[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Dave,

- Try this on for size.

- I die.
- Science figures out how to totally replicate a human brain, and they replicate mine.

- (To me, the items below are just different ways to ask the same question. Hopefully, together, they will make sure that you and I are on the same page...)
- According to the scientific model,
1) Would science be replicating my particular sense of self?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. This is a matter of semantics. As far as the replica is concerned, it would be you. As for as the rest of us are concerned, there'd be no way to tell the difference. It wouldn't be the same self as before, but it would be identical and indistinguishable!

(I'd say that it would be distinguishable subjectively, but even that's not true. From the replicas point of view, it is you!)

2) Would I live again?
3) Would I come back to life?
Click to expand...
Semantics again. Both yes and no are acceptable answers, and until you understand why, you're not going to get any further.

- My answer to all three questions is, “NO.” I assume that your answer would be “No,” also.
- That being the case, according to the scientific model, my particular sense of self would have had no prior potential biological identity/representation that would be exclusive to itself.
Click to expand...

Now you're trying to treat a semantic distinction as if it were a physical one. It's not. The fact that two separate-but-identical individuals each have a separate-but-identical sense of self doesn't mean there's some magical property involved. They're just separate (but identical) individuals.

- And, in other words, there would be no limit upon what particular sense of self would occur that second time around.
Click to expand...
A-a-a-a-and, once again you go off the rails at the same point!

Whether or not you consider the replica to be a "proper" you makes no difference. Neither you nor the replica is unlimited, because there are a limited number of possible arrangements of particles in the universe!

Even if I accept your thesis so far, this last point fails utterly. No matter how you define "self", it is a property of a particular, individual brain (which makes the whole replica thing irrelevant), and there are only a limited number of brains that can exist in this universe.
 
Jabba, let's change the thought experiment slightly. Say the scientists perfectly replicate your brain while you're still alive, not after you're dead. Is the replica you living "again", even though both you and the replica exist at the same time?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,

- Try this on for size.

- I die.
- Science figures out how to totally replicate a human brain, and they replicate mine.

- (To me, the items below are just different ways to ask the same question. Hopefully, together, they will make sure that you and I are on the same page...)
- According to the scientific model,
1) Would science be replicating my particular sense of self?
2) Would I live again?
3) Would I come back to life?

- My answer to all three questions is, “NO.” I assume that your answer would be “No,” also.
- That being the case, according to the scientific model, my particular sense of self would have had no prior potential biological identity/representation that would be exclusive to itself.
- And, in other words, there would be no limit upon what particular sense of self would occur that second time around.
- How does that fit so far?
Click to expand...

WHY MUST YOU ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN?
 
Last edited:
John Jones said:
Is that right, Jabba? I happen to agree with Giordano.
Click to expand...

If you hope for an answer to that, from Mr. Savage, I don't know whether to SQUEE at how adorable your innocence is, be amazed at your faith in humanity, or simply hit the orderly button to have you wheeled back to your room for warm milk and a wet pack.
 
I can picture Jabba in an actual courtroom rather than an imaginary one:

Jabba: So Mr X, the car that you saw strike the victim was red?
Witness: No, it was blue.
Jabba: When you say blue, you mean it was red?
Witness: No, it was blue.
Jabba: But it might have been red?
Witness: What? No, it was blue.
Jabba: So when the red car struck the victim -
Witness: The car was blue!
Jabba: I think we have a misunderstanding here. You agree that the red car struck the victim?
Witness: NO!
Jabba: But you do agree that the car that struck the victim was red?
Witness: The car was blue!!
Jabba: So when you saw the red car strike the victim...
 
PixyMisa said:
I can picture Jabba in an actual courtroom rather than an imaginary one:

Jabba: So Mr X, the car that you saw strike the victim was red?
Witness: No, it was blue.
Jabba: When you say blue, you mean it was red?
Witness: No, it was blue.
Jabba: But it might have been red?
Witness: What? No, it was blue.
Jabba: So when the red car struck the victim -
Witness: The car was blue!
Jabba: I think we have a misunderstanding here. You agree that the red car struck the victim?
Witness: NO!
Jabba: But you do agree that the car that struck the victim was red?
Witness: The car was blue!!
Jabba: So when you saw the red car strike the victim...
Click to expand...

So. Totally. Nommed.

I would study at your feet, Sempai!
 
Slowvehicle said:
If you hope for an answer to that, from Mr. Savage, I don't know whether to SQUEE at how adorable your innocence is, be amazed at your faith in humanity, or simply hit the orderly button to have you wheeled back to your room for warm milk and a wet pack.
Click to expand...

Slowvehicle, what have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully?
I can't remember the last time you invited my wife over for coffee, even though she is godmother to your children.

:(
 
PixyMisa said:
I can picture Jabba in an actual courtroom rather than an imaginary one:

Jabba: So Mr X, the car that you saw strike the victim was red?
Witness: No, it was blue.
Jabba: When you say blue, you mean it was red?
Witness: No, it was blue.
Jabba: But it might have been red?
Witness: What? No, it was blue.
Jabba: So when the red car struck the victim -
Witness: The car was blue!
Jabba: I think we have a misunderstanding here. You agree that the red car struck the victim?
Witness: NO!
Jabba: But you do agree that the car that struck the victim was red?
Witness: The car was blue!!
Jabba: So when you saw the red car strike the victim...
Click to expand...

This is truly great.

I was watching The Sopranos reruns, but this is way more funny.
 
Last edited:
John Jones said:
Slowvehicle, what have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully?
I can't remember the last time you invited my wife over for coffee, even though she is godmother to your children.

:(
Click to expand...

You know, Nick, if you keep your thumb by your line, like I do, this wouldn't happen...

Wait.

"Children"?

...I have no idea how to respond to that.

:eye-poppi
 
- The two posts to which I refer immediately below are provided verbatim at the bottom of this post -- I nee in this postto n In this post, I refer back
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Try this on for size.
- I die.
- Science figures out how to totally replicate a human brain, and they replicate mine.
- (To me, the items below are just different ways to ask the same question. Hopefully, together, they will make sure that you and I are on the same page...)
- According to the scientific model,
1) Would science be replicating my particular sense of self?
2) Would I live again?
3) Would I come back to life?
- My answer to all three questions is, “NO.” I assume that your answer would be “No,” also.
- That being the case, according to the scientific model, my particular sense of self would have had no prior potential biological identity/representation that would be exclusive to itself...
Click to expand...

Agatha said:
...That really does not follow. Your sense of self is part of your consciousness, which is an emergent property/process of your (living) neurosystem. Your neurosystem has a biological identity in your DNA, which is exclusive to you. However, simply replicating your biochemical make-up is not enough to replicate 'you', since there is more to your sense of self than just your biochemistry. If biochemistry were enough, identical twins would have identical (but still separate) consciousnesses. However, any attempt to replicate you must begin by replicating your DNA...
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- I don't think THAT follows.
- My DNA is not exclusive to me if it also leads to my twin.
 
Last edited:
Agatha said:
...However, since replication of brains/sevesl/neurosystems etc remains in the hypothetical realm, do you think you could move on to something which you believe supports the persistence of consciousness after the death of the organism?
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- That's really what I'm trying to do right now -- it's just that 1) there are multiple premises in my syllogism, 2) right now I'm trying to show that, according to the scientific model, there should be no limit to the number of selves (or, senses of selves) possible, and 3) therefore, the likelihood of my current existence -- given the scientific model -- is at best, 7,000,000,000/∞.
- If I can do that, the scientific model must be wrong, and I do not exist for just one finite time.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- That's really what I'm trying to do right now -- it's just that 1) there are multiple premises in my syllogism, 2) right now I'm trying to show that, according to the scientific model, there should be no limit to the number of selves (or, senses of selves) possible, and 3) therefore, the likelihood of my current existence -- given the scientific model -- is at best, 7,000,000,000/∞.
- If I can do that, the scientific model must be wrong, and I do not exist for just one finite time.
Click to expand...

No, Jabba.
Remember what limits the number of selves, including the senses of self?
 
As always, Jabba, you continue to believe that the "sense of self" is a thing. Indeed, an unchanging thing. But it isn't. It's a process that changes with everything you experience. DNA is the starting point. From there, the only possible self you can be is you. You cannot be Napoleon because you haven't started with his DNA, nor experienced the things he did in his life. Even his twin wouldn't be Napoleon despite starting with the same DNA because of the same factors that followed.

Your equation is wrong, not only because infinity isn't a large number, but because your whole premis is wrong. The only thing that's mathematically unlikely is the combination that produces the DNA. Once there, the likelihood of you being Jabba is 1/1.
 
Jabba said:
- The two posts to which I refer immediately below are provided verbatim at the bottom of this post -- I nee in this postto n In this post, I refer back
Click to expand...
?


Jabba said:
Agatha,
- I don't think THAT follows.
- My DNA is not exclusive to me if it also leads to my twin.
Click to expand...
I am aware of that, which is why I explained that no two people share the same DNA with the rare exception of monozygotic siblings. But DNA is not the only thing that makes you 'you'. It's necessary, but not sufficient. Any replication of you must of necessity start with DNA, but it must also include replicating all of your experiences and memories precisely - every sight, sound, smell, touch and feeling that you ever had, even prior to birth. If the DNA of your hypothetical recreated 'you' was different to yours, even if every experience and memory was the same, the recreated entity would not have the same identical but separate sense of self, but a completely different one.

Your continuing sense of self is not a physical, unchanging thing. It's an illusion. Your particular sense of self is exclusive to you, and it starts with your DNA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom