[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[pakeha]

Dave,
- But to me, there is something different between the selves of identical, but separate brains (I'm calling it “identity”) – and, this difference would be there from the very beginning of memory. This thing/process/illusion of identity will remain the same for a lifetime.
- I think that a while back you said that this t/p/i was not an aspect of the self. 1) Is that correct? 2) Do you still believe it? 3) Are “aspect” and “property” the same?

Stop, Jabba, stop.
You're forgetting the first step in all this speculation.
Remember, please remember.
The sense of self is part of an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

 

[John Jones]

:facepalm:

 

[xtifr]

Dave,
- But to me, there is something different between the selves of identical, but separate brains (I'm calling it “identity”) – and, this difference would be there from the very beginning of memory. This thing/process/illusion of identity will remain the same for a lifetime.

You were ok till that last sentence. The thing, the process, and the illusion are not references to the same thing! And none of them remain the same for a lifetime. Or even a moment.

The brain is the thing. It's an actual physical object, defined by its composition and location. And it constantly changes.

The consciousness/sense-of-self/identity is the process. It's something the brain does. And it constantly changes.

The feeling that you're the same person you were when you were twelve, just because you can access that twelve-year-old's memories, is the illusion. And it constantly changes.

Your copy would share the illusion, since it also has access to those twelve-year-old's memories, but would not share a brain or the associated consciousness.

- I think that a while back you said that this t/p/i was not an aspect of the self. 1) Is that correct? 2) Do you still believe it? 3) Are “aspect” and “property” the same?

I don't think this can be answered as asked, since the t, the p, and the i are different things. Which one are you asking about?

 

[Jabba]

Xtifr,
- We seem to disagree on just about everything – so, it hardly matters where I begin...
- Dr Blackmore only got back to me that one time. And, I’m sure that she is saying more than I understand, but based upon what I think that I understand, what she claims makes sense, at least in a sense. In a sense at least, the continuity of the self seems to be an illusion…- My first objection is that such doesn’t matter – if the continuous self is some kind of illusion, it is still 1) what I’m talking about, 2) what I am mostly enjoying and 3) what science says will go away (indirectly accepting that it does currently exist) to never return…

At no point have I expressed a personal opinion here. If you mean you disagree that the scientific model says what it does, then show me where the soul is to be found in the scientific model.
You're welcome to believe in the soul all you want. No skin off my nose. What you don't get to do is arbitrarily inject the soul into the scientific model in an attempt to prove that the scientific model is self-contradictory because of the presence of souls. You either have to prove the existence of souls, or prove that the scientific model fails even without the existence of souls.

- Note that the soul is what I'm trying to 'prove.' Obviously, the soul is not part of the scientific model -- I'm trying to show that it should be.

"Go away" is misleading. It will stop occurring...

- Nah -- I think that's nit-picking at best. I'm talking about an illusion "going away."

Which means the possible number of potential consciousnesses/senses of self/whatever you want to call it is finite. If your proof of immortality fails because of that, then I think we're done here. Otherwise, it's long past time to move on to the next point. And yes, that's an important distinction.
But it's not the self that's illusory; that's a real electro-chemical reaction in a real brain at a real set of space/time coordinates. It's just the continuity that's illusory. Like the illusion of motion in a "moving" picture...

- Note also that I'm talking about the continuous self being an illusion -- I'm not talking about the "self," itself being an illusion.

Bottom line, the scientific model says that the consciousness and sense of self occur in a particular brain at a particular location. Which means the possible number of potential consciousnesses/senses of self/whatever you want to call it is finite. If your proof of immortality fails because of that, then I think we're done here. Otherwise, it's long past time to move on to the next point. ..

- I accept that if time is finite, the number of actual selves possible is also finite. I'm just claiming that that is not the number that belongs in our formula...
- If you accept my other claims in this post, I'll try to describe and support the 'number' that I claim belongs in our formula.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Note that the soul is what I'm trying to 'prove' -- it is not part of the scientific model. I'm trying to show that it should be.

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage!

I find this encouraging! Surely "trying to show" will finally involve evidence.

...Right?

- Nah -- I think that's nit-picking at best. I'm talking about an illusion "going away."

Nah. The consciousness will stop being when the neurosystem of which it is an emergent property ceases to function correctly--in many cases, before the neurosystem itself dies.

- Note also that I'm talking about the continuous self being an illusion -- I'm not talking about the "self," itself being an illusion.

- I accept that if time is finite, the number of actual selves possible is also finite. I'm just claiming that that is not the number that belongs in our formula...
- If you accept my other claims in this post, I'll try to describe and support the 'number' that I claim belongs in our formula.

...and if not? What will you do then?

 

[John Jones]

- Note that the soul is what I'm trying to 'prove' -- it is not part of the scientific model. I'm trying to show that it should be.
[...]

Then get on with it, FFS! Why has it taken you way more than 18 months to admit this?

And don't start that irritating claim about stuff you intend to start proving.

Just do it!

 

[HighRiser]

- Note that the soul is what I'm trying to 'prove.' Obviously, the soul is not part of the scientific model -- I'm trying to show that it should be.

- Nah -- I think that's nit-picking at best. I'm talking about an illusion "going away."

- Note also that I'm talking about the continuous self being an illusion -- I'm not talking about the "self," itself being an illusion.

- I accept that if time is finite, the number of actual selves possible is also finite. I'm just claiming that that is not the number that belongs in our formula...
- If you accept my other claims in this post, I'll try to describe and support the 'number' that I claim belongs in our formula.

Obviously, all it will take to modify the scientific model is empirical, practical, objective evidence. If you can show that; science will accept it. Just like everything else that's accepted by science.

 

[Giordano]

- Note that the soul is what I'm trying to 'prove.' Obviously, the soul is not part of the scientific model -- I'm trying to show that it should be.

- Nah -- I think that's nit-picking at best. I'm talking about an illusion "going away."

- Note also that I'm talking about the continuous self being an illusion -- I'm not talking about the "self," itself being an illusion.

- I accept that if time is finite, the number of actual selves possible is also finite. I'm just claiming that that is not the number that belongs in our formula...
- If you accept my other claims in this post, I'll try to describe and support the 'number' that I claim belongs in our formula.

Neither the soul, whether it is defined as a one time thing, nor an immortal soul is part of the scientific model. Nor is the "self" as you define it. But please feel free to prove the scientific model is wrong. Go ahead.

The "self" is an illusion. We are back where we started after all.

Again I am confused: if the actual number of actual selves possible is finite, but the number representing this is infinity, I look forward to your formula proof. But I may not be the only one confused here...

 

[Giordano]

Then get on with it, FFS! Why has it taken you way more than 18 months to admit this?

And don't start that irritating claim about stuff you intend to start proving.

Just do it!

How do you know his purpose?

 

[John Jones]

How do you know his purpose?

Whose? Jabba's?

I can only surmise by what he has said all these many months.

 

[xtifr]

- Note that the soul is what I'm trying to 'prove.' Obviously, the soul is not part of the scientific model -- I'm trying to show that it should be.

"Should be" isn't enough to justify using it to disprove the scientific model. You need to get to "must be". And since no one has ever shown that it should be, let alone must be, I'm...sure this will be fascinating. But here's a hint: pointing at an illusion isn't going to get you there. Because, y'know, illusions aren't real.

- Note also that I'm talking about the continuous self being an illusion -- I'm not talking about the "self," itself being an illusion.

It's not a "continuous self"--it's an illusion of continuity, which occurs in the self. The illusion is caused by the brain's ability to access memories. Which is purely biological. We don't even need to invoke location here. A perfect copy of you would have exactly the same illusion! (Because it would have exactly the same memories.)

The illusion is purely biological. Which, it seems to me, is the exact opposite of what you're trying to argue. And, more importantly, it's an illusion. The self is real; the feeling of continuity exists because you can access memories. Which are stored in the physical brain. Without a physical brain, there is no way to access those memories, and thus, no feeling of continuity.

- I accept that if time is finite, the number of actual selves possible is also finite. I'm just claiming that that is not the number that belongs in our formula...
- If you accept my other claims in this post, I'll try to describe and support the 'number' that I claim belongs in our formula.

I think I need to see how you react to the above before I know for sure whether I accept what you're saying.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Note that the soul is what I'm trying to 'prove.' Obviously, the soul is not part of the scientific model -- I'm trying to show that it should be.

What test have you devised to detect the soul? What result would indicate the existence of the soul and what would fail to indicate such?

Because you can't be trying to prove the existence of the soul by logical means. All of your logical arguments start by assuming the soul is real. You can't prove something is true by assuming it's true.

Surely you must understand that?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba you've spent 18 months, 190 pages of posts, and I don't even know many wasted words telling us all how... any minute now... you're gonna start to make an actual argument.

That... is... pathetic. If being Intentionally Obtuse could ever be a moddable offense, you've reached it.

 

[Akhenaten]

Xtifr,
- We seem to disagree on just about everything – so, it hardly matters where I begin...
- Dr Blackmore only got back to me that one time. And, I’m sure that she is saying more than I understand, but based upon what I think that I understand, what she claims makes sense, at least in a sense. In a sense at least, the continuity of the self seems to be an illusion…- My first objection is that such doesn’t matter – if the continuous self is some kind of illusion, it is still 1) what I’m talking about, 2) what I am mostly enjoying and 3) what science says will go away (indirectly accepting that it does currently exist) to never return…

At no point have I expressed a personal opinion here. If you mean you disagree that the scientific model says what it does, then show me where the soul is to be found in the scientific model.
You're welcome to believe in the soul all you want. No skin off my nose. What you don't get to do is arbitrarily inject the soul into the scientific model in an attempt to prove that the scientific model is self-contradictory because of the presence of souls. You either have to prove the existence of souls, or prove that the scientific model fails even without the existence of souls.

- Note that the soul is what I'm trying to 'prove.' Obviously, the soul is not part of the scientific model -- I'm trying to show that it should be.

As usual you have the cart before the horse.

You need to demonstrate that such a thing as a soul exists (evidence is a good way of doing this) before you can make a case for it belonging to anything other than the Jabbanetic™ model.

"Go away" is misleading. It will stop occurring...

- Nah -- I think that's nit-picking at best. I'm talking about an illusion "going away."

No, it's not nitpicking at all.

It's the level of specificity needed when dealing with someone who redefines existing terms willy-nilly, makes up random new ones almost daily and constantly attempts to alter the meaning of everything said to and by him in order to obfuscate the issues and create semantic traps (albeit pathetic ones).

Which means the possible number of potential consciousnesses/senses of self/whatever you want to call it is finite. If your proof of immortality fails because of that, then I think we're done here. Otherwise, it's long past time to move on to the next point. And yes, that's an important distinction.
But it's not the self that's illusory; that's a real electro-chemical reaction in a real brain at a real set of space/time coordinates. It's just the continuity that's illusory. Like the illusion of motion in a "moving" picture...

- Note also that I'm talking about the continuous self being an illusion -- I'm not talking about the "self," itself being an illusion.

What about all the other variations on "self" that you've invented?

Bottom line, the scientific model says that the consciousness and sense of self occur in a particular brain at a particular location. Which means the possible number of potential consciousnesses/senses of self/whatever you want to call it is finite. If your proof of immortality fails because of that, then I think we're done here. Otherwise, it's long past time to move on to the next point. ..

- I accept that if time is finite, the number of actual selves possible is also finite. I'm just claiming that that is not the number that belongs in our formula...

Formula?

You appear to have overlooked that your claim has been revealed as nothing more than "if souls exist then they must be immortal because that's how souls are defined".

The only formula required is GIGO.

- If you accept my other claims in this post, I'll try to describe and support the 'number' that I claim belongs in our formula.

What a pity that there are only two or three people posting in this thread. If only there were more then you'd have a much better chance of understanding the problems with your arguments.

 

[Mojo]

- Note that the soul is what I'm trying to 'prove.' Obviously, the soul is not part of the scientific model -- I'm trying to show that it should be.

- Nah -- I think that's nit-picking at best. I'm talking about an illusion "going away."

- Note also that I'm talking about the continuous self being an illusion -- I'm not talking about the "self," itself being an illusion.

- I accept that if time is finite, the number of actual selves possible is also finite. I'm just claiming that that is not the number that belongs in our formula...
- If you accept my other claims in this post, I'll try to describe and support the 'number' that I claim belongs in our formula.

Jabba,
- Did you do the reading that Dr Blackmore recommended to you?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Jabba,
- Did you do the reading that Dr Blackmore recommended to you?

Acknowledging the flaws in one's argument does not a winning position make in truly effective debate

 

[Hlafordlaes]

At this point, as a matter of etiquette, Jabba, I feel it is appropriate for you to carry on your exchange privately, via PM or email, as you only are conversing with a single user.

I think that even if not defined in the rules (dunno, haven't looked recently), it is actually quite rude to ignore everyone and use a public thread as a private medium.

Bad for the soul, actually.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Your posts have become very repetitive and boring. Have you noticed how participation here by others has fallen off lately? I think that is because no one believes you will ever provide evidence, proof, or even new insights about your own theories (despite your repeated promises to do so). Furthermore, your habit of only talking to a just a few favored individuals at a time, and completely ignoring serious flaws in your theories pointed out by them and by the others, is much more suited to PM or email, not a Discussion Forum. It is extraordinarily impolite to ignore people talking to you; why do you feel that is okay?

So, please either move your communications to PM or email, or liven things up a bit by providing novel proof or content. Thanks.

 

[Akhenaten]

Jabba,

Your posts have become very repetitive and boring. Have you noticed how participation here by others has fallen off lately?

This aspect of the thread has impacted on myself quite severely.

It had become one of life's little pleasures for me to try and illustrate the various twists and turns that we encountered along the way to resolving the topic but, alas!

There's no longer a discernible topic to illustrate.

I think that is because no one believes you will ever provide evidence, proof, or even new insights about your own theories (despite your repeated promises to do so).

I don't even know what the bloody theory is any more.

Furthermore, your habit of only talking to a just a few favored individuals at a time, and completely ignoring serious flaws in your theories pointed out by them and by the others, is much more suited to PM or email, not a Discussion Forum. It is extraordinarily impolite to ignore people talking to you; why do you feel that is okay?

My main suspicion is that an abiding commitment to his own theory of Truly Effective Debate™ overrides the desire to actually resolve any particular issue.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Jabba one day came straight out and admitted that he's never had even a shred of belief in the idea of an eternal soul and simply fabricated the concept for no other purpose than to demonstrate TED™

So, please either move your communications to PM or email, or liven things up a bit by providing novel proof or content. Thanks.

A vote from me in favour of this sentiment.

Something new, no matter how outlandish, would be a huge improvement on the incessant repetition of this identical brain flummery.

 

[Mojo]

I don't even know what the bloody theory is any more.

"All selves are thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end."