• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Proof of Immortality II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave,
- I will now try to show that I am one of 7 billion preset tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall.
Three days, 6 hours and 45 minutes later, "now" has not yet arrived. How soon is now? as Mr Morrisey and his popular beat combo once asked.

It would be so much more conducive to effective debate if you actually posted some evidence for immortality, or for consciousness surviving the death of the brain. I think all the participants in this thread would really welcome such a thing.
 
Some folks in another thread suggested that I post this here for relevance.

Here you go...for whatever relevance and value it offers to this topic:

---

I have an axe.
I use the axe.
I break the axe head on a piece of wood I chopped
I go to the store and buy the exact same axe head.
I use the axe again.
I break the axe handle on a piece of wood I chopped.
I go to the store and buy the exact same axe handle.
I use the axe.

Is this still the same axe as the one I originally had?

No.

It is an entirely different axe with the same components.

If you take and replace Brain A with Brain B, even bit by bit over time, then once you have completed the process what was Brain A and is now Brain B2 will not be Brain B1.
It will be a duplicate of Brain B1, but not Brain B1 itself.

Brain B2 will have the impression of being Brain B1, but it would not actually have been the same brain that was present during the growth and experiences in which it believes that it would have.

Just as I can download my current computer's entire contents and then go buy a brand new computer exactly the same and install everything I had into the new one and I will not magically have my old computer - I have a new computer made to resemble my previous computer exactly.

The two are vastly different.


Now here's the thing: your brain is not the same brain you had yesterday, nor the day before that, nor the year, decade, etc... before that.
You are not the same you day to day that you create for yourself to believe you to be.

That is called identity, and identity is what we make up - it is not actually reality.

So, really, asking if we can cheat death by moving our brain around is rather nullified.
The answer remains, no.
Because you can't even keep your 5 year old version of who you were alive.
He or she is already dead - bye bye.

You are only you as you are right now.
Tomorrow, your brain will have changed.
Typically, this is a slow process, so you won't notice the changes.
But when you get older, you won't even be the same person you are now - your brain won't be either.

The only way to "cheat" death would be if you could freeze life from having motion at all, and you can't do that because that would just be not-life; death.
You could suspend animation, but that just removes you from experiencing something, so that's not really life either - you are just looking at something which can perpetuate itself over a longer period of time by introducing intervals of suspension.

Would the Brain B2 consider its identity to be the same as Brain B1?
Most likely, yes. That's how we are able to age and still think we are the same person, or have brain damage and think the same in some capacity.



Now, is this even relevant?
Nope.
You can't actually duplicate an active brain as complex as the human brain, and by that I mean you can't create a copy of someone's brain.
The shear complexity is massive to the point of asking if we could only copy the solar system atomically would we have created the same solar system or a different one.

It's not actually something that you can do as the brain's formation is emergent, and not static.
It's not like a car, it's like a tree.

Even if you clone or copy it, the start up would be entirely different.
For instance, take the idea of moving one cell at a time until all cells were moved over as a solution in thought to migrating Brain B1 into Brain B2.

The reality is that as soon as you put the first cell from Brain B1 into Brain A (the receptor that will become Brain B2), you have changed Brain B1, the cell from Brain B1, and Brain A.
That cell from Brain B1 will now interact with Brain A's neurology and change itself accordingly within its parameters.
Equally, Brain B1 will now make adjustments for the absence of that cell now over in Brain A.

This will continue on.
Eventually Brain B1 will be severely retarded and cause neurological errors and damage cellular structures as a result while Brain A will equally have issues of treating introduced cells like tumors or will have augmented them in line with its own native neurology in the same manner in which we have tissue transplants already.

So you can't actually duplicate the human brain unless you can get one that isn't alive and moving; then you could hypothetically get one copied over.
But in so doing, you are working with a brain that is dead - not alive - and as such, that means the chemical markup of the brain will quickly deteriorate so even if you do somehow get the brain turned on, it would not be accurately functional due to natural brain damage.


---
 
Some folks in another thread suggested that I post this here for relevance.

Here you go...for whatever relevance and value it offers to this topic:

---

<snip>

---

Who said anything about cheating death by moving our brains around?

Actually, this is not about any of what you were talking about. This is about whether it means anything (to you specifically) that your specific brain beat 1080! odds against it's existence (a giganogargantuan number), and whether it is possible to glean the meaning, if any.

Most of these people are dead set against even admitting that their brains even beat any odds by existing, and equally dead set against allowing any such claim to go unchallenged. The idea is anathema to them for some reason. So they steadfastly resort to the circular argument that they didn't beat any odds because there was no brain to lay odds against before it existed, and then after it existed there were no odds to lay because it already existed.

They consider verboten the idea that the reason there was no specific brain before it existed was precisely because it hadn't beaten the odds before it existed, and conversely, the reason it now exists is precisely because it has beaten the odds.

In other words, you don't want any part of any of this. This is going nowhere fast.
 
Last edited:
Who said anything about cheating death by moving our brains around?

Actually, this is not about any of what you were talking about. This is about whether it means anything (to you specifically) that your specific brain beat 1080! odds against it's existence (a giganogargantuan number), and whether it is possible to glean the meaning, if any.

Most of these people are dead set against even admitting that their brains even beat any odds by existing, and equally dead set against allowing any such claim to go unchallenged. The idea is anathema to them for some reason. So they steadfastly resort to the circular argument that they didn't beat any odds because there was no brain to lay odds against before it existed, and then after it existed there were no odds to lay because it already existed.

They consider verboten the idea that the reason there was no specific brain before it existed was precisely because it hadn't beaten the odds before it existed, and conversely, the reason it now exists is precisely because it has beaten the odds.

In other words, you don't want any part of any of this. This is going nowhere fast.

Because you keep insisting that being born is something special.
 
Ok, jabba, you have general acceptance that you may use 1/(1080!) as P(me|A).

Now what?
 
You boys would be up against it if you ever needed to probabilistically test a hypothesis. No matter what you observe, well, that happened. Don't mean nothin. If that hadn't happened, then something else would have.


Can you explain how Jabba's existence affects the probability of "the scientific model" being true, given that no "scientific model" that I am aware of makes any prediction about whether the specific person "Jabba" exists, but his existence is consistent with all of them?
 
Last edited:
Can you explain how Jabba's existence affects the probability of "the scientific model" being true, given that no "scientific model" that I am aware of makes any prediction about whether the specific person "Jabba" exists, but his existence is consistent with all of them?

1. Jabba's existence means no more to me than a random grain of sand on Mars, as I have made explicitly clear on several occasions.

2. A convincing explanation of how any individual might logically arrive at the conclusion that their specific existence materially affects their conditional probability of the "scientific model" being the sole explanation for their sentient experience would be worth considerably more than you've earned, if I perchance possessed such insight and the expertise and inclination to effectively communicate it to people who are clearly ideologically indisposed to hear it. So why would I bother to burden myself with such an attempt?

3. Can you explain why I should unquestioningly believe, with starry-eyed faith, that my specific existence is consistent with a model which lays prior odds of 1080! : 1 against my specific observed existence?

Hint: My question (3.) is at least as valid as yours.
 
Last edited:
You, sir, utterly fail to understand that an event or sequence of events can be significant, or not, depending on the specificity of the event(s), the significance of which is not diluted or enhanced by the fact that the event(s) are but parts of a larger universe.

For example: From your conditional perspective, among the significant aspects of having your toe lopped off by a meteor is that it will make a material difference in your gait. But the meteor strike on your toe will have no effect whatsoever on my gait. Other specific sequences of events may be significant in other ways, perhaps to different observers, irrespective of the various activities of the rest of the universe.

And again you demonstrate that you are looking at the personal perspective, which is utterly useless to make any demonstration whatsoever about the event in itself. You keep banging your head on that , but not only it is mathematically and physically useless, but it does not advance a iota the proof of immortality we have been waiting with an dice-loaded breath.

The bottom line is that JABBA is only special to JABBA (and maybe his family) his birth and his death will not be special among all the dice thrown by the universe, and his birth does not demonstrate by his specificity of being JABBA rather than being HIKKI that immortality and soul exists.

keep harping on the specificity from the personal perspective. Keep missing the futility of banging of a specific number on the dice throw. From what i can see among the poster you are yelling in your own echo chamber.
 
Last edited:
- To me, I’m the one that counts.
- Toon has been saying this for a while already. The problem comes in trying to explain its relevancy --- which is why I tried to explain my claim of infinity for so long…
- Anyway, the likelihood of me being one of the “lucky” ones is 1/1080! at best. It is 1080!:1 that I would be oblivious forever.
- And, in a sense (that sense) at least, I was pre-chosen, set apart, and should not just be counted as someone/anyone… My particular existence is special/significant.
- I’ll be back.
 
- To me, I’m the one that counts.
- Toon has been saying this for a while already. The problem comes in trying to explain its relevancy --- which is why I tried to explain my claim of infinity for so long…
- Anyway, the likelihood of me being one of the “lucky” ones is 1/1080! at best. It is 1080!:1 that I would be oblivious forever.

You wouldn't be oblivious forever because you wouldn't exist. The concept of your self wouldn't make any sense.

- And, in a sense (that sense) at least, I was pre-chosen, set apart, and should not just be counted as someone/anyone… My particular existence is special/significant.

What sense is that? I don't see any sense in which you are pre-chosen.
 
- To me, I’m the one that counts.
- Toon has been saying this for a while already. The problem comes in trying to explain its relevancy --- which is why I tried to explain my claim of infinity for so long…
- Anyway, the likelihood of me being one of the “lucky” ones is 1/1080! at best. It is 1080!:1 that I would be oblivious forever.
- And, in a sense (that sense) at least, I was pre-chosen, set apart, and should not just be counted as someone/anyone… My particular existence is special/significant.
- I’ll be back.

So you moved the factorial into the exponent now. A much bigger (but still finite) number. No objection.

Ok, Jabba, you have general acceptance that you may use 1/(1080!) 1/(1080!) as P(me|A).

Now what?
 
- Try this. I am either TREMENDOUSLY “lucky” – or, there is a better (more probable) explanation. Is it more probable that I am TREMENDOUSLY lucky than that there is a more probable explanation?
 
- Try this. I am either TREMENDOUSLY “lucky” – or, there is a better (more probable) explanation. Is it more probable that I am TREMENDOUSLY lucky than that there is a more probable explanation?

You are no more lucky than anything else in the universe, including the rock on trebor's desk.

What you're implying is that we should be suspicious of any complex system with a large number of variables and a large number of potential outcomes.
 
- To me, I’m the one that counts.
- Toon has been saying this for a while already. The problem comes in trying to explain its relevancy --- which is why I tried to explain my claim of infinity for so long…
- Anyway, the likelihood of me being one of the “lucky” ones is 1/1080! at best. It is 1080!:1 that I would be oblivious forever.
- And, in a sense (that sense) at least, I was pre-chosen, set apart, and should not just be counted as someone/anyone… My particular existence is special/significant.
- I’ll be back.

The problem with your whole process here, Jabba, is this: The collection of atoms that comprise Jabba's body is no more or less likely than the collection of atoms that make up the rock on someone's desk, and no more or less important in the scope of the universe. But the "you" that you're talking about isn't the collection of atoms, it is the resultant illusion generated by your brain. And, once again: the probability that the collection of atoms that make up Jabba's body generates the "you" that is "you" is 1/1. It is the only self it could be. But that "you" is constantly changing, and I suggest you read JasonR's excellent post explaining it to you once again, and explaining why your duplicate brain side trip wasn't going to get the results you were aiming for. And, once again: if the "you" that you imagine is immortal is a process of a brain, and the brain stops processing, what is it that you imagine is actually immortal?
 
- To me, I’m the one that counts.
- Toon has been saying this for a while already. The problem comes in trying to explain its relevancy --- which is why I tried to explain my claim of infinity for so long…
- Anyway, the likelihood of me being one of the “lucky” ones is 1/1080! at best. It is 1080!:1 that I would be oblivious forever.
- And, in a sense (that sense) at least, I was pre-chosen, set apart, and should not just be counted as someone/anyone… My particular existence is special/significant. - I’ll be back.

What sense?. That statement is a non sequitur.

ETA: Oops. I just now saw Jabba's reply.
 
Last edited:
- Try this. I am either TREMENDOUSLY “lucky” – or, there is a better (more probable) explanation. Is it more probable that I am TREMENDOUSLY lucky than that there is a more probable explanation?

This is just idle speculation and wishful thinking. Do you really consider this to be any sort of proof of immortality?

Be that as it may, though, the answer to your question is yes.
 
- Try this. I am either TREMENDOUSLY “lucky” – or, there is a better (more probable) explanation. Is it more probable that I am TREMENDOUSLY lucky than that there is a more probable explanation?

The is a better explanation that has been provided to you multiple times on this thread: the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You will never understand the problem with your explanation until you understand why it is s perfect example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. And you never have responded to why your "lucky" Jabba explanation (which you believe must mean you have a reincarnated "soul" to account for your "luck") does not also apply to your unique fingerprints or the unique atomic arrangement in that rock on top of a desk.

By the way- I do feel lucky that the throw of the dice made me, rather than someone else a lot more like my sister. She can be very short tempered sometimes.
 
Last edited:
- To me, I’m the one that counts.

- And, in a sense (that sense) at least, I was pre-chosen, set apart, and should not just be counted as someone/anyone… My particular existence is special/significant.
- I’ll be back.

I don't doubt that you are special to you now (not before you were born). I don't understand how that means in any way that you were pre-chosen, set apart, or have special significance. Your significance (to you; there are 7 billon other people on this planet) only occurred after you were born and is directly comparable to the special significance of your unique fingerprints or drawing a 3 of clubs out of a pack of 52 random cards. What are the chances of that? Before you do it, 1/52. After you do it: 1/1.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom