[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
HighRiser,
- I was giving you my understanding of what a syllogism is, and just wanted to make clear that (in my understanding) being a real syllogism does not require that its premisses be correct. It's just that the conclusion of a real syllogism will probably be wrong if any of its premisses are not correct.
Click to expand...

Syllogisms arrived at by deductive reasoning don't have any constraints on them to represent reality. What is it that you mean by "real syllogisms"?
 
godless dave said:
Even if they had identical characteristcs, they would still be separate objects, so they wouldn't share a consciousness.
Click to expand...


Even if they somehow had identical consciousnesses (for example if two identical brains could be produced and somehow given identical stimuli) it would still be two consciousnesses. If one brain was given a particular stimulus, that consciousness would experience it and the other one wouldn't. As you point out, the fact that two objects are identical doesn't mean that they are not separate objects.
 
HighRiser said:
Syllogisms arrived at by deductive reasoning don't have any constraints on them to represent reality. What is it that you mean by "real syllogisms"?
Click to expand...
HighRiser,

- This stuff is hard to communicate effectively...

- I think that we agree as to what a syllogism is.
- Using the term "real syllogism," I was trying to point out that some syllogisms have incorrect premises, but that doesn't make them something other than a syllogism. So, even if my premisses are wrong, I'm still presenting a "real syllogism."
- I had thought that you were questioning my understanding of "syllogism."

- I can only hope that I've effectively conveyed what I mean...
 
Jabba said:
HighRiser,

- This stuff is hard to communicate effectively...

- I think that we agree as to what a syllogism is.
- Using the term "real syllogism," I was trying to point out that some syllogisms have incorrect premises, but that doesn't make them something other than a syllogism. So, even if my premisses are wrong, I'm still presenting a "real syllogism."
- I had thought that you were questioning my understanding of "syllogism."

- I can only hope that I've effectively conveyed what I mean...
Click to expand...

Here's what I think you mean;

The undefined proposition is unsupported and unfalsifiable.
 
Mojo said:
How could they have exactly the same experiences if they weren't in the same body? Even if they went around joined at the hip they would still have slightly different viewpoints.
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- Maybe this will help...
- Think about one computer controlling, and observing through, two robots.
 
HighRiser said:
Here's what I think you mean;

The undefined proposition is unsupported and unfalsifiable.
Click to expand...
HighRiser,
- No. That is not what I mean.
- And, that's all I have to say about that (syllogisms -- for now, at least).
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Maybe this will help...
- Think about one computer controlling, and observing through, two robots.
Click to expand...

Mr. Savage:

-Maybe this will help...
-Think about explaining by what mechanism you intend to demonstrate that such a thing happens, or has ever been demonstrated to happen, with human consciousness.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Maybe this will help...
- Think about one computer controlling, and observing through, two robots.
Click to expand...


One "computer", one consciousness. Even if it's controlling more than one "robot". I can post here via a laptop or a phone. There's still just the the one of me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom