[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[dafydd]

They're the same as the last time we discussed them.

And the time before that.

 

[Jabba]

3) If identical brains did produce the same self (the kind of "self" that I've been referring to), would this one self be looking through two sets of eyes?

 

[jond]

3) If identical brains did produce the same self (the kind of "self" that I've been referring to), would this one self be looking through two sets of eyes?

You haven't read a word that anyone wrote in response to your previous question, have you?

 

[Loss Leader]

3) If identical brains did produce the same self (the kind of "self" that I've been referring to), would this one self be looking through two sets of eyes?

To paraphrase Slowvehicle: If my aunt had handlebars, would she be a bicycle?

Your question is nonsense. Nobody here believes in the "self" to which you are referring, so nobody can speculate as to what you think that "self" might be capable of.

 

[godless dave]

I guess Rust Cohle was right. Time is a flat circle.

 

[dafydd]

3) If identical brains did produce the same self (the kind of "self" that I've been referring to), would this one self be looking through two sets of eyes?

First prove that the soul exists.

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- Thanks. I do appreciate your summarizing.
- But consequently, I need to ask for another favor. Could you go back and summarize the different questions and comments re my two questions. Obviously, there's a lot of redundancy in the different responses -- so, if you could do the lumping for me, I'd be eternally (really, just for a long time) grateful.

For the record, I find this request unconscionably rude. If you cannot be bothered to page back and read the replies to the questions you asked in your own thread, then I don't think anyone should be bothered to care about your argument. On the other hand, if you lack the capacity to page back and read the replies, you probably lack the capacity to make your argument in the first place.

That being said, here are all the questions and comments your two questions garnered:

This is a new variation on truly effective debate, is it? Random questions to unidentified readers, all of the answers to which (but one) you will ignore anyway. Why don't you just get on with producing your evidence in support of the existence of souls?

No.

F) Of course not, that's a ridiculous idea. Let's say I own a copy of My Little Pony on DVD and you own a copy of My Little Pony on DVD. The physical make up of those DVDs are the same. Now let's say that my house burns down and my DVD melts in the fire. Does your DVD melt, too? No? Then why would two things being the same mean that they had the same experiences? Seriously, F is being kind.
If we define this thread as a "self", then the answer is unequivocally A.

How does brain damage work within the concept of a soul?

I don't see how. We already talked about a DVD being the same DVD even after it was changed.

If there is a part of your mental process that is separate from the physical organ of the brain, how do you explain mental changes resulting from trauma to the brain?

Your question, as asked, is 'way too simplistic for the simplsitic answers you listed. We have been through this before. Let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that it were, in fat, possible to manufacture an atom-for-atom, molecule-for-molecule, neuron-for-neuron exact duplicate of a particular brain at a particular moment, and it were possible to "turn on" that brain and have it activate in media res, as it were (rather than trying to have the duplicate brain "develop" into an exact duplicate). At the very moment that the duplicate brain were "activated", the two brains would, inevitably, diverge, as they would, inevitably, be undergoing two different sets of experiences. It is no more possible to "build", or "develop", two identical brains than it is to grow two identical bonsai; or breed two identical dogs, or erode two identical rivers in identical watersheds. What instances of "shared consciousness", of the "same brain" in "two different people" sharing the "same self", can you provide?

What? I mean to say, what, what? This has all been discussed, Jabba. Remember?

A. Yes. The healthy individual tends to experience his/her ego as continuous throughout life. I have no idea how this helps you as: 1) personal feelings are not evidence; 2) there is good evidence that the ego is not continuous; and 3) unhealthy individuals (schizophrenics, total amnesiacs, the seriously injured) may not experience a contunuous ego throughout life. Rather than move on with your argument, you're just stuck on this soul/self thing. We all understand it. Move forward.

What about traumatic aphasia? What about traumatic amnesia? What about my own, personal experience?

E. No. We've already been over this again and again. Identical molecular twins are two separate people because: 1) they're made up of different matter; and 2) as soon as their experiences diverge, they will no longer be identical. You can create more than one "identical" person. I am baffled at how this might help your argument. On the one hand, it might get you a larger number of possible souls and you are keen to have as many possible souls as you can get. On the other hand, if each identical individual is a new soul, you appear to have shut out the possibility of that person inheriting his soul from a dead person. How can a soul be in two different bodies separated by time when each new body comes complete with its own soul? And, of course, you're still ignoring the fact that matter, time and energy in the universe are finite. Thus, there are a finite number of people who could be made.

No. Absolutely not. Am I the same self as I was when I was five? The same person as I was when I was fifteen? Am I the same self as I was fifteen minutes ago?

Again, to save you the effort of paging up. I again pick B. Our idea of who we are changes with time as we experience different things and eperience physical development and aging. As has been mentioned, I interpret and see things very differently now than at 8 years old. Girls, for example. I have seen a person's idea of "self" change radically to another "self" with certain brain damage, such as some strokes. I could ask you here to define self, but please don't. We've been down that road before.

I pointed this out already: if you have trouble communicating your views, setting aside the time, remembering your and others posts, or constructing a mathematical proof, perhaps you should chose a less difficult thread?

When you do get back, please provide the exact citation to which you were referring when you stated that one can place things into categories without being able to identify them. I am certain I want to read it- it sounds interesting. Also when you do get back, if your proof of immortality relies on the previous low probability of there being a Jabba, even though there is a Jabba (current probability = 1), you will want to explain why this "proof" does not also apply to specific card hands and lottery ticket numbers. You haven't yet.

Tepidly, no. Is there any meaningful commonality between myself as a zygote and myself as a dying centenarian? (Yes, I am an optimist.) Or even between my 1-year-old self and my 30-year-old self? Do they even share the same atoms (calcium in the bone, maybe)? Some measurable attributes might rarely change, like fingerprints, or being mostly water, or the pattern of my DNA, but none of these uniquely identify me and I don't think they are meaningful in this context. This is perhaps a weak analogy, but if you own a car for 20 years, but you have replaced all the parts, is it the same car, even if it still looks and behaves much the same?

Have we tried the wave analogy? An ocean wave can travel for miles, its shape and the atoms of which it is made constantly changing, but it is still meaningful to say it is the same wave. It eventually hits the shore and its energy dissipates, of course, so Jabba probably won't like that analogy either.

There you go.

 

[PixyMisa]

3) If identical brains did produce the same self (the kind of "self" that I've been referring to), would this one self be looking through two sets of eyes?

What part of "No. A trillion times no." did you not understand?

 

[godless dave]

3) If identical brains did produce the same self (the kind of "self" that I've been referring to), would this one self be looking through two sets of eyes?

You tell us. You're the one proposing that two identical brains could produce the same self.

 

[Slowvehicle]

3) If identical brains did produce the same self (the kind of "self" that I've been referring to), would this one self be looking through two sets of eyes?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

It is difficult for me to remain civil while attempting to explain to you how very rude, how very insulting, how downright disrespectful, this answer is. Have you read NONE of the responses to your "identical brains" fantasy?

I deny that it is possible, even theoretically, for two phyccial brains, or neurosystems, to be constructed identically.

Even were that possible, as soon as the two very similar brains began to accumulate experiences, the two unique consciousnesses, the two unique emergent properties of the two no-matter-how-similar-still-different brains would diverge to at least the extent that their experiences inevitably diverged.

To put it bluntly, you question is pointless and silly--unless you simply intended it as comic relief, as in my example of my Tanta,

It is, however, late in the process for you to try to rescue an untenable postiion with attempts at humor.

Having said that, consider your two "identical" brains. Even if they could be created "identical", and could somehow be subjected to "identical" influences; and, even if the two resulting emergent-property consciousnesses developed to be so similar that an observer could not, by test, determine to which one she was speaking; those two consciousnesses would not be the "same" consciousness any more than those two distinct brains were the "same" brain (or two models of the HMS Invincible made of two different Lego sets would be the "same" ship, or two BLTs made from the same loaf of whole-wheat seeded bread, the same jar of olive-oil mayo, the same head of red romaine lettuce, and sequential rashers of the same black-pepper-cured mesquite-smoked bacon would be the "same" sandwich).

There is no physical mechanism by which two neurosystems could share the "same" emergent-property consciousness; no radiant effect, no dimensional rift, no exchange of subtle particles, no "portal", no stargate, no astral plane; no effect, even theoretical, that would explain, or consist of, two physical brains manifesting the same emergent-property consciousness.

No telepathy. No possession. No communication with an emergent property of a system that has ceased to function.

I say again, as I have said before: You are welcome to provide evidence (objective, practical, empirical evidence) to the contrary. Until you do, you really, really ought to quit pretending as if the only reason I, and others, do not agree with your claim that the "soul" exists and is "immortal" is that we do not understand your claim.

So: evidence?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

3) If identical brains did produce the same self (the kind of "self" that I've been referring to), would this one self be looking through two sets of eyes?

If fairies with pink wings had wings that were twice as large as fairies with blue wings, what would be the maximum altitude at which they could cruise?

 

[Garrette]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

It is difficult for me to remain civil while attempting to explain to you how very rude, how very insulting, how downright disrespectful, this answer is.

--snip--

This. I've mentioned it before, and I will mention it again. Jabba's is a false civility; it is the worst kind of rudeness and disrespect because it attempts to portray itself as the epitome of gentility and civility. What on earth do you mean, Sir? I have not once raised my voice when I called you a jackanapes, not once used an angry tone when I implied you are incompetent, not once used a curse word as I impugned your morals.

It is the lie of the thin facade, lacking the strength to admit its existence. When Jabba ignores those of us he finds rude or insulting, it is neither the rudeness nor the insult he bemoans; it is the lack of our own facade. We should be gentlemen writing strongly worded letters about the lack of clean water, not the swearing and sweat-soaked laborers digging the new well.

 

[Garrette]

If fairies with pink wings had wings that were twice as large as fairies with blue wings, what would be the maximum altitude at which they could cruise?

African or European fairies?

 

[carlitos]

if you lack the capacity to page back and read the replies, you probably lack the capacity to make your argument in the first place.

If?

 

[Slowvehicle]

If fairies with pink wings had wings that were twice as large as fairies with blue wings, what would be the maximum altitude at which they could cruise?

Is that an African fairy, or a European fairy?

 

[Garrette]

Is that an African fairy, or a European fairy?

Ahem....

African or European fairies?

 

[Slowvehicle]

This. I've mentioned it before, and I will mention it again. Jabba's is a false civility; it is the worst kind of rudeness and disrespect because it attempts to portray itself as the epitome of gentility and civility. What on earth do you mean, Sir? I have not once raised my voice when I called you a jackanapes, not once used an angry tone when I implied you are incompetent, not once used a curse word as I impugned your morals.

It is the lie of the thin facade, lacking the strength to admit its existence. When Jabba ignores those of us he finds rude or insulting, it is neither the rudeness nor the insult he bemoans; it is the lack of our own facade. We should be gentlemen writing strongly worded letters about the lack of clean water, not the swearing and sweat-soaked laborers digging the new well.

Nominated! Beautifully said...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ahem....

Hey, I was busy nominating your other post, and did not see your bushido tango. I am well and truly ninja-ed...I offer you my sword.

 

[Akhenaten]

LL,
- Thanks. I do appreciate your summarizing.

I'll bet you do.

It's all that spans the dark and bottomless pit which lies between where you are and where you'd be if you had actually read this sad, misbegotten thread for yourself.

- But consequently, I need to ask for another favor.

Your vast ignorance of the discussion that has taken place here is in no wise a consequence of Loss Leader's summation thereof. Aside from your effrontery in begging further favours from him, the inference that your current and ongoing bewilderment result from his presentation of the pertinent details is nothing short of gross insult.

Could you go back and summarize the different questions and comments re my two questions.

I'll bet you don't know what chutzpah means.

Obviously, there's a lot of redundancy in the different responses . . .

A direct result of you having asked the same questions over and over again for more than 15 months and pretending that all but about one response in twenty were never offered.

-- so, if you could do the lumping for me, I'd be eternally (really, just for a long time) grateful.

Why not just nominate Loss Leader as your de facto sock puppet and retire the breakfast nook for good?

 

[Garrette]

Wow. Thanks.

ETA: At Slowvehicle