[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

Slowvehicle,
- I don't know whether that's true or not -- it could have been me with different characteristics, maybe.
- But what I do believe is that if we could now replicate that physical situation, I would not be looking out of two sets of eyes.

As nicely pointed by Godless Dave. I think you are confusing identical (think twins) and the same (think John vs Jim). And again as pointed out to you multiple times, even if you physically duplicated every minute part of a brain such that the brains would think alike initially, they would rapidly diverge because thay have different subsequent experiences. Even in the brief moment they think alike, each would have its own vision: there would be no way for either to look out of two sets of eyes,

 

[Giordano]

Lionel Hutz?

Jabba, you were asked for evidence for your assertions and responded with four points and three conclusions that arose from them which you claimed to represent the scientific model. These points did not represent the scientific model, and the conclusions were unsupported (and the correct spelling is tweaking, not tweeking). Sadly, you haven't responded to any of the criticisms of your post.

Could you please respond with evidence, as Giordano asks, for your assertion that you, or I or anyone, came from 'nothing'. Thank you in advance.

This^^^. Evidence and proof (non-debunked already) please. On your very next post. If you have any...

 

[Akhenaten]

When are you likely to answer the question that's been asked of you many times - where do these selves go when the brains of which they are an emergent property no longer exist?

Where do the numbers go when the calculator is no longer turned on?

Where does Al Bundy go when you switch off the TV?

Where does the traffic jam go when traffic clears up?

 

[Giordano]

Personally I like the responsive steering in a VW analog. Where did it go when the car is parked? Where is it located when on the highway? I also like the traffic jam analogy: does it exist when there is no traffic? Thanks for those images!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You were a brand new pair of roller skates (or, a brand new key).

FWIW, I did the sound for Melanie once, and she's always hated that song.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Slowvehicle,
- I don't know whether that's true or not -- it could have been me with different characteristics, maybe.

This post emerges from my fingers interacting with my keyboard. Your post emerges from your fingers interacting with your keyboard. Could my post be your post with different characteristics?

 

[Monza]

As nicely pointed by Godless Dave. I think you are confusing identical (think twins) and the same (think John vs Jim). And again as pointed out to you multiple times, even if you physically duplicated every minute part of a brain such that the brains would think alike initially, they would rapidly diverge because thay have different subsequent experiences. Even in the brief moment they think alike, each would have its own vision: there would be no way for either to look out of two sets of eyes,

Well said.

I still think Jabba doesn't understand that a brain changes over time. He's stuck on if two identical brains can have identical "selves". If the brains remain identical, yes the "selves" would remain identical. Separate, but identical. What he doesn't quite grasp is that a brain is not static, it is constantly changing physically. Every nanosecond there are new connections made between individual brain cells. What's more, these connections are formed in response to a host of stimuli. Different stimuli result in different connections such that any minute difference in stimuli (such as viewing the surroundings from a slightly different perspective) results in different connections.

Several people (e.g. you) have correctly tried to point out that even if two brains could be made 100% identical in every detail, they would diverge immediately as they could not occupy the same space and could not receive identical stimuli. There's nothing infinite about this, the chemical bonds in the brain are made up of proteins which are comprised of atoms. All finite.

 

[Giordano]

FWIW, I did the sound for Melanie once, and she's always hated that song.

So she and I agree...

 

[abaddon]

Well said.

I still think Jabba doesn't understand that a brain changes over time. He's stuck on if two identical brains can have identical "selves". If the brains remain identical, yes the "selves" would remain identical. Separate, but identical. What he doesn't quite grasp is that a brain is not static, it is constantly changing physically. Every nanosecond there are new connections made between individual brain cells. What's more, these connections are formed in response to a host of stimuli. Different stimuli result in different connections such that any minute difference in stimuli (such as viewing the surroundings from a slightly different perspective) results in different connections.

Several people (e.g. you) have correctly tried to point out that even if two brains could be made 100% identical in every detail, they would diverge immediately as they could not occupy the same space and could not receive identical stimuli. There's nothing infinite about this, the chemical bonds in the brain are made up of proteins which are comprised of atoms. All finite.

He also claims that the scientific model is that none of us exist, so go figure.

 

[PixyMisa]

- The model I'm referring to is the "scientific model." Do you agree that the likelihood of your existence, given the scientific model, is 0?

What scientific model? The one provided by actual science? In that case, no, absolutely not.

Your personal mish-mash of ill-defined terms and special pleading? Who can tell?

Slowvehicle,
- I don't know whether that's true or not

How can it not be true?

-- it could have been me with different characteristics, maybe.

You with different characteristics is someone else.

- But what I do believe is that if we could now replicate that physical situation, I would not be looking out of two sets of eyes.

You can't replicate that physical situation.

But yes, no-one else here believes that, were you to replicate the physical situation as closely as is possible, you would be looking out of two sets of eyes. The proposition has no basis in reality.

 

[jsfisher]

- The model I'm referring to is the "scientific model." Do you agree that the likelihood of your existence, given the scientific model, is 0?

No.

 

[jt512]

- The model I'm referring to is the "scientific model." Do you agree that the likelihood of your existence, given the scientific model, is 0?

Are you kidding? Of course I disagree with that. You do understand that everyone except possibly toontown disagrees with that, don't you?

And for the third time: If you think believe that the likelihood of your existence is zero under the scientific model, then you believe that the probability of the scientific model is zero, since you exist. That, then, is your whole "argument." You believe that there is no chance that the scientific model can be true, because you believe that you could not exist if the scientific model were true. That, of course is not even an argument. It is simply an irrational belief.

You can drop the pretense of having a Bayesian argument, as it is now evident that you don't have a Bayesian argument; you have a foregone conclusion. To put it another way, you cannot use Bayes' Theorem to prove that you are immortal, because you have simply assumed that since we exist we are immortal. All you have done is assumed your conclusion and camouflaged that fact (possibly fooling yourself in the process) with the trappings of Bayesian inference.

 

[PixyMisa]

Are you kidding? Of course I disagree with that. You do understand that everyone except possibly toontown disagrees with that, don't you?

And for the third time: If you think believe that the likelihood of your existence is zero under the scientific model, then you believe that the probability of the scientific model is zero, since you exist. That, then, is your whole "argument." You believe that there is no chance that the scientific model can be true, because you believe that you could not exist if the scientific model were true. That, of course is not even an argument. It is simply an irrational belief.

You can drop the pretense of having a Bayesian argument, as it is now evident that you don't have a Bayesian argument; you have a foregone conclusion. To put it another way, you cannot use Bayes' Theorem to prove that you are immortal, because you have simply assumed that since we exist we are immortal. All you have done is assumed your conclusion and camouflaged that fact (possibly fooling yourself in the process) with the trappings of Bayesian inference.

Right. It's an argument by contradiction against science (and naturalism in general).

Of course it fails utterly, because it works by first ascribing to science ideas that directly contradict science, and then accusing science of containing contradictions.

This has been pointed out to Jabba more than two thousand times, so far without result.

 

[Jabba]

Are you kidding? Of course I disagree with that. You do understand that everyone except possibly toontown disagrees with that, don't you?

And for the third time: If you think believe that the likelihood of your existence is zero under the scientific model, then you believe that the probability of the scientific model is zero, since you exist. That, then, is your whole "argument." You believe that there is no chance that the scientific model can be true, because you believe that you could not exist if the scientific model were true. That, of course is not even an argument. It is simply an irrational belief.

You can drop the pretense of having a Bayesian argument, as it is now evident that you don't have a Bayesian argument; you have a foregone conclusion. To put it another way, you cannot use Bayes' Theorem to prove that you are immortal, because you have simply assumed that since we exist we are immortal. All you have done is assumed your conclusion and camouflaged that fact (possibly fooling yourself in the process) with the trappings of Bayesian inference.

Jay,
- Would you agree that if (somehow) there was an infinite number of potential selves, the likelihood of my current existence, given what I'm calling the "scientific model," would be zero?

 

[Jabba]

FWIW, I did the sound for Melanie once, and she's always hated that song.

Squeegee,
- Cool!
- Though, I'm sorry she hated the song -- my wife and I loved it; and now, it's been the basic soundtrack for at least one cool TV ad...

 

[jond]

Jay,
- Would you agree that if (somehow) there was an infinite number of potential selves, the likelihood of my current existence, given what I'm calling the "scientific model," would be zero?

Given that every single poster has ripped your understanding of the "scientific model" to shreds, it is incredibly insulting that you have the temerity to ignore all of the responses and post this hypothetical nonsense.

- The "self" is a process, not a thing.
- Therefore there are no "potential selves".
- Infintiy isn't a very large number.

When will you be addressing these central problems with your situation?

 

[Mojo]

- Would you agree that if (somehow) there was an infinite number of potential selves, the likelihood of my current existence, given what I'm calling the "scientific model," would be zero?

Would you agree that if (somehow) my auntie had testicles, the likelihood of her not being my uncle, given what I'm suddenly deciding to call the "Jabbific model", would be zero?

 

[carlitos]

Jabba,

A tip that you may feel free to ignore -- if you can't make your point without using parentheses, scare quotes or underlining, you probably don't have a point. Give it a try and see how it goes.

 

[PixyMisa]

Jay,
- Would you agree that if (somehow) there was an infinite number of potential selves

There aren't. There can't be. That makes no sense.

the likelihood of my current existence, given what I'm calling the "scientific model," would be zero?

The notion that there's an infinite number of potential selves directly contradicts the scientific model. You cannot put the two together.

Scientific model means finite number of potential selves.

 

[PixyMisa]

Or to put it another way, Jabba, if (somehow) 4 = 5, under normal arithmetic were there five Beatles?