Proof of Immortality II

[Jabba]

So we are now fully in the "Does a tree falling in the forest with no one around make a sound?" territory. I thought you were using statistics to prove reincarnation (remember?); now the significance of a statistical event depends on if someone is around to appreciate it. Why not just state that you believe in souls and reincarnation, and give up trying to prove it mathematically? If that is your goal?

- I just want to show how unlikely it is that I would exist for only one, finite, life.

 

[Jabba]

I bet you are (would be?)!

Is this a typo? Were you hoping no one would notice- you know you could have corrected it by editing. Or do you mean this?

Giordano,
- If I understand your question, I meant it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- I guess that I'm "setting the stage." These are important claims, on my part, that I urge you to keep in mind as I try to communicate my position re being "special."

OTH, you could just uncork your evidenec that the"soul" exists, and is "immortal"...

 

[Giordano]

js,
- For the moment, at least, you have found the way to my heart.
- A long time ago, on Part I of this thread, we had discussions about what ~A would include. The following is about the last thing I said about ~A in Part I (http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=9833235&highlight=complement#post9833235) - I'm claiming that ~A has mathematical restrictions that can be expressed more explicitly than "anything and everything that is not A." I expressed ~A as "given that I currently exist, my existence will be either continuous, or more than once, or (somehow) both. I'm claiming that in mathematics, the possibilities are limited and identifiable.

It was pointed out to you that ~A can not be simply self-defined as you do if, as insisted by the formula you propose, A + ~A =1. Given further that ~A is not limited to your definition of b (B?), that you are immortal, I don't see how making A unlikely helps in any way in proving the validity of B (remember your OP?). I am not even certain that your definition of ~A even encompasses all the "not A" possibilities (certainly not without seeing your current definition of A).

 

[Jabba]

Jabba-

Are you saying that your proof of immortality is only valid regarding you from your perspective? Or are you saying that anyone else should believe in your immortality because you are special from your own perspective?

- I'm saying that anyone else should suspect that they are immortal, and that if I am indeed conscious, I am immortal also. I say "suspect" because "more than once" does not necessitate immortality.

 

[Giordano]

- I just want to show how unlikely it is that I would exist for only one, finite, life.

I know you want to show this: go ahead any time and do so. So far- you haven't (are you saying that feeling lucky is an essential part of your mathematical proof?).

 

[John Jones]

- I just want to show how unlikely it is that I would exist for only one, finite, life.

Feel free to do so any time now.

 

[Giordano]

Giordano,
- If I understand your question, I meant it.

I don't understand what you meant by "I'd be stuck." Do you mean you would be stuck if the degree you are set apart is zero? What does that mean? Stuck in your argument? Stuck to a point in space? What?

 

[Giordano]

- I'm saying that anyone else should suspect that they are immortal, and that if I am indeed conscious, I am immortal also. I say "suspect" because "more than once" does not necessitate immortality.

Other people should only suspect that they are immortal but you are immortal? Is this what you intend to say?

I think I understand how "more than once" is different from "immortal." Why shouldn't I suspect under your theory that I will live 1000000 times, but then die off? Why does immortality fit your model but "a lot of times" doesn't?

So you intend to prove that I am immortal using mathematics that include "feeling lucky" and "suspect" as inherent parts of the math? Where in the equation do I fit these "values?"

 

[Giordano]

I am curious: where in taxonomy does consciousness begin? Are plants immortal? Are hydra (very small multicellular polyps with a few nerve-like cells) immortal? I even have a few cultured nerve cells in a plate in my incubator: are they also immortal? The organism from which they were derived was a mouse, which was presumably self-aware and therefore by your standards immortal: do the individual cells from such a creature lose their immortality when cultured? Or are these isolated nerve cells also immortal?

I also have a few skin cells in a plate in my incubator: are they not immortal? When is an organism self-aware enough to be immortal and is that the only criterion?

 

[jond]

jond,
- Probably.

So all animals with brains are immortal, but rocks aren't?

Are brains immortal?

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

I thought that you had agreed with your wife to limit your postings in this thread to no more than 2 a day. Have you re-negotiated this limit?

 

[jond]

- I'm saying that anyone else should suspect that they are immortal, and that if I am indeed conscious, I am immortal also. I say "suspect" because "more than once" does not necessitate immortality.

OK, so consciousness is immortal. At least we can now get to the facts, after 2 years.

As has been demonstrated many times throughout this thread, consciousness is a process from the brain. You've been shown links to papers and videos and books demonstrating that not only do we understand where in the brain certain conscious functions happen, we know what happens (consistently) when those areas are damaged, and we now think we've isolated the on/off switch within the brain where we can shut off consciousness while the person is awake. We also now know that the notion of consciousness being some sort of force that exists externally but somehow interacts with the brain is not possible. So, once again: how does consciousness continue to exist after the brain stops functioning?

 

[jsfisher]

js,
- For the moment, at least, you have found the way to my heart.
- A long time ago, on Part I of this thread, we had discussions about what ~A would include. The following is about the last thing I said about ~A in Part I (http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=9833235&highlight=complement#post9833235) - I'm claiming that ~A has mathematical restrictions that can be expressed more explicitly than "anything and everything that is not A." I expressed ~A as "given that I currently exist, my existence will be either continuous, or more than once, or (somehow) both. I'm claiming that in mathematics, the possibilities are limited and identifiable.

As soon as A is fixed, then ~A is fixed, also. You don't get to introduce extra restrictions in a vain effort to achieve a desired result. A and ~A are disjoint, and A + ~A is everything. ~A alone is everything that isn't A.

If, for example, ~A consisted of 100 equally likely realities, and Jabba had a 50% chance of existing in only one of them, then P(me|~A) would be 50%/100 = 0.5% = 1:200. You don't get to discard all the cases you don't like just to inflate the odds.

...and there's still nothing to say Jabba would be immortal in the alternate reality.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I'm saying that anyone else should suspect that they are immortal, and that if I am indeed conscious, I am immortal also. I say "suspect" because "more than once" does not necessitate immortality.

Then I heartily and happily agree with you. Each individual is, from his or her own frame of reference, immortal. The universe will be equal to the portion of the universe perceived. The length of the universe will be equal to the portion of time perceived. You have proven utterly and completely, without any reservation, that you are immortal to yourself.

Furthermore, I may choose to view the world in this way and say that I am immortal to myself.

You have, of course, failed to prove in any way that you are immortal from my frame of reference or even that you exist at all.

So, congratulations on forming a completely empty, meaningless, non-transferable and unrepeatable concept of immortality. You've done it.

 

[carlitos]

Dave,
- My claim is that I am "lucky" whereas trebor's rock is not.
- I am lucky in that I am aware. Trevor's rock is probably not aware. And, you gotta be aware in order to be lucky.
- This truth sounds irrelevant, but it’s actually crucial. Existence has no meaning to the rock, but it does to me – and I assume, it does to you as well…

1000 pages ago in this thread, someone posted computer algorithms that become self-aware and repeat based on simple rules. They have, in effect, a consciousness. They would do their thing endlessly in their little electronic universes. Are they lucky? Does their existence have meaning? Are they immortal?

Another related article - Robot learns self-awareness

 

[Akhenaten]

- My current existence IS what I'm proposing as "new evidence." I'm claiming that I should not be counted as just someone/anyone -- I am set apart, a special case, a target. My sub-claims:
1. “Consciousness” is an extremely difficult subject to discuss -- or just think about -- effectively.
2. Probability is a complex and obscure subject all by itself...

I don't understand how those two sub-claims are relevant to anything...

Dave,


- I guess that I'm "setting the stage."

When we are born, we cry that we are come to this great stage of fools.

- King Lear​

Your guess is awry.

The only stage that you are setting is one upon which you hold a futile hope of prevailing by means of transparent, made-for-TV rhetoric and childlike, pantomime logic in a pretend argument about something which, despite two years of flailing attempts at lucidity, you remain unable to describe.

These are important claims, on my part, that I urge you to keep in mind as I try to communicate my position re being "special."

They are the most trivial of claims and upon them hangs absolutely nothing.

Exactly.

It's beyond tragic that anyone would choose to believe that such trite observations of the bleeding obvious could have any deeper meaning.

 

[jsfisher]

js,
- For the moment, at least, you have found the way to my heart.
- A long time ago, on Part I of this thread, we had discussions about what ~A would include. The following is about the last thing I said about ~A in Part I (http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=9833235&highlight=complement#post9833235) - I'm claiming that ~A has mathematical restrictions that can be expressed more explicitly than "anything and everything that is not A." I expressed ~A as "given that I currently exist, my existence will be either continuous, or more than once, or (somehow) both. I'm claiming that in mathematics, the possibilities are limited and identifiable.

On the other hand, if you want to include as a precondition you existence, then you get this:

P(me) = P(me|A)P(A) + P(me|~A)P(~A) -and-
P(me) = 1

So, either P(A) = 0, which would leave you with an unsatisfactory proof by assumption, or P(me|A) = 1, which is exactly a result you don't want.

 

[Akhenaten]

…3. Being “set apart” is not just is or isn’t. It exists in degrees, and the degree to which an event is set apart, relates to the probability required to make it significant.
4. The degree to which my specific, current existence is set apart may be very small, but the probability of my specific, current existence is unimaginably small…

… What if the degree to which you are set apart is zero?...

- I’d be stuck.

Thus you attempt to substitute "unimaginably small" for "zero" and "sort of hope that no one will consider the issue important enough to bring up".

 

[Mojo]

- I.e., is it more probable that “A” is not correct?

Your existence is entirely consistent with "A" being correct, so as a piece of new evidence it has no effect on the probability of "A" being correct.