Proof of Immortality III

[Jabba]

Dave,
- This question may not really communicate -- but, if it does, it's important. Can science predict who this kind of self would be?

The irony is that the opinion Jabba is (ostensibly) trying to argue isn't unusual, hell it's practically mainstream. Billions of people around the world believe that some definition of "ourselves" is non-material and survives death in some fashion.

The only difference is they just called it a "soul" and invoke faith and call it a day, without the need to create some convoluted on a scale I didn't think possible infinite nested argument to support it.

Jabba I've asked this several times in this thread and would like (but don't necessarily expect) an answer. Why not just call your view that there is some immaterial part of your being that isn't dependent on your bodily functions a soul, invoke faith, and be done with it? That would certainly put you in a lot of company.

I don't understand this desire to pretend you have a rational explanation for (and stranger a near fetish for proving you have a rational explanation for) something you are obviously just taking on faith the same as literally billions of other people, to the point that you're so deep down in nested arguments within nested arguments within some framework of rewriting the rules of how discussions have to go as to be lost forever.

Jond,

- I understand the concept of self that reincarnationists believe keeps returning (without bringing its previous characteristics with it). I want to believe that this kind of self does keep returning.
- And when I was 14, I had something like an epiphany, in which it seemed to me obvious that OOFLam -- didn't make sense. But relatively recently, I realized that the basis of my "epiphany" seems to be a rather sub-conscious application of a simplified version of Bayesian statistics.
- Now, I think that Bayesian statistics virtually disproves OOFLam. And, as far as I can tell, the only questionable number in the appropriate formula is the likelihood of my existence given OOFLam. I claim that at the very most, this number is unimaginably small, and that probably it is seven billion over infinity.
- I guess that my epiphany might be considered faith, but the rest isn't.

- Do you see this as the same concept that Dave is talking about?

 

[Pixel42]

- I understand the concept of self that reincarnationists believe keeps returning (without bringing its previous characteristics with it).

Then perhaps you can explain it, because the concept makes no sense to me whatsoever. I can see no way in which a 'self' that does not have my characteristics - my memories, my personality produced by my brain and my experiences - can be me in any meaningful sense.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jond,

- I understand the concept of self that reincarnationists believe keeps returning (without bringing its previous characteristics with it). I want to believe that this kind of self does keep returning.
- And when I was 14, I had something like an epiphany, in which it seemed to me obvious that OOFLam -- didn't make sense. But relatively recently, I realized that the basis of my "epiphany" seems to be a rather sub-conscious application of a simplified version of Bayesian statistics.
- Now, I think that Bayesian statistics virtually disproves OOFLam. And, as far as I can tell, the only questionable number in the appropriate formula is the likelihood of my existence given OOFLam. I claim that at the very most, this number is unimaginably small, and that probably it is seven billion over infinity.
- I guess that my epiphany might be considered faith, but the rest isn't.

Other than your continued instance that it's different and your continued instance that there is some way of factually showing evidence for you claim that you have in all this time utterly failed to even begin to do, I see no functional difference between your assertion of some probability of an immaterial soul and simple everyday blind religious, spiritual, or other metaphysical faith.

Words like "epiphany" do little to weaken my assumption.

What you are describing in every objective sense is simple faith, something billions of people have. I do not see why you have the need to gussy your faith up so much.

You're scared to die so you're going to believe there is some part of you that will survive the death of your physical, despite having no evidence to support it. Billions of people do this, they just admit that what they are doing. The only thing so far that makes you as unique as you obviously have a deep need to be is your inability to admit that is what you are doing.

 

[zooterkin]

But relatively recently, I realized that the basis of my "epiphany" seems to be a rather sub-conscious application of a simplified version of Bayesian statistics.

No, it isn't.

- Now, I think that Bayesian statistics virtually disproves OOFLam.

No, it doesn't.

I claim that at the very most, this number is unimaginably small, and that probably it is seven billion over infinity.

That's not anywhere near unimaginably small.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Dave,
- This question may not really communicate -- but, if it does, it's important. Can science predict who this kind of self would be?

Can science predict what kind of mountain Mt. Rainier would be?

 

[Loss Leader]

I claim that at the very most, this number is unimaginably small, and that probably it is seven billion over infinity.

That's not a number. Infinity isn't a number. You cannot divide something by infinity and get an answer.

The "odds," depending on where you start, may be very, very small. But very, very small is not zero.

I can prove it. Would you rather I had a very, very small amount of respect for you, or zero respect for you?

 

[jond]

Jond,

- I understand the concept of self that reincarnationists believe keeps returning (without bringing its previous characteristics with it). I want to believe that this kind of self does keep returning.
- And when I was 14, I had something like an epiphany, in which it seemed to me obvious that OOFLam -- didn't make sense. But relatively recently, I realized that the basis of my "epiphany" seems to be a rather sub-conscious application of a simplified version of Bayesian statistics.
- Now, I think that Bayesian statistics virtually disproves OOFLam. And, as far as I can tell, the only questionable number in the appropriate formula is the likelihood of my existence given OOFLam. I claim that at the very most, this number is unimaginably small, and that probably it is seven billion over infinity.
- I guess that my epiphany might be considered faith, but the rest isn't.

- Do you see this as the same concept that Dave is talking about?

Why are you addressing me and quoting Joe Bentley? It's as incoherent as what you just wrote. That said, I am quite sure Godless Dave and I are talking about the same concept.

Bayesian statistics says nothing that disproves OOFLam. However unlikely human beings may be, the fact is we exist and have done for many many years. Just as Mt. Rainer exists, as does its neighbor Mt. St. Helens. Which looks quite different from how it looked 40 years ago, because like consciousness, mountains also change over time. And, infinity is not a number. Your epiphany at 14 is nothing but faith. The only way to show that OOFLam is wrong is to provide evidence that consciousness exists separate from the brain in which it's happening. Statistics isn't going to help you.

 

[Jabba]

The observer that belongs to a particular brain is the observer produced by that brain. By predicting the existence of a living brain, you necessarily predict the observer.

- You can predict the characteristics of the observer.

 

[godless dave]

- You can predict the characteristics of the observer.

You can predict the observer itself, because you can predict the brain that will produce it.

Just like being able to predict Mount Rainier means being able to predict the peak of Mount Rainier.

 

[Jabba]

You can predict the observer itself, because you can predict the brain that will produce it.

Just like being able to predict Mount Rainier means being able to predict the peak of Mount Rainier.

Dave,
- Can you reproduce the observer?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Can you reproduce the observer?

You could (with advanced technology we can only imagine) make a duplicate of it by making a duplicate of the body.

Haven't I answered this before?

 

[zooterkin]

You could (with advanced technology we can only imagine) make a duplicate of it by making a duplicate of the body.

Haven't I answered this before?

No, that was someone who looked just like you.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- Can you reproduce the observer?

Irrelevant.

The existence of something does not depend on our ability to reproduce it.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

The observer that belongs to a particular brain is the observer produced by that brain. By predicting the existence of a living brain, you necessarily predict the observer.

- You can predict the characteristics of the observer.

You can predict the observer itself, because you can predict the brain that will produce it.

Just like being able to predict Mount Rainier means being able to predict the peak of Mount Rainier.

Dave,
- Can you reproduce the observer?

You could (with advanced technology we can only imagine) make a duplicate of it by making a duplicate of the body.

Haven't I answered this before?

Dave,
- Sorry about that...
- But, there is some kind, or aspect, of "who," or "self," that you say cannot be reproduced. You say that you and I, for instance, have only one life apiece to live, and neither of us could be reproduced. Can you name that kind, or aspect?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- Sorry about that...
- But, there is some kind, or aspect, of "who," or "self," that you say cannot be reproduced. You say that you and I, for instance, have only one life apiece to live, and neither of us could be reproduced. Can you name that kind, or aspect?

No. While technically not possible now, a sufficiently precise reproduction of the body and the processes in the brain would produce a copy of the self.

Hans

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Sorry about that...
- But, there is some kind, or aspect, of "who," or "self," that you say cannot be reproduced. You say that you and I, for instance, have only one life apiece to live, and neither of us could be reproduced. Can you name that kind, or aspect?

Our brains. If you made a copy of my brain, you would have two identical brains, and thus two identical selves. So they can be reproduced in that sense.

 

[Pixel42]

I'd appreciate an answer to this, Jabba:

Then perhaps you can explain it, because the concept makes no sense to me whatsoever. I can see no way in which a 'self' that does not have my characteristics - my memories, my personality produced by my brain and my experiences - can be me in any meaningful sense.

You claim to understand this concept, so you should be able to explain it.

 

[Mojo]

And, as far as I can tell, the only questionable number in the appropriate formula is the likelihood of my existence given OOFLam. I claim that at the very most, this number is unimaginably small, and that probably it is seven billion over infinity.

The likelihood of your existence being very small is one of the few bits of your argument that isn't "questionable" (although your actual number is, and sticking infinity into your formula is wrong for reasons that have been discussed quite enough already).

What is "questionable" is your assertion that if your existence given "OOFLam" is very unlikely then "OOFLam" is very unlikely given your existence. It doesn't follow. You are using the prosecutor's fallacy here.

That's quite apart from the fact that your existence is very unlikely given that the universe is the result of random processes, not given "OOFLam". You are using what you have termed "the scientific model" as a proxy for "OOFLam", but it doesn't follow that because under this model you are mortal that if this model is wrong you are immortal. It's a false dilemma.

 

[Mojo]

You claim to understand this concept, so you should be able to explain it.

I doubt it. He's only introduced the concept because he has realised that if his existence requires his particular consciousness to be received by his particular body then the likelihood of his existence given this scenario is much lower than the likelihood of his existence if his consciousness is produced by his body. He is therefore proposing that it doesn't matter which bit of consciousness intersects his body because all the characteristics of his consciousness are determined by his body. It an attempt at an ad hoc fix.

This still doesn't help him, because it would mean that the likelyhood of him existing in his preferred scenario is exactly the same as the likelihood of his existence in the scenario in which consciousness is the result of brain processes.

Since his argument is that "OOFLam" is impossible because the likelihood of his existence is so small under it, he now has a problem: if his argument is valid he has also disproven his preferred scenario.

 

[Mojo]

Additionally, the scenario he is now presenting is completely indistinguishable from the scenario in which consciousness is produced by the body and dies with it, just adding an unnecessary (and undetectable) entity to it.