[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Mojo]

A particular sense of self does "come from" a brain. Each new brain, produces a new consciousness -- and this new consciousness brings with it, or develops, a particular sense of self. It's just that the particular sense of self that is brought, or developed, is not fully “defined” by the brain and the brains’ experience. My particular sense of self had no prior … and, here’s where I can’t find an actually effective word/term/phrase for identifying the concept to which I’m trying to refer…
- I’ve tried prior “representation,” “recipe,” “blue print,” “formula,” “mold” and probably, some more -- suggesting that the brain and its experience defines the "what," but not the "who" -- but nothing seems to work that well.

Jabba, the self, consciousness, or whatever else you are going to call it, is not an entity in its own right. It is something that the brain does, and is therefore fully defined by the brain.

 

[jond]

And since brains change in response to stimuli, and no two people experience exactly the same stimuli, there is no way for two people to have identical brains.

A sense of self couldn't "be anybody". It can only be the sense of self produced by that brain. That's what determines "who" it is.

No matter how many times he's been told, Jabba refuses to acknowledge this. I wonder why?

 

[godless dave]

It's one thing to believe in souls. It's quite another to believe that the scientific model includes them.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

No matter how many times he's been told, Jabba refuses to acknowledge this. I wonder why?

Because intellectual dishonesty is the unseen foundation of "truly effective debate."

 

[Giordano]

My particular sense of self had no prior … and, here’s where I can’t find an actually effective word/term/phrase for identifying the concept to which I’m trying to refer…
- I’ve tried prior “representation,” “recipe,” “blue print,” “formula,” “mold” and probably, some more -- suggesting that the brain and its experience defines the "what," but not the "who" -- but nothing seems to work that well.

The fact you can't find a word for this should worry you. If no one ever thought to name it, it probably doesn't exist.

More so, let's get to your proof of there being such a thing as a "sense of self" that is separate from the physical brain itself. What is this "sense of self," the thing that in your theory is reincarnated? Is it

My memory?
My physical appearance in any way?
My sense of identity, of being who I am? (apparently my sense of being "George" now would change into a sense of being "Harry" in my next reincarnation according to you, or would I have multiple personalities in the next life?).
My sense of gender?
My sense of humor?
My like of the same foods as I do now?
My love for the people now close to me? Would I recognize them in the next life, or would they recognize me?
My interest in certain types of books and movies?
My political views?
My anger at certain things?
Etc?

Please indicate which, if any of the above, is part of my "sense of self" and which will be reincarnated in your view. If none-of-the-above, then please tell me what you think will be reincarnated. Thanks!

Also- it you can, please provide some proof, some evidence, of you being correct. But at least tell me what you think is your "sense of sense" is and will be reincarnated. Thanks!

 

[Giordano]

Dave....

Congratulations godless dave, it must have been just a brief flirtation with xtifr. I doubt you are LCP, if such a thing exists, but for some reason you are favored anyway!

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,

- A particular sense of self does "come from" a brain.

Yes it does, scare quotes notwithstanding.

Each new brain, produces a new consciousness -- and this new consciousness brings with it, or develops, a particular sense of self.

Consciousness = sense of self. Stop pretending that they're separate entities.

It's just that the particular sense of self that is brought, or developed, is not fully “defined” by the brain and the brains’ experience.

Yes it is, scare quotes notwithstanding.

My particular sense of self had no prior … and, here’s where I can’t find an actually effective word/term/phrase for identifying the concept to which I’m trying to refer…
- I’ve tried prior “representation,” “recipe,” “blue print,” “formula,” “mold” and probably, some more -- suggesting that the brain and its experience defines the "what," but not the "who" -- but nothing seems to work that well.

That's because you're talking about an eternal soul but you can't since, according to the evidence so far produced, there's no such thing.

- Whatever the right words, there is no such thing for any particular sense of self – and, in that sense, each sense of self comes from nothing.

Can you really not see that you're contradicting yourself? Does not your opening paragraph above say:

Dave,

- A particular sense of self does "come from" a brain.

???

A brain is not nothing, Jabba.

While “What” was clearly at bat, there was no “Who” in the on deck circle (I couldn’t help myself).

No, apparently you can't.

- That is the sense in which my particular sense of self came out of nowhere. Not being on any roster, I simply popped up in a batter’s box. Our TEAM doesn’t have a roster. The next batter could be anybody.

There may be worse analogies but I'd be willing to bet that they only exist in this thread and that you have made them.

- And coming from nothing anyway, the possibilities are infinite.

You are, as ever, assuming the consequent.

 

[Akhenaten]

7027->7062

No it's not.

- Assuming that the Big Bang Theory is basically correct, what's the possibility that the Big Bang could happen again -- or, elsewhere?

In this Universe? Zero.

What does this have to do with the OP?

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

It must get very tiring for you to always have the rest of us tell you you are wrong. Prove us incorrect. Prove your theory, now, so we will have to shut-up and look stupid! Provide us your proof and evidence right now! Fulfill your OP, now!

 

[Garrette]

The fact you can't find a word for this should worry you. If no one ever thought to name it, it probably doesn't exist.

More so, let's get to your proof of there being such a thing as a "sense of self" that is separate from the physical brain itself. What is this "sense of self," the thing that in your theory is reincarnated? Is it

My memory?
My physical appearance in any way?
My sense of identity, of being who I am? (apparently my sense of being "George" now would change into a sense of being "Harry" in my next reincarnation according to you, or would I have multiple personalities in the next life?).
My sense of gender?
My sense of humor?
My like of the same foods as I do now?
My love for the people now close to me? Would I recognize them in the next life, or would they recognize me?
My interest in certain types of books and movies?
My political views?
My anger at certain things?
Etc?

Please indicate which, if any of the above, is part of my "sense of self" and which will be reincarnated in your view. If none-of-the-above, then please tell me what you think will be reincarnated. Thanks!

Also- it you can, please provide some proof, some evidence, of you being correct. But at least tell me what you think is your "sense of sense" is and will be reincarnated. Thanks!

If any answers are forthcoming -- and I doubt they are -- it will be most interesting to see how they include the fact that every single item on your list changes over time.

 

[Akhenaten]

In the scientific model, it is fully defined by the brain. Even with neuroscience in its infancy, we have a general idea of where the sense of self resides in the brain, because when people meditate and report feeling a loss of the sense of self, parts of the prefrontal cortex show less activity on an MRI.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/choke/201106/how-mindfulness-meditation-alters-the-brain

In the scientific model, the sense of self is wholly defined by the brain. It does not come from nowhere.

- But if you replicated that brain, including its prefrontal cortex, you wouldn't get the same sense of self doing the meditating.

No, you'd get a replica. It defies belief that you still can't get your head around the difference between "the same" and "the same as".

- You're saying that the particular brain does wholly define its particular sense of self. I'll need to think some more about this, but it could be that I actually agree.

Stop trying to scare Dave.

- I would just say that there was no representation of that particular sense of self before the replica came into existence.

Of course you would. Such meaningless statements are the hallmark of your entire argument.

The particular sense of self came from no preexisting formula -

That's why we're all of us unique. It's also a complete contradiction of your multiple Napoleons gibberish.

- and prior to its actual existence, that sense of self could have been anybody.

You can't ascribe any characteristics at all to something "prior to its actual existence".

You might just as well say "Before Napoleon existed he could have been a lump of coal".

 

[Akhenaten]

No matter how many times he's been told, Jabba refuses to acknowledge this. I wonder why?

Because intellectual dishonesty is the unseen foundation of "truly effective debate."

I might have to quibble with the "unseen" bit. Jabba has made the intellectual dishonesty aspect of his side of the "debate" as obvious as tits on a frog.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I might have to quibble with the "unseen" bit. Jabba has made the intellectual dishonesty aspect of his side of the "debate" as obvious as tits on a frog.

Keepin' teh "E" in JREF...I did not know, Mighty One (may you post forever!), that frogs, in fact, HAD tits. Off to the swamp!!

 

[Akhenaten]

Congratulations godless dave, it must have been just a brief flirtation with xtifr. I doubt you are LCP, if such a thing exists, but for some reason you are favored anyway!

I've wondered, more than once, if it's not just that "Dave" is the easiest name to spell.

Especially when one is as extremely pressed for time as Jabba.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I might have to quibble with the "unseen" bit. Jabba has made the intellectual dishonesty aspect of his side of the "debate" as obvious as tits on a frog.

I was referring to the published rules

 

[Akhenaten]

I was referring to the published rules

My mistake.

 

[Mojo]

More so, let's get to your proof of there being such a thing as a "sense of self" that is separate from the physical brain itself. What is this "sense of self," the thing that in your theory is reincarnated?

He also needs to demonstrate that the "sense of self" is something that is separate from the consciousness, since that is what he is claiming.

 

[Mojo]

I've wondered, more than once, if it's not just that "Dave" is the easiest name to spell.

Especially when one is as extremely pressed for time as Jabba.

It can't be that. "Mojo" has only 75% as many different letters as "Dave", all conveniently close together at the right-hand end of the keyboard.

 

[Garrette]

It can't be that. "Mojo" has only 75% as many different letters as "Dave", all conveniently close together at the right-hand end of the keyboard.

There you have it. His right hand is otherwise engaged when he is Just Asking the same repeatedly answered and misguided Questions over and over again.

 

[pakeha]

Dave,

- A particular sense of self does "come from" a brain. Each new brain, produces a new consciousness -- and this new consciousness brings with it, or develops, a particular sense of self. It's just that the particular sense of self that is brought, or developed, is not fully “defined” by the brain and the brains’ experience. ...

Of course it is, Jabba.
Remember the definition of consciousness?
It's not a product of the brain, it's a property of its functioning.

...- I would just say that there was no representation of that particular sense of self before the replica came into existence. The particular sense of self came from no preexisting formula -- and prior to its actual existence, that sense of self could have been anybody.

Jabba, an individual sense of self can't be represented for the simple reason it part of the on-going functioning of the brain.