[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Mojo]

- But, you do understand what I'm talking about.

Clearly, since he says that what you are talking about is utterly preposterous.

 

[dafydd]

- Pakeha doesn't. And by saying "'self' or 'soul'," you don't seem to either.

Back on ignore you go.

 

[Jabba]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/JabbaJanus.jpg[/qimg]​

- You're on a different page.

 

[Jabba]

Identical brains (if such a thing were possible) don't produce the same "self" (in the way you are using the word "self"). So wondering what would happen in the event that an impossible thing happens is not a profitable or sensible use of anybody's time.

For example, I might consider this: If my cat could talk in English, would she prefer to recite Shakespeare or Marlowe?

But the fact is she can't (and never would be able to) talk in English, so wondering which Elizabethan playwright she would enjoy reciting is a pointless exercise.

- Even though my hypothetical is sort of crazy, if you would answer it, I'd know whether or not we're on the same page.

 

[Mojo]

- You're on a different page.

What page are you on?

 

[Jabba]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

It is difficult for me to remain civil while attempting to explain to you how very rude, how very insulting, how downright disrespectful, this answer is. Have you read NONE of the responses to your "identical brains" fantasy?

I deny that it is possible, even theoretically, for two phyccial brains, or neurosystems, to be constructed identically.

Even were that possible, as soon as the two very similar brains began to accumulate experiences, the two unique consciousnesses, the two unique emergent properties of the two no-matter-how-similar-still-different brains would diverge to at least the extent that their experiences inevitably diverged.

To put it bluntly, you question is pointless and silly--unless you simply intended it as comic relief, as in my example of my Tanta,

It is, however, late in the process for you to try to rescue an untenable postiion with attempts at humor.

Having said that, consider your two "identical" brains. Even if they could be created "identical", and could somehow be subjected to "identical" influences; and, even if the two resulting emergent-property consciousnesses developed to be so similar that an observer could not, by test, determine to which one she was speaking; those two consciousnesses would not be the "same" consciousness any more than those two distinct brains were the "same" brain (or two models of the HMS Invincible made of two different Lego sets would be the "same" ship, or two BLTs made from the same loaf of whole-wheat seeded bread, the same jar of olive-oil mayo, the same head of red romaine lettuce, and sequential rashers of the same black-pepper-cured mesquite-smoked bacon would be the "same" sandwich).

There is no physical mechanism by which two neurosystems could share the "same" emergent-property consciousness; no radiant effect, no dimensional rift, no exchange of subtle particles, no "portal", no stargate, no astral plane; no effect, even theoretical, that would explain, or consist of, two physical brains manifesting the same emergent-property consciousness.

No telepathy. No possession. No communication with an emergent property of a system that has ceased to function.

I say again, as I have said before: You are welcome to provide evidence (objective, practical, empirical evidence) to the contrary. Until you do, you really, really ought to quit pretending as if the only reason I, and others, do not agree with your claim that the "soul" exists and is "immortal" is that we do not understand your claim.

So: evidence?

Slowvehicle,
- My question may be silly, but if you would answer it, I'd know whether or not we're on the same page.

 

[Jabba]

You tell us. You're the one proposing that two identical brains could produce the same self.

- No. I know what I think. I still don't know what you think.

 

[Akhenaten]

- That's the point. The kind of self that I'm referring to would be looking through two sets of eyes.

Yes, we know, but we also know that that kind of self doesn't exist.

Or do you have some evidence that says otherwise?

You and I are on different pages.

For values of "you" that include "everyone".

The "self" to which you're referring, and the one to which I'm referring, are not the same.

Of course they're not. Where you go wronger than wrong, however, is believing that you're the only one who's got it right.

 

[Jabba]

What part of "No. A trillion times no." did you not understand?

- Then, you and I are not talking about the same self.

 

[Jabba]

No, not in the way Jabba's talking about. He literally means that one consciousness would share 2 brains. Those two brains would be like 2 robots being controlled by 1 computer - that computer being the "self". Unlike you and I who experience the world looking out of 2 eyes (I assume, unless you've had a terrible accident or a birth defect, in which case I apologise for my crass insensitivity) there would be a "self" who experiences the world looking out of 4 eyes. The two different brains experiencing different stimulus would be irrelevant, because it would be just the one "self" experiencing both sets of stimuli.

I think it's reasonable to say that nobody, other than Jabba, believes this to be anything other than utterly preposterous.

- Squeegee has it right.

 

[Akhenaten]

Absolutely everyone in this thread understands what you mean by a "self" or soul...

- Pakeha doesn't. And by saying "'self' or 'soul'," you don't seem to either.

Says the bloke who's been attempting without even a hint of success to Rredefine both concepts for more than a year.

 

[Mojo]

No, not in the way Jabba's talking about. He literally means that one consciousness would share 2 brains. Those two brains would be like 2 robots being controlled by 1 computer - that computer being the "self". Unlike you and I who experience the world looking out of 2 eyes (I assume, unless you've had a terrible accident or a birth defect, in which case I apologise for my crass insensitivity) there would be a "self" who experiences the world looking out of 4 eyes. The two different brains experiencing different stimulus would be irrelevant, because it would be just the one "self" experiencing both sets of stimuli.

I think it's reasonable to say that nobody, other than Jabba, believes this to be anything other than utterly preposterous.

- Squeegee has it right.

 

[Akhenaten]

- But, you do understand what I'm talking about.

Everyone does. What you seem unable to grasp though is that they also, just like the new Least Critical Poster™ (congratulations, Squeegee!) also realise that what you're talking about is complete balderdash.

 

[Jabba]

For the record, I find this request unconscionably rude. If you cannot be bothered to page back and read the replies to the questions you asked in your own thread, then I don't think anyone should be bothered to care about your argument. On the other hand, if you lack the capacity to page back and read the replies, you probably lack the capacity to make your argument in the first place.

That being said, here are all the questions and comments your two questions garnered:

There you go.

- I'll quit bothering you (and, sorry that I have bothered you) -- but, I didn't mean for you to list the Q/Cs. I was trying to ask you to reduce the number that I needed to answer, by you lumping redundant Q/Cs together.

 

[Akhenaten]

- You're on a different page.

I'm on every page.

And yet, strangely, my posts don't continually draw a cavalcade of "What the hell are you talking about?" responses.

That should probably tell you something, Jabba, but it won't.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Even though my hypothetical is sort of crazy, if you would answer it, I'd know whether or not we're on the same page.

Like every other concept you get hold of, you've twisted this "same page" thing beyond utility. Nobody even knows, or cares, what you mean by it any more and it's simply become the latest running joke.

It beggars belief that you yourself describe your own hypothesis as "sort of crazy" and yet continue to insist that others take it seriously.

 

[Jabba]

First prove that the soul exists.

- No. Before I try to do that, I want to know if you and I are talking about the same "self" to begin with. The existence of the "soul" is my conclusion. To be able to appreciate my conclusion, you need to understand my premises -- and, I don't think that you understand what I mean by "self" (the primary concept in my premises).

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle,
- My question may be silly, but if you would answer it, I'd know whether or not we're on the same page.

As above.

 

[Jabba]

I guess Rust Cohle was right. Time is a flat circle.

- I can't resist ... I'm from Louisiana, and that was a great show!

 

[Akhenaten]

- Then, you and I are not talking about the same self.

It's quite obvious that nobody is talking about the same self as you are because the thing that you are calling a self doesn't exist.