[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Agatha]

Agatha,
- I didn't use scare quotes. Someone quoting me did.

Are you suggesting you didn't write this post? <---clicky link

Because it's posted using your account, and has quote marks around the word "released". So if you did write it, you used scare quotes, and people have asked you why. If you didn't write the post, I suggest you alert the mods to someone else using your account (a breach of the rules), and for safety's sake you should probably change your password.

On the other hand, if that post was written by you, why the use of quote marks around the word released?

- Why should we be so sure that consciousness is dependent upon THE BRAIN OF A LIVING ORGANISM -- or, OF THE NEUROSYSTEM?

Because nobody has ever showed evidence of consciousness that isn't an emergent property of the brain of a living organism/neural system. If you have evidence that consciousness can exist without a living brain, please do present it.

- Couldn't it be that nothing else has the physical ability to imply its consciousness to us?

What? I cannot quite grasp what you mean here. The words don't make sense if understood to have their dictionary definitions.

What do you mean by us? Our consciousness, our personality, our 'self'?

The brain doesn't imply (do you mean impart?) the brain's consciousness to the person possessing the brain. The brain and the person are not separate entities.

Consciousness isn't an object possessed by a brain, and it's not a part of the brain. It's an emergent property of a living brain.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- Why should we be so sure that consciousness is dependent upon THE BRAIN OF A LIVING ORGANISM -- or, OF THE NEUROSYSTEM?

Because that's what all the evidence indicates. That's how science works.

 

[George]

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

Like mixing concrete?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Why should we be so sure that consciousness is dependent upon THE BRAIN OF A LIVING ORGANISM -- or, OF THE NEUROSYSTEM?
- Couldn't it be that nothing else has the physical ability to imply its consciousness to us?

Good Morning, Mr.Savage!

You raise an interesting point; a point which has been explored in speculative fiction of many different genres. There has not, however, to my knowledge, ever been presented evidence (practical, empirical, objective evidence) of any kind of a consciousness existing apart from a living, functioning neurosystem.

Did you read any of the links I provided; that is, the links you asked for?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Agatha,
- I didn't use scare quotes. Someone quoting me did.

Good Morning, again, Mr. Savage:

I choose to believe this is simply an example of forgetfulness, rather than an outright lie.

Look at this post of yours:

- 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…

What meaning did you intend to convey by putting the word, "released", inside scare quotes, in your own post?

 

[Giordano]

- Why should we be so sure that consciousness is dependent upon THE BRAIN OF A LIVING ORGANISM -- or, OF THE NEUROSYSTEM?
- Couldn't it be that nothing else has the physical ability to imply its consciousness to us?

1. Because that is the conclusion from all the evidence. But feel feel to prove otherwise, as you yourself promised to do. Use any method you wish, but try to to use arguments not already debunked here unless you explicitly explain why the debunking was inaccurate. Thanks!

2. I'm not certain what you meant by the second sentence. Do you mean that only the brain is physically capable of transmitting an nonphysical consciousness to us? What an amazing property, given that most aimals have brains. If so, however, you are fully in the realm of magic and I can't battle magic with reality (how is that unicorn in your garden by the way? The magical, invisible one that doesn't leave hoof prints or any other physical manifestation of its presence?).

3. Hint: I remind you that you were going to use Bayesian Statistics (based on reality), to prove that we are immortal. I presume you were planning to also prove the existence of an nonphysical "self" by Bayesian statistics if that is a crucial part of your larger proof. Please go ahead (although I will accept all non-debunked proofs of a nonphysical "self" based on reality, not just mathematical ones).

3. You previously accepted that a consciousness (a "self") was an emergent property of a healthy brain/neural network, but now seem to disagree. Did you lookup "emergent" in the mean time and found out it means something different from what you thought? Just curious.

 

[carlitos]

You can use google or other search engine - one simple way is to highlight the phrase using your mouse/trackpad, then right-clicking on the highlighted word or phrase and selecting 'search google for <highlighted word or phrase>'. A new tab will open with the search results, and you can choose which source to consult.

I find Langton's Ant to be a useful demonstration. The Ant's rules are simple, but would you have predicted the behaviour? Based on the rules I wouldn't.

Yet those rules give rise to an elegant structure.

I used the "right click" (2 fingers on the Mac touchpad) on Langdon's Ant. A two-fer for me. That is absolutely fascinating. I had a general concept of what a Turing Machine was, but I had no idea that these patterns emerged from simple sets of rules. Wow.

Just a note to all - I believe that Jabba means that he didn't use the words "scare quotes," not that he didn't use scare quotes.

Again, non-traditional formatting is a hallmark of woo. He "needs" to emphasize several words in different "ways" since those "words" mean several different "things" to him than they do to everyone else.

 

[Aepervius]

- Why should we be so sure that consciousness is dependent upon THE BRAIN OF A LIVING ORGANISM -- or, OF THE NEUROSYSTEM?

Because of so many evidence.

* localized brain damage lead to specific change in personality , and over different people. Damaging the brocca area IIRC for example has a high change to lead to aphasia. And so forth
* stimulating to specific region lead to similarly change in consciousness , memory recall
* taking drug altering how neurotransmitter work, alter consciousness
* ever heard of alcohol effect on people ?
* some psychopathlogy being healed by chirurgy in the brain or even drugs.
* also ... ever heard of lobotomy ?

And that's only a very small subset of evidence.

Basically there is a lot of evidence of consciousness being an emergent process of the rbain, because when you alter the brain function (be it negatively or otherwise) you get an effect on consciousness.

Now you could pretend the above is evidence of somethign else, but that would be up to you to provide evidence for it. as of now the simplest and accepted explanation in biology, is that consciousness is an emergent process of the brain.

And If I recall correctly it was already told you once and maybe more.

 

[Jabba]

Are you suggesting you didn't write this post? <---clicky link

- Interesting. Are not "scare quotes" just one apostrophe on either side of the word(s) being quoted?

 

[Jabba]

Because that's what all the evidence indicates. That's how science works.

- But why does it have to involve a brain? Couldn't it just be that consciousness exists minus any brain -- but without a brain, is devoid of any indication to us that it's there?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Interesting. Are not "scare quotes" just one apostrophe on either side of the word(s) being quoted?

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage!

To answer your queztion: no, as you would have seen had you bothered to even perfunctorily read the citations I provided you.

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

"Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to imply that it may not signify its apparent meaning or that it is not necessarily the way the quoting person would express its concept. Thus, the quotes are used to establish a use–mention distinction, in a similar way to verbally prefixing a phrase with "so-called". When referred to as "scare quotes", the quotation marks are suggested to imply skepticism or disagreement with the quoted terminology."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scare quotes
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scare_quote
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/scare-quotes

I wonder if you might, instead of pretending that this side issue is important, explain why you put the word, "released", in any kind of quote marks at all?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Way to avoid discussing the topic at hand.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- But why does it have to involve a brain? Couldn't it just be that consciousness exists minus any brain -- but without a brain, is devoid of any indication to us that it's there?

Good afternoon, again, Mr. Savage!

There is no evidence, not any at all, of any kind of consciousness existing independently a brain.

You are welcome to provide such; it might actually be interesting.

As for a consciousness existing "minus any brain", but "devoid of any indication to use that it is there", I have to ask you: how is that different from the invisible, immaterial, undetectable, pink unicorn living in your garage? And what has that to do with "immortality"?

 

[Jabba]

- The characteristics of a person are the result (I suppose "emergent properties") of specific DNA and experience/environment. That does not appear to be the case for the person's "self," or "particular consciousness." That appears to be much less specific, and is rather the emergent property of a general state of physicality.
- Otherwise, I agree that consciousness is an emergent property of something -- I'm just not yet convinced that it requires a brain. And, I do have evidence that it may not require a brain, but I'll have to do some digging to bring the evidence 'back to life.'

 

[Loss Leader]

- But why does it have to involve a brain? Couldn't it just be that consciousness exists minus any brain -- but without a brain, is devoid of any indication to us that it's there?

Couldn't it be that power steering exists minus any car - but without a car, is devoid of any indication to us that it's there?

Couldn't a season of New Girl exist minus any episodes - but without the episodes, is devoid of any indication to us that it's there?

Couldn't a zoo exist minus any animals - but without the animals, is devoid of any indication to us that it's there?

You previously agreed that a brain was necessary to have a consciousness. You agreed that a consciousness didn't come into existence until sometime around fertilization of an egg. It was, in fact, he cornerstone of your argument that there are "extrinsicly" infinite possible people.

If you don't believe that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, what reason do you have for believing that there are an infinite potential number of selves? Why can't there be exactly 200 billion selves (devoid of any indication to us that they're there)? Why can't it be that people will just stop being born when these selves run out?

Mostly, though, you have the obligation of showing that the self is somehow separate from the physical body/brain. You may not simply ask us why it can't be that way. You proposed to explore the scientific model of the universe. Science requires proof. So, you must prove that the self can exist in the absence of a brain.

Do you have proof of such a thing?

 

[John Jones]

- But why does it have to involve a brain? Couldn't it just be that consciousness exists minus any brain -- but without a brain, is devoid of any indication to us that it's there?

In that case, what would be the difference between a consciousness without anything to indicate it's presence, and no consciousness at all?

It would be like the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan's garage which has no effect on the physical world.

Parsimony requires that we dismiss both.

 

[jond]

- The characteristics of a person are the result (I suppose "emergent properties") of specific DNA and experience/environment. That does not appear to be the case for the person's "self," or "particular consciousness." That appears to be much less specific, and is rather the emergent property of a general state of physicality.
- Otherwise, I agree that consciousness is an emergent property of something -- I'm just not yet convinced that it requires a brain. And, I do have evidence that it may not require a brain, but I'll have to do some digging to bring the evidence 'back to life.'

If your "evidence" is OBEs/NDEs as you put forth a while back, I would strongly suggest you read the responses that you ignored before you re-tread that already rebutted path. You are wrong, Jabba. No brain, no consciousness. We can alter consciousness in very specific and repeatable ways by altering brain chemistry, stimulating specific regions etc. This is concrete evidence that consciouseness is an emergent property of brains. To date, nothing even close to that exists which would suggest anything else.

 

[John Jones]

- The characteristics of a person are the result (I suppose "emergent properties") of specific DNA and experience/environment. That does not appear to be the case for the person's "self," or "particular consciousness."

Nonsense.

That appears to be much less specific, and is rather the emergent property of a general state of physicality.
- Otherwise, I agree that consciousness is an emergent property of something -- I'm just not yet convinced that it requires a brain. And, I do have evidence that it may not require a brain, but I'll have to do some digging to bring the evidence 'back to life.'

If you had presented this 'evidence' in the OP, this thread may have been much, much shorter. Why didn't you do it?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- The characteristics of a person are the result (I suppose "emergent properties") of specific DNA and experience/environment. That does not appear to be the case for the person's "self," or "particular consciousness." That appears to be much less specific, and is rather the emergent property of a general state of physicality.

Once again, Mr. Savage, although you seem to be ignoring me, I bid you good afternoon.

I wonder if you might be so kind as to make a useful, demonstrable, defensible distinction between the "characteristics of a person", and "that person's 'self,' or'particular consciousness' "?

As stated, your distinction makes no sense.

- Otherwise, I agree that consciousness is an emergent property of something -- I'm just not yet convinced that it requires a brain. And, I do have evidence that it may not require a brain, but I'll have to do some digging to bring the evidence 'back to life.'

In general, in "effective 'debate' ", one marshals one's evidence before one makes sweeping statement that directly contravene current understanding. Please do not allow your hand to be turned form this plough.

Go and find your evidence (your practical, empirical, objective evidence) for a consciousness existing as anything other than an emergent property of a neurosystem; bring it here, and I will read it with fascination. This should not go any further (no other rabbits should be chased; no other geese should be juggled) until you defend this point.

 

[Agatha]

Did you not bother to look at the links explaining scare quotes that both Slowvehicle and I provided? Why you chose to put "released"in quotes was the side-issue you were asked to explain; you have not done so.

- But why does it have to involve a brain? Couldn't it just be that consciousness exists minus any brain -- but without a brain, is devoid of any indication to us that it's there?

Why does a traffic jam have to involve traffic? Why do sand dunes have to involve sand? What shape is a snowflake if there is no snow in it?

I am not sure that you really understand the concept of an emergent property.

You seem to be positing some kind of disembodied consciousness, which is directly ruled out by all the available evidence. If your get-out is that there are consciousnesses existing which are not emergent properties of living brains, and that we cannot detect them, then what evidence do you have to support this?