[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[John Jones]

- Slow down Abaddon. I'm not saying that DVDs are infinitely variable; I'm saying that given the time and material, we could keep making new DVDs forever.

Even past the heat death of the universe? You must have a different definition of forever than the rest of us. That would explain this thread.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Slow down Abaddon. I'm not saying that DVDs are infinitely variable; I'm saying that given the time and material, we could keep making new DVDs forever.

Yes. If you had infinite time and infinite resources, you could make an infinite number of DVD's. And an infinite number of them would contain "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" with director's commentary.

What possible difference does any of this make?

 

[jsfisher]

Yes. If you had infinite time and infinite resources, you could make an infinite number of DVD's. And an infinite number of them would contain "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" with director's commentary.

What possible difference does any of this make?

The Mail Cop analogy just may be Jabba's way of coming to grips with how undesirable immortality really would be.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Slow down Abaddon. I'm not saying that DVDs are infinitely variable; I'm saying that given the time and material, we could keep making new DVDs forever.

You don't understand at all that the Universe is finite, do you?

Do you?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Slow down Abaddon. I'm not saying that DVDs are infinitely variable; I'm saying that given the time and material, we could keep making new DVDs forever.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Do you really want to commit the idea that if we had "infinite time" )which we do not) and if we had "infinite material" (which we demonstrably do not) we could make "infinite" DVDs?

After all this, is your argument that if the "soul" existed, and were "immortal", then the immortal soul would exist?

How very sad.

 

[Akhenaten]

- At least one study concluded that we can effectively categorize things even when we can't say why.

At most. For all we no it's infinitely less than one.

In this case, I'm thinking that a denotation and an analogy will distinguish what I'm talking about, even though I don't think that my attempted definitions do.

Your denotations, analogies and attempted definitions all have one thing in common, Jabba.

They're all rubbish. Using them to try to justify each other is rubbish³.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Slow down Abaddon. I'm not saying that DVDs are infinitely variable;

What you are saying is that that with which you have analogised DVDs is infinitely variable. If nothing else, this at least proves that your analogy is bilge.

I'm saying that given the time and material, we could keep making new DVDs forever.

Yes, we know that's what you're saying. As always, you're wrong.

How do you figure? The resources to construct DVDs are finite, so even given infinite time, there still is an upper limit on the number of DVDs that can be constructed. But that aside, even with infinite time and infinite resources, you are still bounded to a finite number of unique DVDs.

We're not getting through to you at all, are we?

 

[Akhenaten]

- No, but that's the point.

It's exactly the point.

While the content of the disk has changed, there is still a sense in which the disk is still the same disk with which you started.

Only an extremely superficial sense.

Try taking a burnt disc back to the shop and getting a refund because it's exactly the same as when you bought it. Report back with your findings.

If someone asked you where the disk is with which you started, you wouldn't say that you no longer have it.

Nobody is trying to say that the disc no longer exists. People are simply pointing out the bleeding obvious point that it's not the same as it was.

 

[abaddon]

- Slow down Abaddon. I'm not saying that DVDs are infinitely variable; I'm saying that given the time and material, we could keep making new DVDs forever.

You could keep making a single DVD forever, all identical, so what?

DVD content is finite no matter how you slice it, or what verbiage you dress it up with. You have switched to describing the physical DVD as simply a container. Fine. The content remains limited and finite. There are not an infinite number of possible contents which may be placed in that container, period.

 

[Akhenaten]

- The denotation: this is the self that those who fear death perceive to be continuous during life, and which they hope is continuous after death.

You need evidence for that, not wishful thinking.

- That's true if I am trying to show that they are correct in their perception, and will be rewarded in their hope. But, that is not what I'm trying to do here.

Perhaps it's not. The haphazard, ad hoc, random, all-over-the-place-like-a-mad-woman's-****, semi-coherent, poorly-presented and quasi-religious way in which your argument has been presented makes it impossible to tell.

- Here, I'm just trying to identify what I mean by "self."

Over and over and over again, despite being told over and over and over again that we know what you mean and that you're trying to describe, denote, define and bluster into existence that which does not exist.

It doesn't really matter, at this point, if one of these is an illusion and the other is a hope.

What matters Jabba, is that according to your own précis, it can only be one or the other, and both are equally indefensible.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hows about 'essentially' proving immortality,

That would be ever so nice.

. . . and save these side excursions for another endless thread?

This, not so much.

 

[Mojo]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

Do you really want to commit the idea that if we had "infinite time" )which we do not) and if we had "infinite material" (which we demonstrably do not) we could make "infinite" DVDs?

After all this, is your argument that if the "soul" existed, and were "immortal", then the immortal soul would exist?

How very sad.

But if the eternal soul existed, Jabba could make an eternal soul sandwich, if he had some eternal bread.

 

[Mojo]

The Mail Cop analogy just may be Jabba's way of coming to grips with how undesirable immortality really would be.

As Wowbagger the Indefinitely Prolonged discovered.

 

[John Jones]

[...]
Your denotations, analogies and attempted definitions all have one thing in common, Jabba.

They're all rubbish. Using them to try to justify each other is rubbish³.

What Pharaoh said.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Some of us think that the lifetime continuation of this self is an illusion.

1) There's plenty of evidence to suggest it is. 2) Do you have any to the contrary?

Re #1 -- I'm not sure that there is any such evidence.
Re #2 -- Not off hand. But if this "self" is just an illusion, it's a mighty effective illusion.

1. So? Are you really labouring under the illusion that your certainty is some kind of yardstick by which actual, real-world likelihood is determined?
   
   
2. Yes, it is. And?

- We may also think that mental is just another form of physical.

1) There's plenty of evidence to suggest it is. 2) Do you have any to the contrary?

Re #1 -- Again, I'm not sure that there is such evidence.
Re #2 -- What we call "mental" is sure different than any other "physical" property I can think of.

1. Again, your ignorance of the evidence doesn't have anything like the effect of a Romulan Disruptor that your heart-of-hearts would desire it to have.
   
   
2. Yes. And?

I agree that it's probably an emergent property, and largely the result of something physical -- but as such, consciousness itself, seems to have shed the characteristics of physicality...

That's why it's referred to as an emergent property rather than as a physical entity. It seems odd that you would attempt to reiterate this point given that you are the only one who doesn't seem to understand it.

Then what do you hope to prove by asserting that an illusion lasts forever?

- Again, in accepting that what I perceive as a continuing self may be an illusion, I was just trying to "nail down" what I was referring to. I don't think that it is an illusion.

Your entire "case" seems to consist of an infinite endless nauseatingly repetitive rereiteriterationation of the things that the self isn't. That's at least one of the reasons that it fails so consistently to impress anyone.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I'm just saying that the mental, non-physical self to which I am referring is analogous to the physical disk in that it is the same holder of information after it has received the information as it was before it received the info.

You're just wrong.

Essentially infinitely wrong, in fact.

 

[Aepervius]

You could keep making a single DVD forever, all identical, so what?

DVD content is finite no matter how you slice it, or what verbiage you dress it up with. You have switched to describing the physical DVD as simply a container. Fine. The content remains limited and finite. There are not an infinite number of possible contents which may be placed in that container, period.

Indeed. For a 4GB DVD, there is only 2^4G*8 possible different DVD and you have *all* the possibilities. And among them there are very minor variation, like the mall cop DVD but with a slightly different pixel on frame 457 , etc... It is a huge but finite numbers.

ETA: I contend it is just like the number of self really. You have a finite amont of way to pack neurons, and have axiom links, etc... It might be a huge number but finite.

 

[Jabba]

If you can't define your premises, how do you expect your conclusions to make any sense?

- At least one study concluded that we can effectively categorize things even when we can't say why. In this case, I'm thinking that a denotation and an analogy will distinguish what I'm talking about, even though I don't think that my attempted definitions do.

Categorization is an aid to thought - allowing people to neatly place concepts so they can find them again. But it occurs independent of the thing being catagorized. A platypus is a platypus, whether you call it a mammal, a marsupial, or Kevin. It has no real-world meaning.
So, what possible good does it do you to just label some concept other than giving you a way of talking about it? It doesn't mean the concept is self-consistent. It doesn't mean the concept exists. It doesn't mean the category you've placed it in is the right one.

- I was responding to Frozenwolf’s question as to how my conclusions could make sense if I can’t define my premises. My claim is that I can identify and communicate a concept within a premise -- with denotation and analogy -- even If I’m having trouble defining the concept. And consequently, my argument can make sense without a definition of the particular concept.
- As you say, “labeling” does give me a way of talking about the concept – and, that’s what I want to do.
- I am not claiming that labeling a concept makes the premise -- in which the concept appears -- true.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I was responding to Frozenwolf’s question as to how my conclusions could make sense if I can’t define my premises.

Yes, but you missed the correct response which is, of course, "they can't possibly".

My claim is that I can identify and communicate a concept within a premise -- with denotation and analogy -- even If I’m having trouble defining the concept.

No, that's just a sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-claim. Needless to say, it's as wrong as all the other sub etc. claims that you've made, but I think it's important to get the details right.

There's a devil in them, you know.

And consequently, my argument can make sense without a definition of the particular concept.

As in "I think I can use Bayesian Statistics to prove something or other"?

I don't think so.

- As you say, “labeling” does give me a way of talking about the concept – and, that’s what I want to do.

It gives you a way of avoiding having to address the obvious problem that your concept is nonsense. Or it would, if it worked, which it doesn't.

- I am not claiming that labeling a concept makes the premise -- in which the concept appears -- true.

You will, given time. The number of claims that one might make isn't infinite, after all.

 

[Jabba]

- The reason I keep trying to make sure that you guys understand what I mean by "self" is that while you keep assuring me that you do, you also keep saying things that you wouldn't be saying if you really understood what I meant...