[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[JoeMorgue]

This raises a possibly ineffable question… The specialness that I’m claiming, and to which I’m alluding, is (that) consciousness provides an “identity” for the specific object that produces it; an identity that would distinguish that object from any other -- otherwise chemically identical -- object.

So you are literally doing what I said you were doing.

You adding a special modifier to "identity" that is completely meaningless, does nothing to actually modify the base concept of identity as we use the concept, and serves no purpose other then to give you a special magical place to put Woo in.

You then turn around use that made up, evidence-less special modifier as your evidence.

This, combined with your continued forced obtuse shtick that wore thin back on page one of this 180+ page train wreck, and your constant appeals for us to all play some special game of formalized debate that you can game, forms a perfect Mobius Strip of non-logical self finding crap.

Not only have you achieved the trifecta of being so wrong you're wronger then wrong to the point you aren't even wrong, you are being rude and insulting about it.

I look forward to you ignoring this.

 

[Aepervius]

JABBA,

Why is it that you answer only one or at most two people at a time?

He understand that perfectely. I am 99% sure he simply use that tactic to ignore the posts which demolished his argument.

 

[jond]

He understand that perfectely. I am 99% sure he simply use that tactic to ignore the posts which demolished his argument.

I am quite sure you are correct. Seems to me that "the better man in the fight" should have long ago acknowledged that he is way out of his depth scientifically and graciously acknowledged defeat.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I am quite sure you are correct. Seems to me that "the better man in the fight" should have long ago acknowledged that he is way out of his depth scientifically and graciously acknowledged defeat.

I keep waiting for the discussion to begin.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In fact I'm proposing the creation of a new Fallacy... The Woopendix. Which I am defining as:

"A Woopendix. A type of definitional special pleading. An additional unnecessary defining criteria, characteristic, or feature added to a well established, well understood concept for the sole purpose of using that criteria, characteristic, or feature as evidence that the overall concept is mystical or pseudo-scientific in nature.

In Layman's Terms adding extra needless fluff to a easily explainable concept in order to Woo-ify it."

 

[Slowvehicle]

In fact I'm proposing the creation of a new Fallacy... The Woopendix. Which I am defining as:

"A Woopendix. A type of definitional special pleading. An additional unnecessary defining criteria, characteristic, or feature added to a well established, well understood concept for the sole purpose of using that criteria, characteristic, or feature as evidence that the overall concept is mystical or pseudo-scientific in nature.

In Layman's Terms adding extra needless fluff to a easily explainable concept in order to Woo-ify it."

I applaud your identification, especially the "definitional special pleading". It's a variant of the trojan horse, where the only thing that is important--the one thing needed to demonstrate the the argument, and the thing unsupported--is snuck in on a cloud of distracting minutiae.

It reminds me of Toad trying to buy liquor in American Grafitti.

 

[jond]

I keep waiting for the discussion to begin.

Hey, that's a cool concept! Jabba, waddya say, wanna give it a try sometime?

 

[Giordano]

JABBA,
It looks like you have no idea where you are discussing this subject, and you apparently do not understand how incredibly rude you are by simply ignoring virtually all posts in this thread except the ones you pick and choose and feel relatively comfortable commenting on.

This is why I think that Jabba is undermining the very conclusion which he claims to wish to prove. I am being unusually helpful to Jabba by urging him to quit posting in this disaster of a thread. If he thinks he is being clever in his postings, either slyly trying to convince others of his argument or for some other reason, it is only sadly transparent.

Or, at least, get to the undebunked evidence. Now would be a good time to present it. Please don't go back to duplicating brains, please!

 

[Slowvehicle]

What do you say, Mr. Savage?

Might you consider proceeding to the actual, concrete, empirical, objective, tangible evidence of this thing you claim exists?

If it exists,there will be evidence. If it exists, but is not tangible, and does not admit to evidence, then it does not exist within the purview of the "scientific model".

OTH, if it, in fact, exists, there will be evidence.

Now would be a good time to mmarshall, and present, such evidence as you have.

Please do not stay in this OT rut of trying to force a hypothetical situation with hypothetical provisos and limitations, to hypothetically assume for you the conclusions you have already reached.

Please do not continue this dishonest "red is really blue" approach.

Please do not continue to claim that what can be observed is so very unlikely that the impossible is, in fact, more likely (and please stop attributing to the SM woo! that is not part of it).

 

[Giordano]

What do you say, Mr. Savage?

Might you consider proceeding to the actual, concrete, empirical, objective, tangible evidence of this thing you claim exists?

If it exists,there will be evidence. If it exists, but is niot tangible, and does not admit to evidence, then it does not exist within the purview of the "scientific model".

OTH, if it, in fact, exists, there will be evidence.

Now would be a good time to mmarshall, and present, such evidence as you have.

Please do not stay in this OT rut of trying to force a hypothetical situation with hypothetical provisos and limitations, to hypothetically assume for you the conclusions you have already reached.

Please do not continue this dishonest "red is really blue" approach.

Please do not continue to claim that what can be observed is so very unlikely that the impossible is, in fact, more likely (and please stop attributing to the SM woo! that is not part of it).

Let me be certain that we are on the same page, and I want to know where the disagreement is: are you saying that you want me to produce some evidence?

More generally, I strongly agree with Slowvehicle in this: if Jabba is claiming that a given theory is part of the SM, then it should be easy for him to present lots of evidence that supports it: links, books, etc. The SM is not hidden, you know.

If Jabba's claim goes against the SM, then he has a right to believe it, or anything else. But if he wants to convince others here, then Jabba needs to provide undisputed evidence.

And the thing that is identical in both these scenarios?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Ever the optimist? Good luck, Giordano, maybe you too could earn the mantle of LCP! Oh, and you too Hlafordlaes! (This really is getting ridiculous...)

What's LCP? Late and Crappy Poster? Long-winded Calamitous Poop? Large Caped Primate?

jk; I really don't know! (Hope it's the one with the cape.)

 

[Slowvehicle]

What's LCP? Late and Crappy Poster? Long-winded Calamitous Poop? Large Caped Primate?

jk; I really don't know! (Hope it's the one with the cape.)

"Least Critical Poster", identified as the one who posts the responses that Mr. Savage believes he can twist into the semblance of assumed agreement.

 

[jond]

What's LCP? Late and Crappy Poster? Long-winded Calamitous Poop? Large Caped Primate?

jk; I really don't know! (Hope it's the one with the cape.)

LCP: Least Critical Poster. I believe the Pharaoh has created an award for such poster. It is, I assure you, a great honor as the LCP is the only poster whom Jabba will address. (I'd suggest reading the entire thread, but I am not nearly cruel enough to suggest that to anyone.)

 

[Jabba]

xtifr

- Currently, there exists a "me," a conscious "self" that, according to the scientific model, never existed before and will never exist again -- even if we were able to chemically replicate the brain that is currently producing it. According to that model, a chemical replica would produce a perfect copy of me, but not actually me -- or at least, not the "me" to which I'm alluding...
- To me, that means that there is no chemical definition exclusive to that me.
- It could be, however, that the addition of space/time coordinates to the chemical definition would solve that "problem," give me an exclusive definition and allow that me to be actually replicated.

- Dave disagrees with at least part of the above. Do you? And if so, what part(s) do you disagree with?

 

[xtifr]

xtifr

- Currently, there exists a "me," a conscious "self" that, according to the scientific model, never existed before and will never exist again -- even if we were able to chemically replicate the brain that is currently producing it. According to that model, a chemical replica would produce a perfect copy of me, but not actually me -- or at least, not the "me" to which I'm alluding...

As far as the copy is concerned, it, not you, would be you. And as far as the rest of us are concerned, both would be you. Why do you think your perspective is more important than the copy's?

- To me, that means that there is no chemical definition exclusive to that me.

Two bodies each have their own sense of self. Just as two loaves of banana bread each have their own banana-y smell. That doesn't mean there's anything non-chemical about a banana-y smell or a sense of self.

- It could be, however, that the addition of space/time coordinates to the chemical definition would solve that "problem," give me an exclusive definition and allow that me to be actually replicated.

There's no "could be" about it. It's the objection everyone has been raising since the beginning, it strikes directly to the core of your argument, and you really can't advance any further unless you address it.

 

[jsfisher]

This thread is so long, so if this particular avenue has already been explored, I apologize for the replication.

Jabba,
I've invented this very remarkable pod. Well, pair of pods, actually. You step into Pod #1, and almost instantaneously, it disassembles the entire you into your base atoms. Those atoms are sorted then streamed over a special conduit over to Pod #2. Pod #2 takes the stream of atoms, and almost instantaneously it reassembles them into the exact arrangement they had when you entered Pod #1.

Is that you who steps out of Pod #2?

Ok, if that is you who steps out of Pod #2, and why shouldn't it be?, let's change things a bit. You get disassembled as before, but this time Pod #1 doesn't stream your actual atoms, just their identity over to Pod #2. Pot #2 has a large bucket of atoms it uses for raw material to reassemble them into the exact arrangement of atoms you had when you entered Pod #1.

Is that you who steps out of Pod #2, or are you now just a disassembled collection of atoms Pod #1 discretely funneled into its own bucket of atoms?

Did I mention Pod #3? Pod #3 behaves just like Pod #2 (the second version), and if Pod #3 is anywhere close to Pod #2, it receives the same atom identity stream Pod #2 receives and assembles the exact same result.

Is that you who steps out of Pod #3?

Oh, and I've reworked Pod #1 a bit. Rather than dumping the disassembled you atoms into the bucket, it now reassembles them back into their original arrangement.

Is that you who steps out of Pod #1, and who are those other two people stepping out of Pods #2 and #3?


One last question: Will the person stepping out of Pod #2 think he's you?

 

[Giordano]

xtifr

- Currently, there exists a "me," a conscious "self" that, according to the scientific model, never existed before and will never exist again -- even if we were able to chemically replicate the brain that is currently producing it. According to that model, a chemical replica would produce a perfect copy of me, but not actually me -- or at least, not the "me" to which I'm alluding...
- To me, that means that there is no chemical definition exclusive to that me.
- It could be, however, that the addition of space/time coordinates to the chemical definition would solve that "problem," give me an exclusive definition and allow that me to be actually replicated.

- Dave disagrees with at least part of the above. Do you? And if so, what part(s) do you disagree with?

Deliberately avoiding an understanding of what has been expressed simply and in many different ways only makes your theories look even worse.

 

[Slowvehicle]

xtifr

- Currently, there exists a "me," a conscious "self" that, according to the scientific model, never existed before and will never exist again -- even if we were able to chemically replicate the brain that is currently producing it. According to that model, a chemical replica would produce a perfect copy of me, but not actually me -- or at least, not the "me" to which I'm alluding...
- To me, that means that there is no chemical definition exclusive to that me.
- It could be, however, that the addition of space/time coordinates to the chemical definition would solve that "problem," give me an exclusive definition and allow that me to be actually replicated.

- Dave disagrees with at least part of the above. Do you? And if so, what part(s) do you disagree with?

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage:

Just in case you were not aware, your post does not consist of any kind of evidence whatsoever; it does not consist of any kind of argument for "immortality", whatsoever; it contains not a single example of properly-employed Bayesian statistics, whatsoever. In addition to being a continuation of your rude and disrespectful behaviour, your post is, in fact, OT to the OP.

Further, you are reprising a tune to which no one will dance.

Follow:

IF it were possible (and you are aware, I hope, that it is not--which makes your adamant refusal to leave the hypothetical and move on even less honorable) to exactly duplicate your entire body in its exact condition at a particular time, neither you_ב nor you^א would have any way at all to determine which of "you" was the "original, and which was the "duplicate". Each of "you" would have an identical sense of being "you". Were one of "you" killed, Whichever one was killed would go to its permanent oblivion convinced that the wrong one was put down.

Not only that, there is nothing that would be "shared" between you_ב and you^א. Each of "you" would have a unique identical sense of being the "real" "you". There is nothing in the SM (as you put it) that would describe, or predict, any way the two "you"s would share sensation, identity, or consciousness.

This interminable derail is a dead end. An OT dead end.

Why not cut to the chase, and explain how our current understanding of neuroscience includes any possibility of consciousness existing independent of a neurosystem? Unless and until you do that, stating that whatever-it-is you_JREF claim must be "immortal" must, n fact, be "immortal" is a non-starter.

You are still assuming your consequent, and I am not confident that you even understand that you are, in fact, doing so; nor why it is a uselessly impotent argument.

 

[Giordano]

xtifr

- Currently, there exists a "me," a conscious "self" that, according to the scientific model, never existed before and will never exist again -- even if we were able to chemically replicate the brain that is currently producing it. According to that model, a chemical replica would produce a perfect copy of me, but not actually me -- or at least, not the "me" to which I'm alluding...
- To me, that means that there is no chemical definition exclusive to that me.

- Dave disagrees with at least part of the above. Do you? And if so, what part(s) do you disagree with?

Jabba, you are wrong. Read the other posts here if you want to find out why.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave disagrees with at least part of the above. Do you? And if so, what part(s) do you disagree with?

I disagree in that what you wrote is absolute gibberish. It's complete and utter nonsense. Neither path - the ability to transfer a particular consciousness or the ability to reproduce it - solves any of your problems.

There is still no infinite pool of souls because: 1) there is no pool to begin with; 2) there cannot be an infinite number of anything that is in any way material; 3) minds don't come from nothing, they come from all of the conditions which preceded them; and 4) do I really need a fourth?