[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[AdMan]

95 pages, and we have gotten no further than seeing Jabba does not understand probability.

 

[Mojo]

95 pages, and we have gotten no further than seeing Jabba does not understand probability.

I disagree. We've also seen that he doesn't understand the difference between finite and infinite, for example.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

95 pages, and we have gotten no further than seeing Jabba does not understand probability.

But he has some sort of certificate!

Apparently

 

[Jabba]

If you could absolutely reproduce a physical neurosystem to the detail of every last action potential and neurotransmitter-receptor physical state, then yes, I think you would exactly duplicate the same "self" and thoughts. This is my idea of how consciousness is an emergent property of a physical brain. However, in a matter of milliseconds, the selves would diverge because their experiences were different. By the way- we cannot do this exact physical duplication even for clones or identical twins: the genetics are the same, but the physical neurosystems (either due to chance or to different experiences, e.g being in the left vs right womb) diverge.

I think they would be identical but they would be two separate selves - they would not share experiences, thoughts, or feelings, even if they were having the same thoughts or feelings.

Like dealing the same hand from two different decks of cards. They're identical, but separate.

- At this point in our discussion, I am trying to support my insistence that there is an infinity of potential selves.
- The first obstacle in the way of doing that is that we are not all talking about the same "self." Giordano and Dave give me what seems like the perfect example of this diversion. Giordano and Dave are not talking about the same self. Dave is talking about the self that I'm trying to talk about.
- Maybe, I should have called it an "aspect" of the self, or better yet, the "core" of the self. Whatever, it's the part of the self that does not change from it's first memory, at least, to its last. And probably, it doesn't change from conception to death -- at least.
- Does that help at all?

 

[jsfisher]

- At this point in our discussion, I am trying to support my insistence that there is an infinity of potential selves.
- The first obstacle in the way of doing that is that we are not all talking about the same "self." Giordano and Dave give me what seems like the perfect example of this diversion. Giordano and Dave are not talking about the same self. Dave is talking about the self that I'm trying to talk about.
- Maybe, I should have called it an "aspect" of the self, or better yet, the "core" of the self. Whatever, it's the part of the self that does not change from it's first memory, at least, to its last. And probably, it doesn't change from conception to death -- at least.
- Does that help at all?

Still finite.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Good

- At this point in our discussion, I am trying to support my insistence that there is an infinity of potential selves.
- The first obstacle in the way of doing that is that we are not all talking about the same "self." Giordano and Dave give me what seems like the perfect example of this diversion. Giordano and Dave are not talking about the same self. Dave is talking about the self that I'm trying to talk about.
- Maybe, I should have called it an "aspect" of the self, or better yet, the "core" of the self. Whatever, it's the part of the self that does not change from it's first memory, at least, to its last. And probably, it doesn't change from conception to death -- at least.
- Does that help at all?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

A finite number of combinations of a finite number of constructive elements multiplied by a finite number of iterations...still produces a finite number.

ETA: ninja-ed by jsfisher! GoodONya!

 

[Jabba]

Good

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

A finite number of combinations of a finite number of constructive elements multiplied by a finite number of iterations...still produces a finite number.

ETA: ninja-ed by jsfisher! GoodONya!

Slowvehicle,
- No problem. I agree with both of you.
- Hopefully, most of us are now on the same page (we're talking about the same "self"), and I can focus on why I think that the number of potential selves is not just VERY large.

 

[jsfisher]

Slowvehicle,
- No problem. I agree with both of you.
- Hopefully, most of us are now on the same page, and I can focus on why I think that the number of potential selves is not just VERY large.

It would be a welcome relief if you actually focused on anything.

 

[Pixel42]

Whatever, it's the part of the self that does not change from it's first memory, at least, to its last. And probably, it doesn't change from conception to death -- at least.

What leads you to believe there is a part of the self that does not change? Where in the brain do you think this bit of the self resides? Or if not in the brain (given that the brain does not exist at conception), where does it reside?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Slowvehicle,
- No problem. I agree with both of you.
- Hopefully, most of us are now on the same page (we're talking about the same "self"), and I can focus on why I think that the number of potential selves is not just VERY large.

I look forward to seeing the evidence

 

[Giordano]

- At this point in our discussion, I am trying to support my insistence that there is an infinity of potential selves.
- The first obstacle in the way of doing that is that we are not all talking about the same "self." Giordano and Dave give me what seems like the perfect example of this diversion. Giordano and Dave are not talking about the same self. Dave is talking about the self that I'm trying to talk about.
- Maybe, I should have called it an "aspect" of the self, or better yet, the "core" of the self. Whatever, it's the part of the self that does not change from it's first memory, at least, to its last. And probably, it doesn't change from conception to death -- at least.
- Does that help at all?

Good morning!

First, don't worry about Dave and I apparently disagreeing about "selves." I suspect we really don't. But even if we disagree, we both agree that the "standard model" indicates a large, but not infinite numbers of selves, given the finite number of physical things and experiences in the universe (which is finite by current physics) and we both agree there is no reincarnation.

So, for purposes of your mathematical proof of reincarnation, please feel free to use "Dave's" self, which under the current standard model, I think agrees with me that is that there were and are a lot of possible "selves" in the world, depending which sperm meets which egg and on the experiences one has in life. Both Dave and I do not think these selves came (were reincarnated) from past existences. So please continue to your proof.

I don't wish to distract you from your proof, but along these lines I did ask some simple to answer questions a few posts back and it would greatly help my understanding of your theory here if you were to answer them. It seems to me that in just the last few posts, you have suggested the the number of possible souls is finite, but also you have suggested in other posts that the number of possible souls is infinite. I assume these are your views of your own model, versus your views of the standard model. But I am not certain. Could you please answer what YOU think (i.e. what model do you seek to prove). Thank you!

 

[John Jones]

- At this point in our discussion, I am trying to support my insistence that there is an infinity of potential selves.
- The first obstacle in the way of doing that is that we are not all talking about the same "self." Giordano and Dave give me what seems like the perfect example of this diversion. Giordano and Dave are not talking about the same self. Dave is talking about the self that I'm trying to talk about.
- Maybe, I should have called it an "aspect" of the self, or better yet, the "core" of the self. Whatever, it's the part of the self that does not change from it's first memory, at least, to its last. And probably, it doesn't change from conception to death -- at least.
- Does that help at all?

Not no, but hell no.

You're talking about souls, but you are trying t be coy about it. Everyone gets that much.

I would be a miracle out of scripture if you were to return to the topic of this thread. Do you remember the topic?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- No problem. I agree with both of you.
- Hopefully, most of us are now on the same page (we're talking about the same "self"), and I can focus on why I think that the number of potential selves is not just VERY large.

Good Morning, Mr., Savage.

I can usually figure out what I think you think you think you are saying, but you have lost me.

If, by "...the number of potential selves is not just VERY large," you mean that there are, in fact, an "infinite" number of them, we are nowhere near to being on the same page--in fact, we are still in different books. Very different books.

What do you mean by "...the number of potential selves is not just VERY large."?

(I am of the opinion that consciousness is an emergent property of a neurosystem, the number of potential is limited to, at most, the number of potential neurosystems. Neurosystems are material, and there are a finite number of potential neurosystems.)

 

[John Jones]

- At this point in our discussion, I am trying to support my insistence that there is an infinity of potential selves.
[...]

Jabba,

No one is taking you serious anymore.

If you have any evidence supporting your immortality or an infinity of potential selves, this would be the time to provide it.

But you don't have any and it will not be forthcoming.

 

[pakeha]

...- Maybe, I should have called it an "aspect" of the self, or better yet, the "core" of the self. Whatever, it's the part of the self that does not change from it's first memory, at least, to its last. And probably, it doesn't change from conception to death -- at least.
- Does that help at all?

Wait, Jabba.
"And probably, it doesn't change from conception to death -- at least."
Please stop weasling with words like probably and at least.
Please.
We still haven't agreed on the definitions of A and nonA, remember?

...- Hopefully, most of us are now on the same page (we're talking about the same "self"), and I can focus on why I think that the number of potential selves is not just VERY large.

That's not the case at all.
Are you defining consciousness as "self"?

 

[Aepervius]

Slowvehicle,
- No problem. I agree with both of you.
- Hopefully, most of us are now on the same page (we're talking about the same "self"), and I can focus on why I think that the number of potential selves is not just VERY large.

Soooo you just abandonned you 1/infini nonsense ?

Please confirm.

If yes pelase give us a value

If not , then no you are not at all on the same page

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle,
- No problem. I agree with both of you.

I'll bet you don't.

- Hopefully, most of us are now on the same page (we're talking about the same "self"), and I can focus on why I think that the number of potential selves is not just VERY large.

How in blue blazes can you suddenly declare that we're mostly on the same page when almost everyone here has been telling you for the last 15 months that what you're referring to as the self is nothing more than a religiously inspired concept that nobody but you believes in?


ETA: Although I must admit, you're actually right. Most of us are on the same page. There appears to be but a lone exception.

Can you guess who that might be, Jabba?

 

[jsfisher]

Soooo you just abandonned you 1/infini nonsense ?

No, sadly, he has not. The tip-off was "the number of potential selves is not just VERY large." He is now off searching for yet another way to say infinite that he thinks he'll be able sneak by without actually saying "infinite".

 

[John Jones]

[...]
How in blue blazes can you suddenly declare to that we're mostly on the same page when almost everyone here has been telling you for the last 15 months that what you're referring to as the self is nothing more than a religiously inspired concept that you alone believes in?


ETA: Although I must admit, you're actually right. Most of us are on the same page. There appears to be but a lone exception.

Can you guess who that might be, Jabba?

Quoted for TRVTH.

 

[Jabba]

Good Morning, Mr., Savage.

I can usually figure out what I think you think you think you are saying, but you have lost me.

If, by "...the number of potential selves is not just VERY large," you mean that there are, in fact, an "infinite" number of them, we are nowhere near to being on the same page--in fact, we are still in different books. Very different books.

What do you mean by "...the number of potential selves is not just VERY large."?

(I am of the opinion that consciousness is an emergent property of a neurosystem, the number of potential is limited to, at most, the number of potential neurosystems. Neurosystems are material, and there are a finite number of potential neurosystems.)

Slowvehicle,
- I do mean what you suggested I mean -- I think that there must be an infinite number of potential selves.
- But, when I said something about us being on the same page, I wasn't referring to that page -- I know that you disagree with me about the infinity thing. I'm just hoping that you and I have the same concept of "self," or the same part of the self, in mind...
- Do you accept that there is a part of the self (the "experiencer" itself) that does not change from its first memory to its last?