[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

I wouldn't get my hopes up too high, if I were you. According to Jabba's redefinition of the SM you're just as likely to be the next Rin Tin Tin or the next "that old rose bush at the bottom of the garden".

I don't think I would object to being a dog, although holding my bladder until my owner decided to take me for a walk could be annoying...

 

[carlitos]

Jabba hears a Who.

 

[Jabba]

- I guess this is our real point of divergence. It has to do with what "identical" includes. To me, the selves (or senses of self) would have different identities. These selves would be different. They would not be "identical."
- Cakes could be identical.
- Officially, VWs could not be identical -- their VIN numbers distinguish between them.
- Human brains go one step further. Each brain produces its own consciousness, possessing its own, living, VIN number. For me, in order for two consciousnesses to be identical, they would have to possess the same living VIN number.

What part of the scientific model is this based on?

Dave,
- I'm not sure to what "this" specifically refers.
- As to a" living VIN number," that would be the illusion of a lifetime continuous self -- replicating the biology would not produce an identical illusion, it would not bring that particular illusion back to life.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I'm not sure to what "this" specifically refers.

It refers to this part:

Human brains go one step further. Each brain produces its own consciousness, possessing its own, living, VIN number.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- I'm not sure to what "this" specifically refers.
- As to a" living VIN number," that would be the illusion of a lifetime continuous self -- replicating the biology would not produce an identical illusion, it would not bring that particular illusion back to life.

What is hard to understand as to what "this" specifically refers? Tell you what, why don't you pick any part of your post with which to begin your explanation?

And in fact, the SM states that you are wrong, that precisely replicating the biology would produce an identical illusion, the duplicate would think they were you, and would have an indistinguishable illusion of "sense of self" as you do by any test. If anyone states that is not the same illusion, that is not meaning something deep and metaphysical, it means only that a duplicate of anything is not the same thing because it, umm, another object just like the first. If you duplicated a cake precisely, the duplicate is not the same cake.

Sorry. Others here have told you this. I have told you this. You may believe what you stated in your post, but the science and standard model does not agree with you. Please keep the two clearly separate. Particularly if you later on intend to "prove" the scientific model incorrect based on your misunderstanding of what it does state. Thanks!

 

[Humots]

6998 xtifr,
- I think you hit the nail on the head.

If I understand what you’re saying, I’m pretty sure that the “duplicate” thing is relevant.

Identical in one sense; but not, in another. For the sake of communication, I’ll go along with the first sense.

- This is where I disagree.
- First, I don’t think that we can claim with any kind of certainty that matter, energy, time and space are finite. For now, however, I’m just claiming that there is a basis for claiming that something is infinite that doesn’t require that matter, energy, time and space be infinite – as unintuitive as that may sound…
- Here, I claim that there is nothing biological prior to the existence of an illusion of a particular continuous lifetime self (avoiding any issue as to whether a continuous self is real or not) – that limits “who” that illusion will be. I.E., when a particular illusion (a who) ceases to exist, we cannot bring it back into existence by replicating the biology that produced it. There is no limited pool of such illusions. There is nothing to represent a particular illusion prior to its actual existence, and in that sense, the particular illusion comes from nowhere, nothing. Coming from nowhere, nothing, the particular illusion is brand new and had no limited pool from which it was taken. In that sense, the possible particular illusion is unlimited, and any “pool” it came from is infinite.
- I’m sure that you have objections. I hope that they are not too many. This is a hard topic to parse effectively.

I think I see were Jabba is trying to go with this.

Remember the number of possible 5-card hands (2,598,960), based on the number of cards in a hand and the number of cards in a deck.

The possible 5-card hands define a finite pool of available 5-card hands.

Now, recall Jabba's "number of possible Volkswagens is infinite" argument. As I see it, he was arguing that since no formal definition of Volkswagen similar to the definition of a 5-card hand existed, there was no pool of possible Volkswagens. A new variation of "Volkswagen" could always be invented ad infinitum. Therefore, (1) there was no pre-existing pool of Volkswagens, and (2) an infinite number of Volkswagens (given infinite time, energy and materials) could be created.

Of course, this argument is wrong. No formal definition of Volkswagen exists because none has ever been needed. We could certainly put some kind of reasonable upper bound on the number of possible Volkswagens if necessary. Or have some authority explicitly define Volkswagen: list of individual parts, number of each part available, etc.

NOTE: when I say Volkswagen, I mean a distinct type of Volkswagen, with some objective characteristic (other than the VIN or some other such item) distinguishing it. I am NOT talking about individual Volkswagens.

I think Jabba is making a similar argument about "selfs". Since we have no formal definition of what makes a "self", then (1) no pool of selfs exists, and (2) selfs are infinite. Just like Volkswagens.

Again, this is wrong. We do not yet know enough to define or enumerate the possible variations of consciousness that could exist, but that does not mean that the number of variations is infinite.

We can define a reasonable upper bound by considering that a consciousness is an emergent property of a neurosystem, and is thus bounded by the number of neurosystems that can be generated by the combination of DNA and experience.

This is not saying that human consciousness is limited in some way. We can imagine evolution, genetic engineering, computer implants, uploading, or whatever increasing the number of types of consciousness that exist.

But these will be new forms of consciousness, not part of the current model. We will have stopped making Volkswagens and started making something else, hopefully Humanity 2.0.

 

[xtifr]

- First, I don’t think that we can claim with any kind of certainty that matter, energy, time and space are finite.

The former is the current scientific model. If you wish to disprove the scientific model, that's where you have to start. And it doesn't actually matter if it's certain. As long as it's possible, you have to address the possibility, or you're not disproving the scientific model. Just one possible variant! Which still leaves my preferred variant standing strong and not disproven.

For now, however, I’m just claiming that there is a basis for claiming that something is infinite that doesn’t require that matter, energy, time and space be infinite – as unintuitive as that may sound…

If you're trying to disprove the standard scientific model, you don't get to add claims to it and then disprove those claims, and say it invalidates the original model. You have take the model as it stands. And disprove the whole thing, not just one possible-but-unlikely variant.

- [...] There is nothing to represent a particular illusion prior to its actual existence, and in that sense, the particular illusion comes from nowhere, nothing.

Once again, no, consciousness (in the standard scientific model) does not come from "nowhere". It comes from the brain. One consciousness per brain, duplicate or not.

One consciousness per brain, duplicate or not.

One consciousness per brain, duplicate or not.

If I say it enough times, will the point get through? That's the model you have to disprove. Not some other model you wish were the scientific model. Inventing a model with flaws, proving it has flaws, and then claiming your proof applies to another model which doesn't have those flaws is pretty much the dictionary definition of a straw man argument.

 

[Monza]

Dave,
- I'm not sure to what "this" specifically refers.
- As to a" living VIN number," that would be the illusion of a lifetime continuous self -- replicating the biology would not produce an identical illusion, it would not bring that particular illusion back to life.

It actually would produce an identical illusion. In fact, this is the closest thing you can get to immortality. The identical self would, by definition, have the same memories, and the same thought patterns, and the same sence of self. It would believe that it has existed since the earliest memory of the original self. The only difference, and I mean the only difference would be that one is a duplicate and one was the original. You are correct that it would not bring the original back to life, but that is because they are still two separate things... identical but separate.

 

[Giordano]

That's the model you have to disprove. Not some other model you wish were the scientific model. Inventing a model with flaws, proving it has flaws, and then claiming your proof applies to another model which doesn't have those flaws is pretty much the dictionary definition of a straw man argument.

Exactly^^^^

Further, you are proposing to prove magic by using the scientific model. You can only do so if the scientific model you use for your proof is accurate. Again, you can't say 1 + 1 =3 and use that math in any proof of anything.

 

[John Jones]

The former is the current scientific model. If you wish to disprove the scientific model, that's where you have to start. And it doesn't actually matter if it's certain. As long as it's possible, you have to address the possibility, or you're not disproving the scientific model. Just one possible variant! Which still leaves my preferred variant standing strong and not disproven.



If you're trying to disprove the standard scientific model, you don't get to add claims to it and then disprove those claims, and say it invalidates the original model. You have take the model as it stands. And disprove the whole thing, not just one possible-but-unlikely variant.


Once again, no, consciousness (in the standard scientific model) does not come from "nowhere". It comes from the brain. One consciousness per brain, duplicate or not.

One consciousness per brain, duplicate or not.

One consciousness per brain, duplicate or not.

If I say it enough times, will the point get through? That's the model you have to disprove. Not some other model you wish were the scientific model. Inventing a model with flaws, proving it has flaws, and then claiming your proof applies to another model which doesn't have those flaws is pretty much the dictionary definition of a straw man argument.

Well said. *golf clap*

 

[xtifr]

It actually would produce an identical illusion.

Yeah, he's actually shown that he understands that point. He just continues to express himself poorly and confusingly.

His argument is simply that since the copy is biologically the same, but is a separate (though identical) individual, with a separate consciousness of its own, that means that consciousness doesn't have a biological basis. Which, of course, is nonsense. The reason the copy has a separate (but identical) consciousness is that it has a separate (but identical) brain. Which is about as biological as you can get.

In fact, this is the closest thing you can get to immortality.

Yeah, I'm with you on this part. I'd even enjoy a reasonable approximation.

 

[pakeha]

... There is nothing to represent a particular illusion prior to its actual existence, and in that sense, the particular illusion comes from nowhere, nothing. Coming from nowhere, nothing, the particular illusion is brand new and had no limited pool from which it was taken. In that sense, the possible particular illusion is unlimited, and any “pool” it came from is infinite.
- I’m sure that you have objections. I hope that they are not too many. This is a hard topic to parse effectively.

No, Jabba.
Remember that the sensation of self is a process, not a thing that's taken from a pool.
Do you remember how that sensation of self is caused?

 

[abaddon]

Yeah, he's actually shown that he understands that point. He just continues to express himself poorly and confusingly.

His argument is simply that since the copy is biologically the same, but is a separate (though identical) individual, with a separate consciousness of its own, that means that consciousness doesn't have a biological basis. Which, of course, is nonsense. The reason the copy has a separate (but identical) consciousness is that it has a separate (but identical) brain. Which is about as biological as you can get.

I am forced to agree. The only time such clones as Jabba proposes would be absolute clones only at the instant of creation. Thereafter they would differentiate. For some reason, Jabba likes not this reality. I have no idea why.

 

[Humots]

Yeah, he's actually shown that he understands that point. He just continues to express himself poorly and confusingly.

His argument is simply that since the copy is biologically the same, but is a separate (though identical) individual, with a separate consciousness of its own, that means that consciousness doesn't have a biological basis. Which, of course, is nonsense. The reason the copy has a separate (but identical) consciousness is that it has a separate (but identical) brain. Which is about as biological as you can get.



Yeah, I'm with you on this part. I'd even enjoy a reasonable approximation.

Imagine being in a world where anyone who dies can "live again" by being replaced with someone indistinguishable from the original, even to loved ones.

For an individual, it would be an incentive to make the most of his life, since death for him (or her) is still personally permanent.

However, there would be the question of what to do if by some accident, there were to be two of a person. Say a person was thought to have died, and a replacement was made, only to have the original show up. What to do?

The SF writer John Varley has written stories of a society in which this kind of replacement is possible. In this society, the rule is, "Only one individual has the right to an identity." That means that if the original turns out to be alive after all, he has the right to the identity and the replacement is executed. Or, as happens in one story, the original and his replacement ran for it to a society with different rules.

 

[xtifr]

The SF writer John Varley has written stories of a society in which this kind of replacement is possible. In this society, the rule is, "Only one individual has the right to an identity." That means that if the original turns out to be alive after all, he has the right to the identity and the replacement is executed. Or, as happens in one story, the original and his replacement ran for it to a society with different rules.

It's an older idea than Varley, of course, though Varley was probably the first to make the notion such a central part of his future 'verse. And yeah, I've read pretty much every word Varley's written, as well as many others who've written about similar concepts, which may be why I've found it easier than some to see where Jabba's trying to go with all of this, and to spot the more obvious flaws.

 

[godless dave]

Another science fiction treatment of this idea was in the Outer Limits episode Think Like A Dinosaur, based on a short story by James Patrick Kelly. I can't remember if I've mentioned it in this thread before.

 

[Giordano]

Didn't Upton Sinclair talk about the difficulty in getting someone .... "to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" ?

Apparently the same is true for Jabba's theories as for salaries.

 

[PixyMisa]

- First, I don’t think that we can claim with any kind of certainty that matter, energy, time and space are finite.

You think wrong.

For now, however, I’m just claiming that there is a basis for claiming that something is infinite that doesn’t require that matter, energy, time and space be infinite – as unintuitive as that may sound…

Wrong again.

- Here, I claim that there is nothing biological prior to the existence of an illusion of a particular continuous lifetime self (avoiding any issue as to whether a continuous self is real or not) – that limits “who” that illusion will be. I.E., when a particular illusion (a who) ceases to exist, we cannot bring it back into existence by replicating the biology that produced it.

Did you have parents, Jabba, or did you spontaneously pop into existence one day?

- I’m sure that you have objections. I hope that they are not too many. This is a hard topic to parse effectively.

It's easy to parse effectively. You're just wrong.

 

[Jabba]

6998->7009

...
- This is where I disagree.
- First, I don’t think that we can claim with any kind of certainty that matter, energy, time and space are finite. For now, however, I’m just claiming that there is a basis for claiming that something is infinite that doesn’t require that matter, energy, time and space be infinite – as unintuitive as that may sound…

7009->7027

The former is the current scientific model...

- Who says that the former is the current scientific model, and where do they say it?

7009->7027

...If you wish to disprove the scientific model, that's where you have to start.
And it doesn't actually matter if it's certain. As long as it's possible, you have to address the possibility, or you're not disproving the scientific model. Just one possible variant! Which still leaves my preferred variant standing strong and not disproven....

- Just in case -- just to remind everybody -- the "everything is finite" model is the model that I've been addressing all along.

 

[Akhenaten]

6998->7009

No it's not.

7009->7027

Still not right.

- Who says that the former is the current scientific model, and where do they say it?

1.0 Virtually everyone.

1.1 In this thread.

6.0 you should read it

2.1 sometime.

7009->7027

Getting wronger.

- Just in case -- just to remind everybody -- the "everything is finite" model is the model that I've been addressing all along.

3.0 And failing

3.1 dismally