[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[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?

- If you're talkin about the same kinda self as I am, the answer is yes. I still don't know who's on my page.
- I think that loss leader is on my page, and I used to think Dave was...
- Mostly, I wanted to know that some of you guys were on the same page -- talkin about the same self -- before I started explainin why I think that there should be an infinite number of such selves. I know it's gonna be hard, even if you're on the same page...

- I'm talkin like this cause this is the way I usually talk...

Loss Leader,
- I know you're gettin tired of doin favors for me, but do you think there are others here on the same page?

 

[Agatha]

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?

Identical brains (if such a thing were possible) don't produce the same "self" (in the way you are using the word "self"). So wondering what would happen in the event that an impossible thing happens is not a profitable or sensible use of anybody's time.

For example, I might consider this: If my cat could talk in English, would she prefer to recite Shakespeare or Marlowe?

But the fact is she can't (and never would be able to) talk in English, so wondering which Elizabethan playwright she would enjoy reciting is a pointless exercise.

 

[PixyMisa]

- If you're talkin about the same kinda self as I am, the answer is yes. I still don't know who's on my page.

We understand you just fine. But your question contains a contradiction: Your kind of self is not generated by the brain.

- I think that loss leader is on my page, and I used to think Dave was...
- Mostly, I wanted to know that some of you guys were on the same page -- talkin about the same self -- before I started explainin why I think that there should be an infinite number of such selves. I know it's gonna be hard, even if you're on the same page...

You are talking about immaterial souls. There's no such thing.

 

[godless dave]

- If you're talkin about the same kinda self as I am, the answer is yes. I still don't know who's on my page.
- I think that loss leader is on my page, and I used to think Dave was...
- Mostly, I wanted to know that some of you guys were on the same page -- talkin about the same self -- before I started explainin why I think that there should be an infinite number of such selves. I know it's gonna be hard, even if you're on the same page...

- I'm talkin like this cause this is the way I usually talk...

We're only "on the same page" in that I know what kind of self you're talking about - as I told you that last time you asked. You know darn well that I think the self is inseparable from the physical brain, because I've said so. I feel safe in saying that nobody in this thread besides you believes in an immaterial self.

An immaterial self would be a consequence of Cartesian dualism, a philosophical idea that, again I feel safe in saying, nobody in this thread but you subscribes to.

 

[Akhenaten]

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?

 

[Garrette]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/JabbaJanus.jpg[/qimg]​

You would need to solve the following equation to answer that:

P(No | Disagreement) -1 = P(No | Misunderstanding)

Take your time.

 

[Monza]

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 you're talkin about the same kinda self as I am, the answer is yes. I still don't know who's on my page.
- I think that loss leader is on my page, and I used to think Dave was...
- Mostly, I wanted to know that some of you guys were on the same page -- talkin about the same self -- before I started explainin why I think that there should be an infinite number of such selves. I know it's gonna be hard, even if you're on the same page...

- I'm talkin like this cause this is the way I usually talk...

Loss Leader,
- I know you're gettin tired of doin favors for me, but do you think there are others here on the same page?

Your question 3 is phrased to give the answer you want. The page that everyone is on says that yes, identical brains would produce identical selves. As others have explained, identical is not the same as "same". That is, two things can be 100% identical but they are still two things.

In your question 3, you are starting off with the supposition that there is only one self among the two brains. This is non-sense in that it really doesn't address the topic at hand and certainly doesn't address the original thread topic. Setting up such a hypothetical gets you nowhere. It's going back to your attempt to prove immortality by getting everyone first to agree on the initial condition of an immortal self/soul. It's circular (il)logic.

It's really pretty straight forward. The mind/consciousness/self is an emergent property of the physical brain. At least all evidence supports this conclusion and there is no evidence otherwise. So unless some evidence is brought forward, the only logical conclusion is that the mind/consciousness/self ceases to exist once the brain ceases to function. Brain dies = self dies. It may not be a particularly happy thought, but this is how the world works and we should make the most of what we have.

 

[Giordano]

- If you're talkin about the same kinda self as I am, the answer is yes. I still don't know who's on my page.
- I think that loss leader is on my page, and I used to think Dave was...
- Mostly, I wanted to know that some of you guys were on the same page -- talkin about the same self -- before I started explainin why I think that there should be an infinite number of such selves. I know it's gonna be hard, even if you're on the same page...

- I'm talkin like this cause this is the way I usually talk...

Loss Leader,
- I know you're gettin tired of doin favors for me, but do you think there are others here on the same page?

You really don't read the posts, do you? Loss Leader already did what you asked, awhile ago in this thread (#4407). Did you forget his compilation, too?

I too will make it very easy for you: everyone who has posted thinks that you are wrong that there is a separate mental "self" that does not arise from the physical brain. Everyone. Godless Dave included.

Everyone who has posted thinks that you are wrong that there would be the same "self" in two brains initially created to be physically identical. Many think that this might occur for a moment, but would almost immediately diverge

Everyone who has posted thinks that you are wrong that the "self" does not change from birth to death, although it may appear to be continuous.

Many feel that there is a "self" that controls how we perceive experiences and which we self-identify with. (I think) that all of these people also see the soul as changing with our experiences and development.

Feel free to rely on this "cheat sheet." Please don't ask us again.

 

[godless dave]

Here, I'll provide a summary of the posts from yesterday:

Let's say that I own 2 computers. They're old home computers. Let's say ZX Spectrums. They are from a time long before the internet or, indeed, home computers being able to communicate with other home computers. My computers are identical, having come off the production line immediately after each other.

I turn them both on. I load Manic Miner in to one of them. I don't touch the other one at all. My question to you is - have both computers got Manic Miner loaded in to them? If your answer is no, then you'll know why answering that there's not one consciousness between two identical brains doesn't mean that you believe in a soul. If your answer is yes, then you are not only ignorant about computers, but are arguing that computers have immortal souls.

Jabba, I'm typing this comment on a Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1. Samsung made thousands of these, with identical specifications - same screen, same electronics, same buggy firmware. They are physically identical.

Do you think the comment I'm typing is appearing on the screen of every Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 in the world? After all, they are physically identical.


Edit: this is the same question Squeegee is asking.

Um ... If you had to identical DVD's of Paul Blart: Mall Cop, would you seem to believe that the difference between them is not caused by physical differences?

They are two separate things, made up of separate molecules. I can sort them, I can count them, I can mail one of them to China.

 

[Giordano]

Does Loss Leader also help move pianos? Because I have a fifth floor walkup and a Steinway... I am told that you can only ask a person to move a piano one time; the next time they are otherwise busy. Perhaps Jabba be willing to do so twice or more?

The compilation of other people's posts by Loss Leader was extremely kind and generous!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- If you're talkin about the same kinda self as I am, the answer is yes. I still don't know who's on my page.

Everybody knows what you're talking about. Nobody agrees with you that such a thing exists.

- I think that loss leader is on my page[...]

Far be it from me to speak for someone else, but I'm sure I can say without fear of contradiction that he's not.

- Mostly, I wanted to know that some of you guys were on the same page -- talkin about the same self -- before I started explainin why I think that there should be an infinite number of such selves.

Why? Why would you need to know that people agree with you that one thing exists before you can start explaining why something else exists?

Loss Leader,
- I know you're gettin tired of doin favors for me, but do you think there are others here on the same page?

Again, not wanting to speak for anybody else, but no. Emphatically no.

 

[Akhenaten]

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 you're talkin about the same kinda self as I am, the answer is yes. I still don't know who's on my page.

Here's a hint:

- I think that loss leader is on my page, and I used to think Dave was...

Uneasy lies the head that wears the Least Critical Poster™ hat.

- Mostly, I wanted to know that some of you guys were on the same page -- talkin about the same self -- before I started explainin why I think that there should be an infinite number of such selves. I know it's gonna be hard, even if you're on the same page...

You have no idea of what the quite vast majority of 'us guys' think because you've never taken a scrap of notice of us.

Also, either your 'G' key or your apostrophe key is broken.

- I'm talkin like this cause this is the way I usually talk...

I assume you mean 'type' rather than 'talk' but in either case, you're wrong. Your usual means of attempted communication is via haphazardly-assembled lists.

Loss Leader,
- I know you're gettin tired of doin favors for me, but do you think there are others here on the same page?

It beggars belief that you still seem to think that all of us here who oppose you are in constant communication with each other.

 

[John Jones]

Not no, but heck no.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Everyone who has posted thinks that you are wrong that there would be the same "self" in two brains initially created to be physically identical. Many think that this might occur for a moment, but would almost immediately diverge

No, not in the way Jabba's talking about. He literally means that one consciousness would share 2 brains. Those two brains would be like 2 robots being controlled by 1 computer - that computer being the "self". Unlike you and I who experience the world looking out of 2 eyes (I assume, unless you've had a terrible accident or a birth defect, in which case I apologise for my crass insensitivity) there would be a "self" who experiences the world looking out of 4 eyes. The two different brains experiencing different stimulus would be irrelevant, because it would be just the one "self" experiencing both sets of stimuli.

I think it's reasonable to say that nobody, other than Jabba, believes this to be anything other than utterly preposterous.

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, do you understand the difference in meaning between "identical" and "same"?

 

[godless dave]

Loss Leader,
- I know you're gettin tired of doin favors for me, but do you think there are others here on the same page?

It beggars belief that you still seem to think that all of us here who oppose you are in constant communication with each other.

Loss Leader could attempt to determine what the other posters think by reading our posts.

Of course, Jabba could do this himself.

 

[Loss Leader]

Loss Leader,
- I know you're gettin tired of doin favors for me, but do you think there are others here on the same page?

I've actually addressed this several times and so have other posters:

Absolutely everyone in this thread understands what you mean by a "self" or soul. We are all immersed in religions and societies where the existence of a continuous soul throughout life (and beyond) is assumed.

That being the case:

Absolutely nobody in this thread believes that there is an unchanging "self" or soul throughout life. Absolutely nobody in this thread believes there is any mechanism by which any "self" or soul could outlive its body. Absolutely nobody believes that the "self" or soul is anything other than an illusion created by the mechanical processes of the physical brain.

I do not agree with you. Godless Dave does not agree with you. Nobody agrees with you. But we all understand you. So, please, for the love of decency and marshmallows, move on.

 

[Monza]

It beggars belief that you still seem to think that all of us here who oppose you are in constant communication with each other.

The funny thing is, most of us are. We're sitting with our laptops in my living room eating nachos right now. Loss Leader is hogging the salsa and Slow Vehicle is demanding imported beer. By the way, Akhenaten, someone said you were on the way here with some gyros? Bring extra tzatziki sauce.

 

[jond]

I've actually addressed this several times and so have other posters:

Absolutely everyone in this thread understands what you mean by a "self" or soul. We are all immersed in religions and societies where the existence of a continuous soul throughout life (and beyond) is assumed.

That being the case:

Absolutely nobody in this thread believes that there is an unchanging "self" or soul throughout life. Absolutely nobody in this thread believes there is any mechanism by which any "self" or soul could outlive its body. Absolutely nobody believes that the "self" or soul is anything other than an illusion created by the mechanical processes of the physical brain.

I do not agree with you. Godless Dave does not agree with you. Nobody agrees with you. But we all understand you. So, please, for the love of decency and marshmallows, move on.

And on that bombshell, ladies and gentlemen, it's time to end.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The funny thing is, most of us are. We're sitting with our laptops in my living room eating nachos right now. Loss Leader is hogging the salsa and Slow Vehicle is demanding imported beer. By the way, Akhenaten, someone said you were on the way here with some gyros? Bring extra tzatziki sauce.

Aww..."demanding" is harsh. Say, rather, "...looking down his nose at anything that isn't..."