[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[JoeMorgue]

Alright I've brought this point up several times in this death spiral that walks like a thread and I have zero hope that Jabba will even address it, much less address it meaningfully but...

The reason we don't currently have a concept of "identity" that would allow us to easily label some magical exact copy of a person is because... and hold onto your hats people because this is going to blow your mind... the scenario hasn't ever happened so we haven't needed one!

We don't have a word that easily describes the uniqueness of two completely identical individuals because we've never needed one! THAT'S IT! There's the entire mystery!

We have words and easily definable concepts for things that actually happen. When hypothesize something that has never happened it shouldn't shock you that the words and language we have developed might not apply to it.

 

[Mojo]

Ok, I'm going to shock you all, and even myself, by defending Jabba. A bit, anyway. Mostly because I want to see how he's going to overcome my point that separate-but-identical copies are physically distinct...

He's been doing that by ignoring it for quite some time now.

Humots, you left of the "if" part of his second statement. He was actually using that second statement as a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Or at least that's how it reads to me.

He's using the second statement as an objection to the "scientific model", despite having been repeatedly told that no "scientific model" says this, and now despite having himself apparently conceded that in the first statement Humots quoted.

He hasn't overlooked it (though I'm not sure he completely understands it). He just doesn't think that's all it is, and is trying to find some way to convince us there's more to it.

The way to convince us that the soul exists would be to provide some evidence for it.

And I'm willing to hear his arguments.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[xtifr]

He's been doing that by ignoring it for quite some time now.

Agreed, but why make it easier for him? Let's focus on the point instead of the distractions.

He's using the second statement as an objection to the "scientific model", despite having been repeatedly told that no "scientific model" says this, and now despite having himself apparently conceded that in the first statement Humots quoted.

Yup, he made a concession! Dude! That's, like, unprecedented!

Well, ok, technically, he conceded that he might have to make a concession. But that's still very nearly almost progress! Or closer to being very nearly almost progress than we've seen in thousands of previous posts.

The way to convince us that the soul exists would be to provide some evidence for it.

Well, he tried, but, of course, it wasn't actually evidence. And now, finally, we've very nearly almost gotten him to agree that it wasn't, and very nearly almost gotten him to admit that he might need a better argument. We've very nearly almost reached a tiny, incremental advance in the debate! I'm so excited!

Don't hold your breath.

Like I said before, I'm just here for the laughs.

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]

Jabba, you've overlooked the fact that a sense of self is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

He hasn't overlooked it (though I'm not sure he completely understands it). He just doesn't think that's all it is, and is trying to find some way to convince us there's more to it. (And I'm willing to hear his arguments. It's got to be more entertaining than one more go-round on whether a copy is/isn't "you".) [ . . . ]

You have a point there.
I'm also interested in hearing his arguments- up til now Jabba's posts seem to have centered lately on an elaboration of the premise of a Star Trek episode* as well as trying to define the sense of self as something other than a mental process.



*The Host
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Host_(episode)

 

[Mojo]

Agreed, but why make it easier for him? Let's focus on the point instead of the distactions.

If Jabba makes a point that is relevant to his proof of immortality, then we can focus on it.

Well, he tried, but, of course, it wasn't actually evidence.

Any chance of a link to Jabba's attempt to provide evidence that the soul exists? I seem to have missed it among all of his sidetracks, evasions, and attempts to beg the question.

 

[abaddon]

If Jabba makes a point that is relevant to his proof of immortality, then we can focus on it.




Any chance of a link to Jabba's attempt to provide evidence that the soul exists? I seem to have missed it among all of his sidetracks, evasions, and attempts to beg the question.

No, he has not got to that point yet. In fact he has failed to get to any point at all.

If you are naive enough to believe an answer of any type might be forthcoming, go ahead and ask him. It hasn't worked before, but hey, you just might be the first to coax an answer from him.

I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ok, I'm going to shock you all, and even myself, by defending Jabba. A bit, anyway. Mostly because I want to see how he's going to overcome my point that separate-but-identical copies are physically distinct, and don't want to waste too much more time on things I actually think may be somewhat settled.

Humots, you left of the "if" part of his second statement. He was actually using that second statement as a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Or at least that's how it reads to me.

I disagree, a bit. It seems to me like Mr. Savage is still trying to protect a "might be",while seeming to capitulate. In the Holy Hanky^TM threads, Mr. Savage did, in fact, claim that since a textile expert, who had, in fact, determined that there was no "patching" on the tested area of the linene, but who said, in a throwaway line in an interview that she did not understand ¹⁴C dating, threfore the ¹⁴C dating was suspect, therefore it was more likley than not that the medieval dates provided by the ¹⁴C dating were, in fact, the result of collusion, incompetence, or dishonesty (or a combination of the two), demonstrating the ineluctable bias of the scientists; therefore the True Shroud is Authentic^TM.

He hasn't overlooked it (though I'm not sure he completely understands it). He just doesn't think that's all it is, and is trying to find some way to convince us there's more to it. (And I'm willing to hear his arguments. It's got to be more entertaining than one more go-round on whether a copy is/isn't "you".)

I've been asking for his evidence for more than a year; if he had any, I would hope he would have presented it.

Yes, but subjectively, they're not the same person, and even objectively, it's two different (albeit identical) people. The conclusions he's trying to draw from that fact seem absurd, and all his stuff about how it's not purely chemical/biological is trivially true and doesn't lead to his desired conclusion that it must be some mystical property instead. Still, a perfect copy would indeed be a separate individual.

(Why he thinks we should find this surprising is beyond me, but he seems to.)

Yeah, ok, I can't argue with this one.

Still, as I say, I want to see how he responds to my point about copies being physically distinct. He has said several times that it might be (might be!) a problem for his theory, but he thinks he may have an answer, and I'm frankly dying to find out just what that answer might be. I suspect it may reach new levels of absurdity. And since I'm only here for the laughs...

I predict his answer will be something along the lines that since we cannot distinguish between the identical copies, we cannot say for sure that they are not, in fact, "really" sharing a "soul", and that we cannot say for sure that the "soul" (because we all agreed that the "soul" exists, right? when we were talking about "shared consciousness. right?) lives on whichever "me" lives...and if it can do that, we cannot say for sure that the "soul" is not independent of the body and therefore "immortal".

 

[Slowvehicle]

Alright I've brought this point up several times in this death spiral that walks like a thread and I have zero hope that Jabba will even address it, much less address it meaningfully but...

The reason we don't currently have a concept of "identity" that would allow us to easily label some magical exact copy of a person is because... and hold onto your hats people because this is going to blow your mind... the scenario hasn't ever happened so we haven't needed one!

We don't have a word that easily describes the uniqueness of two completely identical individuals because we've never needed one! THAT'S IT! There's the entire mystery!

We have words and easily definable concepts for things that actually happen. When hypothesize something that has never happened it shouldn't shock you that the words and language we have developed might not apply to it.

Beautifully said. The point about the hypothetical being immaterial has been pointed out; Mr. Savage has, so far, blithely ignored it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

If Jabba makes a point that is relevant to his proof of immortality, then we can focus on it.

Any chance of a link to Jabba's attempt to provide evidence that the soul exists? I seem to have missed it among all of his sidetracks, evasions, and attempts to beg the question.

IIRC, Mr. Savage's "evidence" consisted of vague reference to NDEs and OOBEs, and to his sincere desire that he not die...

I am, at least this morning, unwilling to wade back through the thread to find it.

It would be nice if Mr. Savage would just step up, present his evidence, and deal with the results.

 

[Jabba]

1) Why wouldn't an exact copy of your brain produce an exact copy of your sense of self?
2) Do you understand that any brain is going go consider itself as "me"?

- Re #2: Sure.
- Re #1: This is where the words fail us (or maybe, they just fail me).
- Whatever. I’m claiming that each brain copy would produce a different “identity.” IOW, there is something about this sense of self that is not defined by brain chemistry.
- For the moment at least, I’m accepting that the identity could be defined by space/time coordinates -- but only at the instant of consciousness. I include the caveat(?) because each of us experiences (an, at least, illusion of) identity continuity over a lifetime. In the major sense, our identities appear to stay the same over our lifetimes. Our different “characteristics” change from instant to instant, but not our apparent identities.

 

[Jabba]

- To what extent do you guys accept strong emergence?

 

[JoeMorgue]

IOW, there is something about this sense of self that is not defined by brain chemistry.

That statement is wrong. It is false. It is untrue. It is nonfactual. It is counter to reality. You have stated a falsehood.

Everything about "you" begins and ends at your neurological functioning. Period. End of case. No if/ands/buts. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars.

How much clearer do we have to make it?

 

[abaddon]

- Re #2: Sure.
- Re #1: This is where the words fail us (or maybe, they just fail me).
- Whatever. I’m claiming that each brain copy would produce a different “identity.” IOW, there is something about this sense of self that is not defined by brain chemistry.
- For the moment at least, I’m accepting that the identity could be defined by space/time coordinates -- but only at the instant of consciousness. I include the caveat(?) because each of us experiences (an, at least, illusion of) identity continuity over a lifetime. In the major sense, our identities appear to stay the same over our lifetimes. Our different “characteristics” change from instant to instant, but not our apparent identities.

- To what extent do you guys accept strong emergence?

You just burned your two daily posts in a cavalcade of pointless. Well done.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Re #2: Sure.
- Re #1: This is where the words fail us (or maybe, they just fail me).
- Whatever. I’m claiming that each brain copy would produce a different “identity.” IOW, there is something about this sense of self that is not defined by brain chemistry.
- For the moment at least, I’m accepting that the identity could be defined by space/time coordinates -- but only at the instant of consciousness. I include the caveat(?) because each of us experiences (an, at least, illusion of) identity continuity over a lifetime. In the major sense, our identities appear to stay the same over our lifetimes. Our different “characteristics” change from instant to instant, but not our apparent identities.

...and this has...what to do with the existence of the "soul", or its "immortality"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- To what extent do you guys accept strong emergence?

This is not our first rodeo, Mr. Savage.

What do you, personally, think you mean when you say, "strong emergence"?

If you are going to claim that the "soul" is a supervenient property, an "extra" not directly dependent upon the physical limitations of the system out of which the property emerges, and that that somehow lets you sneak the "soul" in as the metaphysical prize in an existential Cracker Jack^® box, then I, for one, deny it. Absolutely flat deny it. It's a "superproperty-of-the-gaps" argument.

Please do not ignore this question. An honest answer from you could save us four pages of pointless OT circular argument.

 

[John Jones]

IIRC, Mr. Savage's "evidence" consisted of vague reference to NDEs and OOBEs, and to his sincere desire that he not die...

I am, at least this morning, unwilling to wade back through the thread to find it.

That is my recollection as well. He also referred to cases of alleged reincarnation, and past lives regression. IOW, woo.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sadly it is common for people to think that bad evidence alluded to vaguely is somehow better then bad evidence outright stated.

 

[Mojo]

- To what extent do you guys accept strong emergence?

To what extent do you define "strong emergence"?

 

[jsfisher]

To what extent do you define "strong emergence"?

For many people, it is simply the result of eating the wrong sorts of food. Broccoli or beans for some. That must be what Jabba is referring to.

 

[Slowvehicle]

That is my recollection as well. He also referred to cases of alleged reincarnation, and past lives regression. IOW, woo.

TY. I had forgotten the "I'm Napoleon" arguments...