[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone give me a nudge (or a cookie) when Jabba posts something directly related to human consciousness transcending death. Analogies of computers and robots are going to lead us absolutely nowhere in terms of "essentially proving" human immortality.
 
Jabba said:
HighRiser,
- No. That is not what I mean.
- And, that's all I have to say about that (syllogisms -- for now, at least).
Click to expand...

So you're not going to try to explain your premise to me? Evidently I don't yet understand the underlying logic that the premise is based upon.

You're not going to bother with reasoning out and clarifying the form of your statement, at least as far as making it acceptable to the opposition?

How to proceed, then?
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Maybe this will help...
- Think about one computer controlling, and observing through, two robots.
Click to expand...

I believe what everyone is trying to say is expressed by a different analogy:

Think of two identical computers with identical programming and identical input, each controlling a separate robot.

The two robots would be "in sync" in the sense that they would be doing and "thinking" the same thing at the same time.

But there is no direct communication or connection between them. They are in sync only in the sense that two super-precise clocks set to the same time are in sync.

Change the time on one clock and the other is not affected.

Change the input or programming of one robot's brain and the other robot's brain is not affected.

It seems to me that you are assuming that if two brains had the same consciousness, then they would by definition be sharing that consciousness.

What everyone has been saying is that instead there would be two identical but separate consciousnesses.

Note: by "connected in some way" I mean some process that directly connects the two brains, not just the fact that in order to have the same input at the same time, there would have to be some communication going on at some level.
 
Humots said:
I believe what everyone is trying to say is expressed by a different analogy:

Think of two identical computers with identical programming and identical input, each controlling a separate robot.

The two robots would be "in sync" in the sense that they would be doing and "thinking" the same thing at the same time.

But there is no direct communication or connection between them. They are in sync only in the sense that two super-precise clocks set to the same time are in sync.

Change the time on one clock and the other is not affected.

Change the input or programming of one robot's brain and the other robot's brain is not affected.

It seems to me that you are assuming that if two brains had the same consciousness, then they would by definition be sharing that consciousness.
What everyone has been saying is that instead there would be two identical but separate consciousnesses.

Note: by "connected in some way" I mean some process that directly connects the two brains, not just the fact that in order to have the same input at the same time, there would have to be some communication going on at some level.
Click to expand...
Humots,

- In at least a sense, you're right. I wouldn't say it quite the same way however.
- I would say that the "consciousness" I'm trying to describe is DEFINED such that, if somehow two brains were to have the same "consciousness," they would be sharing one consciousness. If two brains carried the same "self," those brains would be sharing one consciousness.
- Again, this is the "self" that people who believe in reincarnation believe will return over and over again.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Humots,

- In at least a sense, you're right. I wouldn't say it quite the same way however.
- I would say that the "consciousness" I'm trying to describe is DEFINED such that, if somehow two brains were to have the same "consciousness," they would be sharing one consciousness. If two brains carried the same "self," those brains would be sharing one consciousness.
- Again, this is the "self" that people who believe in reincarnation believe will return over and over again.
Click to expand...


Then the consciousness you are describing is not an emergent property of the brain, but something else altogether.
 
Jabba said:
Humots,

- In at least a sense, you're right. I wouldn't say it quite the same way however.
- I would say that the "consciousness" I'm trying to describe is DEFINED such that, if somehow two brains were to have the same "consciousness," they would be sharing one consciousness. If two brains carried the same "self," those brains would be sharing one consciousness.
- Again, this is the "self" that people who believe in reincarnation believe will return over and over again.
Click to expand...


But all you have to do is feed some slight difference in input to one computer and they are no longer having identical thoughts. So they no longer have identical consciousness. Since no two people share the same experiences, there is no possibility that they could share a consciousness. If you want to win the argument by definition, you can make the words mean whatever you want. But I can't see any logical reason to define consciousness the way you have.
 
Agatha said:
Someone give me a nudge (or a cookie) when Jabba posts something directly related to human consciousness transcending death. Analogies of computers and robots are going to lead us absolutely nowhere in terms of "essentially proving" human immortality.
Click to expand...

Nobody will ever nudge you.
 
Jabba said:
- I would say that the "consciousness" I'm trying to describe is DEFINED such that, if somehow two brains were to have the same "consciousness," they would be sharing one consciousness. If two brains carried the same "self," those brains would be sharing one consciousness.
Click to expand...

The problem for you is that you can't define things into existence.
 
pakeha said:
OK.
Where does this analogy take us?
Click to expand...
Mojo said:
Penge.




I've never been there but I hear it's a very nice place to live.
Click to expand...

Penge?
According to wiki "In South Africa the largest amosite mine in the world was named Penge (apparently one of the U.K. directors considered that the two areas were similar in appearance.)[23]"

No Dom for Mojo this morning!



Jabba said:
Humots,

- In at least a sense, you're right. I wouldn't say it quite the same way however.
- I would say that the "consciousness" I'm trying to describe is DEFINED such that, if somehow two brains were to have the same "consciousness," they would be sharing one consciousness. If two brains carried the same "self," those brains would be sharing one consciousness.
- Again, this is the "self" that people who believe in reincarnation believe will return over and over again.
Click to expand...

I'm still struggling with the two brains, one consciousness idea.
 
Jabba said:
Humots,

- In at least a sense, you're right. I wouldn't say it quite the same way however.
- I would say that the "consciousness" I'm trying to describe is DEFINED such that, if somehow two brains were to have the same "consciousness," they would be sharing one consciousness. If two brains carried the same "self," those brains would be sharing one consciousness.
- Again, this is the "self" that people who believe in reincarnation believe will return over and over again.
Click to expand...


STOP THIS NONSENSE IMMEDIATELY.

Proceed to "essentially" demonstrate immortality without further delay.

If you fail to do so, I shall report you for violating the MA.
 
Mojo said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not two "robots". In that analogy, your body is the robot. The computers are just tools.

Hans
 
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...

If the minds are identical then how do you know you have two of them?
 
Akhenaten said:
Never mind. Just keep posting more lists.

In fact, I'd say we're long overdue for a list of all the lists that you've made.






What's more sure is that people are bound to wonder why, after more than a year, so many questions remain unanswered.






That's because they're the result of a muddled, poorly thought out set of ideas that make no sense when subjected to critical analysis.

In attempting to explain the inexplicable rather than admit to your errors you're simply going further and further down the rabbit hole with every post.

What you need to realise about a lot of these questions is that there are no logical answers but your refusal to see that some (if not most or all) of your ideas are wrong compels you to attempt answers anyway - answers that, because they make no sense, generate even more questions. The whole thing is a giant snowball of fail.






This post, which was made within an hour of you creating the thread more than 13 months ago is as about how I view the consensus here:


​






This really does beg the question: "What the hell have you been doing up to now then?"
Click to expand...

He was formulating the premises by which the protocols preceding the actual stating of the types of questions may be promulgated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom