[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

Tomboy,
- One of my proposed explanations for why there should be an infinite number of potential selves, given the scientific model, is that the same sperm and ovum would not produce the same self -- that a certain biological situation produces the emergent property of consciousness, but with each new consciousness a brand new self is created ("out of thin air," so to speak).
- I'll be back.

Mr. Savage:

At the risk of being accused of being condescending, do you realize that all you are doing is making unsupported assertions?

 

[trebor]

- Finally, if two brains are precisely identical in structure, they would give rise two identical consciousnesses. Note that they would still be two separate consciousnesses, not one.

This.
Also as the structure of each brain changes over time, would this mean you had a different consciousness the next day?
Perhaps over time.

Same identity though unless there was a lot of damage caused though.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

He sees a consciousness as at least in some ways independent of its brain, so that two brains with identical structures could have different consciousnesses.

They would. Right from the first millisecond of them existing they'd have different experiences, and so would grow and learn differently.

And it's a flawed concept in the first place, as it presupposes that there's a point during the development of a brain in which it suddenly becomes conscious, rather than consciousness being a property which gradually emerges. By the time identical twins became conscious, they'd already have spent a long time reacting to different stimuli.

To me, this implies that he is really talking about a soul, not a consciousness.

He is, but he doesn't want to use the word.

 

[Akhenaten]

Tomboy,
- The other proposed explanation is that there are two kinds of relevant infinities: 1) "intrinsic" and 2) "extrinsic." I suspect that this distinction is made somewhere, but not using these terms -- so I haven't been able to find a reference.

Your "proposed explanation" is essentially nonsense and you can't find a reference for it because you're essentially making it all up as you go.

- Anyway, #1 is sort of "theoretical" in that there is nothing intrinsic to the concept that makes it finite, but external situations might be able to.

Just as a finite number x a finite number ≠ infinity, neither does "something Jabba made up" equal "theoretical"

- Gotta go.

That would be best.

 

[pakeha]

Slowvehicle,
- That's the point. I do not think that a large number multiplied by a large number yields an "infinite" number." I think that there is an infinite number of potential selves -- and, I'm trying to show why I think that.

Great.
I'm looking forward to seeing how an infinite number emerges from a finite number.

 

[John Jones]

Great.
I'm looking forward to seeing how an infinite number emerges from a finite number.

I don't think any of us will live that long.

 

[AdMan]

Great.
I'm looking forward to seeing how an infinite number emerges from a finite number.

I don't think Jabba understands what infinity means.

 

[Humots]

He sees a consciousness as at least in some ways independent of its brain, so that two brains with identical structures could have different consciousnesses.

They would. Right from the first millisecond of them existing they'd have different experiences, and so would grow and learn differently.

And it's a flawed concept in the first place, as it presupposes that there's a point during the development of a brain in which it suddenly becomes conscious, rather than consciousness being a property which gradually emerges. By the time identical twins became conscious, they'd already have spent a long time reacting to different stimuli.

Indeed. Even with an identical initial brain structure, different stimuli (whether the individual was fully conscious or not) would affect development.

If consciousness is a complex phenomenon (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory), there could be a "butterfly effect" - even a very tiny difference in experience would cause immense change.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Not to mention, according to Mr.Savage, a new consciousness is created "out of thin air" at each fructification--making "reincarnation", to say nothing of "immortality", problematic...

 

[Ladewig]

I've read only the last few pages, and I am too lazy to find the source, so I'll just ask.

Why is the finiteness/infiniteness of potential selves important enough to spend several pages arguing about?

How does it relate to immortality?

.............

 

[Akhenaten]

I've read only the last few pages, and I am too lazy to find the source, so I'll just ask.

Why is the finiteness/infiniteness of potential selves important enough to spend several pages arguing about?

How does it relate to immortality?

.............

You could have read every post (Children - Please do not attempt this at home!) and you'd be none the wiser since Jabba hasn't even hinted at what he believes the connection to be.

 

[Akhenaten]

Great.
I'm looking forward to seeing how an infinite number emerges from a finite number.

You start by taking a finite number into the breakfast nook.

 

[abaddon]

You start by taking a finite number into the breakfast nook.

43 pages...still nothing presented.

I'm curious. How does vbulletin handle infinite page numbers?

 

[abaddon]

You could have read every post (Children - Please do not attempt this at home!) and you'd be none the wiser since Jabba hasn't even hinted at what he believes the connection to be.

I keep my children away from this thread.


In any event, there has yet to be an event. I am agog awaiting the proof of immortality which jabba is surely to present. Soon. Am I right, Jabba? Yes?

 

[John Jones]

Yes. Forty-three pages of Jabbalicious tedium, and not a single cogent point yet.

Jabba, do you intend to make a point in this or any other lifetime?

So far, you have done nothing but hold yourself in contempt.

 

[pakeha]

You start by taking a finite number into the breakfast nook.

As always, Pharaoh reminds us of the blinding simplicity of the truth.
Some things never change, and the breakfast nook is one of them

 

[Jabba]

Soul
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Soul (disambiguation).
The soul, in many religious, philosophical, psychological, and mythological traditions, is the incorporeal and, in many conceptions, immortal essence of a person, living thing, or object.[1] According to some religions, including the Abrahamic religions in most of their forms, souls — or at least immortal souls capable of union with the divine[2] — belong only to human beings. For example, the Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas attributed "soul" (anima) to all organisms but taught that only human souls are immortal.[3] Other religions (most notably Jainism and Hinduism) teach that all biological organisms have souls, and others further still that non-biological entities (such as rivers and mountains) possess souls. This latter belief is called animism.[4] Anima mundi is the concept of a "world soul."
Soul can function as a synonym for spirit, mind, psyche or self.[5]

- OK. That IS what I'm talking about, except that I'm trying to remove the religious connotations. Ultimately, I do accept the religious connotations, but here, I'm trying to talk about the basic, non-religious idea. There IS one.
- Certainly, I'm having great difficulty trying to communicate what I mean by the "self," "observer" or "individual consciousness." But again, maybe the best way to convey the idea is to point to what religious people mean by "afterlife," or "reincarnation." For the moment, I'm not arguing that there are such things -- I'm just pointing out examples of reference to the concept of "self." The self is what is referred to as continuing in afterlife, or returning in reincarnation, by believers. The self is what skeptics, and probably most scientists, believe does not continue, or return. That is what I'm talkin about when I claim that the "self" is immortal
- It is this self that I believe is, in fact, immortal.
- I tried that approach before, and it didn' seem to help. Maybe, I said it better this time...

- Whatever, now that I've probably done the best I can at communicating the concept, I'll go back to trying to show why I think it's immortal.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<lexicon snip>

- OK. That IS what I'm talking about, except that I'm trying to remove the religious connotations. Ultimately, I do accept the religious connotations, but here, I'm trying to talk about the basic, non-religious idea. There IS one.

What, pray tell, is your concept of the basic, non-religious idea of a consciousness independent of a neural system?

- Certainly, I'm having great difficulty trying to communicate what I mean by the "self," "observer" or "individual consciousness." But again, maybe the best way to convey the idea is to point to what religious people mean by "afterlife," or "reincarnation." For the moment, I'm not arguing that there are such things -- I'm just pointing out examples of reference to the concept of "self." The self is what is referred to as continuing in afterlife, or returning in reincarnation, by believers. The self is what skeptics, and probably most scientists, believe does not continue, or return. That is what I'm talkin about when I claim that the "self" is immortal

What evidence do you plan to offer that this "soul" exists, much less exists immortally?

- It is this self that I believe is, in fact, immortal.
- I tried that approach before, and it didn' seem to help. Maybe, I said it better this time...

- Whatever, now that I've probably done the best I can at communicating the concept, I'll go back to trying to show why I think it's immortal.

Having thus simply asserted that the "soul" exists, you now intend to assert that the "soul" is immortal?

Do you ever intend to support any of your assertions?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Mmmm.... Jabba - flannel

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

If you're going to insist on using argumentum ad copypasta, at least learn how to do it properly.

What a mess.

- OK. That IS what I'm talking about, except that I'm trying to remove the religious connotations. Ultimately, I do accept the religious connotations, but here, I'm trying to talk about the basic, non-religious idea.

You're failing dismally. Everyone already understands your agenda.

Except maybe yourself, of course.

There IS one.

No, there isn't.

- Certainly, I'm having great difficulty trying to communicate what I mean by the "self," "observer" or "individual consciousness."

That's because you're trying to do what most apologists do - you're attempting to force fit a scientific/mathematical explanation onto what is nothing more than a matter of personal belief.

Apparently you have no idea how transparent your efforts have been.

But again, maybe the best way to convey the idea is to point to what religious people mean by "afterlife," or "reincarnation."

You don't need to convey the idea at all. We already know and, by an overwhelming majority, reject it.

For the moment, I'm not arguing that there are such things -- I'm just pointing out examples of reference to the concept of "self."

Rubbish. You're trying to explain/justify a religious point of view and pretending that it's some kind of scientific/mathematical exposition.

The self is what is referred to as continuing in afterlife, or returning in reincarnation, by believers. The self is what skeptics, and probably most scientists, believe does not continue, or return. That is what I'm talkin about when I claim that the "self" is immortal

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

- It is this self that I believe is, in fact, immortal.

We know what you believe.

What you're copping flak for now is the blatant dishonesty of trying to dress that belief up as "essential proof".

- I tried that approach before, and it didn' seem to help. Maybe, I said it better this time...

You say it best when you say nothing at all.

- Whatever, now that I've probably done the best I can at communicating the concept, I'll go back to trying to show why I think it's immortal.

Of course you will.

And in another 50 pages we'll still be right where we are now.