[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
iπ is not cake. Combining this with earlier recipe analogies we can arrive at the story's moral: You can have Not Cake and split in two.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
6547-6536Xtifr,
- Though I've been wrong before, I think I understand. But if I do understand, I always have -- and, just haven't expressed myself very well. This is a big part of why I think that studying debate is so important. So often, the two sides in a debate are not isolating their basic points of disagreement -- I can only hope that I have responded appropriately to your question...

- Gotta go. It's my wfe's birthday.
Click to expand...

Happy Birthday to your wife!

How many times do we have to tell you? No! No! No! We understand what you are trying to tell us. But you are wrong! Simple, isn't it?

Again, this is not a debate. There is no point in "isolating our basic points of disagreement." In fact, everyone here but you appears to present the same point of view. There are, on most issues, only two points of view. If you need it keep it simple for you, a "debate" format as it were, just debate Jabba versus Not Jabba. There are only a few issues to cover in the debate, in fact, and you have been told which ones to cover first.

You tried a one on one debate and failed; you in fact rapidly abandoned it. Remember?
 
Jabba said:
6 I can only hope that I have responded appropriately to your question...
Click to expand...

Ha, ha, ha. You have done everything to avoid responding to our questions here.

I have to agree with many others here: your posts only pretend to miss the point. Your posts are way too deliberate in terms of changing words to get an apparent agreement, then changing the definitions again to advance your agenda. Your posts that do not respond to the most fatal criticism, yet respond to irrelevant points, only make sense if you understand the concerns and, in fact, have no response.
 
Jabba said:
6547-6536Xtifr,
- Though I've been wrong before, I think I understand. But if I do understand, I always have -- and, just haven't expressed myself very well. This is a big part of why I think that studying debate is so important. So often, the two sides in a debate are not isolating their basic points of disagreement -- I can only hope that I have responded appropriately to your question...
Click to expand...
As appropriately as I could have hoped. I feel that we have either reached a mutual understanding on this particular point or an impasse that is going to be extremely difficult to overcome without further information. For this reason, I suggest it might be most useful to go on to the next step, which, if nothing else, should help clarify matters, and, if we're lucky, may even further the debate.

- Gotta go. It's my wfe's birthday.
Click to expand...

Of course. There's no rush. (Not at this point.) :)

I wish her all the best.
 
6537-6536
godless dave said:
Why does that matter? The reason it "takes on" its own sense of self is because it emerges from that particular brain. Any sense of self that emerges from a copy's brain will consider that copy to be its self, because that's where it's located.
There's nothing about selves that suggests they can ignore time and location. A self can only see out of the eyes of the body it belongs to.
(Sorry for jumping in, Humots. I'm on my lunch break and had time to reply)
Click to expand...
Dave,
- Aren't you saying that what makes this self different from replicas is location -- not chemistry?
 
Giordano said:
Happy Birthday to your wife!

[...]

You tried a one on one debate and failed; you in fact rapidly abandoned it. Remember?
Click to expand...


I surely remember. Jabba begs for a one-on-one debate for months, and turns-tail and runs as soon as he gets it. Remember that Jabba?

In case you wanted to stay on topic, have you any evidence of immortality?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
6537-6536Dave,
- Aren't you saying that what makes this self different from replicas is location -- not chemistry?
Click to expand...

Aren't you saying that you have been deliberately obtuse these last 2 years, and haven't read anything your interlocutors have said?
 
Jabba said:
6537-6536Dave,
- Aren't you saying that what makes this self different from replicas is location -- not chemistry?
Click to expand...


What the hell does that matter? Everyone - literally everyone - agrees that each person is a distinct individual. Everyone agrees that no two people can be exactly the same person. So the hell what?

I'm honestly tempted to report this all as Rule 11. You're nowhere near the topic of immortality. In fact, you appear to be actively avoiding it.
 
Loss Leader said:
What the hell does that matter? Everyone - literally everyone - agrees that each person is a distinct individual. Everyone agrees that no two people can be exactly the same person. So the hell what?

I'm honestly tempted to report this all as Rule 11. You're nowhere near the topic of immortality. In fact, you appear to be actively avoiding it.
Click to expand...

Please?
 
Jabba said:
6547-6536Xtifr,
- Though I've been wrong before, I think I understand. But if I do understand, I always have -- and, just haven't expressed myself very well. This is a big part of why I think that studying debate is so important. So often, the two sides in a debate are not isolating their basic points of disagreement -- I can only hope that I have responded appropriately to your question...

- Gotta go. It's my wfe's birthday.
Click to expand...

Oh, Mr. Savage...

I do not wish to seem rude, but you were handed, upon a silvern platter, a bully pulpit from which to demonstrate your mastery of your debate technique; a pulpit designed according to your specifications, and specially limited as per your demands.

Do you recall what happened?

Please do not pretend that this would be resolved if we would just "debate" your "way", by your "rules". Seriously. Just don't.
 
Jabba said:
- Aren't you saying that what makes this self different from replicas is location -- not chemistry?
Click to expand...


No, it is distinct from replicas because, even if the replicas are completely identical, they are not the same one.

If you could somehow produce two neurosystems that were completely identical, then each of them would have a "self". The "selves" would be identical, but there would be two of them, not one.
 
Jabba said:
6537-6536Dave,
- Aren't you saying that what makes this self different from replicas is location -- not chemistry?
Click to expand...

Jabba, do you remember what makes a functioning neurosystem function?
 
Jabba said:
6547-6536Xtifr,
- Though I've been wrong before, I think I understand. But if I do understand, I always have -- and, just haven't expressed myself very well. This is a big part of why I think that studying debate is so important. So often, the two sides in a debate are not isolating their basic points of disagreement -- I can only hope that I have responded appropriately to your question...
Click to expand...


Jabba, despite all you've wished for and intended this to be, it's not a debate.

Nearly two years ago you asserted that you could "essentially" prove immortality using Bayesian statistics, and you've utterly failed at it. Whether you can accept your failure or not, you've still failed.

You keep pretending this is some sort of courtroom where you're Perry Mason presenting your case to an unseen jury, but you're utterly wrong. You have no case, and there is no unseen jury.

I'd say you're wasting the time of everyone posting and reading this thread, but most of all you're wasting your own time. Go spend some quality time with your grandchildren instead of trying to convince an unseen, unexistent jury with empty, unconvincing arguments.
 
6586-6537
Jabba said:
6537-6536Dave,
- Aren't you saying that what makes this self different from replicas is location -- not chemistry?
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
The fact that they are physically distinct.
Click to expand...

Dave,
- OK. At least, we seem to be getting each other parsed -- which might be the first step in effective debate.
- Here, for me at least, "physically distinct" is not the same as chemically distinct.
 
Last edited:
6585-6574
xtifr said:
As appropriately as I could have hoped. I feel that we have either reached a mutual understanding on this particular point or an impasse that is going to be extremely difficult to overcome without further information. For this reason, I suggest it might be most useful to go on to the next step, which, if nothing else, should help clarify matters, and, if we're lucky, may even further the debate.
Of course. There's no rush. (Not at this point.) :)
I wish her all the best.
Click to expand...
Xtifr,

- Thanks. I'll give her your regards.

- I surely hope that I don't mar our apparent progress, but the next step for me is to claim that your chemistry produced a consciousness which developed its own self "from scratch." In other words, not only did your self have no prior existence of any kind, it had no prior blueprint of any kind (that specifically designated you). In that sense, you were created out of nothing, out of thin air. You were a totally brand new thing, and rather than designating you in particular, your blueprint simply allowed for you in particular.
- I’m crossing my fingers…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom