Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[godless dave]

Dave,
- How are they not analogous?

A human self existing is the result of a series of events, not a one time draw from a pool of possibilities.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- No. As explained above, I assume that any combination of any sperm and any ovum (of the same species) constitute a potential self.

That entirely hypothetical assumption is useless. It is like when asked which possible outcomes can come from rolling a dice, you would not only list 1-6, but also eight corners, ten edges and every thinkable place the dice might end up hidden. ... And pretend to build some kind of statistics from that.

The number of (human) selves (if you must count) is the number of humans ever alive with functional brains. The number of potential selves is the number of zygotes conceived.

Hans

 

[Mojo]

- No. As explained above, I assume that any combination of any sperm and any ovum (of the same species) constitute a potential self.

The human genome has a finite number of base pairs. If it didn't, every cell in your body would be of infinite size. You would find this rather inconvenient.

 

[jt512]

Pixel,
- If I understand what you're saying, two of the elements in our Bayesian formula provide "likelihoods" of events after the events have already occurred (given that a particular hypothesis is true), and their likelihoods are not 100%.

Try, for once, to understand what I'm saying. The likelihoods under both of your hypotheses are 100%, because the hypotheses themselves are conditional on your own existence, E. Had you not existed in the first place, there would never have been a hypothesis about how you came to exist. Your hypotheses are thus contingent on your existence. Your likelihood terms are not P(E|H_i), as they should be; instead they are P(E|H_i, E), which equals 1.

 

[jt512]

Try, for once, to understand what I'm saying. The likelihoods under both of your hypotheses are 100%, because the hypotheses themselves are conditional on your own existence, E. Had you not existed in the first place, there would never have been a hypothesis about how you came to exist. Your hypotheses are thus contingent on your existence. Your likelihood terms are not P(E|H_i), as they should be; instead they are P(E|H_i, E), which equals 1.

To follow up: since the likelihood terms for both your hypotheses are 1, their ratio is 1, and thus your "evidence" does not discriminate between your hypotheses. This has a straightforward implication: your observing that you exist says nothing about how you came to exist.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- How are they not analogous?

A human self existing is the result of a series of events, not a one time draw from a pool of possibilities.

- But, that one time draw is also the result of a series of events.

 

[JayUtah]

- But, that one time draw is also the result of a series of events.

No, it's a single event that presupposes (a) a lottery, (b) a pool of contestants. Aside from the draw, none of the elements of the lottery have anything prior or subsequent to do with it. None of that -- or anything like it -- exists in the scientific model. You can't just suppose that a similar contrived setup must exist for H. Human life isn't just birth. It's a sequence of events that progresses from prior to birth, through life, until death. The process that produces the ongoing sense of self exists all through that. The only "event" in your straw man is birth. That's exactly trying to paste the notion of incarnating a soul onto the scientific hypothesis.

 

[Loss Leader]

- But, that one time draw is also the result of a series of events.

I believe you are reasoning by analogy, classifying objects and phenomena according to superficial observation rather than empirical evidence. Wood, for example, does not contain fire simply because it is combustible, nor does it contain rock simply because it is heavy. Wood, like any complex organic form, is composed of thousands of different chemical compounds, none of which is fire.

- Data
"Thine Own Self"​

 

[John Jones]

I believe you are reasoning by analogy, classifying objects and phenomena according to superficial observation rather than empirical evidence. Wood, for example, does not contain fire simply because it is combustible, nor does it contain rock simply because it is heavy. Wood, like any complex organic form, is composed of thousands of different chemical compounds, none of which is fire.

- Data
"Thine Own Self"​

This seems to almost demand a Monty Python rejoinder of some sort, but I can't put my finger on it.

 

[godless dave]

- But, that one time draw is also the result of a series of events.

And if the preceding events affected the outcome of the draw, you would include them in calculating the likelihood.

 

[wea]

...Electromagnetic frequencies are quantized...

Off topic. As far as I know, the intensity of an electromagnetic wave is always measured in discrete quantities, but you still have photons of any frequency. Missing boundary conditions, how do you know that frequencies are quantized?

Frequency is proportional energy, and a photon cannot have any energy. Its possible energy levels are discrete; hence, its frequencies are discrete.

A photon with a specific frequency has always energy = hν (to say nothing about Lorentz' trasformations), and as currently understood all frequencies are possible (i.e. the electromagnetic spectrum is a continuum in the current QED model). To have frequencies quantized, it would probably be necessary to have time quantized too, I think. Can you point me to any advance I'm not aware of in this direction?

Waiting for a reference, back to an interesting dilemma:

Jabba, how many "going 60 mph" are there?

 

[Jabba]

Try, for once, to understand what I'm saying. The likelihoods under both of your hypotheses are 100%, because the hypotheses themselves are conditional on your own existence, E. Had you not existed in the first place, there would never have been a hypothesis about how you came to exist. Your hypotheses are thus contingent on your existence. Your likelihood terms are not P(E|H_i), as they should be; instead they are P(E|H_i, E), which equals 1.

jt,
- For me, this stuff is really hard to express...
- I think you're saying that the situation I'm alluding to is a special case because now is when I would have to exist. My best guess is that, yeah, but I can also express the probability of my current existence as the likelihood that now would be the 21st century of the Gregorian Calendar -- which is virtually zero. Then, I would argue that both probabilities are at play.
- I suspect that doesn't communicate. If it doesn't, let me know and I'll try again.

 

[Hokulele]

jt,
- For me, this stuff is really hard to express...
- I think you're saying that the situation I'm alluding to is a special case because now is when I would have to exist. My best guess is that, yeah, but I can also express the probability of my current existence as the likelihood that now would be the 21st century of the Gregorian Calendar -- which is virtually zero. Then, I would argue that both probabilities are at play.
- I suspect that doesn't communicate. If it doesn't, let me know and I'll try again.

No, he is saying your hypotheses require you to exist, so both probabilities are 100%. It has nothing at all to do with timing.

 

[godless dave]

jt,
- For me, this stuff is really hard to express...
- I think you're saying that the situation I'm alluding to is a special case because now is when I would have to exist. My best guess is that, yeah, but I can also express the probability of my current existence as the likelihood that now would be the 21st century of the Gregorian Calendar -- which is virtually zero.

The likelihood that now would be now is one.

Your existence depends on your parents existence, plus them meeting and reproducing, so there is a relatively short span of time when a self similar to you could exist.

You, specifically, are the person who was born with your genetic makeup on whatever your birthday is, so that's the only time you could have existed.

 

[Dancing David]

Pixel,
- I was referring to an old-fashioned lottery in which only one lot was drawn.
- Every combination of every sperm and every ovum (of the same species) make up a potential self.

See there you go crossing species again, the Ethics Review Board will never approve

 

[Jabba]

- But, that one time draw is also the result of a series of events.

And if the preceding events affected the outcome of the draw, you would include them in calculating the likelihood.

Dave,
- They did affect the outcome of the draw. We just don't know how they affected the outcome.
- In addition, we still have no idea how a particular awareness is determined.

 

[JayUtah]

They did affect the outcome of the draw. We just don't know how they affected the outcome.

Then how do you know they did? This sort of nonsense really doesn't help.

In addition, we still have no idea how a particular awareness is determined.

There is no "particular awareness" in the sense you mean. A sense of awareness is a property of a functioning brain. If there is a functioning brain, it has a sense of awareness. Yes, it really is that easy; stop trying to obfuscate it.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- They did affect the outcome of the draw. We just don't know how they affected the outcome.

When calculating the odds of a raffle draw, we assume we are calculating only for people who entered the drawing. People who don't or can't enter the drawing all have a zero likelihood of winning.

For human selves, there's nothing like a draw. There is no collection of entrants, no winning numbers, no winning tickets. People have babies, those babies have brains, those brains are conscious.

- In addition, we still have no idea how a particular awareness is determined.

You may have no idea, but if so that's because you've declined to research scientific investigations of awareness. The scientific consensus, the one you claim to be trying to find a likelihood for, is that a particular awareness is produced by a living human brain, the characteristics of which are determined by sexual reproduction and fetal and infant development. Two humans make a baby. If it survives to term, it will be born with a functioning and still growing brain, which will be conscious and capable of having subjective experiences.

 

[Mojo]

- No. As explained above, I assume that any combination of any sperm and any ovum (of the same species) constitute a potential self.

Are you claiming that zygotes are conscious?

 

[abaddon]

Are you claiming that zygotes are conscious?

It certainly appears so. I hope I'm wrong.