Each bit of consciousness feels a specific sense of self.
Under H, what it "feels like" doesn't matter. How it's produced, does.
While theoretically, we might be able to physically reproduce a perfect copy of your sense of self (by reproducing a perfect copy of your brain), we cannot -- even theoretically -- reproduce your same sense of self.
And you're back to equivocating over "same." Producing a perfect copy of the brain would produce an organism that has a sense of self identical to the original. Since that is a property and not a "thing" -- as you assiduously and wrongly insinuate -- trying to count it is meaningless.
And when considering the possibility of immortality, it is your same sense of self that we’re considering.
No. If you're reckoning P(E|H) you must use H, not ~H. This is basic.
So, in other words, we don’t have a formula for the sense we’re considering...
Under H we do. The formula is to (re)produce a functioning brain.
we can’t predict “who” our reproduction would be...
Under H we can. If the physical reproduction is exact, so would be the reproduction of the sense of self. We cannot predict some preselected arbitrary sense of self, but that is simply chaos theory, not the magic you propose. And to insist to do so is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
...the likelihood of the current existence of a particular who is a totally random function.
Under H it is not. It is fully determined by the factors attending the brain, which are complex but not random.
That being the case, the Bayesian likelihood of your current existence -- if everything is physical -- is virtually zero.
No, as has been patiently explained to you, you are using that model incorrectly. When you confess you yourself don't understand it, no further rebuttal along those lines is needed. Your claim fails.
Virtually zero is not the same as zero.
Correct, which is another reason your claim fails. You don't understand arithmetic in the extended real numbers.
For some number over infinity, however, I prefer virtually zero rather than epsilon.
Division by infinity, if it is defined at all, is defined as zero. Not "virtually" zero. You're making up your own mathematics.
I keep largely repeating myself in the vague hope of better communication...
No, the problem is not communication from you to us. Everyone knows what you're trying to argue. The problem is communication from us to you. You simply don't care what anyone else says and apparently haven't even remotely considered the possibility you may be wrong. You keep largely repeating yourself because that's all you apparently know how to do, a shining example of the most ineffective debate I have ever seen, including in Congress. Hence I repeat my question: why should a thinking person take you the least seriously?
