[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[jsfisher]

To help the thread move forward, I suggest we all use the following terminology so that we can get on the same page:


ME = the original 'same' me

me = a duplicate of ME, but not the 'same' me

me = a copy of me with the 'same' PSoS

Me = a replicated me made after I die that has an identical (but not the same) observer

ME^me = a chemically identical me without the 'same' self but with a similar indistinguishable consciousness that can't see out of both sets of eyes

And me-me-me-me would be Alfalfa preparing to sing?

What about ME_ב^me_א?

I see what you did there. You should have used a red font, though, or maybe Cardinal.

 

[pakeha]

- OK. It appears that part of my problem is that I’ve been trying to ‘prove’ a fact that you guys have been accepting as trivially obvious all along…
- What I need to prove instead is what I perceive to be the elementary deduction stemming from that fact.
- But first, I need to come up with a couple of better terms for an identical me versus the same me. How about a “me” versus the “ME.” You guys claim that it is space/time coordinates that complete the “definition” for ME – or at least, that’s one way of putting it…
- How’s that?

No, Jabba.
What you're calling ME is simply the sense of self.
The sense of self is simply part of consciousness, which in turn is simply an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

- OK. If an identical brain would not result in ME (or, the same me), there is no chemical definition exclusive to ME (or, the same me).

No, Jabba.
What you're calling ME is simply the sense of self.
The sense of self is simply part of consciousness, which in turn is simply an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

 

[Jabba]

- OK. If an identical brain would not result in ME (or, the same me), there is no chemical definition exclusive to ME (or, the same me).

Technically correct, but irrelevant. The very nature of an identical copy is that it is physically, chemically, and biologically identical to the original. That's why the duplicate you would start out exactly the same as the original you, the same personality, same fears, same hopes, same thought patterns. There would be nothing about the original you that is in any way different from the duplicate you...

Dave,
- We're probably stuck here, cause I've unsuccessfully given the following answer (probably multiple times) before.
- The difference is that the duplicate would not be the same me -- a duplicate after I die would not bring ME back to life. That's the difference; and, this is the same me that me and my type hope will not extinguish into eternity. This is the ME I've been talking about, and it will be absent from the duplicate -- that is a difference (the difference) between the same me and the "identical" me.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- We're probably stuck here, cause I've unsuccessfully given the following answer (probably multiple times) before.
- The difference is that the duplicate would not be the same me -- a duplicate after I die would not bring ME back to life. That's the difference; and, this is the same me that me and my type hope will not extinguish into eternity. This is the ME I've been talking about, and it will be absent from the duplicate -- that is a difference (the difference) between the same me and the "identical" me.

There is no difference between "you" and an "identical you". That is what "identical" means.

As for this mysterious "same me" that you "hope will not extinguish into eternity" and that "will be absent from the duplicate", if you want this to be accepted you will need to provide evidence that it exists (something that you have so far failed to do).

 

[Sideroxylon]

Dave,
- We're probably stuck here, cause I've unsuccessfully given the following answer (probably multiple times) before.
- The difference is that the duplicate would not be the same me -- a duplicate after I die would not bring ME back to life. That's the difference; and, this is the same me that me and my type hope will not extinguish into eternity. This is the ME I've been talking about, and it will be absent from the duplicate -- that is a difference (the difference) between the same me and the "identical" me.

Ar twins the same people? Would they be the same people if somehow miraculously their physical development exactly mirrored each other? If one of these twins committed a crime would it matter which one we punished?

 

[Jabba]

There is no difference between "you" and an "identical you". That is what "identical" means.

As for this mysterious "same me" that you "hope will not extinguish into eternity" and that "will be absent from the duplicate", if you want this to be accepted you will need to provide evidence that it exists (something that you have so far failed to do).

Mojo,

- Again, we're probably stuck.

- If the same me is an illusion, it is a real illusion, and an illusion that I've been enjoying for most of 72 years -- and which, according to you, will extinguish (when my brain dies) and will never light again.

- Does your illusion exist? If so, what is your evidence?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- We're probably stuck here, cause I've unsuccessfully given the following answer (probably multiple times) before.
- The difference is that the duplicate would not be the same me -- a duplicate after I die would not bring ME back to life. That's the difference; and, this is the same me that me and my type hope will not extinguish into eternity. This is the ME I've been talking about, and it will be absent from the duplicate -- that is a difference (the difference) between the same me and the "identical" me.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

Do consider providing your evidence for the existence of the highlighted bit.

Where does it reside?

Of what is it comprised?

What leads you to the claim that it would be absent from a perfect duplicate of you?

I eagerly anticipate your answers.

ETA: as always, your perfervid hopes are not "evidence"...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Mojo,

- Again, we're probably stuck.

- If the same me is an illusion, it is a real illusion, and an illusion that I've been enjoying for most of 72 years -- and which, according to you, will extinguish (when my brain dies) and will never light again.

- Does your illusion exist? If so, what is your evidence?

Solipsism? OT.

 

[Hokulele]

- If the same me is an illusion, it is a real illusion, and an illusion that I've been enjoying for most of 72 years -- and which, according to you, will extinguish (when my brain dies) and will never light again.

The highlighted bit is the part that is wrong. You may believe you have been enjoying the same me, ME, "me", or "ME" for 72 years, but you have not. As has been mentioned many times, the continuity of self is an illusion.

 

[Garrette]

Dave,
- We're probably stuck here, cause I've unsuccessfully given the following answer (probably multiple times) before.
- The difference is that the duplicate would not be the same me -- a duplicate after I die would not bring ME back to life. That's the difference; and, this is the same me that me and my type hope will not extinguish into eternity. This is the ME I've been talking about, and it will be absent from the duplicate -- that is a difference (the difference) between the same me and the "identical" me.

Scenario 1: GarrettePrime walks into the Identical 50% Replication Room. There is a 50% chance that GarrettePrime will be replicated and destroyed, leaving only GarretteTwo who will have no idea he is a replicant and will assume he is GarrettePrime. When you see GarrettePossiblyPrimeOrTwo, will you treat him differently than you did GarrettePrime?

Scenario 2: The same thing happens except you have a window into the room so you and you alone know that the one walking out is actually GarretteTwo. Will you warn his church (assuming he has one) that he may no longer be saved because he has not undergone the same Born Again/Baptismal/Whatever rituals that are deemed necessary for salvation? Or does his memory of having done all those things, though in fact he never has, count as sufficient for salvation? Will you tell him he has no right to the house, car and belongings of GarrettePrime? Will you warn his wife not to sleep with him as he is a stranger?

 

[Giordano]

Mojo,

- Again, we're probably stuck.

- If the same me is an illusion, it is a real illusion, and an illusion that I've been enjoying for most of 72 years -- and which, according to you, will extinguish (when my brain dies) and will never light again.

- Does your illusion exist? If so, what is your evidence?

What do you mean by all this?

1. If you say "we" are stuck, you really mean "you" are stuck, in that you cannot get your proof accepted using the concepts in the scientific model. So, as we have been telling you for years, your proof is no good using math or science. If you want to believe in as a religion, fine with me. But quit this thread: your OP is false.

2. What on earth do you mean a "real illusion?" Look up the word illusion. You are free to believe that "you" will go on after death, but that is not what most of us believe, or what the scientific model predicts, based on long experience. Perhaps you might tell me, if you don't quit this thread, what of you will "go on?" You never seem able to put it in words. What is Jabba, if not his memories, preferences, looks, interests, and recognition of who he cares about?

 

[Garrette]

More to the point, your tack, Jabba, undermines your argument for immortality rather than supporting it.

Since even your elusive and imaginary Same Me will not be present in the replicant (this is what you're saying, yes?) then the Same Me will not be present in any person born later. The only means by which you can claim it is to say that the Same Me is magically attached, and arbitrarily so, via some imagined mechanism.

 

[Giordano]

Mojo,

- Again, we're probably stuck.

- If the same me is an illusion, it is a real illusion, and an illusion that I've been enjoying for most of 72 years -- and which, according to you, will extinguish (when my brain dies) and will never light again.

- Does your illusion exist? If so, what is your evidence?

Jabba,

Enjoy and treasure your children; they are as certain a means I know that at least past of you will continue after your death.

 

[Giordano]

More to the point, your tack, Jabba, undermines your argument for immortality rather than supporting it.

Since even your elusive and imaginary Same Me will not be present in the replicant (this is what you're saying, yes?) then the Same Me will not be present in any person born later. The only means by which you can claim it is to say that the Same Me is magically attached, and arbitrarily so, via some imagined mechanism.

Very interesting and valuable point; if it is not the "same" me when everything is exactly duplicated, how can it be "the same me" when everything is a physically different person?

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,

- Again, we're probably stuck.

- If the same me is an illusion, it is a real illusion, and an illusion that I've been enjoying for most of 72 years -- and which, according to you, will extinguish (when my brain dies) and will never light again.

- Does your illusion exist? If so, what is your evidence?

I'm not trying to base an argument on its existence; you are. Therefore it is you, not me, who needs evidence for it.

 

[John Jones]

I'm not trying to base an argument on its existence; you are. Therefore it is you, not me, who needs evidence for it.

Wow. Jabba reversing the burden of proof. That's not a trick we've ever seen before

 

[Garrette]

I'm not trying to base an argument on its existence; you are. Therefore it is you, not me, who needs evidence for it.

I don't think Jabba is doing what you think he is doing; he has still failed to grasp what it means for the sense of self to be an illusion.

To Jabba's mind, since we have applied a label (illusion) to the Sense of Self, then it must be real. When he asks you "Does your illusion exist?" he is not asking you to prove its existence because that is his default position. Rather, he is asking you to prove that the illusion is actually an illusion and not really there.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Solipsism? OT.

Not only off topic but the absolute last thing this discussion needs.

The only possible way to make this discussion anymore of an intellectual death spiral is to introduce solipsism.

Let's just stay as far away from Plato's Cave as we can.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- We're probably stuck here, cause I've unsuccessfully given the following answer (probably multiple times) before.

We aren't stuck at all.

You are stuck, for the term of your natural life, with a delusionary belief of expiation in a life to come.

After that it's Disappointment City but the good news is at least you'll never have to put up with the likes of me saying, "I told you so!"

- The difference is that the duplicate would not be the same me -- a duplicate after I die would not bring ME back to life.

Nope. Youse be dead. End of story.

That's the difference; and, this is the same me that me and my type hope will not extinguish into eternity. This is the ME I've been talking about, and it will be absent from the duplicate -- that is a difference (the difference) between the same me and the "identical" me.

When you will you be presenting evidence to support the existence of this eternal soul about which you are so obviously speaking?

 

[Akhenaten]

Mojo,

- Again, we're probably stuck.

"We", in the sense that you're using it, is as non-existent as the immortal souls to which you're trying so desperately to avoid reference, despite having advocated their existence since day one of this poor, sad thread.

- If the same me is an illusion, it is a real illusion, and an illusion that I've been enjoying for most of 72 years -- and which, according to you, will extinguish (when my brain dies) and will never light again.

There's no "if" about it.

- Does your illusion exist? If so, what is your evidence?

Your responses.

Or are you just talking to yourself?



Hmm . . . hang on a sec . . .