Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Mojo]

Dave,
- It doesn't matter whether or not a lottery like that is analogous to the way human selves come to exist under H... That could just mean that H is wrong. In other words, it could be that H is not dualistic -- but, we are. And, H is just wrong.

Jabba,
- Do you understand why an argument that assumes that H is wrong cannot be used to prove that H is wrong?

 

[JayUtah]

Wouldn't it be cool if Jabba actually read and attempted to understand this?

His answer, as you can see, is "This is confusing" (Befuddled Old Man) and "I think you're wrong." Befuddled Old Man is the Jabba character that comes out on stage to make excuses for not understanding simple concepts that wreck his proof. Obviously everyone else understands them. But if his goal is to stall the debate, he just keeps making excuses for why he don't understand them. And he insists that we have to keep going around in circles until Befuddled Old Man finally gets it. Which, of course, never happens. Befuddled Old Man is the sort of endearing character you'd forgive for not being able to wrap his mind around an idea. He's kindly, so you don't feel right telling him he needs to step up his game.

And then, of course, the nature of a debate is to prove an opponent is wrong, not just to repeat ad nauseam that one thinks he is. That's where we are on Day One of any debate. "I think you're wrong, and I'm going to try to prove it." Now four or five years hence we're still at "I think you're wrong," but nothing approaching a valid proof has been offered. Restating the belief then just becomes a taunt.

 

[abaddon]

Dave,

- You believe that we cannot reproduce the same self, even though we might someday be able to reproduce identical selves. If we could just keep producing identical selves, there should be an infinity of potential selves, which would mean that the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- would be virtually zero.

Think about that Jabba. If, as you posit, someday in the far future we could just produce identical selves as much as we like, it becomes MORE likely that any given individual will exist.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- It's really interesting (to me) how confusing this stuff is. I know that you don't think it's so confusing -- but so far, I just think you're wrong.
- You believe that we cannot reproduce the same self, even though we might someday be able to reproduce identical selves. If we could just keep producing identical selves, there should be an infinity of potential selves, which would mean that the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- would be virtually zero.
- Though ... it wouldn't mean that the posterior probability of OOFLam would be virtually zero. That would depend upon your target meaningfulness. I'll try to get to that next time.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

I hope your day is going well. I had to replace my beloved, huge, 200,000-miles-on-it E250 yesterday, and I am sad.

What is "confusing" is why you continue to pretend that the question "How many 'going 60 mph" are there?" has not been asked.

Suppose you address it?

I remain indefatigably yours, &ct.

 

[Loss Leader]

If we could just keep producing identical selves, there should be an infinity of potential selves,

Jabba,

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

 

[jond]

His answer, as you can see, is "This is confusing" (Befuddled Old Man) and "I think you're wrong." Befuddled Old Man is the Jabba character that comes out on stage to make excuses for not understanding simple concepts that wreck his proof. Obviously everyone else understands them. But if his goal is to stall the debate, he just keeps making excuses for why he don't understand them. And he insists that we have to keep going around in circles until Befuddled Old Man finally gets it. Which, of course, never happens. Befuddled Old Man is the sort of endearing character you'd forgive for not being able to wrap his mind around an idea. He's kindly, so you don't feel right telling him he needs to step up his game.

And then, of course, the nature of a debate is to prove an opponent is wrong, not just to repeat ad nauseam that one thinks he is. That's where we are on Day One of any debate. "I think you're wrong, and I'm going to try to prove it." Now four or five years hence we're still at "I think you're wrong," but nothing approaching a valid proof has been offered. Restating the belief then just becomes a taunt.

Indeed.

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Dancing David]

Dave,
- It's really interesting (to me) how confusing this stuff is. I know that you don't think it's so confusing -- but so far, I just think you're wrong.
- You believe that we cannot reproduce the same self, even though we might someday be able to reproduce identical selves. If we could just keep producing identical selves, there should be an infinity of potential selves, which would mean that the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- would be virtually zero.
- Though ... it wouldn't mean that the posterior probability of OOFLam would be virtually zero. That would depend upon your target meaningfulness. I'll try to get to that next time.

I wonder what drinks angels order when they dance at the PinHead Disco?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

His answer, as you can see, is "This is confusing" (Befuddled Old Man) and "I think you're wrong." Befuddled Old Man is the Jabba character that comes out on stage to make excuses for not understanding simple concepts that wreck his proof.

Befuddled Old Man is also a useful counter to the actions of Mean Horrid Skeptics in the eyes of the imaginary neutral gallery he thinks he can sway with his fallacies.

 

[Jabba]

I'll repeat my question from above:

Just like we can't reproduce the same body. Just like after we blow out a candle, we can never get the same flame again. Just like after a snowflake melts, the same snowflake will never exist again.

Can you think of anything in reality that can exist again after it's gone? Why do you think it's significant that particular senses of self can't exist twice when that's the case for literally everything else?

- No.

- I don't know how we got here. I was just trying to show why it seemed like there had to be an infinity of potential selves -- just like there had to be an infinity of potential bananas. If we can just keep re-cycling, we don't have any limits. And, if identical chemistry doesn't reproduce the same person, we can keep re-cycling and getting different persons and selves.

- I wasn't trying to show that we could reproduce the same person. I was just accepting that we couldn't -- which should mean there would be an infinity of potential selves, which should mean that the likelihood of your current existence should be virtually zero...

- This may not mean that P(H|E) is virtually zero -- that depends upon your "target meaningfulness." Which I think you have.

- I'll be back.

 

[godless dave]

- No.

- I don't know how we got here. I was just trying to show why it seemed like there had to be an infinity of potential selves -- just like there had to be an infinity of potential bananas.

Is the likelihood of an individual banana existing virtually zero? After all, we have an infinity of potential bananas.

If we can just keep re-cycling, we don't have any limits. And, if identical chemistry doesn't reproduce the same person, we can keep re-cycling and getting different persons and selves.

We do keep recycling. The matter your body of made of used to be in other animals, plants, and even rocks and dirt. Some of it might have even been in another human. Before that it was in stars and interstellar gas. And in the future, after you die, that matter will be in other living things.

Just as we can keep recycling and getting different bananas.

- I wasn't trying to show that we could reproduce the same person. I was just accepting that we couldn't -- which should mean there would be an infinity of potential selves, which should mean that the likelihood of your current existence should be virtually zero...

Why does it mean that the likelihood of my current existence is virtually zero? What does the number of potential selves over all time have to do with the likelihood of my existence?

 

[Loss Leader]

- No.

- I don't know how we got here. I was just trying to show why it seemed like there had to be an infinity of potential selves -- just like there had to be an infinity of potential bananas.

Bananas are things, so they are a poor analogy for the process of the neurosystem. A better analogy would be "the taste of a banana." How many "the taste of a banana" are there?

Remember that a single banana's taste can change drastically within the course of one week. Heck, it's taste can change from bite to bite.

 

[Jabba]

Is the likelihood of an individual banana existing virtually zero? After all, we have an infinity of potential bananas...

Dave,
- In a sense, the likelihood of an individual banana currently existing is probably (at least virtually) one. I doubt that there is anything mysterious about a banana, other than life itself.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- In a sense, the likelihood of an individual banana currently existing is probably (at least virtually) one. I doubt that there is anything mysterious about a banana, other than life itself.

But there is an infinite number of potential bananas. If I duplicated the conditions that led to a particular banana existing, I wouldn't get the same banana. By the reasoning you've been presenting, the likelihood of an individual banana existing should be virtually zero.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- In a sense, the likelihood of an individual banana currently existing is probably (at least virtually) one. I doubt that there is anything mysterious about a banana, other than life itself.

And, because the self is a process of a functioning neurosystem, the likelihood of your "self" being Jabba is exactly 1. Your self is the ongoing result of the process of your brain functioning and constantly receiving (and frequently ignoring) information.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- In a sense, the likelihood of an individual banana currently existing is probably (at least virtually) one. I doubt that there is anything mysterious about a banana, other than life itself.

Then the likelihood of an individual person existing is also probably (at least virtually) one.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Dave,
- In a sense, the likelihood of an individual banana currently existing is probably (at least virtually) one. I doubt that there is anything mysterious about a banana, other than life itself.

You are exactly as likely and mysterious as a banana Jabba.

 

[JayUtah]

I was just trying to show why it seemed like there had to be an infinity of potential selves -- just like there had to be an infinity of potential bananas.

And in neither case does the number of "potential" objects affect the probability that examples of either exist. Even if selves were a discrete thing under H, which the sense of self is not, your proof fails numerically.

which should mean that the likelihood of your current existence should be virtually zero...

Yet we have bananas, and they don't need immortal souls to transcend their infinite potential. Try to learn how reductio ad absurdum works, Jabba.

This may not mean that P(H|E) is virtually zero -- that depends upon your "target meaningfulness." Which I think you have.

And once again you're simply making up words into which you can stuff whatever meanings you want, that "magically" make your proof work. This is just artful begging of the question.

I'll be back.

I'm sure, but never with anything new or right.

 

[JayUtah]

In a sense, the likelihood of an individual banana currently existing is probably (at least virtually) one.

In exactly the same sense, the probability under H of an individual person existing is 1. That's the point of the analogy.

I doubt that there is anything mysterious about a banana, other than life itself.

Under H there isn't anything mysterious about you either, Jabba. That's the point of the analogy, just as it was the point of the analogy between you and Mt Ranier. And in both cases you are trying to pollute H with trumped-up notions of special significance, and mystical babble intended to establish, by non-evidentiary and non-mathematical means, that you must somehow have a "soul" -- something that makes you magically different than all these inanimate objects that also exist in infinite potential. In your mad rush to say you're better than a banana and better than Mt Ranier, you just flagrantly beg the question. Under H there is no mystical nonsense that creates your sense of self. Stop trying to paste one onto it just so you can say the math must work out differently than it does.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- It doesn't matter whether or not a lottery like that is analogous to the way human selves come to exist under H... That could just mean that H is wrong. In other words, it could be that H is not dualistic -- but, we are. And, H is just wrong.
- I have other explanations, but one at a time.

I sometimes wonder if you even know what you are trying to argue. H (OOFLAM) is the thing you are trying to disprove. H is not dualistic. Under H your sensation of self is a process of a functioning brain. Under H, the current state of a self is not improbable. It is unpredictable, but probable enough for this planet to hold nearly 7 billions of the human persuasion alone. And it can well be argued that some animals have a kind of selves, too.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

Is the likelihood of an individual banana existing virtually zero? After all, we have an infinity of potential bananas.



We do keep recycling. The matter your body of made of used to be in other animals, plants, and even rocks and dirt. Some of it might have even been in another human. Before that it was in stars and interstellar gas. And in the future, after you die, that matter will be in other living things.

Just as we can keep recycling and getting different bananas.




Why does it mean that the likelihood of my current existence is virtually zero? What does the number of potential selves over all time have to do with the likelihood of my existence?

Dave,
- This is where chemistry loses control, and we have so much trouble communicating. While your chemistry could theoretically reproduce an identical you, it couldn't reproduce you. Scientifically speaking, therefore, you can exist only once in all of infinity. That your time would happen to be the 21st century, Gregorian speaking, is an all too amazing coincident. Which would be more probable, your current existence given only one existence for all infinity, or ~OOFLam given your current existence?
- I think there's more to it (re Mt Rainier) -- but again, one step at a time