[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

The problem here is you are trying to figure out effective words to get people to agree to something that is completely wrong.

It is like trying to find words to effectively communicate 2+2 = Peanut Butter. There are none, because it isn't.

^^^This.
I would also add that I think you hardly "agree" with Godless Dave and that to try to manufacture agreement is an act of desperation, but I will leave that to Godless Dave to tell you his own view.

Beside, to quote my Mom, what are the rest of us, chicken liver? Even if Dave agrees with you, the rest of us don't. Should the title of this thread be "proof for Dave of immortality?" Or don't the rest of our corrections count at all? There are scientists on this Forum (and at colleges who your have contacted) to tell you the real facts, but you don't seem to care if these facts show flaws in your theory. Do you not believe them?

 

[godless dave]

The correct formula is peanut butter + chocolate = heaven.

 

[Garrette]

The correct formula is peanut butter + chocolate = heaven.

It is certainly more amenable to proof than the OP.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,


- That's how, according to science, you came from nowhere. No biological formula required, or requires, "you."

No! Not at all. That is not what science says, and not what we have been repeatedly telling you. I suspect you have read all our posts that have tried to explain in in various ways. You don't even have to believe that science has the correct view. But it is what science says, so you can't pretend otherwise. Especially if you use your misunderstanding of science to prove science wrong. It is your misunderstanding of science that "makes" it wrong.

 

[Akhenaten]

Adulation and huzzahs are becoming commonplace in regard to your postings, but it would be rude to stop merely for that reason. Hence:

Ho hum.... BRAVO!!! Sigh....

The Mighty One bravely bears the mantle of casual omnimagnificence, no?

The blessings of the Aten be upon you always including, but not restricted to, endless cake and bacon.


ETA:


@ Jabba: Please note that I can, in my persona here as Pharaoh, bestow such well-meaning blessings without people thinking I've turned into a religious whacko.

What's going on with that, do you think?​

 

[tsig]

The correct formula is peanut butter + chocolate = heaven.

You poisoned the chocolate?

 

[Akhenaten]

1) Ah, ok, yes, that's not a tautology. It's simply a pointless observation that doesn't further the discussion.

2) Once again, you're getting confused between the idea of identical things and the same thing. Which renders the highlighted bit meaningless.

3) Replicating the physics/chemistry of your brain would produce an identical sense of self (or cheese). It would not be the same sense of self, because two different things are two different things, even if they're identical, but it would be an identical sense of self, in all respects. At least at the instant of creation.

4) With or without your bizarre "mold", your sense of self (like your sense of cheese) is entirely dependent on chemistry (or chemistry and physics, depending on how you define the boundaries between those two sciences. I prefer to say it depends on physics, since that's the broader term, and necessarily includes all of chemistry).

xtifr,

Re #1: In further discussion, I'll try to show why this observation does further the discussion.

Further discussion?

What was it that first led you to believe that what's been going on here is a discussion?

Please note that I'm excluding from the above question the informative, educational and entertaining interplay that has taken place between every poster here other than yourself.

Further, and perhaps more to the point, are you not able to re-read your above statement and see how mind-numbingly circular it is?

All it says is:

"I'll continue in the same vein in order to demonstrate that I can continue in the same vein."​

Re #2: To me, the problem here is figuring out effective words to use for actually communicating with each other.

And yet, as the better man in the fight, you came here proclaiming that you could show us the secrets of Truly Effective Debate™.

Will you dare to suggest that the cause of the communication problems is "us guys"?

Re #3: Replicating the physics/chemistry of my brain would not replicate the “me” that science says will pass into eternal oblivion.

You seem determined to ignore that the instant of replication and the onset of eternal oblivion are separated by what us guys refer to as "a lifetime". I vaguely suspect that this lifetime is what you were at one stage referring to as "the scientific model" although I have to admit that I really don't have much idea of which is what anymore in terms of Jabbanese terminology.

If it would not replicate that “me,” how can we say that the results of replication are identical?

By looking at the facts of the matter rather than succumbing to the same fantasies of life everlasting in which our less knowledgable ancestors found comfort.

Re #4: I also like the referral to physics. I was afraid that I might have to explain my usage, so opted for chemistry instead. But then, my sense of self (that “me”) is not entirely dependent upon chemistry and physics – there is no physical or chemical formula distinguishing my sense of self from yours.

You sense of self is based on a superstitious religious fantasy, no matter how you try to dress it up as any kind of science.

- Xtifr, I respond to Dave’s responses sooner and more often than I do to yours because his responses tend to deal with fewer sub-issues per response.

Garbage. You respond to Dave (or whomever is the current LCP) almost exclusively because it partly fulfils your (utterly demolished by Loss Leader) belief that you can better conduct the defence of your indefensible claims by dealing with a single prosecutor.

 

[Slowvehicle]

^^^This.
I would also add that I think you hardly "agree" with Godless Dave and that to try to manufacture agreement is an act of desperation, but I will leave that to Godless Dave to tell you his own view.

Beside, to quote my Mom, what are the rest of us, chicken liver? Even if Dave agrees with you, the rest of us don't. Should the title of this thread be "proof for Dave of immortality?" Or don't the rest of our corrections count at all? There are scientists on this Forum (and at colleges who your have contacted) to tell you the real facts, but you don't seem to care if these facts show flaws in your theory. Do you not believe them?

There was, in fact, a point in (I beleive) Shroud II^TM where there was a near-consensus that I should, in fact, adopt "Chopped Liver" as a custom title...

 

[Slowvehicle]

The correct formula is peanut butter + chocolate = heaven.

Not without single malt...or a good Cab Sav.

 

[Akhenaten]

Jabba, what distinguishes your sense of self from mine is very simple - yours is inside your head, and mine is inside mine. Even if you created an exact replica of me (which, practically speaking, isn't possible), there would be a separate self just like there would be a separate body. There would be a separate self because there would be a separate body.

Dave,

- Maybe, that is the right answer, and we've been secretly agreeing with each other all along...

I have to say, I'm very impressed by Dave's ability to keep the secret by posting "No, Jabba, you're wrong" in response to every outrageous new claim you make.

It's convinced me, at least, that he doesn't agree with you at all.

- There is no biological formula that distinguishes your sense of self from mine.

Yes there is. This becomes more obvious when one replaces your made-up term, "biological formula" with the correct word - "brain".

There was no biological formula that when reached would cause "you" to exist rather than "me," or anyone else. The biological formula simply produced the human level of consciousness; it did not specify the particular sense of self included.

No it didn't, because that sense of self is an emergent property of the brain that was produced by your so-called biological formula.

- That's how, according to science, you came from nowhere.

Science says no such bloody thing, Jabba.

No biological formula required, or requires, "you."

Damn you, Rules 0, 1 and 12.

 

[jond]

Self is brain function.

Gosh. It seems line that's been pointed out to Jabba once or twice before.

 

[Giordano]

Further discussion?

What was it that first led you to believe that what's been going on here is a discussion?

Please note that I'm excluding from the above question the informative, educational and entertaining interplay that has taken place between every poster here other than yourself.

Further, and perhaps more to the point, are you not able to re-read your above statement and see how mind-numbingly circular it is?

"I'll continue in the same vein in order to demonstrate that I can continue in the same vein."​

And yet, as the better man in the fight, you came here proclaiming that you could show us the secrets of Truly Effective Debate™.

Will you dare to suggest that the cause of the communication problems is "us guys"?






You seem determined to ignore that the instant of replication and the onset of eternal oblivion are separated by what us guys refer to as "a lifetime". I vaguely suspect that this lifetime is what you were at one stage referring to as "the scientific model" although I have to admit that I really don't have much idea of which is what anymore in terms of Jabbanese terminology.

You sense of self is based on a superstitious religious fantasy, no matter how you try to dress it up as any kind of science.


Garbage. You respond to Dave (or whomever is the current LCP) almost exclusively because it partly fulfils your (utterly demolished by Loss Leader) belief that you can better conduct the defence of your indefensible claims by dealing with a single prosecutor.

I agree with all the above. I'll only add that it is clear to me that Jabba intentionally tries to respond to people who include fewer facts in their posts, due to either personal style or their area of expertise (my sincere apologies to Godless Dave, who is extremely intelligent and a great debater, but I suspect not a professional biologist). Jabba appears to avoid talking to people who use statistics, math, and biology as part of their jobs. I must conclude that Jabba doesn't really want to know the facts because they only get in the way of his theory

 

[godless dave]

I'll only add that it is clear to me that Jabba intentionally tries to respond to people who include fewer facts in their posts, due to either personal style or their area of expertise (my sincere apologies to Godless Dave, who is extremely intelligent and a great debater, but I suspect not a professional biologist).

Fair cop, and no apology necessary.

 

[pakeha]

... There is no biological formula that distinguishes your sense of self from mine. There was no biological formula that when reached would cause "you" to exist rather than "me," or anyone else. The biological formula simply produced the human level of consciousness; it did not specify the particular sense of self included.

- That's how, according to science, you came from nowhere. No biological formula required, or requires, "you."

Jabba, have you forgotten how consciousness is defined?

 

[John Jones]

xtifr,

[...]

Re #2: To me, the problem here is figuring out effective words to use for actually communicating with each other.

[...]
-

We understand you. We just disagree.

More often than anyone else here, you utter the words "I don't understand".

How dare you try to figure out effective words to use when you are the one lacking in understanding?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I agree with all the above. I'll only add that it is clear to me that Jabba intentionally tries to respond to people who include fewer facts in their posts, due to either personal style or their area of expertise (my sincere apologies to Godless Dave, who is extremely intelligent and a great debater, but I suspect not a professional biologist). Jabba appears to avoid talking to people who use statistics, math, and biology as part of their jobs. I must conclude that Jabba doesn't really want to know the facts because they only get in the way of his theory

Mr. Savage himself said so, in so many words.

This is looking, and sounding, more and more like Shroud^TM and Son of Shroud^TM.

I am kind of interested to see if we will start getting accusations of collusion, and incompetence, and bias...

 

[Garrette]

I am biased toward people who collude incompetently.

 

[HighRiser]

Mr. Savage himself said so, in so many words.

This is looking, and sounding, more and more like Shroud^TM and Son of Shroud^TM.

I am kind of interested to see if we will start getting accusations of collusion, and incompetence, and bias...

If it were to happen, I would have to think that such accusations would be cast by someone who had negative preconceptions and vast ignorance of rationality.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I am biased toward people who collude incompetently.

Well, yeah--you would be.

 

[John Jones]

Mr. Savage himself said so, in so many words.

This is looking, and sounding, more and more like Shroud^TM and Son of Shroud^TM.

I am kind of interested to see if we will start getting accusations of collusion, and incompetence, and bias...

Don't forget that he accused his interlocutors of outright dishonesty as well. I know I never will.

What else can he do? He only has about three tricks. I'll leave it to the observers to enumerate them.

Jabba, It wouldn't hurt my feelings if you would jump right into this discussion.