• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba.

What's the simplest Bayes theorem that proves 4+4 equals 27? What's the simplest Bayes theorem that proves the capital of Illinois is Timbuktu?

YOU CAN'T PROVE THINGS WHICH ARE DEMONSTRATABLY, FACTUALLY WRONG BY DEMONSTRATING THEIR LIKELYHOOD!

Once something has or hasn't happened the chances of it happening become moot! It either has or hasn't happened.

Probability describes reality to a certain degree. Probability doesn't determine reality.

Billions of people have lived on this planet. All of them either have died or will die. You can't ignore that by pointing at probability.
 
Jabba, before we get into a discussion about which Bayes formula to use, let's make sure we're in agreement that P(E|H) is not some number over infinity. Given H, neither the number of people alive now nor the number of potential people over all time is relevant to P(E|H).
 
godless dave said:
Jabba, before we get into a discussion about which Bayes formula to use, let's make sure we're in agreement that P(E|H) is not some number over infinity.
Click to expand...


I think you may have arrived at an impass. That is Jabba's entire argument you are asking him to disagree with.
 
godless dave said:
Jabba, before we get into a discussion about which Bayes formula to use, let's make sure we're in agreement that P(E|H) is not some number over infinity. Given H, neither the number of people alive now nor the number of potential people over all time is relevant to P(E|H).
Click to expand...
Dave,
- The following was my understanding of what you had accepted after our preceding discussion. Where was I mistaken?

1. There must be an infinite number of potential, different, personal identities (Human). 2. Personal identities are not physically reducible or re-creatible. 3. The likelihood of their current existence, therefor, can be treated as random. 4. The likelihood of the current existence of your personal identity is therefor analogous to you winning the lottery. 5. There are about 7 billion current examples of personal, human, identities.6. And the likelihood of the current existence of your personal identity is therefor about 7 billion over infinity.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,
- The following was my understanding of what you had accepted after our preceding discussion. Where was I mistaken?

1. There must be an infinite number of potential, different, personal identities (Human). 2. Personal identities are not physically reducible or re-creatible. 3. The likelihood of their current existence, therefor, can be treated as random. 4. The likelihood of the current existence of your personal identity is therefor analogous to you winning the lottery. 5. There are about 7 billion current examples of personal, human, identities.6. And the likelihood of the current existence of your personal identity is therefor about 7 billion over infinity.
Click to expand...

2, 3, 4, 5, and in 1 "different" means "separate", not "unique".
 
Jabba said:
Where was I mistaken?

1. There must be an infinite number of potential, different, personal identities (Human).
2. Personal identities are not physically reducible or re-creatible.
3. The likelihood of their current existence, therefor, can be treated as random.
4. The likelihood of the current existence of your personal identity is therefor analogous to you winning the lottery.
5. There are about 7 billion current examples of personal, human, identities.
6. And the likelihood of the current existence of your personal identity is therefor about 7 billion over infinity.
Click to expand...

All of the above are wrong. All of them incredibly wrong.

1. Baseless speculation. You don't know how many permutations there are.
2. This is just factually wrong under H.
3. This doesn't follow from 1 and 2.
4. Is the same as 3.
5. 7.5, actually.
6. The number of actually living humans is irrelevant.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- The following was my understanding of what you had accepted after our preceding discussion. Where was I mistaken?

1. There must be an infinite number of potential, different, personal identities (Human). 2. Personal identities are not physically reducible or re-creatible. 3. The likelihood of their current existence, therefor, can be treated as random. 4. The likelihood of the current existence of your personal identity is therefor analogous to you winning the lottery. 5. There are about 7 billion current examples of personal, human, identities.6. And the likelihood of the current existence of your personal identity is therefor about 7 billion over infinity.
Click to expand...

Again you try to insert your words in others mouths.

Try to grok this simple truth...

All of it is wrong. Your points 1 to 6 are all wrong. It matters not how often you restate them, or what phraseology you apply they remain utterly wrong. It matters not a whit what scurrilous untruths you try to insert into your interlocutors mouths, you remain utterly wrong.

Not content with being wrong, you crossed a line, a border if you will, into a far dark country from which there is only rare deliverance. Libera tete ex inferis.
 
Jabba said:
1. There must be an infinite number of potential, different, personal identities (Human).
Click to expand...

No. You simply ascribe some magical status to "human identities" to pretend to differentiate it from potential individual Volkswagens and potential individual bananas. Once you hang your hat on "potential existence" and say there are countably infinite number of "potential" things, it holds for all things. Yet things exist. This is how we know "potential" existence doesn't bear in the slightest on the likelihood of something actually existing.

Reductio ad absurdum, for the umpteenth time.

2. Personal identities are not physically reducible or re-creatible.
Click to expand...

Under H identity is an emergent property. While it's a property of a physical object, it is not physically reducible. That's what "emergent" means. Too bad you don't understand what an emergent property is, but that's your problem. If you don't care to study what you're trying to disprove, you're going to fail to disprove it.

Re-creatable is the horse you changed to in order to keep obfuscating the difference between distinct, identical, and cardinality. Yeah, we're still onto you, so give it up.

3. The likelihood of their current existence, therefor, can be treated as random.
Click to expand...

Under H the likelihood of an identity emerging is exactly the likelihood of an organism developing to sufficient maturity.

4. The likelihood of the current existence of your personal identity is therefor analogous to you winning the lottery.
Click to expand...

The likelihood of a specific person is the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy. Under H there is no analogy to the lottery because under Hthere are no actual identities waiting to be incarnated such that there will be winners or losers. Under H the identity is not a soul. Under H there is no concept of a "potential self."

5. There are about 7 billion current examples of personal, human, identities.
Click to expand...

This number is utterly immaterial to whether an organism has or will come into being.

6. And the likelihood of the current existence of your personal identity is therefor about 7 billion over infinity.
Click to expand...

No, for the reasons given to you dozens upon dozens of times over the past four-and-counting years, which you simply don't care to hear criticized. And please stop merely begging people to agree with you or assuming they already have when they explicitly have not.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
And neither is any other level of technology.
Click to expand...

Very true. It has nothing to do with any practical technology but whether it can be separated abstractly (ie as a program running on an abstract machine, if you will).

Jabba is not claiming that people may, if they achieve a sufficient level if technology, become immortal.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly, really makes one wonder what that stupid "level of technology" even has to do with anything in the first place.

Jabba claims that when his brain ceases to function his consciousness will continue, without any technological intervention.
Click to expand...

Well who really knows what the dude with the stones has in mind... :)

Mojo said:
Because an argument based on a typo is so convincing.
Click to expand...

What argument based on a typo?
 
caveman1917 said:
So no mind uploading then?
Click to expand...


It's a little OT, but no, the mind cannot be uploaded. Perhaps technology could approximate an individual's consciousness, but it won't be the individual. That person will still die. For that matter, the computer will eventually "die" as well.
 
caveman1917 said:
Evidence? Argument?
Click to expand...


The individual is a process of a working neurosystem. It is the physical thing. An uploaded emulator is a process of a working computer. It's not the person, though it might believe it is.

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine we are able to upload an exact map of a person's brain into a computer or, heck, into a clone of that person. Bob goes in, gets strapped down, spends twenty minutes with electrodes on his head, and then a clone is ready. What happens to Bob?

He's still alive. He's still making more memories. The clone may think it's Bob, but the consciousness of Bob wasn't divided or diluted. His consciousness resides in himself and, when he dies, it's gone forever.

Any other answer requires a rejection of materialism. And there is no evidence on which to base a belief in anything else.

So, I reject your call for evidence. If you believe consciousness can be transferred or uploaded, then show evidence that it is anything other than a materialistic process. You are making the positive claim. I disbelieve consciousness can be transferred absent evidence to the contrary.
 
This entire inane conversation is basically about the Ship of Theseus and questions of identity and definition, meaningless hair splitting angels on a pin semantics.

Would an uploaded human consciousness be "the person?"

I don't know nor care because it's not a valid question. It's a silly word game trap question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom