[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Loss Leader]

Consciousnesses have selves; noses do not.

Thereby adding evidence to the accusation that you are willfully misunderstanding things to suit your own purposes.

 

[godless dave]

xtifr,
- There is a sub-feature of consciousness that makes consciousness different than any feature of a VW. That sub-feature is what I'm calling the "self."

There is? If so, it's certainly not part of the scientific model of consciousness.

 

[Garrette]

xtifr,
- There is a sub-feature of consciousness that makes consciousness different than any feature of a VW. That sub-feature is what I'm calling the "self." And, that "self" is not the kind of "self" that a VW might have.

No there is not.

You want there to be. You need there to be. Your argument demands that there be.

But there is not. There is no evidence for it but compelling evidence against.

This is the claim you must prove, not assert.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- How's this?
- We shouldn't be comparing selves to noses; we should be comparing consciousnesses to noses. Consciousnesses have selves; noses do not. Consciousnesses have "identifiers," whereby one consciousness is distinguished from the others; noses don't.

This still doesn't provide any reason that two "selves" or "consciousnesses" (or whatever other terms you have used to denote the same thing) that arise from two completely identical neurosystems in identical environments should not be identical.

And if you are now claiming that "selves" and "consciousnesses" are different and not (as you have previously used them) synonymous then you really need to provide proper definitions for them that show how you are distinguishing one from the other.

 

[Garrette]

It is also the claim that you insist we do not understand, yet we do understand it. I have demonstrated repeatedly that I understand it. Slowvehicle has demonstrated it. Giordana has demonstrated it. Pakeha, Akhenaten, Pixymisa, and all the rest have demonstrated that we understand your claim.

You are the one who fails to understand that your claim is a claim, not a valid premise.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- How's this?
- We shouldn't be comparing selves to noses; we should be comparing consciousnesses to noses. Consciousnesses have selves; noses do not. Consciousnesses have "identifiers," whereby one consciousness is distinguished from the others; noses don't.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

I must respectfully disagree with you. Consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

You have, previously, been using "self" as a synonym of "consciousness"; now you are trying to distinguish the two. You do this often; it is one of the reasons anyone who has read more than a page or two of this thread, or either of the Shroud^TM threads, is justifiably loath to acccept any definition you propose. You have no qualms about defining a word, pretending to consensus, then acting as if that consensus survives even when you change the definition of the word.

(BTW, noses are, in fact, distinct, and distinctive--and reflect both heredity {e.g. size, shape, color, location) AND environment {e.g gin blossoms, allergy creases, being broken, deviated septa})

 

[Mojo]

Consciousnesses have selves; noses do not.

This is getting needlessly yrregian (or should that be "yrregular"?).

 

[Slowvehicle]

xtifr,
- There is a sub-feature of consciousness that makes consciousness different than any feature of a VW. That sub-feature is what I'm calling the "self." And, that "self" is not the kind of "self" that a VW might have.

Good Morning,Mr. Savage!

The reason a VW does not have a "self" is because a VW is an inanimate object (it has no functioning neurosystem; it has no "consciousness"). The "sub-feature" you are now, all of a sudden, calling a "self" is the very same emergent property of consciousness you have previously called "consciousness", or the "observer" (or the "soul"). You cannot now finesse the "immortal" part into being by clapping your hands, wishing very hard, and believing.

Your perfervid desires, your aching needs, your willingness to sell out to superstition, notwithstanding.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- How's this?
- We shouldn't be comparing selves to noses; we should be comparing consciousnesses to noses. Consciousnesses have selves; noses do not. Consciousnesses have "identifiers," whereby one consciousness is distinguished from the others; noses don't.

I don't see what difference that makes. I also don't understand the difference between consciousnesses and selves...

- You're right. In the plural, they really mean the same thing -- even for me.
- I should have said that we shouldn't compare self to nose; we should be comparing consciousness to nose. Consciousness has a sub-feature (a self, or identifier) that nose does not.

 

[Slowvehicle]

This is getting needlessly yrregian (or should that be "yrregular"?).

Quiet, you! Show the appropriate respect as you are privileged to be present at the birth of the argumentum ad ineptias (assuming the nonsensesquent)!

 

[Jabba]

xtifr,
- There is a sub-feature of consciousness that makes consciousness different than any feature of a VW. That sub-feature is what I'm calling the "self." And, that "self" is not the kind of "self" that a VW might have.

There is? If so, it's certainly not part of the scientific model of consciousness.

Dave,
- Would it help to call this sub-feature a "sense of self"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- You're right. In the plural, they really mean the same thing -- even for me.
- I should have said that we shouldn't compare self to nose; we should be comparing consciousness to nose. Consciousness has a sub-feature (a self, or identifier) that nose does not.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

Since you have used "consciousness" and "self" (and "observer", and "brain", and "representation") as synonyms, it is disingenuous of you to now pretend that they can be distinguished.

Why not simply present your evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?

 

[JoeMorgue]

- I provided my best explanation a long time ago.

So far all explanations you have provided, best or not, have been... well let's just say "lacking."

It's not anyone else's fault that you argue yourself into a corner with barely any outside help.

If reincarnation is true, we must have come from an infinitely divisible source -- and, there are probably several of us today that were Napoleon in past lives... [/qutote]

Yes. If you make up an end point with no evidence then you can also make up the starting point and indeed the entire course.

That's my story, and I'm st-st-stickin to it.

Your "story" is just that, meaningless twaddle unsupported by evidence.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Would it help to call this sub-feature a "sense of self"?

It would help me understand what you are talking about, but it still wouldn't explain why it can't be the result of brain chemistry.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- Would it help to call this sub-feature a "sense of self"?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

If you were still admitting that I am, in fact, posting upon this thread, I would have loved to watch you make a useful and supportable distinction between a "self" and a "sense of self".

Or explain why you think is it a telling point that an inanimate object appears to have neither.

 

[PixyMisa]

Dave,
- Would it help to call this sub-feature a "sense of self"?

Doesn't really matter what you call it; you're still wrong.

 

[pakeha]

- You're right. In the plural, they really mean the same thing -- even for me.
- I should have said that we shouldn't compare self to nose; we should be comparing consciousness to nose. Consciousness has a sub-feature (a self, or identifier) that nose does not.

What?
Since when does consciousness, an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem have a self?

Dave,
- Would it help to call this sub-feature a "sense of self"?

Not really, Jabba.

 

[Jabba]

It would help me understand what you are talking about, but it still wouldn't explain why it can't be the result of brain chemistry.

- The different senses of self are the result of different batches of the same chemistry.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- The different senses of self are the result of different batches of the same chemistry.

What in the name of a Marmot-Stalking Stephenson do you think you are talking about?

 

[godless dave]

- The different senses of self are the result of different batches of the same chemistry.

So they can be the result of brain chemistry?