Proof of Immortality II

[John Jones]

LL,
- I honestly can't understand why you would assume that. Very often, you won't hear from me for awhile, while I try to figure out how to address a particular question or comment...
- In regard to posting on the commentary thread, others were still posting there and their Q/Cs were easier to address -- so, I addressed some of them while trying to figure out how to answer one or more of your Q/Cs... I had no intention of abandoning our thread. I'm just not (nearly) as fast as you.

As Pharoah said, how come you 'remember' these details today, and yesterday you claimed to have no recollection of those events?

 

[jond]

That's not disagreement. If the probability of a given brain is 1/BIGNUM and the probability of a specific self given that brain is one, then the total probability of that specific self is found by multiplying the two numbers. And 1/BIGBUM x 1 = 1/BIGNUM. In other words, the probability of a particular self is the same as the probability of the brain in which that process of self takes place. We're both saying the same thing.

Jabba doesn't seem to agree, though. He seems to think the probability of his exact self existing is lower (has a larger denominator) than the probability of his exact brain existing.

This is exactly Jabba's problem: he insists that the "self" exists as a thing, separate from the brain. The whole Bayes piece of the story is completely irrelevant to what he's really on about, and what he really needs to support is his idea that the "self" (we know he means soul) exists as a thing.

 

[godless dave]

xt,
- But if I were to pursue that argument, I'd still need to effectively support the requirement that I'm "special," and not just one of the crowd. For the moment (at least), I think that would be more difficult to support than is an infinity of potential selves.

I don't understand what you mean by that. Every human being is unique. Why would you need to be special for your hypothesis to work? Is your hypothesis that you, Jabba, are immortal but those of us in "the crowd" are not?

 

[Slowvehicle]

What about just presenting your evidence in support of the existence of souls and see how that goes?

What a great idea, Mighty One (May you post forever! Howyabeensince?)

Do you mind if I borrow it?

 

[Slowvehicle]

LL,
- I honestly can't understand why you would assume that. Very often, you won't hear from me for awhile, while I try to figure out how to address a particular question or comment...
- In regard to posting on the commentary thread, others were still posting there and their Q/Cs were easier to address -- so, I addressed some of them while trying to figure out how to answer one or more of your Q/Cs... I had no intention of abandoning our thread. I'm just not (nearly) as fast as you.

Wait.

I thought you "did not remember" the thread, or the events.

"Have you left no sense of decency?"

 

[Humots]

I don't understand what you mean by that. Every human being is unique. Why would you need to be special for your hypothesis to work? Is your hypothesis that you, Jabba, are immortal but those of us in "the crowd" are not?

IIRC, Jabba needs to be "special" in order to argue that his existence is not simply the face of the very many-sided die that happened to come up when he was born.

Instead, since the oh-so-special Jabba came up, the odds of

P(Jabba|A) = 1/infinity or 1/imaginably large number​

have been beaten, which is impossible under the scientific model A.

Ergo, the scientific model is wrong and he is immortal.

 

[Humots]

LL,
- I honestly can't understand why you would assume that. Very often, you won't hear from me for awhile, while I try to figure out how to address a particular question or comment...
- In regard to posting on the commentary thread, others were still posting there and their Q/Cs were easier to address -- so, I addressed some of them while trying to figure out how to answer one or more of your Q/Cs... I had no intention of abandoning our thread. I'm just not (nearly) as fast as you.

After you had specifically asked for that special thread, it is reasonable to expect that it would have priority.

At least to the extent of posting, "I'm still trying to figure out how to address that question" on the dedicated thread, and "I am giving my attention to the dedicated thread for now" on the commentary thread.

Instead, you gave the dedicated thread you had specifically asked for so little of your attention that it was closed.

 

[Mojo]

I don't understand what you mean by that. Every human being is unique. Why would you need to be special for your hypothesis to work?

Jabba needs to be special because if he isn't his whole probability-based argument boils down to the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[Akhenaten]

What about just presenting your evidence in support of the existence of souls and see how that goes?

What a great idea, Mighty One (May you post forever! Howyabeensince?)

Do you mind if I borrow it?

I know it looks the same as your own oft-ignored request, but it's actually the SAME, which is different.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I know it looks the same as your own oft-ignored request, but it's actually the SAME, which is different.

I hate to disagree with one so august (may you continue to bring the sun!) but isn't it DIFFERENT, because it's the "same"?

 

[Agatha]

Pharaoh and SV, I think it might be different, because it's the same. However, it's possible I've misunderstood, and it might be that it's "different", because it's the SAME. What do you think?

Jabba:

1. Infinity is a concept, not a number.
2. Infinity does not appear in the scientific model. If your understanding of the scientific model includes infinity, then it is your understanding that is wrong, not the scientific model.
3. Consciousness, an inextricable part of which is an individual's sense of self, is not a 'thing' but a process, which is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.
4. Consciousness, and therefore the self and the sense of self, is not static but in constant change.
5. If it was possible to clone a living person, then the two separate individuals that resulted would have identical but separate consciousnesses. Nobody, not even the two individuals, would be able to identify which was the copy and which was the original.
6. Given that it isn't possible to clone a living person, this particular sub-sub-sub-issue has been flogged to death and will never get anywhere.
7. For the love of Pete and the little fishies, get on with providing some evidence for souls, for you being special, for immortality or for anything (other than the fact that you appear unable to cope with a discussion board - we've plenty of evidence for that).
8. And lastly, please go to see your doctor regarding your memory problems if you have reported them honestly. My adored great-aunt is almost 103 and has no memory problems whatsoever; it's not a normal or unavoidable symptom of ageing. The earlier any particular problem is identified the more likely it is that it can be treated.

 

[Jabba]

I don't understand what you mean by that. Every human being is unique. Why would you need to be special for your hypothesis to work? Is your hypothesis that you, Jabba, are immortal but those of us in "the crowd" are not?

Dave,
- The crowd is all potential SELVES -- that unimaginably large number. I need to show that we who currently exist are not just the luck of the draw and it isn't just that 7,000,000,000 of us, however unlikely, have to currently exist. Hope that communicates.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- The crowd is all potential SELVES -- that unimaginably large number. I need to show that we who currently exist are not just the luck of the draw and it isn't just that 7,000,000,000 of us, however unlikely, have to currently exist. Hope that communicates.

It communicates quite effectively that you've completely lost track of why you started this ridiculous thread.

 

[Akhenaten]

Pharaoh and SV, I think it might be different, because it's the same. However, it's possible I've misunderstood, and it might be that it's "different", because it's the SAME. What do you think?

I think we're on the same page.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- The crowd is all potential SELVES -- that unimaginably large number. I need to show that we who currently exist are not just the luck of the draw and it isn't just that 7,000,000,000 of us, however unlikely, have to currently exist. Hope that communicates.

I thought you said there wasn't a pool of potential selves? How can there be a crowd of potential selves?

What you really need to show is that the "self" exists as an actual thing, separate from the brain. Unless and until you do this, you have no hope of demonstrating that they have to exist.

 

[Loss Leader]

Tangentially related to this horror show, I just finished the excellent The Tale of the Dueling Neurosurgeons by Sam Kean.

Kean goes into great detail, with case studies, as to what each small part of the brain seems to do and how other parts can or fail to pick up for the damaged area. Carefull people can become reckless; and reckless people can become careful. People who never looked at art suddenly appreciate music (or begin playing instruments). Kill the neurons responsible for the left hand, and people think the hand is no longer theirs. Take off the hand without killing the neurons and people still feel a hand that isn't there. Let some neurons in the hearing center overgrow to stimulate the taste center, and suddenly words can become sweet or bitter. In some experiments, scientists obeserve a person performing a motion before the conscious mind chooses to do so. In other experiments where memory is blocked, people confabulate reasons for their emotions. Sever the ties between hemispheres and one arm may start unbuttoning a shirt while the other buttons it.

The state of scientific knowledge is that the conscious self may well be an illusion created by a host of running processes. The illusion can be drastically altered with physical alteration of the brain (or its chemistry). Little room is left for metaphysics.

Great book. I recommend it.

 

[jond]

Tangentially related to this horror show, I just finished the excellent The Tale of the Dueling Neurosurgeons by Sam Kean.

Kean goes into great detail, with case studies, as to what each small part of the brain seems to do and how other parts can or fail to pick up for the damaged area. Carefull people can become reckless; and reckless people can become careful. People who never looked at art suddenly appreciate music (or begin playing instruments). Kill the neurons responsible for the left hand, and people think the hand is no longer theirs. Take off the hand without killing the neurons and people still feel a hand that isn't there. Let some neurons in the hearing center overgrow to stimulate the taste center, and suddenly words can become sweet or bitter. In some experiments, scientists obeserve a person performing a motion before the conscious mind chooses to do so. In other experiments where memory is blocked, people confabulate reasons for their emotions. Sever the ties between hemispheres and one arm may start unbuttoning a shirt while the other buttons it.

The state of scientific knowledge is that the conscious self may well be an illusion created by a host of running processes. The illusion can be drastically altered with physical alteration of the brain (or its chemistry). Little room is left for metaphysics.

Great book. I recommend it.

Cool! Thanks!

 

[godless dave]

More on consciousness:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html#.U8aourHOOkk

The self may have a location, and it might be the part of the brain called the claustrum.

Although only tested in one person, the discovery suggests that a single area – the claustrum – might be integral to combining disparate brain activity into a seamless package of thoughts, sensations and emotions. It takes us a step closer to answering a problem that has confounded scientists and philosophers for millennia – namely how our conscious awareness arises.

Many theories abound but most agree that consciousness has to involve the integration of activity from several brain networks, allowing us to perceive our surroundings as one single unifying experience rather than isolated sensory perceptions.

 

[Agatha]

Thanks for the recommendation, Loss Leader; it's released tomorrow on kindle (at least in the UK) so I've pre-ordered it.

 

[Hokulele]

And an oldie but goodie, V.S. Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain.