[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Squeegee,
- You're "present consciousness" and it's continuity over your physical lifetime, is the actual "thing" I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

My present consciousness and the apparent continuity of consciousness are 2 different things. My present consciousness is not the same as the one that typed that post yesterday.

I'm not talking about the underlying, constantly changing machine.
Click to expand...

The machine changes less than the consciousness. The machine is neurons and chemicals. The consciousness is electrical activity, and that's in constant motion.

To give you an idea, this video shows the electrical activity in one hemisphere while the person in question is doing nothing at all:



That's how much the brain changes when someone is just relaxing. You think the underlying machine is constantly changing? That's nothing compared to your consciousness.
 
Jabba said:
Squeegee,
- It is this consciousness that most of us treasure and don't want it to go away for good.
Click to expand...

Yes.

The same consciousness that many people do not believe survives our deaths. Most of these people arrive at that conclusion due to the lack of evidence and lack of mechanism.

As I have said before. If you want to believe in immortality, then go ahead and believe in immortality. If you want to convince JREF members in immortality, please present evidence - and if you have no evidence, then please let the thread die.


ETA:
Please note
Saying "wouldn't it be awesome if things worked this way" is not evidence.
Saying "my consciousness is so unique and valuable that the universe would never let it disappear" is not evidence.
Saying "the odds of this other thing are so great that my consciousness is immortal" is not evidence.
Saying "lots of people believe (or want to believe) that the universe works this way" is not evidence.
There is absolutely no evidence at all in the claim "science is wrong therefore the likelihood of my consciousness being immortal is increased."
 
Last edited:
One quick question.

If there were a consciousness that survived many generations in different people and in its current embodiment,and the person's head is severely damaged to the point that most of the the defining characteristics of personality and consciousness are destroyed, then in the next reincarnation, is the consciousness restored to full power or is it still diminished?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave, Pixel & Squeegee,
- How about this?
- What we're talkin about is sort of analogous to a camera and and its film. You guys are talkin about the film. I'm talkin about the camera. The film changes, but the camera stays the same (basically). The camera is the "observer" or "self."
- I suspect that won't help, but it's worth a try.
Click to expand...

I don't think such a thing exists.
 
Jabba said:
Jay, Humots, Lenny, xtifr,
- Any of you guys still around? I can't believe that you don't have any objections to my argument at this point.
Click to expand...
I stopped following this thread back in February, when Jabba stopped posting. I didn't notice that he started again in October.

I don't know if I have the time or interest to fully review the last two months. A very brief review shows nothing but the same old arguments.
 
Squeegee,

- Try these.

- From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness#The_basis_of_personal_identity

According to Locke, personal identity (the self) "depends on consciousness, not on substance" nor on the soul. We are the same person to the extent that we are conscious of our past and future thoughts and actions in the same way as we are conscious of our present thoughts and actions. If consciousness is this "thought" which doubles all thoughts, then personal identity is only founded on the repeated act of consciousness: "This may show us wherein personal identity consists: not in the identity of substance, but ... in the identity of consciousness."

- Rene Descartes: Cogito ergo sum.

- That's about as well as I can do for now. I assume that such is not enough, but I need to move on otherwise. If needs be, I'll come back to this issue later on.
- I still claim that there is a real concept here -- it's just difficult to convey. A few years ago, I ran into a 3D Xmas tree on line. When you first see it, it looks like a bunch of little 2D trees. But, if you sort of re-focus, all of a sudden you see a big 3D tree. I think that, somehow, you need to sort of re-focus in order to recognize what I'm talking about... Though, it could be that we aren't really disagreeing about the concept itself, but rather semantics...

- If anyone else here accepts the individual consciousness I'm trying to convey, maybe you could describe it better.
 
Jabba said:
- If anyone else here accepts the individual consciousness I'm trying to convey, maybe you could describe it better.
Click to expand...


Why?

The existence of individual consciousness isn't the issue - immortality is.

Have you essentially forgotten why you even started this essentially blighted thread?
 
Jabba said:
Squeegee,

- Try these.

- From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness#The_basis_of_personal_identity

According to Locke, personal identity (the self) "depends on consciousness, not on substance" nor on the soul. We are the same person to the extent that we are conscious of our past and future thoughts and actions in the same way as we are conscious of our present thoughts and actions. If consciousness is this "thought" which doubles all thoughts, then personal identity is only founded on the repeated act of consciousness: "This may show us wherein personal identity consists: not in the identity of substance, but ... in the identity of consciousness."

- Rene Descartes: Cogito ergo sum.

- That's about as well as I can do for now. I assume that such is not enough, but I need to move on otherwise. If needs be, I'll come back to this issue later on.
- I still claim that there is a real concept here -- it's just difficult to convey. A few years ago, I ran into a 3D Xmas tree on line. When you first see it, it looks like a bunch of little 2D trees. But, if you sort of re-focus, all of a sudden you see a big 3D tree. I think that, somehow, you need to sort of re-focus in order to recognize what I'm talking about... Though, it could be that we aren't really disagreeing about the concept itself, but rather semantics...

- If anyone else here accepts the individual consciousness I'm trying to convey, maybe you could describe it better.
Click to expand...

It's not that we don't understand what you're talking about, it's that we don't agree such a thing exists.
 
Jabba, I don't think that the root of the problem you're having is defining consciousness. It's proving persistence of said consciousness after the mechanism it emerged from stops functioning.
 
Jabba said:
Squeegee,
- You're "present consciousness" and it's continuity over your physical lifetime, is the actual "thing" I'm talking about. Your present consciousness is the thing that I claim actually does continue past your physical lifetime. We just can't express it after our body dies (and, we can't remember it when we come back in a different body -- if reincarnation is the answer). I'm not talking about the underlying, constantly changing machine.
Click to expand...

The constantly changing machine IS the consciousness. No part of that consciousness exists as anything other than patterns in the activity in that macine, and no part of it persists after the machine stops working.
 
Jabba said:
According to Locke, personal identity (the self) "depends on consciousness, not on substance" nor on the soul. We are the same person to the extent that we are conscious of our past and future thoughts and actions in the same way as we are conscious of our present thoughts and actions. If consciousness is this "thought" which doubles all thoughts, then personal identity is only founded on the repeated act of consciousness: "This may show us wherein personal identity consists: not in the identity of substance, but ... in the identity of consciousness."
Click to expand...

That doesn't contradict anything I said.

- Rene Descartes: Cogito ergo sum.
Click to expand...

Rene Descartes walks into a fish and chip shop and says "I'd like a cod and chips, please". The man behind the counter says "certainly, sir. Would you like salt and vinegar?" Rene considers for a moment and says "hmm, I think not". And vanishes.

- That's about as well as I can do for now. I assume that such is not enough, but I need to move on otherwise. If needs be, I'll come back to this issue later on.
Click to expand...

Isn't the entire point of you presenting your ideas in such painfully small and slow steps to allow for each part to be covered properly? If that's not the case, then stop the dancing and just post everything in one go. If it is the case, then you need to address this point before moving on.

- I still claim that there is a real concept here -- it's just difficult to convey. A few years ago, I ran into a 3D Xmas tree on line. When you first see it, it looks like a bunch of little 2D trees. But, if you sort of re-focus, all of a sudden you see a big 3D tree. I think that, somehow, you need to sort of re-focus in order to recognize what I'm talking about... Though, it could be that we aren't really disagreeing about the concept itself, but rather semantics...
Click to expand...

You're talking about an immortal soul, based on the sense of continuity your consciousness has. I'm talking about consciousness as an emergent property of the electrical activity in your brain, based on the current scientific paradigm. That's not an issue of semantics.
 
godless dave said:
Yes:



Identical twins come from the same sperm and ovum, but they don't share a self. The reason they don't share a self is because there are two of them, not one. So even though their brains start out nearly identically, each has its own point of view.

Also, brains develop in response to stimuli, so two brains that started out as identical will develop differently because they will be exposed to different stimuli.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- I'll try to get back to your first point next.
- In regard to your second point, I'm talking about a shared "observer." If the two bodies actually shared the same observer, their exposure would not be different. This observer would be exposed to the events of both bodies.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I'll try to get back to your first point next.
Click to expand...


You've already 'responded' to the first point.

Are you essentially going to work your way backwards through the thread now?


Jabba said:
- In regard to your second point, I'm talking about a shared "observer." If the two bodies actually shared the same observer, their exposure would not be different. This observer would be exposed to the events of both bodies.
Click to expand...


And if my Auntie had testicles she'd essentially be my uncle.

You're spouting essential nonsense, Jabba, and still essentially not even pretending to address the topic.
 
godless dave said:
Yes:



Identical twins come from the same sperm and ovum, but they don't share a self. The reason they don't share a self is because there are two of them, not one. So even though their brains start out nearly identically, each has its own point of view.
Also, brains develop in response to stimuli, so two brains that started out as identical will develop differently because they will be exposed to different stimuli.
Click to expand...
Dave,

- The one observer would have two points of view.

- And probably, it is not the specific sperm and ovum that produce a specific self. Probably, any time a sperm and ovum come together, they produce a brand new consciousness (as an emergent property), and that consciousness inherently has a "self." And that self is brand new -- out of thin air so to speak. If a brand new self is created whenever an ovum and sperm cell come together, there should be an infinity of potential selves.
- That sounds like I'm agreeing that each of us can only exist for one, finite lifetime -- but I'm not. I'm just saying that the scientific model should conclude that the number of potential selves is infinite, and the likelihood of my current existence is actually about seven billion over infinity (rather than one over infinity) -- but who's counting?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,

- You may be right about the DNA, I'll try to track that down.
- The question here is when the "self" is established. We know that it's established, and remains the same, at least by the time of our earliest memory -- even though our "characteristics" are being revised for many years thereafter.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- This is where I read that thing about the DNA of identical twins:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html?_r=0
 
Akhenaten said:
It's ridiculous.

Have you essentially given up trying to prove immortality?
Click to expand...
Akhenaten,
- No. The "self," or "observer," is what I think that I can essentially prove is immortal. I also think that I haven't done a very good job of communicating what I mean by those words. I keep hoping that I can do better at it.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I'll try to get back to your first point next.
- In regard to your second point, I'm talking about a shared "observer." If the two bodies actually shared the same observer, their exposure would not be different. This observer would be exposed to the events of both bodies.
Click to expand...

Right, but we know of no mechanism for that to happen. We know it's the brain that experiences things and changes in response to stimuli.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom