[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Humots]

- I provided my best explanation a long time ago.

Link, please.

If reincarnation is true, we must have come from an infinitely divisible source

First time I've heard this about reincarnation. Why is this so?

That's my story, and I'm st-st-stickin to it.

So what if it's your story? Stories don't count, we want evidence.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I provided my best explanation a long time ago.

All you've ever provided, and Isis knows it certainly has been a long time, are weasel words and ridiculously Daedalian apologetics in a pathetic attempt to disguise the fact that all this thread has ever been about is dressing up your evidence-free beliefs as being based in the real world of science and mathematics.

If reincarnation is true, we must have come from an infinitely divisible source -

Jesus Haploid Christ, Jabba. Your not-thought-out-at all conclusion is a complete non sequitur to your own unsupportable pre-condition.

You'd lose this argument even if you were the only participant.

-- and, there are probably several of us today that were Napoleon in past lives...

I gather you assume that the thread being moved to R&P means that there's no such thing as too ridiculous to post.

That's my story, and I'm st-st-stickin to it.

As do six-year-olds with stories about the tooth fairy.

- Right now, I have older fish to fry.

Right now you have the wreckage of a boast that you could sustain a ridiculously fantastic claim by sheer force of a non-existent ability to debate a subject about which, as it turns out, you know nothing.

I'll bet dollars to donuts the situation will be even worse tomorrow.

 

[Giordano]

If reincarnation is true, we must have come from an infinitely divisible source. That's my story, and I'm st-st-stickin to it.

I think you have the logic behind this completely backward. Correct logic: A is true. If A then B. So B is true. You instead assumed B (reincarnation) and then realized that only works if A (infinitely replicated selves) was also true. So your assumptions are driven by your conclusion. Backward! This is neither a logical or mathematic proof. When will you get to your Bayesian proof of reincarnation?

 

[Akhenaten]

In what way is this claim consonant with anything we know about neuroscience?

You are taking everything that has been told you, nodding your head, pretending to understand it,and then simply declaiming, "Yeah,but the "soul" really does exist, and really is "immortal", and I have essentially proved it be declaring that some of us used to be Napoleon".

Still assuming the consequent.

I think it's time to coin a new fallacy - assuming the nonsensequent.

 

[Garrette]

I think it's time to coin a new fallacy - assuming the nonsensequent.

I like it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I think it's time to coin a new fallacy - assuming the nonsensequent.

arguentum ad ineptias!

So let it be written!

 

[godless dave]

- If I understand your question, yes. But, I assume that you would agree that perfectly replicated human embryos would not be identical, in that they would not have identical selves -- even if we were able to give them identical environments till consciousness emerged.

No, I wouldn't agree with that.

What makes selves different from noses, livers, stomachs, and everything else that would be identical in these hypothetical clones?

 

[xtifr]

- If I understand your question, yes. But, I assume that you would agree that perfectly replicated human embryos would not be identical, in that they would not have identical selves -- even if we were able to give them identical environments till consciousness emerged.

Other people focused on the impossibility of your scenario. I'm going to ignore that and answer the question you were trying to ask. No, I would not agree. If such a thing could actually be done, the result would indeed be two identical (but separate and distinct) people. Just like the two identical but separate and distinct Volkswagens. And yes, they would have identical (but separate and distinct) "selves".

 

[John Jones]

- But these would all be identical if we were able to provide identical environments for both.

If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs. If we had some eggs.

 

[Slowvehicle]

If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs. If we had some eggs.

Without an infinite supply of excellent coffee, your "ham" and"eggs" (even your "hash browns" would only be an "illusion" of "breakfast"...

 

[Giordano]

I am embarrassed to finally realize this: wouldn't Jabba's theory indicate that there are only two "selves" copied and distributed among the 7 billion people now alive: those from the first male and female people (however you want to define them)? Or else where did Jabba's selves reincarnate from? Indeed if other animals also have selves, all 7 billion people must share replicates of the first two bug selves...

Jabba: have you thought this through?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I am embarrassed to finally realize this: wouldn't Jabba's theory indicate that there are only two "selves" copied and distributed among the 7 billion people now alive: those from the first male and female people (however you want to define them)? Or else where did Jabba's selves reincarnate from? Indeed if other animals also have selves, all 7 billion people must share replicates of the first two bug selves...

Jabba: have you thought this through?

It may be time for you to have a glass of warm milk (or another cup of coffee)...

 

[Mojo]

I am embarrassed to finally realize this: wouldn't Jabba's theory indicate that there are only two "selves" copied and distributed among the 7 billion people now alive: those from the first male and female people (however you want to define them)? Or else where did Jabba's selves reincarnate from? Indeed if other animals also have selves, all 7 billion people must share replicates of the first two bug selves...

A bit like the one-electron universe^WP?

 

[pakeha]

It may be time for you to have a glass of warm milk (or another cup of coffee)...

My own recommendation would be to skip the warm milk and/or coffee and head straight to the breakfast nook.

 

[Aepervius]

I am embarrassed to finally realize this: wouldn't Jabba's theory indicate that there are only two "selves" copied and distributed among the 7 billion people now alive: those from the first male and female people (however you want to define them)? Or else where did Jabba's selves reincarnate from? Indeed if other animals also have selves, all 7 billion people must share replicates of the first two bug selves...

Jabba: have you thought this through?

He stated upstream that it was coming from an infinitely divisible pool of "self" so yeah pretty much.

 

[Jabba]

- If I understand your question (#6135), yes. But, I assume that you would agree that perfectly replicated human embryos would not be identical, in that they would not have identical selves -- even if we were able to give them identical environments till consciousness emerged.

No, I wouldn't agree with that.
What makes selves different from noses, livers, stomachs, and everything else that would be identical in these hypothetical clones?

Dave,
- How's this?
- We shouldn't be comparing selves to noses; we should be comparing consciousnesses to noses. Consciousnesses have selves; noses do not. Consciousnesses have "identifiers," whereby one consciousness is distinguished from the others; noses don't.

 

[Garrette]

Dave,
- How's this?
- We shouldn't be comparing selves to noses; we should be comparing consciousnesses to noses. Consciousnesses have selves; noses do not. Consciousnesses have "identifiers," whereby one consciousness is distinguished from the others; noses don't.

No. No. No. No.

Consciousnesses do not have selves. Consciousnesses are selves.

It is not a difficult concept except that you don't want it to be true.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- How's this?
- We shouldn't be comparing selves to noses; we should be comparing consciousnesses to noses. Consciousnesses have selves; noses do not. Consciousnesses have "identifiers," whereby one consciousness is distinguished from the others; noses don't.

I don't see what difference that makes. I also don't understand the difference between consciousnesses and selves.

One self is only connected to one pair of eyes. How can it see something out of another pair of eyes?

One nose can be distinguished from another nose by the fact that it's made out of different cells and occupies a different area of space.

 

[Jabba]

Other people focused on the impossibility of your scenario. I'm going to ignore that and answer the question you were trying to ask. No, I would not agree. If such a thing could actually be done, the result would indeed be two identical (but separate and distinct) people. Just like the two identical but separate and distinct Volkswagens. And yes, they would have identical (but separate and distinct) "selves".

xtifr,
- There is a sub-feature of consciousness that makes consciousness different than any feature of a VW. That sub-feature is what I'm calling the "self." And, that "self" is not the kind of "self" that a VW might have.

 

[pakeha]

Dave,
- How's this?
- We shouldn't be comparing selves to noses; we should be comparing consciousnesses to noses. Consciousnesses have selves; noses do not. Consciousnesses have "identifiers," whereby one consciousness is distinguished from the others; noses don't.

Jabba, do you remember how consciousness is defined?
As an emergent property of a neurosystem?

How do you reckon such a thing can have a self?