• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
- Does anyone agree that one aspect of the self stays the same during the lifetime of the self? (You don't need to say anything if you don't agree -- I'm already assuming that you don't, and you probably can't really account for everyone listening.)
- In regard to what that one aspect is, that's what I've been trying to describe for the last month or so -- with, apparently, no success.
 
Jabba said:
- So -- I’m saying that the “self,” or at least some aspect of the self, remains the same throughout one’s life time.
- And now, at least some of us seem to be on the same page in regard to that aspect of “self” in this discussion…
- Next, I say that reproducing the same neuro-system would probably not reproduce the same self.
- Who agrees; and, who disagrees?
Click to expand...

Jabba, we still haven't arrived at definitions for A and not-A, let alone a definition of the self.



Jabba said:
- Does anyone agree that one aspect of the self stays the same during the lifetime of the self? (You don't need to say anything if you don't agree -- I'm already assuming that you don't, and you probably can't really account for everyone listening.)
- In regard to what that one aspect is, that's what I've been trying to describe for the last month or so -- with, apparently, no success.
Click to expand...

Again, Jabba, why are you jumping ahead of the discussion?
There are the definitions of the terms we're discussing to be sorted yet, after all.
 
Jabba said:
- Does anyone agree that one aspect of the self stays the same during the lifetime of the self? (You don't need to say anything if you don't agree -- I'm already assuming that you don't, and you probably can't really account for everyone listening.)
- In regard to what that one aspect is, that's what I've been trying to describe for the last month or so -- with, apparently, no success.
Click to expand...


That's the problem. You keep asking whether people agree with propositions that are poorly defined.
 
Jabba said:
- Does anyone agree that one aspect of the self stays the same during the lifetime of the self? (You don't need to say anything if you don't agree -- I'm already assuming that you don't, and you probably can't really account for everyone listening.)
- In regard to what that one aspect is, that's what I've been trying to describe for the last month or so -- with, apparently, no success.
Click to expand...

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

I wonder if you have any idea how dismissive, if not downright rude, your comment about "accounting for everyone" is. I, for one (and there are multiple others) do not pretend to speak for anyone but myself.

For myself, I will say that unless and until you clearly define what it is that you are claiming is the "aspect" of the emergent property of certain neurosystems, it is pointless to poll the studio audience to see if anyone agrees with you.

Here's the deal:

If what you are explaining is consonant with reality, it does not matter if anyone "agrees" with you. Your explanation of reality will be reflected in the way reality "really is", regardless of consensus.

If what you are explaining is not consonant with reality , it still does not matter if anyone "agrees" with you. Reality will still reflect, well...reality.

If every biblical literalist in Kansas agrees that π "really is" 3.0 (because Kings 7:23-36); and the Kansas Legislature passes a law so stating, that consensus will not in any way change the actual relationship of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Reality is not determined by consensus.

I really wish you would simply declare what you think the "aspect" of the "self" that "does not change" actually is. At that point we can start to argue about how that fits with your desire to believe in sequential reincarnation, or "immortality", or whatever; and how, or whether, your idea is consonant with observable phenomena.
 
Jabba said:
- So -- I’m saying that the “self,” or at least some aspect of the self, remains the same throughout one’s life time.
- And now, at least some of us seem to be on the same page in regard to that aspect of “self” in this discussion…
Click to expand...

Not me.
 
Jabba said:
- Does anyone agree that one aspect of the self stays the same during the lifetime of the self? (You don't need to say anything if you don't agree -- I'm already assuming that you don't, and you probably can't really account for everyone listening.)
- In regard to what that one aspect is, that's what I've been trying to describe for the last month or so -- with, apparently, no success.
Click to expand...

I think I do need to say that I don't agree.

You seem to be arguing that there is an aspect of the self that does not change, and that it's the aspect of the self that doesn't change.
 
Jabba said:
- So -- I’m saying that the “self,” or at least some aspect of the self, remains the same throughout one’s life time.
- And now, at least some of us seem to be on the same page in regard to that aspect of “self” in this discussion…- Next, I say that reproducing the same neuro-system would probably not reproduce the same self.
- Who agrees; and, who disagrees?
Click to expand...
The highlighted part of this post is one of the indicators that Jabba is either incapable of being or unwilling to be honest about this topic. There is no legitimate reading of the posts in this thread that leads to the conclusion Jabba has reached. None.
 
Garrette said:
The highlighted part of this post is one of the indicators that Jabba is either incapable of being or unwilling to be honest about this topic. There is no legitimate reading of the posts in this thread that leads to the conclusion Jabba has reached. None.
Click to expand...


.
It's possible he has shed loads on ignore, I suppose.
 
Jabba said:
- Does anyone agree that one aspect of the self stays the same during the lifetime of the self?
- In regard to what that one aspect is, that's what I've been trying to describe for the last month or so -- with, apparently, no success.
Click to expand...
No!
Do you ever allow that you have described something adequately, but people disagree with you? That you are wrong in your theory, not just in your description?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- So -- I’m saying that the “self,” or at least some aspect of the self, remains the same throughout one’s life time.
- And now, at least some of us seem to be on the same page in regard to that aspect of “self” in this discussion.
Click to expand...
Please name one, other than yourself.
 
Giordano said:
No!
Do you ever allow that you have described something adequately, but people disagree with you? That you are wrong in your theory, not just in your description?
Click to expand...
A priori impossible.The best man in the fight is not susceptible to such things.

Giordano said:
Please name one, other than yourself.
Click to expand...
He'll get right to it as soon as he finds that list of scientists who would support his position.
 
Jabba said:
- Does anyone agree that one aspect of the self stays the same during the lifetime of the self? (You don't need to say anything if you don't agree -- I'm already assuming that you don't, and you probably can't really account for everyone listening.)
Click to expand...
Nobody could agree to that because...

Jabba said:
- In regard to what that one aspect is, that's what I've been trying to describe for the last month or so -- with, apparently, no success.
Click to expand...
You have failed to describe it.

So far, personality, memory, cognitive patterns and so forth have been eliminated as persisting. By you. Somehow, you claim that there is some other property which persists, yet you cannot identify what this property is, let alone provide any evidence for 'it'.
 
Jabba is talking about souls. He doesn't want to call them souls, because he wants them to be included in the scientific model of human consciousness. But they aren't, no matter what they are called.
 
Last edited:
jt512 & xtifr,
- I guess you guys agree with the rest that there is no aspect of the self that remains the same through the lifetime?
- Once again, I'm trying to refer to the part of us that we, who fear oblivion, want to continue after death.
 
Jabba said:
jt512 & xtifr,
- I guess you guys agree with the rest that there is no aspect of the self that remains the same through the lifetime?
- Once again, I'm trying to refer to the part of us that we, who fear oblivion, want to continue after death.
Click to expand...

Wait, Jabba.
Are you talking about a soul?
 
Jabba said:
jt512 & xtifr,
- I guess you guys agree with the rest that there is no aspect of the self that remains the same through the lifetime?
- Once again, I'm trying to refer to the part of us that we, who fear oblivion, want to continue after death.
Click to expand...
You have demonstrated that you want there to be such a part; you have failed to demonstrate that such a part actually exists.

Moreover, this is as clear a demonstration as any that you are creating a circular argument. You want the scientific model to include this "part", and you define this part to be immortal, so now you can say that you are, indeed, immortal. It doesn't work that

pakeha said:
Wait, Jabba.
Are you talking about a soul?
Click to expand...
Yes, he is, as godless dave has said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom