[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

Interesting.

I will reflect on it.

I hadn't realised until now that you were unaware of this behaviour.

I was similarly surprised that Loss Leader was also a newcomer to Jabba's modus operandi.

 

[Akhenaten]

LL,
- I still disagree with you re the deterministic universe issue, but I think I've given it my best shot and will move on. I will repost my failed arguments re this issue in a few month's time when hopefully everyone will have forgotten about how badly I messed it up this time.

FTFY

 

[Akhenaten]

- I might finally have an effective way to express my dichotomy.

Pigs might fly.

- The SM holds that any self that comes to exist will have only one, finite existence. The NSM (the complement) holds that any self that comes to exist will either exist continuously, or will exist more than once.

"The SM holds that any mammal that comes to exist will have only one, water-bound existence. The NSM (the madey-uppy thing) holds that any mammal that comes to exist will either exist on the land, or will exist in more than one environment."​

Pretty much everyone will tell you that the NSM is as sharp as a bag of hammers.

- Many of you will believe that it's the same thing I've been saying -- and I agree that it is what I've been trying to say -- hopefully, I'll be satisfied with this rendition.

In thanking heaven for small mercies we also give thanks that your satisfaction with any given explanation is utterly devoid of significance.

 

[tsig]

Well, Jabba, let’s try something different.

Consider what it would be like to survive bodily death, consciousness intact (that’s what immortality means, right?), and know that you would never die, not ever, not even when the universe had expanded until every subatomic particle was octillions of kilometers from the next one. Why, the first instant of eternity would not have elapsed even then! Do you really think your human mind could take that?

What would not taking it mean anyway? Would you beg your deterministic/nondeterministic God to let you cease to exist, to fall mercifully asleep and not awaken? He’d just reply, “Nuh-uh, buddy. Nobody told you to be born, you started existing on your own. In my eternity, you take what you get. If you’re bored, try doing crosswords or sumpin’.” Because if you could die in that bodiless state, then it wouldn't be immortality at all, now would it? God would never let you get away with a cheap trick like that, country boy!

This matter of immortality comes up on JREF from time to time. I can recall a thread of some years back in which we – brace yourself for the sheer improbability of it – actually reached a consensus! Yes, we JREFers, atheists, agnostics (whatever those are), and religious believers, all agreed: In order to endure immortal existence, we’d have to become something other than human.

Maybe you’re a closet Mormon and think you’ll grow up to be a god, but in my estimation, we’d have to become something considerably less than human – that means, in your case, something considerably less than Jabba. Creepy thought, innit?

A poster here observed, in that thread or some other, that “the most exquisite paradise would become an unendurable hell in no more than an aeon or two.”

So I hope you’ll put aside that bowl of salad you’re been mixing for two years and think about what you say you desire, that is, immortality. Don’t try to think rationally; that’s not your game. Instead, try to feel your human limitations in the immensity of the universe, and be glad that, in cosmic terms, you exist only for a fragment of a second.

Knowledge of it's immortality would drive an intelligent entity insane,

 

[tsig]

I hadn't realised until now that you were unaware of this behaviour.

I was similarly surprised that Loss Leader was also a newcomer to Jabba's modus operandi.

It seems to be a feature of long running threads, after a while a newcomer will start berating longtimers for picking on the woo spreader and not allowing them room to spread their woo, after they get burned it's usually quiet time after that.

Tone troll was a common name but is probably now subject to mustard.

 

[tsig]

Pigs might fly.

"The SM holds that any mammal that comes to exist will have only one, water-bound existence. The NSM (the madey-uppy thing) holds that any mammal that comes to exist will either exist on the land, or will exist in more than one environment."​

Pretty much everyone will tell you that the NSM is as sharp as a bag of hammers.






In thanking heaven for small mercies we also give thanks that your satisfaction with any given explanation is utterly devoid of significance.

Pigs don't fly??

http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/Bacon-Wrapped-Pig-Wings-395690

 

[Giordano]

Immortal Jellyfish

Thank you for citing this; I had forgotten how appropriate it is in this thread! Fascinating buggers.

 

[Giordano]

- I might finally have an effective way to express my dichotomy.
- The SM holds that any self that comes to exist will have only one, finite existence. The NSM (the complement) holds that any self that comes to exist will either exist continuously, or will exist more than once.
- Many of you will believe that it's the same thing I've been saying -- and I agree that it is what I've been trying to say -- hopefully, I'll be satisfied with this rendition.

First I don't think the NSM is what you think it is... See the comments by the others here.
But even more so, I think that you can only prove that your existence is impossible if you applied the same math to that question. This may be true...

 

[Humots]

- I might finally have an effective way to express my dichotomy.
- The SM holds that any self that comes to exist will have only one, finite existence. The NSM (the complement) holds that any self that comes to exist will either exist continuously, or will exist more than once.
- Many of you will believe that it's the same thing I've been saying -- and I agree that it is what I've been trying to say -- hopefully, I'll be satisfied with this rendition.

To restate what I said in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9809788#post9809788, the SM actually holds that “consciousness is an emergent property of the neurosystem, that is, consciousness is a by-product of the structure of the brain" (Slowvehicle) and "Consciousness does not exist independently of the brain, and will cease to exist when the brain no longer functions" (me).

Simplifying the SM to “any self that comes to exist will have only one, finite existence” is invalid. The only reason you are doing so is so that you can pretend that the number one is the most significant part of the SM, and thus the NSM must involve “more than one”.

The NSM would have to be the complement of the actual SM, and would have to include something like “consciousness exists independently of the brain and will continue to exist after the brain’s death”, which would take us into the realm of religion and the “soul”.

This realm is not conducive to mathematical proofs, only to blind faith.

 

[John Jones]

You don't have to address me by username, just quoting me is fine. I'll know if I see my username in the quote box.

Your source appears to be relegating all explanations and evidence to an antecedent labeled "magical reality" and is basing this reasoning on the assumption that one's existence is next to impossible. It makes this assumption in much the same way you have. In both cases, it's an unsupported assertion. Your source makes several arguments from incredulity, and seems to be saying that if we don't know the answer or lack the capacity to seek the answers, we must assume reality is "magical." Also, this still doesn't provide a mechanism or explanation for how consciousness could survive physical death.

Here's the thing. This falls into the category of a personal belief. If you want to believe it, that's fine. If you want to present it as evidence however, you're going to have to do a lot better than merely claiming that reality is "magical."

Jabba's source in this case is Jabba himself. That's why the gibberish strikes such a familiar chord.

 

[Ladewig]

I hadn't realised until now that you were unaware of this behaviour.

I was aware of the style. And until now I had thought I understood Jabba's desire to post about immortality in this style.

But LL's observations make me question what I suspected about this thread. I had thought that at least one side was enjoying this 60+ page thread. Now I am trying to understand how both sides could continue to post in their respective styles if each side were equally frustrated by the other.

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

I had predicted that the thread would go on forever. Now I am starting to think that Jabba will continue to water down his claim bit-by-bit until the thread peters out in less than 42 pages. 44 tops.

 

[Jabba]

To restate what I said in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9809788#post9809788, the SM actually holds that “consciousness is an emergent property of the neurosystem, that is, consciousness is a by-product of the structure of the brain" (Slowvehicle) and "Consciousness does not exist independently of the brain, and will cease to exist when the brain no longer functions" (me).

Simplifying the SM to “any self that comes to exist will have only one, finite existence” is invalid. The only reason you are doing so is so that you can pretend that the number one is the most significant part of the SM, and thus the NSM must involve “more than one”.

The NSM would have to be the complement of the actual SM, and would have to include something like “consciousness exists independently of the brain and will continue to exist after the brain’s death”, which would take us into the realm of religion and the “soul”.

This realm is not conducive to mathematical proofs, only to blind faith.

- I should quit calling it the "scientific model." From now on I'll call it "proposition A." I'm just proposing it as an hypothesis -- and, I'll just call it's complement Non-A.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I should quit calling it the "scientific model." From now on I'll call it "proposition A." I'm just proposing it as an hypothesis -- and, I'll just call it's complement Non-A.

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage! I hope your Sunday is going to your liking.

Calling your starting claim Proposition A does, in fact, solve the problem of pretending that A is any kind of consensus opinion; that is, that anyone other than you has made the claim that "any self that comes to exist will have only one, finite existence". You may still have a problem with your proposition, depending upon how you state the complement.

Given your A, how will you state ~A?

 

[jsfisher]

- I should quit calling it the "scientific model." From now on I'll call it "proposition A." I'm just proposing it as an hypothesis -- and, I'll just call it's complement Non-A.

Call it whatever you like. Just be certain that P(A) + P(non-A) = 1. You'd had trouble with that with that little bit because you substitute something for non-A that isn't the complement of A.

 

[Jabba]

Well, Jabba, let’s try something different.

Consider what it would be like to survive bodily death, consciousness intact (that’s what immortality means, right?), and know that you would never die, not ever, not even when the universe had expanded until every subatomic particle was octillions of kilometers from the next one. Why, the first instant of eternity would not have elapsed even then! Do you really think your human mind could take that?

What would not taking it mean anyway? Would you beg your deterministic/nondeterministic God to let you cease to exist, to fall mercifully asleep and not awaken? He’d just reply, “Nuh-uh, buddy. Nobody told you to be born, you started existing on your own. In my eternity, you take what you get. If you’re bored, try doing crosswords or sumpin’.” Because if you could die in that bodiless state, then it wouldn't be immortality at all, now would it? God would never let you get away with a cheap trick like that, country boy!

This matter of immortality comes up on JREF from time to time. I can recall a thread of some years back in which we – brace yourself for the sheer improbability of it – actually reached a consensus! Yes, we JREFers, atheists, agnostics (whatever those are), and religious believers, all agreed: In order to endure immortal existence, we’d have to become something other than human.

Maybe you’re a closet Mormon and think you’ll grow up to be a god, but in my estimation, we’d have to become something considerably less than human – that means, in your case, something considerably less than Jabba. Creepy thought, innit?

A poster here observed, in that thread or some other, that “the most exquisite paradise would become an unendurable hell in no more than an aeon or two.”

So I hope you’ll put aside that bowl of salad you’re been mixing for two years and think about what you say you desire, that is, immortality. Don’t try to think rationally; that’s not your game. Instead, try to feel your human limitations in the immensity of the universe, and be glad that, in cosmic terms, you exist only for a fragment of a second.

sackett,
- I accept that an "immortality" -- where we remembered (somehow) eternity past -- should be unbearable... But here, I think, is as far as the currently human brain can take us. What is to follow, how all this really works, is as calculus to the worm.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well that certainly cleared that right up.

 

[dafydd]

What is to follow, how all this really works, is as calculus to the worm.

You're putting the cart before the horse again. You have yet to demonstrate that it works or even exists.

 

[Jabba]

- I might finally have an effective way to express my dichotomy.
- The SM holds that any self that comes to exist will have only one, finite existence. The NSM (the complement) holds that any self that comes to exist will either exist continuously, or will exist more than once.
- Many of you will believe that it's the same thing I've been saying -- and I agree that it is what I've been trying to say -- hopefully, I'll be satisfied with this rendition.

- I should quit calling it the "scientific model." From now on I'll call it "proposition A." I'm just proposing it as an hypothesis -- and, I'll just call it's complement Non-A.

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage! I hope your Sunday is going to your liking.

Calling your starting claim Proposition A does, in fact, solve the problem of pretending that A is any kind of consensus opinion; that is, that anyone other than you has made the claim that "any self that comes to exist will have only one, finite existence". You may still have a problem with your proposition, depending upon how you state the complement.

Given your A, how will you state ~A?

Slowvehicle,
- This is getting embarrassing -- even to me -- but, I need to change my dichotomy again. Hopefully, this one will stick.
- Given (the "conditional") that we selves that currently exist are all the same regarding mortality/immortality, (A) we will exist for one, finite time, or (~A), we will exist continuously, or more than once.

 

[Jabba]

sackett,
- I accept that an "immortality" -- where we remembered (somehow) eternity past -- should be unbearable... But here, I think, is as far as the currently human brain can take us. What is to follow, how all this really works, is as calculus to the worm.

You're putting the cart before the horse again. You have yet to demonstrate that it works or even exists.

dafydd,
- I'm claiming that if we human selves are "immortal," we have no idea how immortality actually "works." Relative to immortality, we are in "Flatland."

 

[Jabba]

Call it whatever you like. Just be certain that P(A) + P(non-A) = 1. You'd had trouble with that with that little bit because you substitute something for non-A that isn't the complement of A.

js,
- Let me know if this latest attempt doesn't equal one.