• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.



GarettePrime.jpg


Garette Prime (artist's impression)​
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

How is that a difference? Copies, as we all know, are identical to but distinct from the original.
 
Whether continuity of self is an illusion or not isn't really relevant to this. My self comes from my brain. My brain determines all the properties my self has. That's the scientific model.
 
godless dave said:
Whether continuity of self is an illusion or not isn't really relevant to this. My self comes from my brain. My brain determines all the properties my self has. That's the scientific model.
Click to expand...

Thinking about matter transporters and copies does raise some serious questions about continuity. And therefore ones that raise some serious questions for people with ideas of a self that has some kind of essence that has eternal existence.

God creates a hundred copies of you in heaven, Jabba, each with your memories and so each separately thinking they are you. He says to the one on earth reading this post - that's *you* Jabba - that you now must die. How do you feel with that, Jabba? You gonna say, "Sure, God! Go ahead. I am alive already in heaven." Are you comforted with that thought? Why or why not?
 
Akhenaten said:



[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/GarettePrime.jpg[/qimg]

Garette Prime (artist's impression)​
Click to expand...
I got's myself a BFG!

I shall therefore forgive the understandable shortcomings in appropriately rendering my flowing, yet still manly, locks.
 
Jabba said:
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?
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
I'm not trying to base an argument on its existence; you are. Therefore it is you, not me, who needs evidence for it.
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- If you think you exist, I'm sure I have the same evidence as you, so I surely don't need to tell you. If you don't think you exist, I certainly don't need to tell you.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- If you think you exist, I'm sure I have the same evidence as you, so I surely don't need to tell you. If you don't think you exist, I certainly don't need to tell you.
Click to expand...
+1 for a post nearly free of unneeded emphasis; the two italicized words did you in, though.

-10 for misrepresenting what is being discussed. Hint: It is not the existence of the person called Jabba or the person called Mojo. Rather, it is the existence of the Sense of Self (or Same Me, et al) as something other than an illusion.

Here's the part that seems difficult for you either to grasp or to admit: An illusion does not exist as something separate from the thing experiencing the illusion. It is illusory. You exist. Your consciousness exists as an emergent property; your Sense of Self is an experience of your consciousness.
 
godless dave said:
How is that a difference? Copies, as we all know, are identical to but distinct from the original.
Click to expand...

And just to save some time - if you are going to again counter that senses of self are necessarily unique, even if produced by identical brains, as if they had VIN numbers, then you need to provide reasoning or evidence to support that claim.

In the scientific model, the only reason each sense of self is unique is because each human brain is unique.
 
Jabba said:
- 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.
Click to expand...

We're not arguing about whether the copy would be a separate person. We all agree on that. We're asking you to show how having a separate consciousness makes consciousness a special property, when all the other properties of the copy would also be distinct!

The fingerprints would be identical, but the fingers would be distinct, and if one finger got cut, the copy's fingerprints wouldn't reflect that. They wouldn't be the same fingerprints. If one copy went for a jog, the other would not benefit from the exercise. If both copies had a mild case of heartburn at the moment of copying, one taking an antacid would not cure the other. They're separate (though identical) because they occupy different locations in spacetime. It's that simple.

To quote the famous real estate aphorism: location, location, location!

Being teleported is scientifically indistinguishable from destroying the original and creating a copy in a new location.

Simply existing is indistinguishable from destroying the original and creating a copy in the same location.

The only thing that makes the copy a different person is that it's a separate person in a separate location, so its separate brain has a separate set of activities and properties.

Physics, Jabba, physics. Location, location, location!

You said that you agreed that location might affect your theory. Well, it's obvious (and has been all along) to the rest of us that it totally affects your theory, and it's time to address it, as you've been promising to do for pages now.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- If you think you exist, I'm sure I have the same evidence as you, so I surely don't need to tell you. If you don't think you exist, I certainly don't need to tell you.
Click to expand...

Not the point. at all. Your existence does not mean that your illusion of sense of self is real. Many people may have that illusion, but that does not mean it is a physical reality. You believe that you are alive; we have given you a perfectly reasonable physical explanation for that using the SM.

But back to the "we" are stuck that you posted. If you state that you have a recipe for unicorn soup that starts: 1. First take a unicorn... most people might stop you and say, "Wait a minute, there are no unicorns. They may be very vocal on that matter. Then, can you say: Well, we are stuck on the proper unicorn soup recipe? No you are stuck because you assumed the existence of unicorns, and there are none. You am stuck, not we. We are very happy and have an accurate explanation for death. Proven by experiments and observations. And pretty good soup recipes for real animals.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom