Proof of Immortality II

[Olowkow]

Judging by the results it seems to be about as helpful as a cow upstairs.

Some images are just inherently funny by nature--a simile comparing Jabba's numbering system to the usefulness of bovine escalatory ambitions is certainly one. There's a questionable claim by some that cows can walk up stairs, but not down stairs due to their anatomy, enhancing the thigh slapping humor in the image of the bother and dilemma and outright uselessness of a "cow upstairs." I'm certain that this claim ties in with souls, immortality proofs, and Dante's Inferno somehow, but I'm at a loss just now to say how.

Nomming this highlited phrase for pith.

 

[Butter!]

Yes, but then there's the CLAUSTRUM to consider, which is obviously a completely different concept.

 

[jond]

More on consciousness:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html#.U8aourHOOkk

The self may have a location, and it might be the part of the brain called the claustrum.

Nice. Jabba, any thoughts on these latest developments?

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]Jabba:

1. Infinity is a concept, not a number.
2. Infinity does not appear in the scientific model. If your understanding of the scientific model includes infinity, then it is your understanding that is wrong, not the scientific model.
3. Consciousness, an inextricable part of which is an individual's sense of self, is not a 'thing' but a process, which is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.
4. Consciousness, and therefore the self and the sense of self, is not static but in constant change.
5. If it was possible to clone a living person, then the two separate individuals that resulted would have identical but separate consciousnesses. Nobody, not even the two individuals, would be able to identify which was the copy and which was the original.
6. Given that it isn't possible to clone a living person, this particular sub-sub-sub-issue has been flogged to death and will never get anywhere.
7. For the love of Pete and the little fishies, get on with providing some evidence for souls, for you being special, for immortality or for anything (other than the fact that you appear unable to cope with a discussion board - we've plenty of evidence for that).
8. And lastly, please go to see your doctor regarding your memory problems if you have reported them honestly. My adored great-aunt is almost 103 and has no memory problems whatsoever; it's not a normal or unavoidable symptom of ageing. The earlier any particular problem is identified the more likely it is that it can be treated.

A great post and the advice is seconded.

Dave,
- The crowd is all potential SELVES -- that unimaginably large number. I need to show that we who currently exist are not just the luck of the draw and it isn't just that 7,000,000,000 of us, however unlikely, have to currently exist. Hope that communicates.

No, Jabba.
Remember the definition of SELVES, or more correctly, the sense of self?

Tangentially related to this horror show, I just finished the excellent The Tale of the Dueling Neurosurgeons by Sam Kean. [ . . . ]

Cool! Thanks!

Seconded!

More on consciousness:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html#.U8aourHOOkk

The self may have a location, and it might be the part of the brain called the claustrum.

Thanks for the link.

And an oldie but goodie, V.S. Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain.

More to read; that's always good. Thanks for the suggestion, Hokulele.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I strongly suggest everyone drop it here and leave it as it lay, even if Jabba uses that as an excuse to claim victory. (NB: I make no presumptions about my infallibility in this matter and therefore make no judgments on anyone who chooses to ignore my recommendation).

At the point I almost consider this an exercise in practice, like swinging two bats on the on deck circle.

 

[Jabba]

481

- (This is still the leg-lifting issue -- I just needed to back up a space or two.)
- But science requires a cause for any difference -- whether the difference is in what you're calling identity or in what you're calling form.
- Unfortunately, I'm not sure of what it is that you're calling "identity," and what it is that you're calling "form."

499

Identity in the mathematical sense (not the psychological). Two atoms of carbon 12 with all electrons in the ground state are identical and indistinguishable, but distinct. They have the same form, but do not share identity. They're separate atoms.

628

And, while pretty much everyone has denied the former, absolutely no one has disagreed with the latter. I freely state (not admit) here and now that the value of P(me|A) is one over a totally unimaginably large number. I fact, have loudly claimed this to be the fact numerous times. It is not infinity, but it is mind-bogglingly large. Large enough that the exponent is probably a mildly boggling number itself. I put an absolute bare minimum possible estimate on the value at 10 to the 80th power (1E80) factorial (i.e., 1E80 x (1E80 - 1) x (1E80 - 2) x (1E80 - 3) ... 4 x 3 x 2). That's a number so large that there may not be enough particles in the universe to write out the exponent in full, let alone the number itself. And I suspect it's bogglingly less than the actual value.
As I have said numerous times over the last year, if you can accept a finite number—any finite number, no matter how large—do so, and this debate can move forward!
Only in the sense that there'd now be two, which wouldn't share the mathematical property of identity. It could just as reasonably (or just as unreasonably) be said that the copy was you and the original no longer was. You're getting stuck in semantics. English is not designed to cope with the existence of two yous, but that's what we would essentially have. Two yous, both you in every reasonable sense, but still distinct and separate individuals.
Most importantly, the copy would have exactly the same sense of continuity and sense of self! Subjectively, both would be you! If you were teleported and copied at the same time, there would be no way of saying which had been teleported and which copied, subjectively or objectively, because teleportation is indistinguishable from destroying the original when creating a copy!
So yes, a perfect copy of your brain would produce the same you. There would now be two same yous, and we could tell them apart from each other, but neither would be THE same you. They would each be A same you. They would both be as much the same you as each other.
ETA: anyway, isn't all this arguing about whether it would be the "same you" just to try to get to infinity? When you just admitted that you don't need to get to infinity for your proof? Just forget about infinity and present your proof of immortality!

- I do need to slow down when reading your responses...
- You tend to say a lot per post, and I'm always in a hurry (says the tortoise), so I rush through your posts trying to deal with one sub-issue at a time. By doing that however, I tend to focus on a small portion of what you're saying and miss later clarification...
- So anyway, we seem to agree that there is an identity difference between the original and the replica, and that the cause of this difference can be said to be their space/time coordinates.
- How's that?

 

[Akhenaten]

- I do need to slow down when reading your responses...

No, what you need to do is actually read them at whatever speed you choose.

Then you need to go back through the thread and read the hundreds of other posts that have told you the same thing as the LCP.

Maybe (although I'm less than optimistic) that would prevent you from reposting the same nonsense over and over again as though nobody had ever raised an objection to it.

- You tend to say a lot per post, and I'm always in a hurry (says the tortoise), so I rush through your posts trying to deal with one sub-issue at a time.

You give the appearance of paying so little attention even to those very few posts to which you deign to reply that you're actually only responding to one word at a time.

And it's usually a word that you've misunderstood.

By doing that however, I tend to focus on a small portion of what you're saying and miss later clarification...

You've only read about 2% of the damned thread, Jabba. You don't miss clarifications, you totally ignore them.

- So anyway, we seem to agree that there is an identity difference between the original and the replica, and that the cause of this difference can be said to be their space/time coordinates.

Initially. From the instant of replication onwards, however, many factors will contribute to the divergence of the two SEPARATE identities.

None of which really has anything to do with the actual topic.

- How's that?

As pathetic as ever. If only there was a prize for consistency.

 

[Akhenaten]

1-675

Jabba,

What you seem to have completely lost sight of is that your initial claim was that you could use an arcane implementation of a statistical method to prove the immortality of something that you can't even demonstrate exists at all.

viz

We all know (even you) that the human organism is mortal. Your claim, however, is that there's more to us than our existence as living, breathing organisms.

It's this "more" for which you need to provide supporting evidence. Everything else (which is to say, everything you've ever posted) is irrelevant.

 

[Mojo]

So anyway, we seem to agree that there is an identity difference between the original and the replica, and that the cause of this difference can be said to be their space/time coordinates.

The cause of that difference is that there is more than one of them, and two things can't be in the same place at the same time. But they would be indistinguishable. Even you wouldn't know which one was YOU and which wasn't.

 

[godless dave]

The cause of that difference is that there is more than one of them, and two things can't be in the same place at the same time. But they would be indistinguishable. Even you wouldn't know which one was YOU and which wasn't.

And this applies to selves and SELVES just as it applies to brains, bodies, and glasses of milk.

 

[Monza]

The cause of that difference is that there is more than one of them, and two things can't be in the same place at the same time. But they would be indistinguishable. Even you wouldn't know which one was YOU and which wasn't.

Exactly. The difference is a consequence (or rather is explicitly defined) in the thought experiment initial conditions. Jabba says to consider two identical things, and then marvels that there are two of them!

 

[pakeha]

481

499

628- I do need to slow down when reading your responses...
- You tend to say a lot per post, and I'm always in a hurry (says the tortoise), so I rush through your posts trying to deal with one sub-issue at a time. By doing that however, I tend to focus on a small portion of what you're saying and miss later clarification...
- So anyway, we seem to agree that there is an identity difference between the original and the replica, and that the cause of this difference can be said to be their space/time coordinates.
- How's that?

Jabba, you seems to have misunderstood the relation between SELF and functioning neurosystem.

 

[xtifr]

- So anyway, we seem to agree that there is an identity difference between the original and the replica

I agree with this. The original's leg lifts are not the replica's leg lifts.

and that the cause of this difference can be said to be their space/time coordinates.

I'm not so sure about this. I think that is the difference, not the cause. I'm not sure how relevant this is, though, so maybe we can just skip this part? I will agree that this can be said if you're speaking very informally! But I also think it's potentially misleading. But I don't want to get into that unless it really becomes necessary.

Have you thought about "teleportation is indistinguishable from destroying the original when you create the copy" yet?

 

[godless dave]

I'm not so sure about this. I think that is the difference, not the cause.

Bingo.

 

[Jabba]

675

481
499
628
- I do need to slow down when reading your responses...
- You tend to say a lot per post, and I'm always in a hurry (says the tortoise), so I rush through your posts trying to deal with one sub-issue at a time. By doing that however, I tend to focus on a small portion of what you're saying and miss later clarification...
- *So anyway, we seem to agree that there is an identity difference between the original and the replica, and that **the cause of this difference can be said to be their space/time coordinates.
- How's that?

*I agree with this. The original's leg lifts are not the replica's leg lifts.



1) **I'm not so sure about this. I think that is the difference, not the cause. I'm not sure how relevant this is, though, so maybe we can just skip this part? I will agree that this can be said if you're speaking very informally! But I also think it's potentially misleading. But I don't want to get into that unless it really becomes necessary.

2) Have you thought about "teleportation is indistinguishable from destroying the original when you create the copy" yet?

xt,

- Re #2: No. I'll try to get to that after we have cleared up, or stalled, re #1.
- I suspect that #1 is not just relevant -- it's critical. And for me at least, #1 will take some heavy thinking.

 

[Mojo]

And for me at least, #1 will take some heavy thinking.

"Heavy thinking"?

Here's a laughing dog:



We'll call him Fido.

Fido is producing a laugh: "HAHAHAHAHA".

Here's another laughing dog:



We'll call this one Rover. Rover is entirely identical to, but separate from, Fido.

Rover is also producing a laugh: "HAHAHAHAHA".

The laugh Rover produces is identical to the laugh Fido produces, but it is produced by Rover, not Fido. That is the only difference between the laughs. You cannot distinguish between the laughs, but if Rover and Fido are laughing at the same time there will be two laughs, not one.

Here are the two laughs:

"HAHAHAHAHA".
"HAHAHAHAHA".

Note that while they are entirely identical, there are two of them.

 

[Jabba]

675

- So anyway, we seem to agree that there is an identity difference between the original and the replica...

I agree with this. The original's leg lifts are not the replica's leg lifts.

... and that the cause of this difference can be said to be their space/time coordinates...

I'm not so sure about this. I think that is the difference, not the cause. I'm not sure how relevant this is, though, so maybe we can just skip this part? I will agree that this can be said if you're speaking very informally! But I also think it's potentially misleading. But I don't want to get into that unless it really becomes necessary...

- I suspect that #1 [space/time coordinates] is not just relevant -- it's critical. And for me at least, #1 will take some heavy thinking.

- Re #1: Yeah. I suspect that this is a (maybe, THE) big hang-up for us...
- We're talking about a different kind of difference here. We have the “basic physical” difference, and another difference that I’ll call the “emergent property” difference -- if that’s acceptable to you. (Just seeing if we can find some words that we can both agree upon…)
- Anyway, I’m claiming that the basic physical difference is the cause of the emergent property difference – even though the result here would seem to be simultaneous with the cause (much like quantum entanglement?).

- But anyway, if time is actually infinite[i/], I think that P(ME|A) should still be 1/∞ rather than ∞/∞ , or 1. I say that because the time coordinate for ME should still be singular throughout an infinity of time.
- If time is actually finite (and there are no other universes after ours, or co-existent with ours) what is the likelihood that my would-be-time-coordinate would be too late?

 

[godless dave]

We're talking about a different kind of difference here. We have the “basic physical” difference, and another difference that I’ll call the “emergent property” difference

Once again, this difference would not exist in the scientific model.

But anyway, if time is actually infinite[i/], I think that P(ME|A) should still be 1/∞ rather than ∞/∞ , or 1. I say that because the time coordinate for ME should still be singular throughout an infinity of time.

You seem to be ignoring causality, which is puzzling considering we are talking about calculating a probability. Your existence depends on your parents having sex, which happens at a particular time. We're not talking about two unrelated events happening at the same time, we're talking about one event leading to the next.

- If time is actually finite (and there are no other universes after ours, or co-existent with ours) what is the likelihood that my would-be-time coordinate would be too late?

I don't understand how it could be "too late". Too late for what?

 

[Mojo]

Anyway, I’m claiming that the basic physical difference is the cause of the emergent property difference...

There would be no "basic physical difference" between two completely identical brains.

 

[Mojo]

...the time coordinate for ME should still be singular throughout an infinity of time.

Yes, but not for the reason you think. The "time coordinate" for a particular you is singular because your consciousness is a process, not a thing. It does not remain the same, but is determined by the exact state of your brain at the particular time.