[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

They don't come from nothing, they are an emergent property of brains. And the number of possible brain configurations, though very large, is not infinite.

- First of all, I thought that you didn't think that the same brain would produce the same self. If we could deliberately produce the same brain over and over again, we'd get different selves each time.

That has nothing to do with your stupid assertion that selves come from nothing.

It's even implicit in your response that selves come from brains, not from nothing.

 

[Jabba]

Extrinsic v Intrinsic Finiteness

Useful or not, you're applying your criteria for determining which is which inconsistently. If you applied them consistently, then you'd see that VWs, poker hands or "selves" are all finite in the same way under the same conditions, and all infinite in the same way under the same conditions.

Only in the sense that you can define anything as you please- the only question is whether you can convince anyone your definition is correct or desirable or enlightening.

- I agree with both of you except That it doesn't matter that I haven't applied my criteria consistently. In a sense, that's the whole point -- I'm saying that we can set up a situation in which the possibilities are intrinsically finite, and others where the possibilities are only extrinsically finite.
- The main point is that the limits on the number of possibilities possible can be determined by factors solely "internal" to the situation defined, or, they can be determined by factors external to the situation defined.
- Poker hands and lottery tickets are "closed" by definition; Volkswagens are "open."


outsidethe situations' definitionunder certain circumstances, things

 

[Filippo Lippi]

- I agree with both of you except That it doesn't matter that I haven't applied my criteria consistently. In a sense, that's the whole point -- I'm saying that we can set up a situation in which the possibilities are intrinsically finite, and others where the possibilities are only extrinsically finite.
- The main point is that the limits on the number of possibilities possible can be determined by factors solely "internal" to the situation defined, or, they can be determined by factors external to the situation defined.
- Poker hands and lottery tickets are "closed" by definition; Volkswagens are "open."


outsidethe situations' definitionunder certain circumstances, things

Said Humpty Dumpty

 

[Akhenaten]

- Coming from nothing in the sense that there is no set of possible selves to come from.

Once again, you are using a phrase in a sense that is unique to yourself.

Is it any surprise that this results in nobody understanding what you're trying to get at?

That being the case, there should be no intrinsic limit on the possible number of selves. Any limit would come from other factors.

Whether you choose to describe these factors as "intrinsic", "extraneous" or "bobbledywhatsit" makes no difference to the fact that they exist and that they mean the number of potential selves in not infinite.

 

[Garrette]

- I agree with both of you except That it doesn't matter that I haven't applied my criteria consistently. In a sense, that's the whole point -- I'm saying that we can set up a situation in which the possibilities are intrinsically finite, and others where the possibilities are only extrinsically finite.
- The main point is that the limits on the number of possibilities possible can be determined by factors solely "internal" to the situation defined, or, they can be determined by factors external to the situation defined.
- Poker hands and lottery tickets are "closed" by definition; Volkswagens are "open."


outsidethe situations' definitionunder certain circumstances, things

Oh, my gars and starters.

So your argument isn't a coherent chain of logic resulting from rational thought, and your math isn't a systematic treatment of quantities. Rather, your argument is a series of unlinked but verbosely wrapped wishes aimed at a desired endpoint. I am relieved that you have finally come to admit what the rest of us have known all along.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Poker hands and lottery tickets are "closed" by definition; Volkswagens are "open."

No, poker hands and lottery tickets are not "closed." They are bounded by factors you are imposing. You are declaring that we are making poker hands out of only one deck. You are declaring that all winning lottery tickets are the same.

If we were to impose those same limits on humans, we would say that the number of possible new people are limited to only two parents - George and Roseanne DeSotto of Baltimore, Maryland. Or we would say that all twins are the same (or all people born with the same DNA).

But if we count all possible poker hands from all possible decks of cards with no limit on time, space, matter or energy, we can have an infinite number of them. My straight flush at Ceaser's is different from George DeSotto's straight flush at the Luxor. They are physically different cards held in different locations. They have different properties (Mine won me $200.00 at a poker table; George's won him $80,000.00 at a Pai Gow table). You cannot even observe one from the location of the other.

You are doing the same thing with people.

Your "intrinsic" v. "extrinsic" is an artifact of the unspoken starting limitations you have created.

 

[Akhenaten]

- One basic problem here is that most of you are still not referring to the same sense of "self" as I am.

That's true of a great many of the things you talk about and yet rather than see this as an obvious warning sign you use it as the basis for an assumption that everyone else is wrong.

It can only ever end badly.

- "You" would agree that you change continuously over a lifetime -- but note that there is a single you that is existing through a lifetime in your agreement.

Yep. As I previously mentioned this is something along the lines of what the ancient Egyptians called the Ba and what we might refer to as 'personality'.

- In one sense, you change continuously. But in another sense, you are still "you."

Barring the type of trauma that others have mentioned and which you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge, yes.

That latter sense is the one I'm talking about.

No, it's not. I'm confident in making this assertion because whatever it is that you're talking about, you continue to claim that it can exist separately from a living brain and that is not a sense of the self that anyone else here understands to exist.

You are mixing and (not very successfully) matching definitions again.

 

[tsig]

- I agree with both of you except That it doesn't matter that I haven't applied my criteria consistently. In a sense, that's the whole point -- I'm saying that we can set up a situation in which the possibilities are intrinsically finite, and others where the possibilities are only extrinsically finite.
- The main point is that the limits on the number of possibilities possible can be determined by factors solely "internal" to the situation defined, or, they can be determined by factors external to the situation defined.
- Poker hands and lottery tickets are "closed" by definition; Volkswagens are "open."


outsidethe situations' definitionunder certain circumstances, things

God says there is no afterlife:


King James Bible
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Yeah. Given A, none of us should exist. That's why B is so "attractive."

Are we supposed to pretend that these terms have some intrinsic meaning?

 

[John Jones]

I took a pool of the lurkers on this thread. All of them think that Jabba has not made a good case for immortality.

Carry on

 

[Akhenaten]

- There is no limit on who will actually arrive.

Of course there is. Anyone who hasn't arrived by the time all of the matter in the Universe has been made into selves won't be arriving at all.

The limit to who can arrive will have been reached.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I need to narrow my focus.

Perhaps you could start by focussing on reality.

- I understand that no one here, but me, thinks that it's useful to try to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic finiteness.

There's a clue there for you.

- In addition, I can't find anyone in the world, but me, making that distinction.

Even bigger clue!

- Doesn't sound good for my side.

The fact that you still subscribe to this childish idea of 'sides' doesn't sound very good for you.

- Does anyone here accept that such a distinction can be made?

What does it matter if they do? Having the evidence agree with you is what counts, not the number of acolytes you can gather.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- I agree with both of you except That it doesn't matter that I haven't applied my criteria consistently. In a sense, that's the whole point -- I'm saying that we can set up a situation in which the possibilities are intrinsically finite, and others where the possibilities are only extrinsically finite.
- The main point is that the limits on the number of possibilities possible can be determined by factors solely "internal" to the situation defined, or, they can be determined by factors external to the situation defined.
- Poker hands and lottery tickets are "closed" by definition; Volkswagens are "open."


outsidethe situations' definitionunder certain circumstances, things

Nope, you've not read what's actually been said to you about this, have you? You're describing the same situation with hands of poker as you are with VWs, but you're applying different criteria to them. You're declaring VWs "open" because the end product is identical, and declaring poker hands "closed" because the end product isn't. That's bogus.

If you have infinite resources with which to build VWs, then you have infinite cards in the deck from which you're drawing hands, and you can have an infinite number of identical hands. If poker hands are distinguished by there being a limited number of types of hand, then there needs to be a limited number of colours the VWs can be.

That way you're not being inconsistent, and you're actually comparing things which are the same.

And, of course, if you do that, you'll notice that there's no difference between the two things you're comparing WRT the way you're comparing them.

 

[Giordano]

- I agree with both of you except That it doesn't matter that I haven't applied my criteria consistently. In a sense, that's the whole point -- I'm saying that we can set up a situation in which the possibilities are intrinsically finite, and others where the possibilities are only extrinsically finite.
- The main point is that the limits on the number of possibilities possible can be determined by factors solely "internal" to the situation defined, or, they can be determined by factors external to the situation defined.
- Poker hands and lottery tickets are "closed" by definition; Volkswagens are "open."


outsidethe situations' definitionunder certain circumstances, things

So we get to make more fun of the intrinsic/extrinsic and internal/external finite idea some more? Excellent. I must say that I have come to enjoy it, although it is not the kindest part of my "self" to do so.

You had noted that no one agrees with you on the ability to separate intrinsic and extrinsic, internal and external (call it what you wish) limits to infinity, here or anywhere. Posters here have even urged you explicitly to abandon this notion as a result. Yet you clearly persist in these wrong ideas. Further you completely ignore how it has been expressly explained to you here that poker hands and lottery tickets are in fact not closed by the very same definition that you use to allow for the infinity of VWs and "selves."

So, in truth I don't know what else to tell you. If you simply wish to believe in reincarnation yourself, that is fine by me, except this thread should be in Religion, not Science. If you wish to convince other people here of your belief, that ship has long sailed leaving you at the dock. You have proven that you know nothing about math, statistics, physics, neurobiology, biology, and cosmology. As a result, no one here would believe your science in the future.

So, since my goal was always to get you to see your errors (education), please just re-read this thread, especially the corrections, and learn how your ideas are wrong. Then correct your errors, or explain why the corrective posts are wrong. You are clearly selective in which posts you do or don't respond to, so simply claiming you have no time doesn't help. If you don't respond to these posts that are pointing out your errors, everyone here will just believe that you have no response and that you are wrong. Until you correct your posts, I will continue to point out the errors in your posts.

 

[Giordano]

Of course there is. Anyone who hasn't arrived by the time all of the matter in the Universe has been made into selves won't be arriving at all.

The limit to who can arrive will have been reached.

Good point! But remember the number of "potential" selves is infinite. Maybe even twice infinity.

What if we add "time" to the Universe? Or "energy"? (I am not sure, maybe both). What if Jabba's "selves" are placed in his infinite VWs instead of infinite people; would that work?

But I can't define any of this and this is the wrong form of debate anyway. Maybe someone here will help?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Page 117 with 40 posts per page!

Has Jabba demonstrated immortality through Bayesian statistics yet?

Or, more leniently, has he managed to actually stake out his complete argument yet?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I agree with both of you except That it doesn't matter that I haven't applied my criteria consistently.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

I find this statement to be indefensible.

If I recall correctly, it was you who planned to school me, and others, on effective "debate". Are you really willing to state, as your take-away lesson, that in "effective debate" (at least in the Jabbaverse), it does not matter if the "criteria" upon which your argument is built are applied consistently?

Can you see how that demonstrates, beyond any shadow of equivocation, that you have already decided that your conclusion is true, and it does not matter what you say in support, or how you say it, since it's "true", anyway?

I am very sad for you.

In a sense, that's the whole point

Hmm...I thought the "whole point" was to "essentially prove" the existence of the "soul", and its "immortality".

-- I'm saying that we can set up a situation in which the possibilities are intrinsically finite, and others where the possibilities are only extrinsically finite.

And you are saying that it really does not matter whether YOU (not "we") front-load the very conclusion YOU (not "we") are trying to prove consistently. Or logically. Or in a manner stringently consistent with observable reality.

- The main point is that the limits on the number of possibilities possible can be determined by factors solely "internal" to the situation defined, or, they can be determined by factors external to the situation defined.
- Poker hands and lottery tickets are "closed" by definition; Volkswagens are "open."

I am nearly certain you will neither read, nor address, this. However: The only reason you feel you can get away with calling the number of poker hands "closed" (by "limiting factors") is by inconsistently applying those "limiting factors". You invent an "open" number of VWs by introducing the impossibility of "infinite resources" (or, if you will, "un-limiting factors").

What you do not let yourself admit is that, in observable reality, in the same way that the number of hands you can deal is limited by the number of cards in a deck, the number of Beetles you can build is limited by the number of parts in your warehouse. If you can make the number of possible VWs "open" by adding resources, then, in the same way, you can make the number of possible hands "open" by adding cards.

Your idiosyncratic conceit of "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" infinities does nothing to make your desired condition (immortal souls) more likely than observed reality. Sorry.

outsidethe situations' definitionunder certain circumstances, things

I know that others of you out there will have addressed this, in other ways. It's going to take a village, fellow-ninjas.

 

[Giordano]

Magic- it proves everything! But even magic, at its best, is self-consistent.

 

[Aepervius]

God says there is no afterlife:


King James Bible
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Wasn't tehre an OT passage about Sheol, the sleep of the dead, misinterpreted to mean people would be waken up or something ?

ETA: nearly right : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

She'ol (/ˈʃiːoʊl/ SHEE-ohl or /ˈʃiːəl/ SHEE-əl; Hebrew שְׁאוֹל Šʾôl), translated as "grave", "pit", or "abode of the dead", is the underworld of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. It is a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life, a place of stillness and darkness cut off from God

And people want to be immortal and land there ?

 

[Aepervius]

I took a pool of the lurkers on this thread. All of them think that Jabba has not made a good case for immortality.

Carry on

Yes but was it an intrinsic or an extrinsic pool ?