[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[John Jones]

nvm

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- I think that Dave keeps saying that selves couldn't be infinite, because we have only a finite amount of material, and perhaps time, to work with. But, hands of Texas Poker couldn't be infinite even if we had the necessary time and material to work with.

There are only so many ways you can arrange 52 cards and have them be hands of poker. There are only so many ways you can arrange 100 billion neurons and have them be (part of) a human brain.

 

[John Jones]

Slowvehicle,
- I didn't know the meaning of "baramin," but having looked it up, I don't think that it applies to my question (as you might have guessed that I wouldn't).
- I think that Dave keeps saying that selves couldn't be infinite, because we have only a finite amount of material, and perhaps time, to work with. But, hands of Texas Poker couldn't be infinite even if we had the necessary time and material to work with.

Is that so?

 

[Giordano]

It's not just a matter of starting from a physically and neuronally identical point. Since different experiences will cause different firing of synapses and therefore different developmental pathways. Even if after one differing experience all the subsequent experiences are identical, the brains will never be the same and therefore neither will the selves.

The "left or right" example was to show that differing experiences are impossible to avoid. My perception of you as I stand in one spot is different from my perception of you if I stand 24 inches to the left. Therefore, the synapses will fire differently, even if only minutely.

Thank you.

I would also add that even the same genetics can produce physically distinct structures. For example, are all identical twins indistinguishable physically? Don't many have some different physical characteristic: a mole, or a slightly different shaped lip, or a different weight at birth?Read about how clones don't look exactly like their "parents."

 

[John Jones]

Let's go with the Quantum Souls. Can anyone object to that?

 

[Garrette]

Let's go with the Quantum Souls. Can anyone object to that?

I named my identical twins Bohr and Planck.

 

[Humots]

It's not just a matter of starting from a physically and neuronally identical point. Since different experiences will cause different firing of synapses and therefore different developmental pathways. Even if after one differing experience all the subsequent experiences are identical, the brains will never be the same and therefore neither will the selves.

The "left or right" example was to show that differing experiences are impossible to avoid. My perception of you as I stand in one spot is different from my perception of you if I stand 24 inches to the left. Therefore, the synapses will fire differently, even if only minutely.

Oh, you meant left side vs. right sides of the womb?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Thank you.

I would also add that even the same genetics can produce physically distinct structures. For example, are all identical twins indistinguishable physically? Don't many have some different physical characteristic: a mole, or a slightly different shaped lip, or a different weight at birth?Read about how clones don't look exactly like their "parents."

It's impossible to clone a tortoiseshell cat.

Tortoiseshell cats have a random pattern of red and black hairs covering their bodies. This is because they have 2 different hair colour genes - one on each X chromosome. Each cell can obviously only grow a black or a red hair, so which colour hair any given cell produces is chosen at random during the embryo's growth, through a process called "X-linked inactivation".

This means that if you try to clone a tortoiseshell cat from a cell with one X chromosome deactivated, then you'll end up with a cat that's completely black. If you try to clone a tortoiseshell cat from a cell with the other X chromosome deactivated, then you'll end up with a cat that's completely red. If you take a cell from the embryo from before one of the X chromosomes is deactivated, you'll end up with a tortoiseshell cat with a completely different pattern to its "parent".

Or, to put it another way, identical DNA does not necessarily mean identical end result.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As far as the "identical brains" thing goes, if we were to clone two identical brains, stick them in jars, connect all their nerves up to a computer, and feed them completely identical input, I'm still not convinced that we could say that we'd end up with 2 identical brains. To say that you have to assume that there are no random processes within the brain whatsoever. That no neurons fire without direct stimulus.

Leaving aside the fact that minor seizures aren't uncommon even in a completely healthy brain, I don't think we know enough about the specifics of the firing of neurons to definitively say one way or the other whether there are random processes which occur. Not to mention the fact that there's a question as to whether quantum processes may affect the brain.

So, even given the exact same stimulus to the exact same wetware, I don't think it's a safe assumption that you'd end up with something identical end results.

 

[Garrette]

Oh, you meant left side vs. right sides of the womb?

That's what I meant because it is what I understood that Giordano meant.

 

[John Jones]

So I'm guessing that there has been no essential proof of immortality offered after all these months.

 

[Garrette]

Jabba, I sincerely hope you are paying attention to this latest topic. First, as usual, you can learn something about a number of topics, including logic. Second, and more important, is you can see what honest debate looks like. It would be very easy to agree with you that physical identicality equates to identical selves because that would make it easier to demonstrate that there are finite potential selves in the Standard Model. But we have not taken the easy road. Rather, we have taken the truthful road although it appears detrimental to our case. Notice, though, that even with admitting that physical identicality does not reduce the number of potential selves, your case is still lost; the number--however large--is still finite.

 

[Akhenaten]

Let's go with the Quantum Souls. Can anyone object to that?

Any idea how to draw them?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Any idea how to draw them?

No, but I know how to ship 'em...

Individually packaged, and clearly addressed to Albuquarky.

 

[pakeha]

So I'm guessing that there has been no essential proof of immortality offered after all these months.

Not so far, nor even a definition of A and non-A.

 

[Giordano]

That's what I meant because it is what I understood that Giordano meant.

Garrette is correct. I was referring, in part, to identical twins. Sorry if I wasn't absolutely clear.

 

[Monza]

No, I think Slowvehicle had it right. Jabba believes the soul is some ephemeral spirit conjured out of the ether and assigned to a human host at some point during gestation. Since the soul comes from nothing but potentiality, he thinks the possible potential souls are infinite.

Of course, even if he were to prove that the soul is separate from the body and that it exists before and/or after the body's death, none of that would mean that the well of souls was infinite or that the soul was immortal.

You are correct. Even if Jabba can prove there is a pool of souls, it doesn't say anything about immortality. This reminds me of his claims regarding blood (bluurd) on the Shroud. Even if there was blood on the Shroud, it doesn't say anything about its age.

Such lapses in logic have been explained to him every which way from Sunday but it has yet to sink in.

 

[Loss Leader]

Will Jabba Be My Valentine? The best of Jabba, first half of February 2014.

(Please note that the purpose of these digests is to demonstrate the paucity of Jabba's argument by highlighting the sheer amount of time he spends asking questions, making excuses and being confused. It has no bearing on Jabba as a person. By all accounts, he seems to be a loving and devoted family man who would probably be the apotheosis of polite company in person.)

- I'm a slow two-finger typist.

If I understand your question, this should be the answer.

Hopefully, the following will approach an answer to your request, even though it's mostly my reasoning rather than my evidence, and it's within my argument for the concept/story of Jesus. If you'd prefer to skip it, let me know, and I'll come back with what "evidence" I have.

I didn't understand your symbolization

Can anyone else answer my question?

I think I've given it my best shot and will move on.

- I might finally have an effective way to express my dichotomy. Many of you will believe that it's the same thing I've been saying -- and I agree that it is what I've been trying to say -- hopefully, I'll be satisfied with this rendition.

- I should quit calling it the "scientific model." From now on I'll call it "proposition A."

But here, I think, is as far as the currently human brain can take us.

- This is getting embarrassing -- even to me -- but, I need to change my dichotomy again. Hopefully, this one will stick.

Let me know if this latest attempt doesn't equal one.

Don't understand.

I don't understand why it wouldn't.

Sorry that my propositions have been evolving. I'm finding out how difficult it is to express a complement correctly.

Please tell me (again?) what possibility is not accounted for by the combination of A and ~A.

Maybe, our films just keep rewinding forever.
- Hey! For me at least, It sure beats oblivion forever...

Deleted

- If I can show that, I'll try to show why "more than once" is best interpreted as "periodic forever" (whatever "forever" means).

In that section of my website, I try to explain why we should believe in Magic. Doing so, would support a belief in immortality as much as it would support a belief in Jesus.

Otherwise, which specific claim do you mean?

This will be my second "move-on" -- unless, someone still thinks that my dichotomy is false, and tells me why.
- My first move-on was after I apparently effectively answered the objection that my dichotomy did not include the possibility of a deterministic universe.
Let me know if you'd prefer that I address a different objection.

- I'm happy to go back to your sallies of yesterday. I had forgotten about them.

- As I often complain, I only have so much time to commit to the discussion here, so I have to keep a very narrow focus. In the future, I'll try to let you know when I do that. Keep in mind that most of my available time is in the morning, New York time.

Again, I only have so much time to devote to our discourse; this morning, my baby sitting duties are about to call me away; I have numerous "opponents" asking numerous questions (and making numerous objections); and finally, my focus has been the issue of false dichotomy, and I didn't think that any of your questions were central to that issue.

I don't really understand your objection here -- I think that's exactly what I'm planning to do next.

Please give me an example of the claims you think that I've ignored.

Gotta go.

You'll need to give me an example of a claim that you think I haven't answered.

Gotta go.

I don't have nearly enough time to answer all of those at once -- so, I'll start off with the first one and get back to the others as I have the time, if I have the time. If you prefer that I start with a different example, just let me know which one.

Once I've given that my best shot, I'll get back to the "background knowledge" I've used in determining the "prior probability" of ~A. I think that's my "evidence" you're asking for.

It sounds like I haven't understood your request...

If you guys can figure out a way to present one Q/C at a time, I will do my best to answer each one.

delete

Can someone direct me to my debate with Loss Leader?

I still don't understand.

I've given it my best shot (for now, at least), so I think I'll move on.

If you want to ask more than one at a time, just let me know which to answer first.

I had basically figured I could do that all along, but it turns out that such isn't easy to do when one is being questioned on numerous heated fronts.

- Please keep in mind, that I'm trying to respond to only one issue here. I am not trying to respond to surrounding issues such as, "Why don't I respond to a different issue?"

I'm trying to find something on-line that directly addresses this issue, but so far with no luck. Perhaps, you could find something?

But, don't hold your breath -- as you know, I'm not easy. - I'll be back.

If I can ever get anyone to accept that as the complement to A, I'll move on to trying to show that "more than once" amounts to immortality...

Sorry to everyone I'm not answering, but my answers elicit new turmoil even when I'm as slow and as careful as possible when choosing my words.

I still have one more foray to attempt before I move on.

My wife is going through hell with a pinched nerve (apparently), and it's awful cold outside -- otherwise, things are good.

Currently, I need to do some more thinking about xtifr's examples of stuff I'm missing with my claimed dichotomy.

This is a very busy day anyway, and we're in the midst of a serious snow storm. But per usual, I'll be back

 

[AdMan]

Will Jabba Be My Valentine? The best of Jabba, first half of February 2014.

(Please note that the purpose of these digests is to demonstrate the paucity of Jabba's argument by highlighting the sheer amount of time he spends asking questions, making excuses and being confused. It has no bearing on Jabba as a person. By all accounts, he seems to be a loving and devoted family man who would probably be the apotheosis of polite company in person.)

To paraphrase Bill, "A troll by any other name..."

 

[xtifr]

Forget molecules, forget genes. The entire number of possible quantum states of the entire universe is finite, bound at the high end by the physical size of the universe, and at the low end by the Planck length. Thus Jabba will never arrive at his hoped for conclusion that his probability of existence is 1/inf. At least, not in this universe.

Ah, but what if we postulate multiverses? And what if there are an infinite number of multiverses?

Nope, still won't get him furtherer. If there are an infinite number of multiverses, then anything that can happen will, at some point, in some universe. Jabba's probability in any given universe may be 1/inf., but with an infinite number of universes, we get inf./inf. as his overall probability, and anything divided by itself is one, so his probability is one.