[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[John Jones]

- Sorry about my recent absence. Along with the usual suspects, I broke my computer, and have been cleaning a flooded basement for several days...
- I should have something objectionable to say shortly.

Don't bother. You don't know what you're talking about and you never have.

Everyone here gets that except you. I'm just waiting around to see your honorable surrender.

 

[PixyMisa]

- However much “you” are connected to, caused by, the physical, this “you” is also what we call “mental.” If consciousness is itself physical, it is a different kind of physical than anything else of which we know.

Nope. The brain is a computer. Mental processes in general, and consciousness in particular, are computation.

 

[Mojo]

- Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of some sort of physical situation or event --

Note that Jabba is carefully avoiding saying exactly what consciousness in an emergent property of.

 

[Akhenaten]

- However much “you” are connected to, caused by, the physical, this “you” is also what we call “mental.”

No, it's what you call "mental". Your definitions are quite often wildly at variance with those being used by everyone else and this seems to be yet another example.

If consciousness is itself physical, it is a different kind of physical than anything else of which we know.

Except maybe magnetism. Or gravity. Or radio waves.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of some sort of physical situation or event . . .

You don't say.

And could this "physical situation or event" be "the occurrence of a living, healthy brain"?

Could this brain/emergent property combination be the same thing that people have been trying to explain to you for months?

Film at 11.

-- though, it is our standard for what we call “mental.”

What do you mean, "we" Kemo Sabe?

If “mental” should be considered a physical property, it is a different kind of physical than anything else of which we know.

Even if this was the case, which it isn't, so what?

Although it's pretty obvious that your gambit here is to show that whatever you're calling "selves" this week are a special case and that your ideas about their immortality don't apply to Volkswagens, grains of sand, androids, ftangpoofles and everything else in the Universe.

 

[Akhenaten]

Note that Jabba is carefully avoiding saying exactly what consciousness in an emergent property of.

I thought Jabba was carefully avoiding saying much of anything exactly, although "carefully" may be the wrong word.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Humans are the only animals on earth that drink milk into adulthood.

My cat would disagree with you, there.

 

[AdMan]

- However much “you” are connected to, caused by, the physical, this “you” is also what we call “mental.” If consciousness is itself physical, it is a different kind of physical than anything else of which we know.

You are pulling this stuff out of your ass.

What are you basing this statement on?

ETA: And, yes, I know that you're not going to answer me because you think my post is offensive, yet you don't see how your own posts and attitude are even more insulting to the members of this board.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I got a response from Dr. Horel (of Union College) today.
- The following was my response to him.

<snip>

The long of it begins at http://messiahornot.com/ACT2Scene1.php. But that IS just the beginning, and it’s long all by itself -- so you might want to start with the short side.

May I quote you on the Randi forum? I suspect you wouldn’t want to JOIN us on the forum, but I would love to have you – whatever your thoughts.

I really do hope he gives permission. I'd dearly love to see his reaction to the page that explains that a big part of the problem with people accepting your ideas is that they don't believe in magic.

 

[zooterkin]

- I got a response from Dr. Horel (of Union College) today.

Did he say anything to encourage you to respond to him?

 

[Aepervius]

My cat would disagree with you, there.

And if we extend the definition a bit, ant milker definitively drink "milk" well into adulthood, if not the one of their own specie (pretty much like us actually).

 

[Akhenaten]

While we wait for the inevitable fringe reset, let's revisit the "philosophy" which underlines underlies Jabba's claims.

1.Reality is probably not the impersonal, deterministic machine that mainstream science would have us believe. In that sense, reality is probably “magical.” Many of the “things” that we think we know, or that we otherwise “believe in,” do not really “make sense,” do not readily fit into our “naturalistic” (physical/analytic) worldview – and are, in that sense, magical... For instance

1.While consciousness may be the result of purely physical causes, consciousness itself, (or perhaps, a “facet” of consciousness) surely appears to be non-physical. Note that consciousness is different than anything else that we are CONSCIOUS of. (This may be a realization, or perspective, that is impossible to convey if the targeted “receiver” (you) has not recognized it already…)

2.Most of us sense, or at least imagine, a non-physical dimension of reality that we call "transcendence" -- if we call it anything. If we think that life has "meaning," or if we believe in right and wrong, or "true love, "we are believing in something transcendent (perhaps, unwittingly) and implicitly believe in an ethical, non-physical, magical, aspect to reality.

3.Then, if one believes in free will, one believes in magic -- analytically speaking, free will is impossible.

4.It turns out that EXISTENCE itself doesn't make sense. If there was nothing, now THAT would make sense. But, once there is something, we seem to have an unsolvable analytic conundrum.

5.And finally, our own personal awareness is a statistical miracle. Not only is it non-physical, it is also (for all intents and purposes) mathematically impossible.

Srsly?

I mean . . . really???

Shirley I'm not the only one thinking that anything proceeding from such a basis can rightly be dismissed as complete bollocks.

 

[Humots]

- Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of some sort of physical situation or event -- though, it is our standard for what we call “mental.” If “mental” should be considered a physical property, it is a different kind of physical than anything else of which we know.

These "we's" and "our's" of Jabba's remind me of how creationists, biblical literalists, and others of that ilk assume certain notions are givens accepted by everyone.

IIRC, I saw a letter to the editor expressing astonishment and disbelief that crucifixion was a Roman method of execution in use for centuries, rather than a unique one-time event.

 

[Akhenaten]

IIRC, I saw a letter to the editor expressing astonishment and disbelief that crucifixion was a Roman method of execution in use for centuries, rather than a unique one-time event.

It never ceases to amaze me that people seem to think that wearing a miniature version of an everyday Roman torture/miscreant disposal device is somehow symbolic of virtue and devotion. It's bloody sick.

 

[Giordano]

These "we's" and "our's" of Jabba's remind me of how creationists, biblical literalists, and others of that ilk assume certain notions are givens accepted by everyone.

I think this is one of Jabba's problems: he assumed we would just agree to his magical definitions that predefined the outcome of his "proof." He even assumed that these magical notions of his were so widely agreed on (e.g. "the self is non-physical") that they must be the standard model. I think he was shocked to find that these convenient definitions for his "proof" were in fact not the SM at all, and that the SM had a perfectly logical proposal for how reality came about. Thus, his very straw man that made the SM impossible and allowed for the possibility of his magical model was, in fact, his imagined idea of the SM, not the real SM at all.

 

[Jabba]

- I'm currently trying to show why I think that there is an infinity of potential "selves."
- Let's see if you agree with any of my premisses -- one premise at a time.

1) It would appear that consciousness is an emergent property that is “released” any time that a particular physical situation occurs…

 

[zooterkin]

1) It would appear that consciousness is an emergent property that is “released” any time that a particular physical situation occurs…

No.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I'm currently trying to show why I think that there is an infinity of potential "selves."
- Let's see if you agree with any of my premisses -- one premise at a time.

1) It would appear that consciousness is an emergent property that is “released” any time that a particular physical situation occurs…

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage.

I, for one, disagree with this "premise", particularly as you have constructed it.

Do you have, perhaps, support for this? A writer, a website, a study?

 

[carlitos]

 

[Akhenaten]

- I'm currently trying to show why I think that there is an infinity of potential "selves."

Currently?

You've been at it for years and you're still as wrong as you've ever been.

- Let's see if you agree with any of my premisses -- one premise at a time.

None of your pre-misses are belong to us.

1) It would appear that consciousness is an emergent property that is “released” any time that a particular physical situation occurs…

No, it doesn't.