMisa]

- But, didn't you agree that if we were able to replicate your brain, it still wouldn't be you?

Let me explain that again.

PERSONAL IDENTITY IS A FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN. IF YOU HAVE TWO BRAINS, YOU HAVE TWO IDENTITIES.

Got it now?

 

[Loss Leader]

- It means that a finite number of specific sperm and ovum combinations will not be restricted to a finite number of possible selves.

As much as you would like this to be true, it just isn't.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- To me, the claims you guys are making seem to prove that you are not understanding what I'm saying. For instance...

- The self that I've been referring to is continuous during your lifetime.

Good Morning,Mr. Savage!

Say, rather, that the "self" you are asserting (unlike the neurological understanding of consciousness as an emergent property of a neurosystem) is "continuous", as long as you get to define "continuous" as "a property that lets me claim that the 'continuous self' is the 'soul' that is 'immortal' ".

Believe me, it is not that I, and others, do not understand your unsupported assertions. It is, instead, that your unsupported assertions do not represent observable reality; nor do they honestly represent any actual interpretation of any "scientific model".

I still say you should start by presenting any evidenced at all that you have that indicates in any way that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"...

 

[jond]

OK, Jabba, now that you've answered Garrette's question, I have another one for you:

Do you understand that the current scientific understanding precludes the existence of a "continuous self that is unchanging throughout one's life"?

If not, you need to acknowledge that you are out of your depth here, scientifically.

If yes, your next step needs to be to provide evidence that this "self" "thing" actually exists. Until you do, everything you post can only be considered nonsense.

 

[godless dave]

OK, Jabba, now that you've answered Garrette's question, I have another one for you:

Do you understand that the current scientific understanding precludes the existence of a "continuous self that is unchanging throughout one's life"?

I, too, urge you to answer this question.

 

[PixyMisa]

I three.