[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Aepervius]

- 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?

Sigh.

it is beside the point.

All evidence point to consciousness being a property of the brain. Final point.

Yes I could imagine scenario where consciousness do not come from the rbain, but from pixie dust. Or all sort of stupid origin.

But you see those would not have evidence. all we have evidence for now is consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

Sigh.

but go ahead and ignore all of that.

 

[Giordano]

- 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?

As asked of you many times before, what is your evidence. Evidence that has not been successfully debunked already in this thread?

A unicorn is theoretically possible but in the absence of evidence there is no reason to believe that one exists.

You are hypothesizing something that has exists outside of anything else shown to exist. Outside of our known reality. Is a little evidence too much to ask for? You've been thinking of this for years. Clearly it should be easy for you to provide the evidence that convinced you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<polite snip> What shape is a snowflake if there is no snow in it?
<polite snip>

I am reminded of one of the most potent learning moments about emergent properties I, personally, have ever experienced. One christmas morning, after an uncharacteristic Dallas snowfall, a curious and brilliant 5-year-old asked me, seriously, "Where does the white go when the snow melts?" It took an hour of melting snow, crushing ice, dissolving salt (and sugar) in water, grinding glass, and smashing quartz pebbles (and looking at the results under a microscope) before he was satisfied that he understood that the "white" was an emergent property of fine particles of clear solids.

One of my most entertaining christmasses evar.

Mr. Savage:

In the same way that the white color of snow does not exist independently of the snow, consciousness does not exist independently of a brain.

You are welcome to provide evidence to the contrary.

 

[Agatha]

- 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.

How are you separating a person's characteristics from that person's self/consciousness? What makes you think that consciousness is less specific than a person's characteristics, and what evidence do you have for your assertions?

- 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.'

Please do present some evidence. We've been requesting it for some considerable time.

Although, if this evidence is: memories of past lives/NDEs/OoBEs/the results of a google search for "consciousness quantum mechanics", which you have previously presented as evidence for the afterlife, then please do revisit the refutations already provided to you, such as in this post (clickety link)

 

[Giordano]

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.'

I've heard that promise many times from you without follow through. Do it right now before anything else or posting anything else: provide evidence of a non physical "self" or consciousness that has not already been debunked here, or explain why the debunking was wrong. Thanks.

 

[Giordano]

- 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.
'

No, I do not agree with your idea of a person's self that is separate from their DNA, development, and experiences. If this is, as it appears to be, the same unchanging "self" that you have been proposing all along, most everyone here disagrees with you too.

But again, I can be convinced in the face of proof. So go and prove it, but only after presenting proof, or evidence, that there is a nonphysical consciousness or "self" that exists independent of a physical brain.

 

[dlorde]

I don't anticipate Jabba presenting any plausible or convincing evidence to support his speculative hypothesis, but in lieu of evidence, I would be content just to hear a plausible argument to support it, some logical reason to discount all the contrary evidence, because I can't think of any myself.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- But why does it have to involve a brain?

Because that's what all the evidence points to.

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?

Not according to the evidence, no.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- 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."

Characteristics are properties of the "self". The "self" is an emergent property of the 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.'

By this stage in your time on this board, you do know what the proper definition of "evidence" WRT claims such as these is, don't you?

 

[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." 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.'

Please don't take advantage of our good will by posting previously discredited woo-woo claims about OBE and NDE that can't pass the sniff-test.

You're going to do it anyway, aren't you?

 

[Mojo]

- 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.'

Why do you put scare quotes around the phrase "back to life"?

 

[xtifr]

- 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.

No. If you want to disprove the standard scientific model of consciousness/self, you have disprove the standard scientific model, not some other model you'd prefer. Disproving some other model that merely resembles the model you're trying to address is pretty much the dictionary definition of a "straw man".

- 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.'

It doesn't matter whether you think it requires a brain, because we're discussing the standard model, not your model.

And no, you have no evidence. If such evidence existed, it would qualify for the JR Million Dollar Prize.

 

[abaddon]

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.

You're welcome, it's a fascinating area. I should have mentioned this patterne occurs regardless of the starting conditions. No matter what combination of black and white squares you start with the result is the same, all balck squares, all white squares and any combination in between will have the same result. As far as is known. To me it demonstrates how very simple rules could give rise to, e.g. a plant building a stalk. I am guessing that Jabba thinks that "emergent behaviour" in this context equates to "emerged from hiding and was observed". This is clearly wrong. "Emergent behaviour" in reality refers to complex behaviours that are simply not explicitly stated in the original set of rules.

There are some neat simulators out there if you want to fool about with it. One of the striking ones is where a more advanced version of Langton's Ant (i.e. a bigger ruleset) produces Fibonacci spirals. Much as plants do when developing twigs and branches. Someone had a neato simulator for that years ago. I could rummage for it, or maybe wiki has links.


And one more thing. Now that you have found the select text and right click thing? Select this (within the quotes) "microsoft.com" and when you right click, the option changes from "Search Google for whatever" to "Go to Microsoft.com", which will then open in a new tab if you select it, even if it is not a link. (Sry microsoft, I just used you as an example)

 

[Filippo Lippi]

- 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.'

"Best man in the fight"

 

[Akhenaten]

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

Not according to the reference that you were given but apparently couldn't be bothered to read.

 

[Akhenaten]

- But why does it have to involve a brain?

Perhaps it doesn't, but this discussion is all about what happens in the observable Universe in which it's taking place and there is no evidence that it has anything even remotely like a disembrained consciousness in it.

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?

I don't know and neither do you.

But then, I'm not the one claiming that this thing that gives no indication of its existence can be used as part of a mathematical proof of immortality.

Because that would be just plain silly.

 

[Akhenaten]

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?

I'm pretty sure that Jabba doesn't even read the links he provides himself, let alone those that others post. I don't even know that he bothers to read Messiah hot or not? any more since he obviously hasn't made any attempt to correct any of the glaring errors in it that have been brought to light during the course of this thread. All of the nonsense about being right and left brained - a major component of much of Jabba's misunderstandings about brain function - remains right where it's always been as though not a single objection had ever been raised against it. As does the need-to-believe-in-magic rubbish.

And I think that's quite relevant because it's really obvious that Jabba's entire argument here is nothing more than a paraphrase of the gobbledygook on that site.

 

[abaddon]

- 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?

Think about what you just wrote. You could use such reasoning to justify anything.

- But why does it have to involve evidence? Couldn't it just be that an invisible pink unicorn exists minus any evidence -- but without evidence, is devoid of any indication to us that it's there?

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

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

And so on and so forth.

 

[Akhenaten]

- The characteristics of a person are the result (I suppose "emergent properties") of specific DNA and experience/environment.

Would you similarly say that the characteristics of a turnip are the result (or supposedly "emergent properties") of specific DNA and experience/environment? Are turnips immortal too?

My, the list of immortal things is certainly growing.

Why do you insist on continuing to post meaningless and/or incorrect translations of the correct meaning of emergent properties despite being given numerous citations that would enable you to avoid doing so.

Why especially do carry on like this despite the fact that the people you're apparently trying to hoodwink with your nonsense are the very people who gave you those citations?

That does not appear to be the case for the person's "self," or "particular consciousness."

Yes it does, your unsupported assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

That appears to be much less specific, and is rather the emergent property of a general state of physicality.

Only to someone who believes in magic and believes that Jack the Bodiless^WP was a real entity and that the Galactic Milieu Series^WP was a text book.

- Otherwise, I agree that consciousness is an emergent property of something -- I'm just not yet convinced that it requires a brain.

Reality is quite unconcerned about what you find convincing.

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.'

I hope, without any confidence at all, that before undertaking this bootless search that you take into consideration that you have not yet produced in this entire thread an iota of anything that passed muster as actual evidence. Anything you've presented before and now attempt to re-present will therefore not only be wrong but will have been shown to be wrong by the same people you're going to regurgitate it all over.

But you'll do it anyway, won't you?

 

[pakeha]

- 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?

Jabba, why do you think we're so sure that consciousness is an emergent property of a living brain?
COuld it have anything to do with evidence?

I take note you used dependent, as though consciousness were an object, rather than emergent property, which indicates a process.
Why is that?