[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

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."

And he blithely continues with this assumption by the simple expedient of ignoring any and all disagreement.

We're right in the middle of him doing this again. He's asked if anyone agrees with him on a particular point and after a page-and-a-half of people expressing disagreement he'll bizarrely count that point as having been agreed upon and move on to the next.

 

[Agatha]

- 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…

No.

 

[Loss Leader]

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

Good gosh, no. "Emergent" and "released" have no business being in the same sentence together.

 

[Jabba]

...I also note that you are specifically contradicting your earlier statements. You had appeared to accept that minds are physical, only developing when a sperm fertilizes an egg. You seemed to rely on that in your argument that there are an infinite possible number of selves in that every person born is new and different even from their genetic twin...

Loss Leader,
- I was using that as the easiest way to begin thinking about how many potential selves there might be. I am now trying to show that the potential is much larger (infinite) when it isn't the result of specific DNA -- which, it apparently is not.

 

[Jabba]

Good gosh, no. "Emergent" and "released" have no business being in the same sentence together.

- Can you replace "released" with a word you'd accept?

 

[Akhenaten]

Ooh look! Loss Leader is having another turn as LCP and the rest of us have disappeared.

 

[zooterkin]

Loss Leader,
- I was using that as the easiest way to begin thinking about how many potential selves there might be. I am now trying to show that the potential is much larger (infinite) when it isn't the result of specific DNA -- which, it apparently is not.

Once again, "much larger" is not the same as "infinite".

 

[pakeha]

- 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…

No, Jabba, it isn't.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Can you replace "released" with a word you'd accept?

Why can't you just replace your clumsy pre-miss with the statement upon which everyone is already agreed - that consciousness is an emergent property of a healthy brain?

As Loss Leader has already pointed out, the word "released" is redundant, obfuscatory and just plain wrong. Why did you introduce it?

 

[Sideroxylon]

"consciousness is an emergent property that is 'released' any time that a particular physical situation occurs…"

Water is an emergent property that is “released” anytime H₂O molecules come together under condusive temperature and pressure conditions"

Sand dunes are an emergent property that is “released” any time sand grains are carried and deposited by condusive wind or water flow.

Your use of the word released in scare quotes so as to suggest some sort of unknown metaphysical explanation is required does not fit in my two examples, does it. Such an idea adds nothing to an account of their emergence. Why do you think it adds anything to an account of consciousnesses as an emergent property of the physical makeup of the brain?

 

[Giordano]

- 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.

No! Same answer when this was very recently asked. No!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Loss Leader,
- I was using that as the easiest way to begin thinking about how many potential selves there might be. I am now trying to show that the potential is much larger (infinite) when it isn't the result of specific DNA -- which, it apparently is not.

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage!

1. There are a finite number of unique combinations of human DNA that will result in a viable human person.

2. There is a finite amount of raw material which could be used to build functioning neurosystems according to the viable combinations of DNA; and a finite amount of energy with which to do it.

3. There is a finite amount of time in which to do this, even if it were not interrupted by other processes, or limited in other ways.

My point?

There is no evidence, none, that "consciousness" is anything other than an emergent property of a specific neurosystem--and, since living neurosystems develop in response to DNA (that's a gross simplification, but I'll leave it for the nonce), the finite number of potential DNA combinations is only one of the limits upon the potential number of consciousnesses.

Further, "much larger" is not the same as "infinite".

 

[Giordano]

- Can you replace "released" with a word you'd accept?

Why don't you just get rid of the second part of your sentence? "Consciousness is an emergent property" of the physical brain. I disagree with any of your restrictions on this basic statement of the SM.

 

[Giordano]

Once again, "much larger" is not the same as "infinite".

To Jabba, "much larger" equals really really big which equals infinity.

Jabba, just because we agree that experiences further affect the "self" in addition to DNA doesn't mean that the experiences are "infinite." Anything in this reality is finite. To push it, even the possible ways to write a mystery novel are finite. It is a very large number, but not infinite.

 

[Giordano]

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

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of "emergent?" It has nothing to do with released.

 

[jond]

- 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…

No. You continue to make the mistake of thinking of consciousness as a "thing" instead of a process.

 

[Mojo]

- 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…

That looks suspiciously close to your desired conclusion.

 

[Mojo]

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of "emergent?" It has nothing to do with released.

Jabba needs consciousness to be "released" so that it can continue to exist after the "particular physical situation" of which it is an emergent property ceases to exist. That's his conclusion, neatly inserted into his very first premise.

 

[Sideroxylon]

No. You continue to make the mistake of thinking of consciousness as a "thing" instead of a process.

Yes, he seems to have some kind of Platonic Form in mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

 

[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…

- It appears that no one agrees with me. Does anyone agree that consciousness is an emergent property? (I had thought that you all did.)