[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

- The different senses of self are the result of different batches of the same chemistry.

I am confused here: do you mean by "different batches" the same types of chemicals at different concentrations in different cells? This is the SD. In fact, one of the primary differences between nerve and muscle cells is the different concentrations of the same types of chemicals. One of the prime differences between tap water and sea water is the concentration of the same type of chemical: salt.

 

[pakeha]

- The different senses of self are the result of different batches of the same chemistry.

Out of curiosity, have you explored this idea with either of your distinguished correspondents?

 

[Mojo]

- The different senses of self are the result of different batches of the same chemistry.

If two "batches of the same chemistry" are identical, then there is no reason to suppose that any emergent properties resulting from the two batches of chemistry will not also be identical.

 

[carlitos]

- The different senses of self are the result of different batches of the same chemistry.

When you suffer head trauma, or undergo anesthesia, or drink alcohol, your brain chemistry changes, as does your "sense of self." My drunk self is different from my sober self. This is obvious.

Out of curiosity, have you explored this idea with either of your distinguished correspondents?

Probably a conversation best had while indulging in a batch of some of that altered brain chemistry.

 

[Giordano]

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.

My brother had a VW that had a personality and a "soul/self" as much as any car I have seen. In fact, I had a cat that had an acute sense of self and self-identity. It clearly recognized that it was a different creature (had a unique self identity) from my other cats and love to torment them and not be hurt itself. It clearly wanted the food for itself, and not have it eaten by the other cats. I think it had the illusion of a continuous self, in that it had a unique preference in food that didn't change from day to day. At the risk of a derail, Jabba, do you think cats have "selves' as you think people have "selves?" If not, why not? If so, when do creatures stop having selves? Bacteria, worms, bees, birds, etc. When?

I ask because I want to know how far your theory of reincarnation of selves goes back. If people evolved from apes, and apes from lemur-like creatures, and lemurs from other animals, is my unchanging self originally the self of an insectivore 100's of millions of years ago, or even the self of a still earlier creature, the first to have a self? If so, why don't I like to eat bugs? If so, where and when did the first self come from? Or do you believe in Adam and Eve and the first self was created only once by god?

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,
I promise to stop bothering you if you just stated that you believe in reincarnation and you stopped posting erroneous "proofs" of that statement. You can believe whatever you wish (although it would be nice if you dealt with the internal (dare I say self?) contradictions of that belief). But if you post false facts, I am going to point that out.

 

[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, I wonder if you could ask this question? It appears that Jabba has me on ignore, and despite the numerous requests from numerous other posters, he continues to make the same errors.

 

[godless dave]

Godless Dave, I wonder if you could ask this question?

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.

It appears that Jabba has me on ignore, and despite the numerous requests from numerous other posters, he continues to make the same errors.

I've reposted your question, but I asked a similar question several months ago and Jabba never responded to it. He does not respond to every question I ask.

 

[jond]

I've reposted your question, but I asked a similar question several months ago and Jabba never responded to it. He does not respond to every question I ask.

I know, but appreciate your efforts. Meanwhile I have to board a plane. Have fun!

 

[Jabba]

So they can be the result of brain chemistry?

- The difference between them is not due to a difference in chemistry.

 

[Jabba]

I am confused here: do you mean by "different batches" the same types of chemicals at different concentrations in different cells? This is the SD. In fact, one of the primary differences between nerve and muscle cells is the different concentrations of the same types of chemicals. One of the prime differences between tap water and sea water is the concentration of the same type of chemical: salt.

Giordano,
- No. I mean the very same concentration of the types of chemicals in different cells.

 

[godless dave]

- The difference between them is not due to a difference in chemistry.

Of course not. The difference between them is due to being two different "batches". One is inside one skull, the other is inside another. That's the difference. That's why one cannot see out of the eyes of the other.

 

[Jabba]

My brother had a VW that had a personality and a "soul/self" as much as any car I have seen. In fact, I had a cat that had an acute sense of self and self-identity. It clearly recognized that it was a different creature (had a unique self identity) from my other cats and love to torment them and not be hurt itself. It clearly wanted the food for itself, and not have it eaten by the other cats. I think it had the illusion of a continuous self, in that it had a unique preference in food that didn't change from day to day. At the risk of a derail, Jabba, do you think cats have "selves' as you think people have "selves?" If not, why not? If so, when do creatures stop having selves? Bacteria, worms, bees, birds, etc. When?

I ask because I want to know how far your theory of reincarnation of selves goes back. If people evolved from apes, and apes from lemur-like creatures, and lemurs from other animals, is my unchanging self originally the self of an insectivore 100's of millions of years ago, or even the self of a still earlier creature, the first to have a self? If so, why don't I like to eat bugs? If so, where and when did the first self come from? Or do you believe in Adam and Eve and the first self was created only once by god?

- I don't know when, but my best guess as to where is the "great mind at large" (Aldous Huxley, I think) -- IOW, an infinitely divisible universal consciousness.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- The difference between them is not due to a difference in chemistry.

1. You mean, DUI is just a myth? A tool of our jack-booted robot overlords?

2.What has this to do with "immortality"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I don't know when, but my best guess as to where is the "great mind at large" (Aldous Huxley, I think) -- IOW, an infinitely divisible universal consciousness.

...evidence for the existence of this "great mind at large" (and its "immortality")?

 

[Jabba]

Jabba,
I promise to stop bothering you if you just stated that you believe in reincarnation and you stopped posting erroneous "proofs" of that statement. You can believe whatever you wish (although it would be nice if you dealt with the internal (dare I say self?) contradictions of that belief). But if you post false facts, I am going to point that out.

Giordano,
- What I believe is that the one, finite existence hypothesis is wrong. I don't really "believe in" reincarnation, but it probably is my best guess at this point.

 

[pakeha]

- I don't know when, but my best guess as to where is the "great mind at large" (Aldous Huxley, I think) -- IOW, an infinitely divisible universal consciousness.

I applaud the mods' decision to move this thread to R&P.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Giordano,
- What I believe is that the one, finite existence hypothesis is wrong. I don't really "believe in" reincarnation, but it probably is my best guess at this point.

Are you actually saying, in do many words, that all of the thrashing about and invention of preposterous scenarios is predicated upon your belief that "you" are " immortal"; further, that the sum total of your "evidence" is your "belief" that "you" are "immortal"?

ETA:

I applaud the mods' decision to move this thread to R&P.

-seconded

 

[John Jones]

Giordano,
- What I believe is that the one, finite existence hypothesis is wrong. I don't really "believe in" reincarnation, but it probably is my best guess at this point.

So you won't be applying for the Million Dollar Challenge after all?

 

[Giordano]

- The difference between them is not due to a difference in chemistry.

Then you do not understand all we have learned in the past thousand years and you are wrong!

Just curious: so do you believe that one "batch" of 1 Molar NaCl can be different in its properties from another batch of 1 Molar NaCl?