[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Loss Leader]

The particular sense of self came from no preexisting formula

Keep saying that. It doesn't make it true, but it's fun to hear.

Why are siblings alike? Why are children like their parents? Hint: It's because you're wrong.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Evidence for your claim? Proof of your claim? For now, even a definition of "self" other than "what some people mean when they talk about self? What is reincarnated in your theory in terms of my list?

 

[George]

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. 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 I’m intrigued as to why you alternate your ”scare" quote format in one single post. Is this an artifact of the word processor you’re using or 'is’ this a new affectation.

 

[tsig]

What if I want to do more than two Heart Strikes?

Then you need more ninjas.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Jabba,

Evidence for your claim? Proof of your claim? For now, even a definition of "self" other than "what some people mean when they talk about self? What is reincarnated in your theory in terms of my list?

For that matter, what, if anything, can be said to be "immortal"?

 

[xtifr]

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

If you replicated the brain, you'd be replicating the sense of self. Which is why there'd now be two. The sense of self doesn't come from nowhere; it comes from the brain.

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

The same is true of the brain. Prior to its actual existence, the particles that made up that brain could have been anything. That doesn't mean there's an infinite number of potential brains, though.

To show that the senses of self are infinite while brains aren't, you have to show something that's different about senses of self, that isn't true about brains. And no, the fact that the sense of self is more like an action (like running or spinning) than a physical thing doesn't get you there. Actions don't happen without an actor, and senses of self don't happen without brains.

Once again, Jabba, the key is physics, not mere biology. Two identical brains may be biologically the same, but they occupy different physical locations, which is why they're distinct. But there's only a finite number of physical locations in the universe.

Physics!
Physics!
Physics!

eta: I seem to have stopped being LCP again. Oh well, no way of telling how these things work!

 

[carlitos]

Wait, frogs have tits?

 

[Giordano]

I
Once again, Jabba, the key is physics, not mere biology.

Physics!
Physics!
Physics!

Hey, as a biologist I take umbrage at that!
But I agree in the informal ranking that we have in scientist, physics beats biology, although pure math beats physics!

Jabba wants so much to think that there is something special about each of us, a metaphysical "soul" or "self" that is non-material and separate from the physical world. He realizes that he can't name it, or even describe it, but he wants it so bad that he can't accept that other people don't believe in it. That there is no evidence for it.

Jabba needs a non-material self to exist so that he can propose that a soul in each of us, and his soul in particular, would outlive this life and, in his theory, be reincarnated. If "we" are merely the product of our physical brains, then "we" truly disappear when our physical brains die, which Jabba cannot accept. Sad.

I personally have no problem accepting that when I die, I am gone. I am lucky enough to have kids and some work that will be persist into the future after I am gone. In fact, there are a number of things about my kids that I can pretend resemble me, so I will live on through them (at least about 50% of my DNA will continue through them). I even accept that eventually (certainly in billions of years) they, their progeny, and my work records, will be gone too. But at least, according to Kurt Vonnegut Jr, we are mud that got to get up and look around. That is special indeed!

 

[Giordano]

Wait, frogs have tits?

You have to look reeaallly close to see them, and it helps if you first had a head injury. They work on frogs just like on male humans.

 

[Garrette]

Wait, frogs have tits?

The immortal ones do.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The immortal ones do.

Hopefully, the immoral ones do, too...

 

[Garrette]

 

[xtifr]

Hey, as a biologist I take umbrage at that!

I've got nothing against biology. Heck, if it wasn't for biology, I'm pretty sure I never would have had sex!

But I agree in the informal ranking that we have in scientist, physics beats biology, although pure math beats physics!

I don't take those rankings seriously, but if I did, I'd question whether math even counts as a science. (And yes, I've heard the lengthy arguments for both sides, so all you math guys reading this...don't even bother.)

I classify biology as a subset of physics. (Technically, a subset of chemistry, which is a subset of physics.) Other than being a subset (and frequently being messy), I don't see any reason to claim it's somehow lower than physics. It's just a subset. And a particularly interesting subset at that, at least to us biology-based critters.

But being a subset, it doesn't explain everything. It doesn't explain quarks or quasars, and in this case, it doesn't explain the problem with Jabba's model.

Jabba wants so much to think that there is something special about each of us, a metaphysical "soul" or "self" that is non-material and separate from the physical world. He realizes that he can't name it, or even describe it, but he wants it so bad that he can't accept that other people don't believe in it. That there is no evidence for it.

I don't have a problem with him wanting to believe in it. I'm no hard-core atheistic religion-hating fanatic or anything. I'm actually fine with people believing in souls, as long as they don't use that as an excuse for evil (as all-too-many organized religious bodies do these days). But it's not part of the scientific model, and if he wants to disprove the scientific model, he's got to stick to the scientific model. He can't add magic infinite things that come from nowhere and then use them to disprove the model, because they aren't part of the model!

The saddest part is that he's actually doing a better job of disproving souls (by showing how adding them to the scientific model leads to contradictions) than he is at disproving the scientific model.

(Fortunately for those who want to believe in souls, he's not actually doing a good job at disproving them. Just a better job than he's doing on the scientific model.)

 

[Garrette]

I've got nothing against biology. Heck, if it wasn't for biology, I'm pretty sure I never would have had sex!

You found the titted frogs?

 

[Slowvehicle]

You found the titted frogs?

I'd breast not say anything...in fact, I'd be udderly foolish to pursue this, bra.

 

[Jabba]

7074

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

7077

…This is what you keep saying, but it is not at all what the scientific model says. In the scientific model, there is no aspect of the self that is not defined by the brain that produces it…

Dave,
- But you accept that my PSoS (particular sense of self) would not be recreated by an identical brain. An “identical” brain would be a different brain, and would result in a different PSoS. When I die, an identical brain will not bring “me” -- my PSoS -- back to life.
- In other words, there is nothing to fully define a PSoS prior to its actual existence. It is in that sense that a PSoS comes from nothing.

- Then, my PSoS coming from nothing, the likelihood of its current existence – given the scientific model – is infinitely small.

 

[Slowvehicle]

7074

7077Dave,
- But you accept that my PSoS (particular sense of self) would not be recreated by an identical brain. An “identical” brain would be a different brain, and would result in a different PSoS. When I die, an identical brain will not bring “me” -- my PSoS -- back to life.
- In other words, there is nothing to fully define a PSoS prior to its actual existence. It is in that sense that a PSoS comes from nothing.

- Then, my PSoS coming from nothing, the likelihood of its current existence – given the scientific model – is infinitely small.

1-7116

Mr. Savage:

No.

I have to ask--have you read any of the last, say...hundred posts?

Do you realize you are simply restating the same mistakes?

Seriously consider presenting your evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal".

 

[Akhenaten]

- In other words, there is nothing to fully define a PSoS prior to its actual existence. It is in that sense that a PSoS comes from nothing.

3 > 2


There's nothing to fully define a particular lump of coal prior to its actual existence either.

Do lumps of coal therefore come from nothing?

- Then, my PSoS coming from nothing, the likelihood of its current existence – given the scientific model – is infinitely small.

chocolate > strawberry


Your premise is false.

 

[Loss Leader]

Then, my PSoS coming from nothing,

Wrong.

But congratulations on making up yet another term completely foreign to scientific thinking and demanding that it's actually a scientific concept.

the likelihood of its current existence – given the scientific model – is infinitely small.

Non-sequetor, illogical and not the scientific model.

 

[Jabba]

If you replicated the brain, you'd be replicating the sense of self. Which is why there'd now be two. The sense of self doesn't come from nowhere; it comes from the brain.



The same is true of the brain. Prior to its actual existence, the particles that made up that brain could have been anything. That doesn't mean there's an infinite number of potential brains, though.

To show that the senses of self are infinite while brains aren't, you have to show something that's different about senses of self, that isn't true about brains. And no, the fact that the sense of self is more like an action (like running or spinning) than a physical thing doesn't get you there. Actions don't happen without an actor, and senses of self don't happen without brains.

Once again, Jabba, the key is physics, not mere biology. Two identical brains may be biologically the same, but they occupy different physical locations, which is why they're distinct. But there's only a finite number of physical locations in the universe.

Physics!
Physics!
Physics!

eta: I seem to have stopped being LCP again. Oh well, no way of telling how these things work!

xtifr,

- Once again, I think that I understand what you're saying.

- You're saying that the reason the PSoS is fully defined prior to its actual existence is that it is defined by more than biology, or even chemistry -- it is also defined by its specific location in space and time.
- Then you're saying that Zeno's paradox doesn't apply here -- and we can't keep shrinking the space/time location and getting evermore PSoSs -- because of "Plank Length."
- How am I doing?