[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Aepervius]

- What we have here is a failure to communicate.

No what we have is a multiple failure :
1) failure to to politely stop that referring to post numbers rather than using the quote function is not only rude but make post unreadable
2) failure to admit that the usage of "infinite" is invalid
3) failure to even admit that your premise were wrong

So what we have is roughly 20 or so person on this thread which understand what we each other says. And you have ONE single person which pretend he has a failure to communicate.

Guess how that looks for you ? not very good.

 

[Hokulele]

"Specify₂" does distinguish between you and your copies. "Specify₁" does not.

If you can distinguish between copies, they aren't really copies at all, therefor "Specify₂" is a meaningless term.

 

[Giordano]

- What we have here is a failure to communicate.

- So far, so good?

No, I agree with the other posters: what we have here is a failure of you to understand. At least some of this comes from your failure to read the objections presented here and to respond to them by changing your theory or showing why the objections are wrong. I also see your failure in showing the simple politeness to Godless Dave and to the other posters here by reading and responding to what they have actually (and repeatedly) said.

So. no progress, and no good.

 

[Giordano]

The only way to distinguish between copies is to specify their coordinates in spacetime.

Good point!

 

[Loss Leader]

I'll call your version "specify₁."
- I'll call what I mean by "specify," "specify₂."

Here's a tip: If you constantly have to invent new words, you've probably talking nonsense.

 

[Akhenaten]

Here's a tip: If you constantly have to invent new words, you've probably talking nonsense.

Is that in the sense of nonsense that makes no sense (Nonsense₁), nonsense that had no previous representation (Nonsense₂) or nonsense that comes from an unlimited pool of potential nonsense (Nonsense_∞)?



I hope sensible people will sense that any sensed lack of sensitivity in this sensational post is entirely "uninsensional".

 

[Agatha]

6459-6452

7

6461-6459

2

6467-6461

6

6468-6467

1

6470-6468

2

6472-6470

2

6509-6472

37

6512-6509

3

6520-6512

8

6522-6520

2

Seriously, these numbers are irritating in terms of readability of the posts and redundant; the little arrow within the quote links back to the original post even if the post numbers change. Your numbers may not refer to the posts you intend, as the post numbering is subject to change if posts are moved from the thread.

Dave,
- Try this.
- What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Wow. That is a breathtakingly rude thing to say; you have communicated your ideas perfectly well - they just happen to be wrong. We are communicating our objections to your ideas perfectly well, you just happen to ignore all rebuttals including those from your current Least Critical Poster™.

- More specifically, what we have here is an issue of degree. From your perspective, your "specs" do not specify you specifically. They do not specify you as opposed to your copies. They do not distinguish between you and your copies. I'll call your version "specify₁."
- I'll call what I mean by "specify," "specify₂." "Specify₂" does distinguish between you and your copies. "Specify₁" does not.
- So, your specs do not specify₂ you.
- So far, so good?

No. If it was possible to distinguish the original from the copy then the copy would not be a perfect copy of the original. The point about this copy (in this thought experiment you propose) is that it is in every respect indistinguishable from the original.

The harping on the issue of exactly copying a person, whereby the copy would have an identical but separate self at the moment of replication, seems to be distracting you from your quest to show evidence for immortality.

Please try to understand that we live in a universe where matter and time are finite. Thus the denominator in any equation which refers to the scientific model can never be infinity. It may be a very large number, but it will not be infinite. I recognise that accepting this point makes your Bayesian theory invalid, which must be hard since you have touted this theory for some years on many discussion boards. But it is a mark of intellectual honesty to discard a theory if it is conclusively shown that there is something wrong with it - and using infinity in your theory is absolutely and completely wrong.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- How about #4 below?
1. Specific chemistry produces what we call “consciousness.”
2. Consciousness naturally develops a specific “self.”
3. According to the scientific model, such a self may be a process, or even an illusion -- but whatever, it generally persists for a lifetime, never to exist again.
4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self -- if we were able to develop a perfect replica of a person’s brain at 4 years of age, the two brains would not share the same self.

True but irrelevant...

- OK. So, let's drop the word, "copy." There would be a difference between one brain and a biological replica of that brain -- the two brains would have different selves.
- Or better yet, these identical brains would produce different outcomes -- different selves. And, what are the odds that either self would be you?
- Remember -- there is no chemical (or, biological) determinant exclusive to you.

 

[John Jones]

- OK. So, let's drop the word, "copy." There would be a difference between one brain and a biological replica of that brain -- the two brains would have different selves.
- Or better yet, these identical brains would produce different outcomes -- different selves. And, what are the odds that either self would be you?
- Remember -- there is no chemical (or, biological) determinant exclusive to you.

Still trying to put your words in other people's mouth, eh?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Is that in the sense of nonsense that makes no sense (Nonsense₁), nonsense that had no previous representation (Nonsense₂) or nonsense that comes from an unlimited pool of potential nonsense (Nonsense_∞)?



I hope sensible people will sense that any sensed lack of sensitivity in this sensational post is entirely "uninsensional".

There you go, assuming the nonsensequent, again.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- How about #4 below?
1. Specific chemistry produces what we call “consciousness.”
2. Consciousness naturally develops a specific “self.”
3. According to the scientific model, such a self may be a process, or even an illusion -- but whatever, it generally persists for a lifetime, never to exist again.
4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self -- if we were able to develop a perfect replica of a person’s brain at 4 years of age, the two brains would not share the same self.

True but irrelevant...

- OK. So, let's drop the word, "copy." There would be a difference between one brain and a biological replica of that brain -- the two brains would have different selves.

That shouldn't be too difficult given that the word "copy" doesn't appear in the posts that you've quoted.

- Or better yet, these identical brains would produce different outcomes -- different selves.

As soon as the act of their creation was completed and they started to function independently - as they must - yes, they would produce different outcomes (consciousnesses). This has already been said about 500 times, Jabba, by just about everyone else in the thread.

And, what are the odds that either self would be you?

Zero, since Dave isn't four years old.

- Remember -- there is no chemical (or, biological) determinant exclusive to you.

I'll ask you again. How do you think DNA testing works?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- OK. So, let's drop the word, "copy." There would be a difference between one brain and a biological replica of that brain -- the two brains would have different selves.
- Or better yet, these identical brains would produce different outcomes -- different selves. And, what are the odds that either self would be you?
- Remember -- there is no chemical (or, biological) determinant exclusive to you.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

Why not go at it form the other end?

I mean, it is fairly obvious, to any "observer" other than your "self", that you are not going to be able to re-word this set of hypotheticals in a way that lets you pretend that anyone but you accepts your premise.

Instead of continuing to do so, why not simply present evidence of a consciousness that exists independent of a neurosystem? Why not simply demonstrate the evidence (practical, physical, objective, concrete evidence) that anything resembling the "soul" actually exists, or is "immortal"?

 

[Mojo]

- OK. So, let's drop the word, "copy." There would be a difference between one brain and a biological replica of that brain -- the two brains would have different selves.

If the two brains were identical then their properties, including their "selves", would be identical.

 

[Mojo]

- Or better yet, these identical brains would produce different outcomes

If they didn't produce identical outcomes then they wouldn't be identical.

 

[Giordano]

- OK. So, let's drop the word, "copy." There would be a difference between one brain and a biological replica of that brain -- the two brains would have different selves.
- Or better yet, these identical brains would produce different outcomes -- different selves. And, what are the odds that either self would be you?
- Remember -- there is no chemical (or, biological) determinant exclusive to you.

Let's try to make your self-quoted text even more accurate: let's not just drop the word "copy" (which in fact never appears) but let's drop the whole incorrect mess that you posted here.





Much better.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Somehow I don't think you are "getting" it: either intentionally or otherwise. It might help if you actually read Godless Dave's posts, and the posts of the other people here.

 

[Mojo]

Remember -- there is no chemical (or, biological) determinant exclusive to you.

Apart from my particular neurosystem.

So that's another

 

[godless dave]

- OK. So, let's drop the word, "copy." There would be a difference between one brain and a biological replica of that brain -- the two brains would have different selves.

There would be no difference between them. Each brain would have a self, and the selves would be identical.

- Or better yet, these identical brains would produce different outcomes -- different selves.

Why? They would produce separate selves, but those selves would be identical.

And, what are the odds that either self would be you?

Exactly the same as the odds of one of those brains coming into existence. The self produced by a particular brain is the self produced by that brain. The odds of something being itself are 1/1.

- Remember -- there is no chemical (or, biological) determinant exclusive to you.

Yes there is. The biological processes that resulted in my body existing are exclusive to my body.

If you somehow could duplicate those processes exactly and produce a duplicate, the duplicated processes would be exclusive to that duplicate.

Please try to understand that we live in a universe where matter and time are finite. Thus the denominator in any equation which refers to the scientific model can never be infinity.

This is the crux of the issue, Jabba.

 

[Agatha]

- OK. So, let's drop the word, "copy." There would be a difference between one brain and a biological replica of that brain -- the two brains would have different selves.

No. The two brains would give rise to two identical but separate selves. They would be identical selves at the moment of replication, but would immediately start to diverge due to different experiences.

- Or better yet, these identical brains would produce different outcomes -- different selves.

Not different selves, separate but identical selves.

And, what are the odds that either self would be you?

Unless the original was me, neither self would be me, so the odds would be 0. If the original was me, one self would be me, the other would be a separate identical me with all my thoughts and memories and experiences - at the moment of replication. The odds, therefore, would be 1.

- Remember -- there is no chemical (or, biological) determinant exclusive to you.

I rather think that you are mistaken. Of course, it may be that the entire field of DNA profiling and testing is based on some kind of misconception that only you have perceived, but I'm more inclined to trust the solid science behind identifying people by their unique DNA (with the obvious exception of monozygotic siblings).

 

[HighRiser]

- OK. So, let's drop the word, "copy." There would be a difference between one brain and a biological replica of that brain -- the two brains would have different selves.
- Or better yet, these identical brains would produce different outcomes -- different selves. And, what are the odds that either self would be you?
- Remember -- there is no chemical (or, biological) determinant exclusive to you.

Other than identical twins there are no copies of persons. Twin's consciousness are just like everybody else's. Enough already with the copying of brains, it's pointless.