[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[PixyMisa]

My first question: Assuming that’s correct and that you believe that this personal illusion, 1) will not continue after death, 2) did not exist before life and 3) will never return -- can you say how many different potential such illusions of selves there would be? (Sorry about all of that.)
I should warn you that I claim that there should be an infinity of such potential illusionary selves.

This is a remarkably silly question.

The observable Universe is finite. The brain is finite. Thus the illusory self is finite. Thus the potential number of possible distinct illusory selves is finite.

Given Susan Blackmore's stated position, the only possible response she can give is to tell you that you are hopelessly wrong, just as the rest of us have.

What would it actually take to convince you that you are wrong?

 

[Slowvehicle]

It's not Roger having the pleasure this time.

Right. I missed that. This time it's Dr. Blackmore getting "rogered". New victim; same dishonesty.

 

[Jabba]

- Just got a message from Prof. Blackmore. I don't really understand her answer, but she gave me a bunch of reading to do.
- Here's my response.

Prof. Blackmore,
Wow! That was quick!
Is it OK to quote you on the Randi forum?
Rich

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Just got a message from Prof. Blackmore. I don't really understand her answer, but she gave me a bunch of reading to do.
- Here's my response.

Prof. Blackmore,
Wow! That was quick!
Is it OK to quote you on the Randi forum?
Rich

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

Any chance at all that you are going to address the fact that you are being dishonest in your approach to BOTH "Roger" and Dr. Blackmore?

 

[Jabba]

I don't necessarily see a software/hardware distinction with consciousness. I don't think we can rule out that there might be a specific structure in the brain that receives the sensory input and experiences our thoughts and feelings; what Jabba might call the "observer". Even if it's the brain as a whole that produces the ego, I don't think it's wrong to say that the ego is the brain rather than a product of the brain.

Dave,
- How do you relate what we call "mental" to what we call "physical"? Are they really just the same thing?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- How do you relate what we call "mental" to what we call "physical"? Are they really just the same thing?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

And, the dishonesty continues, unabated, untrammeled, and unbridled.

I wonder if you have any idea how pointless your constructions, "what we call 'mental'..." and "what we call 'physical'..." are (my emphasis added)? You and I do not use the terms in the same way, so it is fruitless to speak of "what we call " "mental", or "physical", or "immortal"...not to mention the whole "self"/"soul"/"consciousness"/"observer" aversion tango you gavotte.

Why not drop your attempt to enlist people to your "side" by simply and clearly presenting your "side", with evidence? Declare yourself, instead of trimming your sails.

 

[Loss Leader]

How do you relate what we call "mental" to what we call "physical"? Are they really just the same thing?

How can you ask this again? Again? After it's been answered over and over by all manner of people?

YES!

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- How do you relate what we call "mental" to what we call "physical"? Are they really just the same thing?

They're the same thing. "Mental" is neurons passing ions back and forth.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba for this death spiral of a debate to cling to the last possibility of intellectual honesty you have to give a direct, no word salad, no double speak, no back door, no B.S. answer to the following question.

Is it possible for any information given to you to actually be received, processed, and at least given a token attempt at being listened to or is everything that everyone tells you just going to be totally ignored then reworded and thrown back at us?

 

[Jabba]

They're the same thing. "Mental" is neurons passing ions back and forth.

- For whatever reasons, that is hard for me to understand. But you do see "mental" as an emergent property of neurons passing ions back and forth?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Are there any mind-body dualists in the audience tonight besides Jaba?

*crickets*

 

[Garrette]

- For whatever reasons, that is hard for me to understand. But you do see "mental" as an emergent property of neurons passing ions back and forth?

You obviously do not understand what emergent property means. An emergent property is still physical, so getting anyone to agree to that will not warrant you concluding that what you call mental is anything but physical.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I'll let you know.

Fortunately we already know. Your allowance is irrelevant.

 

[godless dave]

- For whatever reasons, that is hard for me to understand. But you do see "mental" as an emergent property of neurons passing ions back and forth?

Not necessarily. I think "mental" is what the neurons are experiencing, from their point of view.

 

[pakeha]

They're the same thing. "Mental" is neurons passing ions back and forth.

- For whatever reasons, that is hard for me to understand. But you do see "mental" as an emergent property of neurons passing ions back and forth?

Jabba, what could mental be other than neurons passing ions back and forth?

 

[Akhenaten]

- Just got a message from Prof. Blackmore. I don't really understand her answer, but she gave me a bunch of reading to do.

Gosh! First time that's ever happened in the course of your time here!

No, wait . . .

- Here's my response.

Prof. Blackmore,
Wow! That was quick!
Is it OK to quote you on the Randi forum?
Rich

You don't even quote the people who actually post at the Randi forum, no matter how quick their responses are.

Why is someone outside the forum whose work you don't even understand suddenly promoted to LCP?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Gosh! First time that's ever happened in the course of your time here!

No, wait . . .

You don't even quote the people who actually post at the Randi forum, no matter how quick their responses are.

Why is someone outside the forum whose work you don't even understand suddenly promoted to LCP?

...there is an "L" in "LCP" for a reason, Mighty One (may you post forever!)...

 

[Akhenaten]

Jabba,

I will ask you once again: you are asking a question of Dr. Blackmore that you have asked of us many different ways and many different times?

Because of a total misunderstanding of what constitutes research and a ridiculously mistaken belief that his participation here enables him to pretend that he acts as spokesman for the ongoing discussion.

"Forum buddies"? What a sad joke.

Virtually all of us have told you you were wrong. Will you believe Dr. Blackmore if she agrees with us? If so, why? Why not the many here, instead of the one on the end of your email?

Delusions of grandeur.

Will you accept anyone or any evidence if they disagree with your pet "theories."

Of course not. He will simply agree to disagree and move on to the next item on his never-ending list of irrelevant minutiae.

I'll even ask- why not ask the mathematics professor about infinity and Blackmore about neurobiology and the "self?" Why did you ask each person about an area (reincarnation and infinity) that they have the least experience in? Do you fear the answers?

Jabba's arguments display no understanding that mathematics and neurobiology are different subjects.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- How do you relate what we call "mental" to what we call "physical"? Are they really just the same thing?

I gave you credit in an earlier response for reading every twentieth post in this thread.

I'm ashamed of myself for making such a gross over-estimation.

 

[Akhenaten]

- For whatever reasons, that is hard for me to understand.

The reason is eminently simple.

Reality is probably not the impersonal, deterministic machine that mainstream science would have us believe. In that sense, reality is probably “magical.” Many of the “things” that we think we know, or that we otherwise “believe in,” do not really “make sense,” do not readily fit into our “naturalistic” (physical/analytic) worldview – and are, in that sense, magical...

http://messiahornot.com/Magic.php​

There's not much hope in using reason to deal with arguments that spring from a point of view such as this.

But you do see "mental" as an emergent property of neurons passing ions back and forth?

Don't be silly! The phrase "emergent property" is just another way of saying "magic" and "mental" is what we all otherwise know as "immortal souls".

And we're all the King of Siam.