[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
If you even start to do something other than stating your opinion, Satan will be skating to work.
Click to expand...


Hell.jpg
 
Akhenaten said:
Of course you don't and I'd guess that's why you ignored it when I first posted it.


I'll see if I can make it a bit simpler . . .

You have an opinion. It apparently disagrees with another opinion that you have claimed is held by an as-yet-unidentified group which you further claim has established some kind of consensus about something or other that you have yet to specify, alleged by you to be of a scientific nature. You regard this disagreement as essential proof that your own opinion is correct and that therefore immortality is a thing.

And the forests will echo with laughter.
You really should stop ignoring the 95% of posts in the thread that have repeatedly tried to explain this to you rather than barging ahead insouciantly pretending to yourself that anyone/everyone has a clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

1. Love the avatar, mighty one (may you post forever!)!

2. Yer killin' me...
 
Jabba, it's been over a year and you have yet to arrive at step one. You are continuing to struggle with the formation of pretty much any cogent thought on the matter.


Can you provide any reason that I should pay any further attention to this thread?
 
HighRiser said:
Jabba, I am not objecting. You have stated several times in this and other topics that you have opinions on this and that. But that's as far as you go. You evidently don't feel the need to substantiate your opinions. So I was facetiously congratulating you for restating, for the umpteenth time, the well known fact that you have an opinion.

How about supporting an opinion with some data?

Maybe expounding on your position with some logic?

Anything but restating and listing things you're gonna do. Please?
Click to expand...
HighRiser,
- I don't have a whole lot of data in my syllogism, and it has changed over time.
- My data began with: 1) I am conscious. 2) So, apparently, are a lot of other humans. 3) I don't share consciousness with these other humans.
- I then figured that there must be a physical explanation for the fact that I don't share consciousness with the others.
- Is that coherent so far?
 
Jabba said:
HighRiser,
- I don't have a whole lot of data in my syllogism, and it has changed over time.
- My data began with: 1) I am conscious. 2) So, apparently, are a lot of other humans. 3) I don't share consciousness with these other humans.
- I then figured that there must be a physical explanation for the fact that I don't share consciousness with the others.
- Is that coherent so far?
Click to expand...

It is coherent. And fortunately we have the scientific or physical explanation; consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.
 
Jabba said:
- Is that coherent so far?
Click to expand...

This is a message board. It's a textual medium. You can just post your entire chain of reasoning in one go, and then people can say what they do or don't agree with.

Or you can continue posting the same small amount of stuff over and over again and we'll all still be here having made no progress whatsoever in another year's time. I'm getting old. I don't want to die before you've said anything at all on the JREF.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
This is a message board. It's a textual medium. You can just post your entire chain of reasoning in one go, and then people can say what they do or don't agree with.

Or you can continue posting the same small amount of stuff over and over again and we'll all still be here having made no progress whatsoever in another year's time. I'm getting old. I don't want to die before you've said anything at all on the JREF.
Click to expand...
Squeegee,
- As you know, I disagree with you re the effectiveness of the two approaches. I'm thinking now, that keeping a list of unanswered, or insufficiently answered, questions and objections, is what I've been missing in making my baby step approach work.
 
Jabba said:
Squeegee,
- As you know, I disagree with you re the effectiveness of the two approaches. I'm thinking now, that keeping a list of unanswered, or insufficiently answered, questions and objections, is what I've been missing in making my baby step approach work.
Click to expand...

If only you were actually taking "baby steps" you would have made some progress after a year.
 
Jabba said:
Squeegee,
- As you know, I disagree with you re the effectiveness of the two approaches.
Click to expand...

It's been over a year, and you've not progressed a single iota beyond where we were on the third page. And it's only the third page rather than the first because it took you that long to post anything even remotely to do with the title of your thread.

45 pages and 13 months later and the conversation hasn't moved forwards at all.

Even if we're generous and say that it's moved forwards one "baby step" in that time - how many "baby steps" are there to your argument? According to an earlier post of yours there's 7 things that need to be covered before we can progress further than where we are now. You've now just added another 2 to them.

So, at the current rate of discussion, we can expect these things to be covered and to finally move forwards 1 "baby step" in another 9 years. If we assume that there are only 3 steps in your reasoning, then you'll finally present everything 27 years from now. And you think that this is effective? Glaciers move quicker, and spend their time more productively.

I'm thinking now, that keeping a list of unanswered, or insufficiently answered, questions and objections, is what I've been missing in making my baby step approach work.
Click to expand...

You mean you've decided that keeping notes might be a good idea? You mean exactly what everybody has been telling you you should be doing for the past 2 years? The thing that people have spent time and energy giving you advice for how to effectively do so, and directing you towards websites and applications which will make the job easier? That's what you've decided might be a good idea?

It's taken you 2 years to decide this. I think 27 years might have been too short an estimate.
 
Jabba said:
Akhenaten,
- Does Agatha agree with you?
Click to expand...
She does.

Apart from the inherent unlikelihood of two brains having exactly the same (physical) characteristics, two separate people (possessing two separate brains) will not have had the same exact upbringing, history, memory or experiences. Even a pair of identical twins, who might have identical DNA but will be different phenotypes, will have different experiences right from the moment of birth and probably from conception.

Thus, even if the structural brain were to be identical, the consciousness would not be identical. None of us can access the entire consciousness of another person, not even if we have spent our entire lifetimes with them.

Consciousness, the 'self', the soul - whatever word you use to describe it - is an emergent property of an individual brain. Every individual's consciousness is different, and each and every one of us believes ourselves to be the most special snowflake alive.

It is really scary and difficult to contemplate the end of the consciousness or 'self'. Our whole memories, however far back we can remember, are all about our interaction with the world and the idea of that being snuffed out - that there will be no more 'I' - can be very hard to accept.

Most religions, in appearing to offer eternal life, attract those who fear that end of the self. Despite the offer being nothing more than lies, smoke and mirrors, people cling to this because few of us want to accept that one day, we (and everything that we know, everything we remember, everything we love and everything we hate) will be just inanimate dust in the wind. Cogito, ergo sum in the words of Descartes; as long as we can think, then we exist. When consciousness ends, so do we, and that is really a terrifying proposition. But it is the way it is, whether we like it or not.
 
Jabba said:
HighRiser,
- I don't have a whole lot of data in my syllogism, and it has changed over time.
- My data began with: 1) I am conscious. 2) So, apparently, are a lot of other humans. 3) I don't share consciousness with these other humans.
- I then figured that there must be a physical explanation for the fact that I don't share consciousness with the others.
- Is that coherent so far?
Click to expand...

Coherent, yes. But:

Why must there be a physical explanation for the fact that you don't share consciousness with the others?

This statement implies that consciousness should be shared, but isn't.

Why should consciousness be shared? What would sharing consciousness entail?
 
Agatha said:
She does.

Apart from the inherent unlikelihood of two brains having exactly the same (physical) characteristics, two separate people (possessing two separate brains) will not have had the same exact upbringing, history, memory or experiences. Even a pair of identical twins, who might have identical DNA but will be different phenotypes, will have different experiences right from the moment of birth and probably from conception.
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- Somehow, I still haven't effectively communicated what I mean by "self" or "consciousness." If the two brains had the same consciousness, they would have had the same experiences. Two bodies sharing the same mind.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
HighRiser,
- I don't have a whole lot of data in my syllogism, and it has changed over time.
- My data began with: 1) I am conscious. 2) So, apparently, are a lot of other humans. 3) I don't share consciousness with these other humans.
- I then figured that there must be a physical explanation for the fact that I don't share consciousness with the others.
- Is that coherent so far?
Click to expand...

That's coherent enough, but clarify your idea of syllogism, please.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Somehow, I still haven't effectively communicated what I mean by "self" or "consciousness." If the two brains had the same consciousness, they would have had the same experiences. Two bodies sharing the same mind.
Click to expand...

It's only been a year and a bit. Why should we expect you to communicate anything at all?
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- If we could produce two brains with the very same characteristics, would they share consciousnesses?
Click to expand...

I would like to address this by saying that even if two brains could, in fact, be produced with identical characteristics, from the moment of their creation forward, their characteristics, particularly the exigent circumstances of their existences, would vary; thus they would no longer be "identical", and could not be said to support "identical" emergent properties.

ETA: Ninja-ed by Agatha!
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Somehow, I still haven't effectively communicated what I mean by "self" or "consciousness." If the two brains had the same consciousness, they would have had the same experiences. Two bodies sharing the same mind.
Click to expand...

Mr. Savage: Are you aware that you have reversed your argument?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom