Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
- Status
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Jabba, your posts are a running "joke". You don't even seem to "realise" this simple truth, let alone the deeper ones that you think you're "addressing".
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
1-7010
Good Morning, Mr. Savage!
I have been musing upon your contributions over the last several days, and, despite the fact that you are, once again, simply pretending that I am not posting on the thread, I am of the opinion that the following needs to be pointed out:
Your compass has veered far, far form your original course. You originally claimed that you though you could "essentially prove" "immortality" with "Bayesian Statistics".
That had degenerated into you trying to suggest that since, according to your claims, what is actually observed is so completely, absurdly unlikely, that what is undemonstrated (and cannot be supported by evidence) must be (at least slightly) more likely than what actually is observed.
Two aspects of this seem familiar:
First, this strongly resembles your approach in ShroudTM and Son of ShroudTM, where you argued that, since "nothing is ever certain in science", the 0.0001% possibility of the 14C being erroneous meant that it was more likely that a mistake had been made in the dating, than not. Yes. You tired to argue that the theoretical possibility of error was more significant than 99.999% confidence in the independent results of 3 unaffiliated laboratories, using three different protocols to come to the same result (within acceptable margin of error). Sounds very much like the current "what is, is so very unlikely that my unevidenced and undemosntrable claim is more likely than what actually is.
Second, your attempts to use "infinitiy" in the denominator of a fraction have let you lose sight of the fact that this is, in fact, the first and least of the hurdles you must overcome. Again, in exactly the same way that even completely ignoring the fact that the linen artifact has been demonstrated to be of medieval origin, the image on the linen is an anatomically-incorrect, posturally impossible, scripturally-inaccurate, byzantine-styled representation. Here, even if you could demonstrate that the physically-impossible even if theoretically conceivable "duplication" of the "same brain" producing the "same self" was, in fact, significant, that still leaves you needing to demonstrate that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal".
You approach was unfruitful in the "Bunch of Questions" thread, and in the ShroudTM threads; and has been unfruitful here.
A friendly suggestion: why not try something new, and start with the evidence?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
7009->7027
- I’m not saying that consciousness comes from nowhere. Consciousness comes from a specific kind of physical state. It’s your particular illusion of a self that I claim comes from nowhere.
- If we replicate your brain after you die, your particular illusion will not come back to life. And each time we replicate your brain, we’ll produce a new illusion. IOW, each illusion will be undefined until its actual existence. There is no pool of potential illusions for it to be taken from. Each illusion will be brand new. Each will have no prior existence -- or "representation" -- of any kind. It will come from nowhere, out of thin air.
xtifr,
- I’m not saying that consciousness comes from nowhere. Consciousness comes from a specific kind of physical state. It’s your particular illusion of a self that I claim comes from nowhere.
- If we replicate your brain after you die, your particular illusion will not come back to life. And each time we replicate your brain, we’ll produce a new illusion. IOW, each illusion will be undefined until its actual existence. There is no pool of potential illusions for it to be taken from. Each illusion will be brand new. Each will have no prior existence -- or "representation" -- of any kind. It will come from nowhere, out of thin air.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Isn't the sense of self part of consciousness? If one comes from the brain, why not the other?
Last edited:
If we replicate a brain after death together with the memories and experiences that have altered the brain, then the consciousness together with the illusory continuous sense of self will be identical (but separate) to the original consciousness. The sense of self doesn't come out of nowhere (or "out of thin air"), it's a indivisible part of the emergent process of consciousness arising from the living brain. The consciousness and the sense of self aren't different, separate things; the sense of self is an integral part of the consciousness. The illusion is that the self is continuous and unchanging.
Your argument is still based on errors.
Since you seem to accept that consciousness doesn't come from nowhere, then you must understand that neither does the sense of self, because the sense of self is just an aspect of the consciousness.
Your argument is still based on errors.
Since you seem to accept that consciousness doesn't come from nowhere, then you must understand that neither does the sense of self, because the sense of self is just an aspect of the consciousness.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Lose this nonsense.
And that's why you're so consistently wrong. Consiousness and sense of self are not the separate entitities that your fantasy dictates them to be.
No, because replicating your brain after you die will have no other result than having two dead brains to dispose of.
Not unless you are also able to replicate the experiences to which the original brain was subjected.
It's a replica. If it wasn't pre-defined it would just be a completely different new self (which is exactly what happens in the real world).
You don't say.
The more times you repeat this balderdash, the balderdashier it becomes.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
No, Jabba.
Consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem, not something that 'comes from a specific kind of physical state.'
The sense of consciousness, or what you insist on calling a 'particular illusion of a self' doesn't 'come from nowhere, out of thin air.' It's part of the ongoing process of the functioning of a neurosystem.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
That's a bit unfortunate, because what you actually need to address is all the possible models in which your existence is not infinite.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good Morning, Mr. Savage!
Why are you still flailing about trying to do CPR on your hypothetical?
Why not just present your evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?
1. (since you like numbered points). This is not the standard model at all. As repeatedly told you, the SM states that the sense of illusion of self is not separate, but is a part of your consciousness, which comes from and depends on your physical brain.
2. So if you think it is the standard model, you are wrong.
3. If you are stating your view, which is different from the SM, then you have to prove it if you want us to believe it too. But if it is your view, then you are now disagreeing with your own OP, which states that the illusion of self is reincarnated, so there is a pre-existing pool and each illusion is not brand new, but comes from previous illusions. Which do you currently believe?
4. I asked you to clarify which you meant, your theory or the SM, but you never have. Do you see why that would help the "discussion?"
Last edited:
Good point! Maybe you should replicate a living brain? Unless you are a zombie and want to eat it.
More so, this is also an important point: the more Jabba repeats his posts, the more obviously wrong they are. It is just like thinking that if you only talked more loudly, the person would finally understand. No, we understand Jabba just fine, and did so the first 5 times he posted the same stuff. He was just wrong, and still is.
Last edited:
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
...like sniffing the milk, finding it sour, and putting it back in the 'frdge to check later, just in case it gets better...
godless dave, ha ha, Jabba has another "LCP" to write to. But you knew this day would happen, so don't take it too badly.
Wait a minute: Am I in Jr. High School again? Sorry...
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
^^ All of this.
Jabba's obsessive conviction that exploring every filament of every twiglet of every root and branch of his basic postulate has led to him not so much into losing sight of the forest; he can no longer even see the tree he's standing behind.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Something about motes and planks...
Looxury! We used ta dreeeeam o' having a plank.
I can essentially prove using Bayesian statistics that is not even a tree. I just thought I should tell you what I intend to do, at some point in the future.
We used to dreeeam of having a mote.
- Status