[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Sideroxylon]

- 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?

Rocks could be conscious... or not. My laptop could be conscious... or not.

With no reason to believe these cases to be so, as you yourself say, why should we believe it so?

 

[godless dave]

- 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.

Evidence for this? As far as we can tell, a person's self is a characteristic of that person and has specific properties which are determined first by DNA, then by environmental factors.

 

[PixyMisa]

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

Because every single piece of evidence we have on the subject confirms this.

Why are we so sure that fish live in water?

Why are we so sure that Tokyo is in Japan?

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

No. Consciousness is a computational process, so you need a brain, or some other sort of computer with equivalent capabilities.

- 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 walking have to involve legs? Couldn't it just be that walking exists minus any legs, but without legs, is devoid of any indication to us that it's there?

No. No, it couldn't. That would be dumb.

 

[Jabba]

- Surely, this will require a lot of tweeking to get any agreement at all -- but, this seems to be my basic syllogism for there being an infinity of potential selves.

- My claim is that according to the scientific model...

1. You guys may be right in claiming that consciousness is an emergent property of a living nervous system, and of nothing else. But since my claim includes that possibility, I'm happy to use it as my opening premise.
2. Next, I claim that there are two different types of things emerging from the nervous system: A) various characteristics of the person and B) the particular consciousness (self) of the person.
3. A person's characteristics are the result of specific DNA and experience/environment.
4. The person's specific consciousness, however, emerges when a living nervous-system reaches the necessary complexity -- with no dependence on the specific DNA or experience/environment -- so long as the necessary complexity of the nervous system is reached.
5. In other words, a person's particular consciousness (self) that emerges has no prior physical "representation" (I'm using quotes cause I'm not really satisfied with the term, but currently can't think of anything better) of any kind, or limitations.
6) In still other words, there is no physical limit on "who" the particular person will be -- you did not come from a limited pool of possible selves.

7) And therefore, according to the scientific model, whatever the appropriate numerator, the denominator for your likelihood of existing is unlimited (infinite).

 

[Akhenaten]

Reworking the same things that you've been saying for years, mixing in a few mentions of stuff you haven't even tried to understand (emergence, for example), and turning it into a brand new list of gibberish doesn't change anything, Jabba.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hmm . . .

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.

Although I admit my calculations were wrong. It was actually three pages of disagreement.

 

[Loss Leader]

1. You guys may be right in claiming that consciousness is an emergent property of a living nervous system, and of nothing else. But since my claim includes that possibility, I'm happy to use it as my opening premise.
2. Next, I claim that there are two different types of things emerging from the nervous system: A) various characteristics of the person and B) the particular consciousness (self) of the person.
3. A person's characteristics are the result of specific DNA and experience/environment.
4. The person's specific consciousness, however, emerges when a living nervous-system reaches the necessary complexity -- with no dependence on the specific DNA or experience/environment -- so long as the necessary complexity of the nervous system is reached.
5. In other words, a person's particular consciousness (self) that emerges has no prior physical "representation" (I'm using quotes cause I'm not really satisfied with the term, but currently can't think of anything better) of any kind, or limitations.
6) In still other words, there is no physical limit on "who" the particular person will be -- you did not come from a limited pool of possible selves.
7) And therefore, according to the scientific model, whatever the appropriate numerator, the denominator for your likelihood of existing is unlimited (infinite).

You haven't said anything new. You haven't brought any of your definitions back in line with reality. You haven't abandoned your special pleading for the soul. You haven't resolved how nothing could also be infinity. Everything you've said is gibberish.

Solve the actual problems you've created.

 

[Giordano]

- Surely, this will require a lot of tweeking to get any agreement at all -- but, this seems to be my basic syllogism for there being an infinity of potential selves.

- My claim is that according to the scientific model...

1. You guys may be right in claiming that consciousness is an emergent property of a living nervous system, and of nothing else. But since my claim includes that possibility, I'm happy to use it as my opening premise.
2. Next, I claim that there are two different types of things emerging from the nervous system: A) various characteristics of the person and B) the particular consciousness (self) of the person.
3. A person's characteristics are the result of specific DNA and experience/environment.
4. The person's specific consciousness, however, emerges when a living nervous-system reaches the necessary complexity -- with no dependence on the specific DNA or experience/environment -- so long as the necessary complexity of the nervous system is reached.
5. In other words, a person's particular consciousness (self) that emerges has no prior physical "representation" (I'm using quotes cause I'm not really satisfied with the term, but currently can't think of anything better) of any kind, or limitations.
6) In still other words, there is no physical limit on "who" the particular person will be -- you did not come from a limited pool of possible selves.

7) And therefore, according to the scientific model, whatever the appropriate numerator, the denominator for your likelihood of existing is unlimited (infinite).

You have brought up the same ideas again and again- how about some evidence for 2-7, as just now asked by nearly everyone here?

To remind you again, your OP claims to provide proof of reincarantion, and since that requires your definition of a brainless "self" then you need to provide proof of that as well. It is not part of the SM, only your misunderstanding of the SM. So, either use the real SM in the appropriate parts of your calculation (which means, due to point 1, that having a healthy human brain inevitably means having a "self;" likelihood =1 not 0). Or admit that your own non-SM is due to your belief, and thus belongs in Religion.

 

[godless dave]

- My claim is that according to the scientific model...

1. You guys may be right in claiming that consciousness is an emergent property of a living nervous system, and of nothing else. But since my claim includes that possibility, I'm happy to use it as my opening premise.
2. Next, I claim that there are two different types of things emerging from the nervous system: A) various characteristics of the person and B) the particular consciousness (self) of the person.
3. A person's characteristics are the result of specific DNA and experience/environment.
4. The person's specific consciousness, however, emerges when a living nervous-system reaches the necessary complexity -- with no dependence on the specific DNA or experience/environment -- so long as the necessary complexity of the nervous system is reached.

This is not the scientific model. According to the scientific model, a person's consciousness is one of that person's characteristics, the result of specific DNA and environment. This has not changed since the last time we discussed it.

There is no way to squeeze mind-body dualism into the scientific model. I thought mind-body dualism was in ~A, and you would show it to be likely by showing A, the scientific model, to be unlikely.

 

[Giordano]

4. The person's specific consciousness, however, emerges when a living nervous-system reaches the necessary complexity -- with no dependence on the specific DNA or experience/environment -- so long as the necessary complexity of the nervous system is reached.
5. In other words, a person's particular consciousness (self) that emerges has no prior physical "representation" (I'm using quotes cause I'm not really satisfied with the term, but currently can't think of anything better) of any kind, or limitations.

Absolutely wrong if you are describing the SM! Where are you getting this? It is not what we have said or what you can find from researching it.

The SM holds that our consciousness is absolutely dependent on the specific DNA, development, and experience and arises inevitably from these physical things and is a reflection of them. So a person's particular consciousness emerges precisely from a physical neural system and is absolutely dependent on its continued function.

 

[Giordano]

7) And therefore, according to the scientific model, whatever the appropriate numerator, the denominator for your likelihood of existing is unlimited (infinite).

Actually, not quite. It depends on the likelihood of a human sperm fertilizing a human egg and reaching term with a healthy human brain. This is not unlimited. However, if one does have a healthy human brain, then the SM states that you will have some form of consciousness: me, you, my sister, etc. Why you are Jabba and I am not depends on DNA, development, and experience.

 

[Agatha]

- Surely, this will require a lot of tweeking to get any agreement at all -- but, this seems to be my basic syllogism for there being an infinity of potential selves.

- My claim is that according to the scientific model...
1. You guys may be right in claiming that consciousness is an emergent property of a living nervous system, and of nothing else. But since my claim includes that possibility, I'm happy to use it as my opening premise.

It's not our claim, it's an integral part of the scientific model of consciousness. However, you seem to have sneaked in "nervous system" - see below.

2. Next, I claim that there are two different types of things emerging from the nervous system: A) various characteristics of the person and B) the particular consciousness (self) of the person.

Are you rewording 'brain of a living organism/neurosystem" to "nervous system"? If so, why?
The A and B parameters are not according to the scientific model, so must be stricken from your claim. If you elaborate on where you draw the line between characteristics and consciousness, and define both "characteristics" and "consciousness", it is possible, but doubtful, that these might remain in your claim of the scientific model.

3. A person's characteristics are the result of specific DNA and experience/environment.

Define characteristics, and separate them from the necessary complexity you allude to below. This does not accord with the scientific method as stated.

4. The person's specific consciousness, however, emerges when a living nervous-system reaches the necessary complexity -- with no dependence on the specific DNA or experience/environment -- so long as the necessary complexity of the nervous system is reached.

No. Not according to the scientific model. Specific consciousness arises as the brain is formed to sufficient complexity (during gestation) but it is not independent of DNA or environment.

5. In other words, a person's particular consciousness (self) that emerges has no prior physical "representation" (I'm using quotes cause I'm not really satisfied with the term, but currently can't think of anything better) of any kind, or limitations.

Unsupported conclusion, and not according to the scientific model.

6) In still other words, there is no physical limit on "who" the particular person will be -- you did not come from a limited pool of possible selves.

No, this is another unsupported conclusion. The particular person comes from their parents, who both in turn came from their parents. There are definite physical limits on 'who' that person will be prior to conception. I think your use of the word 'pool' is a red herring.

7) And therefore, according to the scientific model, whatever the appropriate numerator, the denominator for your likelihood of existing is unlimited (infinite).

An unsupported conclusion built on a two previous unsupported conclusions. Does not accord with the scientific method.

So you are 1 for 7, and the 1 was given to you earlier, though you've made it a bit iffy given your introduction of the phrase "nervous system" in place of the previously used terms 'brain of a living organism' and neurosystem.

Kindly provide your evidence for your terms 2-7, and explain your use of the following terms:
nervous system
characteristics
consciousness
pool (of selves)
ETA and also please provide your definition of 'emergent property'

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Surely, this will require a lot of tweeking to get any agreement at all -- but, this seems to be my basic syllogism for there being an infinity of potential selves.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

While I realize that you will most likely ignore this post, I appreciate your presentation of your premises.

As you might expect, I have a few objections to delineate.

- My claim is that according to the scientific model...

1. You guys may be right in claiming that consciousness is an emergent property of a living nervous system, and of nothing else. But since my claim includes that possibility, I'm happy to use it as my opening premise.

No, not really. "According to the 'scientific model'," consciousness is an emergent property of a living neurosystem (not "may be", but "is").

It can only be "part of your premise" if you state it correctly; that is, once you amend the "scientific model" to include "may be an emergent property of a living nervous system", then you are not, in fact, "including" the "scientific model" in your premise. You are, in fact, disagreeing with the "scientific model", improperly extending it to pretend that is contemplates a condition (consciousness independent of a living brain) which it, in fact, does not.

If you re-write your premise to state that, to the limit off our understanding, consciousness is an emergent property of a properly functioning neurosystem, or words to that effect, you will be on fairly safe, common ground with the "scientific model".

2. Next, I claim that there are two different types of things emerging from the nervous system: A) various characteristics of the person and B) the particular consciousness (self) of the person.
3. A person's characteristics are the result of specific DNA and experience/environment.
4. The person's specific consciousness, however, emerges when a living nervous-system reaches the necessary complexity -- with no dependence on the specific DNA or experience/environment -- so long as the necessary complexity of the nervous system is reached.

Once again, you are trying to define into existence a distinction that is not supported by evidence, and is not a part of the "scientific model".

The particular consciousness that emerges form a properly functioning neurosystem will be the result of the physical propertied of the neurosystem (as determined by environment and heredity), combined with, or affected by the experiences of the neurosystem.

This is where your "identical consciousnesses from identical brains" question founders. Even if it were possible to construct two identical neurosystems (and it is not, as has been repeatedly explained to you), each of those neurosystems would undergo unique experiences, and a unique consciousness would emerge.

The characteristics of my consciousness are part of the characteristics of me.

Not to mention the complete and utter lack of any evidence at all for there ever having been a "shared consciousness" (or "the same 'self' in two brains" as you propose).

5. In other words, a person's particular consciousness (self) that emerges has no prior physical "representation" (I'm using quotes cause I'm not really satisfied with the term, but currently can't think of anything better) of any kind, or limitations.

First, that is a precisely correct use of scare quotes: that is, using the closest possible word you can find, but demonstrating doubts about, or dissatisfaction of, its accuracy or precision in its current use. Well done!

However:

The fact that I am left-handed, but was forced to imitate a "righty" had no prior physical representation.

The fact that I have several different degenerative genetic conditions had no prior physical representation.

The fact that I am (relatively) tall had no prior physical representation.

The fact that I am stubborn, and willful, and contrary, had no prior physical representation.

The consciousness that emerges as part of the function of a healthy, sufficiently complex neurosystem is the result of all of the factors affecting it. Of course there is no "pool" of pre-made consciousnesses waiting to be installed in a proper neurosystem; just as there is no "white" waiting to be installed in snow.

6) In still other words, there is no physical limit on "who" the particular person will be -- you did not come from a limited pool of possible selves.

There are, in fact, limits on "who" the person will be; limits imposed by the physical constraints of reality. A consciousness that "used to be" Napoleon Buonaparte (but that has none of the Little Corporal's memories, or experiences, or other characteristics) cannot emerge as part of the functioning of the neurosystem, as the neurosystem as part of which it emerges was not the neurosystem as part of which Buonaparte emerged.

7) And therefore, according to the scientific model, whatever the appropriate numerator, the denominator for your likelihood of existing is unlimited (infinite).

This is a completely improper use of "therefore". Your conclusion, which you reached first, is not supported by the "scientific model"; for that matter, it is not supported by the amended version of the "scientific model" you want to be allowed to use.

There are not an "infinite" number of potential consciousnesses.

Given that you exist, the likelihood of your existence is 1.

Not to mention:

What has any of this to do with the existence of the "soul", or its "immortality"?

You are still trying to pretend that what you think "ought to be" is "more likely" that what observably is.

When do you intend to get to your evidence?

 

[godless dave]

This is where your "identical consciousnesses from identical brains" question founders. Even if it were possible to construct two identical neurosystems (and it is not, as has been repeatedly explained to you), each of those neurosystems would undergo unique experiences, and a unique consciousness would emerge.

It actually founders before that by failing to recognize the difference between "identical" and "same". Thanks to genetics, my brother and I have noses that look exactly the same. But they are not the same nose. If I have a cold, my brother's nose doesn't run.

 

[Jabba]

Evidence for this? As far as we can tell, a person's self is a characteristic of that person and has specific properties which are determined first by DNA, then by environmental factors.

- The self I'm trying to discuss is not a "characteristic." It is the bare awareness of yourself, and has remained with you your entire lifetime of environments. It's that self I'm talkin about. It has changed in terms of characteristics, but it's still you. And, that bare awareness seems to have nothing to do with DNA or environment so long as your nervous system reaches, and remains at, the necessary complexity.

 

[carlitos]

Bare awareness? Does that turn off when you are unconscious?

 

[godless dave]

- The self I'm trying to discuss is not a "characteristic." It is the bare awareness of yourself, and has remained with you your entire lifetime of environments.

How is that not a characteristic?

And, that bare awareness seems to have nothing to do with DNA or environment so long as your nervous system reaches, and remains at, the necessary complexity.

If human neurons contain DNA, how does that awareness have nothing to do with DNA? How can something that receives input from the senses have nothing to do with the environment?

 

[jond]

- The self I'm trying to discuss is not a "characteristic." It is the bare awareness of yourself, and has remained with you your entire lifetime of environments. It's that self I'm talkin about. It has changed in terms of characteristics, but it's still you. And, that bare awareness seems to have nothing to do with DNA or environment so long as your nervous system reaches, and remains at, the necessary complexity.

Evidence that this "self" thing exists?

As has been pointed out an infinite number of time, by posters for more erudite than I: Awareness of oneself is a process, changing with each passing moment. Even reading (and subesequesntly ignoring) this post changes your awareness of yourself. And what happens to self awareness when consciousness is altered or shut off? (remember, we know this can all be done by stimulating the brain...)

 

[Slowvehicle]

- The self I'm trying to discuss is not a "characteristic." It is the bare awareness of yourself, and has remained with you your entire lifetime of environments. It's that self I'm talkin about. It has changed in terms of characteristics, but it's still you. And, that bare awareness seems to have nothing to do with DNA or environment so long as your nervous system reaches, and remains at, the necessary complexity.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

I wonder what it would take to get you to see that you are trying to define into existence, by fiat, something that is not what the "scientific model" refers to as consciousness (that is, something that is not an emergent property of a neurosytem); while at the same time pretending that you are adhereing to the "scientific model".

Once again: in the "scientific model", the "self" you variously call "the observer", or "consciousness" is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex neurosystem. There is not anything else. No matter how much you want to posit a "ghost in the machine" (a "soul", if you want), consciousness emerges from, and depends upon, the functions and characteristics of the unique neurosystem of which it is a property. A dolphin brain/neurosystem will give rise to a dolphin consciousness.

If you want to claim that there is something "other", something that exists apart from, and can survive without, the characteristics of a specific neurosystem, you are going to have to provide evidence to support your claim.

 

[Akhenaten]

- The self I'm trying to discuss is not a "characteristic."

Yes it is. It's a characteristic of your ongoing fantasies about immortality.

It is the bare awareness of yourself, and has remained with you your entire lifetime of environments.

Yep, replacing "observer" with "bare awareness" will sure trick everyone.

Or not.

It's that self I'm talkin about. It has changed in terms of characteristics, but it's still you.

Right up until the day you die, when the brain of which it is an emergent property becomes a-kilo-and-a-half of blancmange.

And, that bare awareness seems to have nothing to do with DNA or environment so long as your nervous system reaches, and remains at, the necessary complexity.

Rubbish. It has as much to do with DNA and its environment as everything else about you.

I doubt if it really seems any other way to you at all. You just want it to be some other way.