Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[John Jones]

And apparently they can only think "algorithmically." Whatever that's supposed to mean.

I take it as just another scurrilous assault against his better-informed interlocutors.

The Dunning-Kruger(sp?) effect and all that.

 

[JayUtah]

Instead of throwing out random irrelevant quotes...

Not only irrelevant but ripped bleeding from their contexts (the ones that aren't just blatantly made up). Albert Einstein is one of the most misquoted people on this planet. Even if we concentrate on the stuff he actually said, as opposed to the many things merely attributed to him, it almost never means in context what the religious miscreants use it for.

The era of the celebrity physicist has given rise to all manner of nonsense that lay people want to shove under the umbrella of science. Science is not whatever comes out of the mouths of scientists. Science is what arises from the scientific method. There is no method to television appearances, lectures, and pithy essays on "religiosity." And in blatant contrast to what Jabba claims above, I've seen the celebrity scientists are sometimes actually held in a bit of contempt by their more hardworking yet lesser known colleagues. Albert Einstein made some key breakthroughs, to be sure. But no, all his rampant philosophizing was generally either ignored or frowned upon by his colleagues.

 

[JayUtah]

I take it as just another scurrilous assault against his better-informed interlocutors.

Given Jabba's frequent reliance on the unfounded assertion that he is the master of some magical mode of thinking that gives him insight his critics can't possibly achieve, I think this is a suitable position until Jabba clarifies his argument.

Now I pay people -- very smart people -- to think algorithmically. Which is to say, to model the solutions to problems in terms of processes and data elements. I know what I mean if I were to say algorithmic thinking. But to suggest that the people I pay to do that are somehow limited to that mode of thinking is imbecilic. Outside of work they are also actors, musicians, photographers, writers, and so forth.

In any case Jabba has promised us a mathemtical argument. If he has to invent some new foggy way of thinking in order for his argument to hold, then it sure isn't mathematical.

 

[godless dave]

- Anyway, one thought is that there are "shades" of target-ness.
- For instance, the controller of the lottery would be a much more obvious target as lottery winner than would be one of his 5th cousins.
- And, whereas the likelihood of my current existence may not be obviously appropriate for P(E|H), there are some red flags waving (or maybe, orange lights flashing). For instance:
- The current existence of my "self," whether thing, process or illusion is all that I know for sure. If it's an illusion, it's a real illusion -- everything else could be my imagination. I don't know what I am -- but, I know I am.
- Also, it's my only camera/observer -- and, according to OOFLam, it never existed before, it will never exist again and it never had to exist in the first place. And then, if it didn’t exist, there might as well be nothing; and if it never existed, there might as well have never been anything. Something’s wrong here; and, my current existence seems really important. Like a General for a drone strike.
- I’ll be back.

That does not wave any red flags or flash any amber lights. Your existence seems important to you because it's yours. My existence seems important to me because it's mine. The reality is that the universe would go right on existing if neither of us were here. All we are is dust in the wind.

 

[Loss Leader]

I think I might have mentioned it before there's a Night Vale Quote that is oddly perfect for this.

"Death is only the end if you assume the story is about you."

Parenthetically, I've always adopted a very literary interpretation of my life. I like to think I'm learning things useful in some huge showdown. Then my children were born and I had the most horrible thought: What if I'm just someone else's backstory?

 

[Belz...]

OK.

OK you'll change your approache and try logic next time, or OK you'll ignore the criticism and go on your merry way as you've done so far?

 

[Belz...]

Something’s wrong here; and, my current existence seems really important. Like a General for a drone strike.

I assure you, your existence is totally unimportant.

 

[Jabba]

That does not wave any red flags or flash any amber lights. Your existence seems important to you because it's yours. My existence seems important to me because it's mine. The reality is that the universe would go right on existing if neither of us were here. All we are is dust in the wind.

Dave,
- Yeah. That's why I question the appropriateness of the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, as P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula... But yet, I'm still 99% sure that it is appropriate...
- Ineffable?
- I'm workin on it.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- Yeah. That's why I question the appropriateness of the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, as P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula... But yet, I'm still 99% sure that it is appropriate...

More numbers you pulled out of your backside.

 

[JayUtah]

Yeah. That's why I question the appropriateness of the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, as P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula... But yet, I'm still 99% sure that it is appropriate...

But you can't explain to anyone else why it's appropriate in a way that convinces them. That's what a proof is -- a line of reasoning designed to persuade someone to believe something he wasn't already predisposed to believe in. In the mathematical sense a proof is a connected series of expressions that shows something must follow from the starting conditions.

You can't do any of that, and it's high time you admitted it once and for all.

Oh sure, you want to chalk up your lack of progress to some imagined sin on the part of your critics. Our posts are too long, or we don't molly-coddle you, or we distract you from your goal. I'm sure believing that gives you great comfort, but the fact is that in the time it has taken you to tap-dance around one formula, a real student could have earned a bachelor's degree in mathematics.

Your numbers are made up. You just pulled them out of your hindquarters. Your "estimate" for P(E|H) has nothing behind it except your fervent desire to have a soul and your fervent goal to believe you have proven to the unwashed heathens that you have one. If you want to demonstrate otherwise you'll have to prove otherwise.

I'm workin on it.

No, you're not. As I said, you're repeatedly defibrillating a dead corpse and trying to convince the people around you that its resulting flopping about is signs of life.

 

[Mojo]

But yet, I'm still 99% sure that it is appropriate...

A splendid thing to post above this sig: "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence."

 

[Jabba]

- Let's try a little at a time.
- We seem to all agree that science would allow the possibility of creating an identical consciousness -- but, science would not allow for re-creating the same consciousness. Am I correct?

 

[Mojo]

-- but, science would not allow for re-creating the same consciousness. Am I correct?

Yes, if you have two identical things there are two of them, not one.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba, here's something I posted in part II:

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.

If we created Rover after the complete destruction of Fido (perhaps as a result of gravitational stress) we would not be recreating Fido; we would be creating another identical dog.

 

[sackett]

Jabba and the Time Cube

Somewhere up above, JayUtah introduced the word “crank,” the first time it’s been used in this thread. I’m very glad he did; if I’d said it, the Mods (Peas and Bacon Be Upon them) would likely have given a taste of their knuckles.

A crank is somebody who obsesses on only one foolishly labored and pointless postulate, never taking in others’ views and never admitting that he might be all wet.

Jabba: If you had to do it (you don’t, of course, but I wish you would), how could you demonstrate that you’re not a crank?

“Obsesses on only one foolishly labored and pointless postulate.” Gosh, that’s a long phrase. Can somebody reduce it to an acronym for me? Thanks.

 

[Sideroxylon]

- Let's try a little at a time.
- We seem to all agree that science would allow the possibility of creating an identical consciousness -- but, science would not allow for re-creating the same consciousness. Am I correct?

Science here is some vague authority that you distrust but begrudgingly conceded to. Much easier to paint the situation this way than outlining the arguments against this idea. That kind of honesty opens a whole can of worms for your claim.

 

[Pixel42]

- Let's try a little at a time.
- We seem to all agree that science would allow the possibility of creating an identical consciousness -- but, science would not allow for re-creating the same consciousness. Am I correct?

The two consciousnesses are distinguished only by their spacetime co-ordinates. The second one, if identical, would be a recreation of the first one, just at a different point in space and time. We've been through this before.

 

[jond]

The two consciousnesses are distinguished only by their spacetime co-ordinates. The second one, if identical, would be a recreation of the first one, just at a different point in space and time. We've been through this before.

We've been through it an infinite number of times, and he's ignored it every time.

 

[Belz...]

- Let's try a little at a time.

You mean, go even slower?

 

[godless dave]

Are we really back to 2>1 again?