• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
- Apparently, we each have a sense of self, or individual consciousness, that is separate from other selves and is continuous for the life of our individual brains. If this sense of self is strictly physical, weakens with illness and age, goes on leave when we sleep, departs forever when we die and is illusory anyway -- so be it. It is still something that we all apparently have – certainly, I do. What are the disagreements so far?

After most people agree, isn't this when you next post gets rid of all the qualifiers and you state that everyone agrees that there is a continuous self that is of infinite potential origin and is not physical? You have done it before, so why wouldn't you do it again?

Actually you already asked about much of your post and know what we think. So I am going to refuse an answer, suspecting that my answer will only be ignored or perverted to a completely different meaning. If I post that today is Wednesday where I am, you might easily conclude that I said it is Monday.
 
- Good.
- Apparently, if we replicate the DNA of a person (as seems to happen with identical twins), we do not get the same self (in the sense above) in two different persons. Disagreements?

You already know the answer to this.
 
I am curious why you're re-stating the scientific model of consciousness this late in the thread.
- I'm trying to isolate our point of divergence. If I've already done that, I forget what it was -- though, I suspect that I never did it satisfactorily.
 
Last edited:
- Apparently, we each have a sense of self, or individual consciousness, that is separate from other selves and is continuous for the life of our individual brains. If this sense of self is strictly physical, weakens with illness and age, goes on leave when we sleep, departs forever when we die and is illusory anyway -- so be it. It is still something that we all apparently have – certainly, I do. What are the disagreements so far?


Ah, that is your fundamental misunderstanding in all this. You seem to be under the impression that when people talk about an illusion of consciousness, they are referring to its existence. This is not true. Consciousness is real, we have all experienced it ourselves, and observed it in others. The tricky part with defining consciousness is not an issue of whether or not it is real, but an issue of boundaries. The "self" is like pornography, I know it when I see it, but it is impossible to decide on a clear border between objects and systems that have a "self" and those that do not.

The illusion is not that consciousness is not real, it is that it is continuous. Continuity is the illusion. The "self" goes away when the brain isn't functioning. It is constantly changing, disappearing, reappearing, and being rebuilt from scratch. It can be affected by physical effects from trauma, drugs, and even quantum effects. If you take the time to study phenomena such as schizophrenia, amnesia, and even phantom limbs, you will come to realize that brain is generating consciousness, and strange things can happen as it does.

To use an analogy that has been brought up before, consciousness is a process, much like running. It is, at its heart, a verb. To be or not to be, that is what consciousness is. Running happens in fits and starts as the legs move and the world flies by. It isn't the same running it was when the runner was a youth. It isn't the same running when one is pursuing a bus, celebrating spring, or escaping from a bear. Running can be fluid and precise, or jerky and disorganized. This is exactly the same as consciousness.

Once you come to terms with the fact that there really is no single, continuous "you", it will make the matter quite simple.
 
Last edited:
- Good.
- Apparently, if we replicate the DNA of a person (as seems to happen with identical twins), we do not get the same self (in the sense above) in two different persons. Disagreements?

Already asked, already answered in a way you don't approve.

Try asking again, may be you will get at least one superficial answer you can sew a vest on.
 
- I'm trying to isolate our point of divergence. If I've already done that, I forget what it was -- though, I suspect that I never did it satisfactorily.

The point of our divergence is your apparent inability to understand that two separate objects can be identical.
 
- I'm trying to isolate our point of divergence. If I've already done that, I forget what it was -- though, I suspect that I never did it satisfactorily.

Are your certain then that this is a good thread for you to hold up your side of debate?
 
- Good.
- Apparently, if we replicate the DNA of a person (as seems to happen with identical twins), we do not get the same self (in the sense above) in two different persons. Disagreements?


Good morning, Mr. Savage!

With Garrette's objection firmly established, I can provisionally accept this construction.

OTH, it is very much like saying, "...apparently dihydorgen monoxide and hydrohydroxic acid are water...", and. "...apparently, water is wet..."

Don't suppose you'd consider dropping the game-show format and cuttingt right to the chase, eh?
 
- Good.
- Apparently, if we replicate the DNA of a person (as seems to happen with identical twins), we do not get the same self (in the sense above) in two different persons. Disagreements?
At the instant of replication the two are identical (but not the same). If you describe it in any other way you are missing the point, either through misunderstanding or disingenuousness.

Everything past the instant of replication means the two selves are no longer identical and are still not the same.
 
I think it was Norman Thomas who said, "I will not lead you to the Holy Land if i could, because if could someone else might just lead you out."

Why try to convince Jabba of our position, if he would just forget that we convinced him. His posts show every evidence of having forgotten everything we told him already.
 
- I'm trying to isolate our point of divergence. If I've already done that, I forget what it was -- though, I suspect that I never did it satisfactorily.


Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

Our "point of divergence" (as has been pointed out over and over) is that you believe the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"; without the slightest scintilla of evidence.

...carry on...
 
Ah, that is your fundamental misunderstanding in all this. You seem to be under the impression that when people talk about an illusion of consciousness, they are referring to its existence. This is not true. Consciousness is real, we have all experienced it ourselves, and observed it in others. The tricky part with defining consciousness is not an issue of whether or not it is real, but an issue of boundaries. The "self" is like pornography, I know it when I see it, but it is impossible to decide on a clear border between objects and systems that have a "self" and those that do not.

The illusion is not that consciousness is not real, it is that it is continuous. Continuity is the illusion. The "self" goes away when the brain isn't functioning. It is constantly changing, disappearing, reappearing, and being rebuilt from scratch. It can be affected by physical effects from trauma, drugs, and even quantum effects. If you take the time to study phenomena such as schizophrenia, amnesia, and even phantom limbs, you will come to realize that brain is generating consciousness, and strange things can happen as it does.

To use an analogy that has been brought up before, consciousness is a process, much like running. It is, at its heart, a verb. To be or not to be, that is what consciousness is. Running happens in fits and starts as the legs move and the world flies by. It isn't the same running it was when the runner was a youth. It isn't the same running when one is pursuing a bus, celebrating spring, or escaping from a bear. Running can be fluid and precise, or jerky and disorganized. This is exactly the same as consciousness.

Once you come to terms with the fact that there really is no single, continuous "you", it will make the matter quite simple.

Nominated! The task is, after all, herculean, not sisyphean.

Well said!
 
Ah, that is your fundamental misunderstanding in all this. You seem to be under the impression that when people talk about an illusion of consciousness, they are referring to its existence. This is not true. Consciousness is real, we have all experienced it ourselves, and observed it in others. The tricky part with defining consciousness is not an issue of whether or not it is real, but an issue of boundaries. The "self" is like pornography, I know it when I see it, but it is impossible to decide on a clear border between objects and systems that have a "self" and those that do not.

The illusion is not that consciousness is not real, it is that it is continuous. Continuity is the illusion. The "self" goes away when the brain isn't functioning. It is constantly changing, disappearing, reappearing, and being rebuilt from scratch. It can be affected by physical effects from trauma, drugs, and even quantum effects. If you take the time to study phenomena such as schizophrenia, amnesia, and even phantom limbs, you will come to realize that brain is generating consciousness, and strange things can happen as it does.

To use an analogy that has been brought up before, consciousness is a process, much like running. It is, at its heart, a verb. To be or not to be, that is what consciousness is. Running happens in fits and starts as the legs move and the world flies by. It isn't the same running it was when the runner was a youth. It isn't the same running when one is pursuing a bus, celebrating spring, or escaping from a bear. Running can be fluid and precise, or jerky and disorganized. This is exactly the same as consciousness.

Once you come to terms with the fact that there really is no single, continuous "you", it will make the matter quite simple.

Eloquently stated, and guaranteed to be ignored! Well done!
 
- Apparently, we each have a sense of self, or individual consciousness, that is separate from other selves and is continuous for the life of our individual brains. If this sense of self is strictly physical, weakens with illness and age, goes on leave when we sleep, departs forever when we die and is illusory anyway -- so be it. It is still something that we all apparently have – certainly, I do. What are the disagreements so far?

None so far from me. Some might quibble with "continuous" but I don't.

- Good.
- Apparently, if we replicate the DNA of a person (as seems to happen with identical twins), we do not get the same self (in the sense above) in two different persons. Disagreements?

You already know the answer to this.

- I thought that I did, but I'm not sure anymore. Please tell me again.

If we replicate the DNA of a person and use it to create another person, we get two selves. Which, incidentally, is redundant.

- IOW, this self, or aspect of the self, is not the result of chemistry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom