Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Mojo]

- It is my understanding that Dave and others agree -- so I was sort of "going from there."

You're equivocating again.

They agree that it would not bring you back to life. But they say that it would produce another Jabba identical to you in every way, including its consciousness. You clearly disagree with this, so your claim that they agree with you is wrong.

- From my understanding, some identical twins do not share the same genome -- but others do. These others do not look out of each other's eyes.
- Also, clones don't seem to look out of each others eyes.
- Hopefully, you agree with me that such is evidence that producing an identical brain after my death would not bring me back to life.

Their consciousnesses will be different because their brains are different; they are not exact duplicates. They may be genetically identical, but their brains will be different because they will have been exposed to different environments. Remember: your consciousness is not a constant thing; it changes with time, and your consciousness at a given time is the result of the state of your brain at that time. Your brain, including the consciousness it produces, is the result of your genetics and your environment.

- And, if that's true...

It isn't, at least not in the way you mean it.

...there must be an infinity of potential different MEs -- and also, we don't have a clue as to what determines WHO the specific ME will be.

What determines your consciousness at a given time is the state of your brain at that time.

 

[Mojo]

LL,
- I can't.
- It is my understanding that Dave and others agree -- so I was sort of "going from there."
- From my understanding, some identical twins do not share the same genome -- but others do. These others do not look out of each other's eyes.
- Also, clones don't seem to look out of each others eyes.
- Hopefully, you agree with me that such is evidence that producing an identical brain after my death would not bring me back to life.
- And, if that's true, there must be an infinity of potential different MEs -- and also, we don't have a clue as to what determines WHO the specific ME will be.

The highlighted is what I don't agree with. It doesn't follow from the previous.

An identical copy of your brain would produce an identical copy of your self. There would be no difference between them.

He's begging the question again by assuming that "WHO the specific ME will be" is not determined by the brain.

 

[MRC_Hans]

LL,
- I can't.
- It is my understanding that Dave and others agree -- so I was sort of "going from there."
- From my understanding, some identical twins do not share the same genome -- but others do. These others do not look out of each other's eyes.
- Also, clones don't seem to look out of each others eyes.
- Hopefully, you agree with me that such is evidence that producing an identical brain after my death would not bring me back to life.

Correct. If you were duplicated, and the original killed, the original would be dead, period. But the copy would live on and needed never know about it.

- And, if that's true, there must be an infinity of potential different MEs --

No, that does not follow. Quite the opposite: Only a perfect replica of your current brain could create a replica YOU.

and also, we don't have a clue as to what determines WHO the specific ME will be.

False. We have lots of clues: According to ALL available evidence, your current brain determines it. And your current brain is a product of:

1) Your genetic composition.
2) All your experiences.
3) Whatever physical that has happened to your brain during you life up to now.

Thus, your premises, as indicated above, are reasonably correct (we might argue about details, but there is not need to), but your conclusion from that is false, and, I might add, as nicely as I can, devoid of logic.

Hans

 

[JayUtah]

I can't.

Then you're done.

It is my understanding that Dave and others agree -- so I was sort of "going from there."

What gave you that idea? there is tremendous disagreement on what is precisely meant by "bringing back to life." You've been warned to use precise language. From your unwillingness to do so, I gather you're trying to keep the argument ambiguous so you can pretend there is agreement.

From my understanding, some identical twins do not share the same genome -- but others do. These others do not look out of each other's eyes.
- Also, clones don't seem to look out of each others eyes.

Irrelevant. H handles twins and clones just fine. You keep trying trying to interpolate your personal notion of an ineffable "me" into the mix. You've done this by several names. It's wrong in concept every time you try to do it.

Hopefully, you agree with me that such is evidence that producing an identical brain after my death would not bring me back to life.

No. "Looking through eyes" is a pseudo-mystical criterion only you are using and only you care about. H doesn't have any such metaphysical notion. There is no "me" in H except that which arises as a property of the physical organism. Your attempts to make that something it's not simply don't constitute any sort of proof. Your argument boils down to H being unable to explain the wonky speculative crap you're trying so very hard to pin onto E. Begging the question.

And, if that's true, there must be an infinity of potential different MEs--

No. Non sequitur.

...and also, we don't have a clue as to what determines WHO the specific ME will be.

Under H we do. Maybe one of these years you'll figure out that you must evaluate P(E|H) as if H were true, not as you think ought to be the case.

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- I can't.

No, you can't ... because it's impossible. You can't reproduce a person down to the molecule because it would be at the very least at a different point in space and time.

So, your first premise is an unprovable sort-of-vague-hope. That's equal to exactly nothing.

 

[Aepervius]

Why are we excluding material presented as part of the debate already? If I point to where that was stated in this forum, it would be the third time I've had to refer you to it, and likely the third time you've ignored it. Your ad hoc filter is extremely revealing because I'm sure you remember that the restriction I'm talking about was presented by someone whom you have previously considered an authority and whose wisdom you have previously solicited. How disingenuous of you now to exclude his advice when it undermines your attempt.

You can put any numbers you want into any formula, including Bayes' theorem, and come up with a result. Whether that result means something, however, depends on whether one has provided something other than idle guesses. The same is as true for Bayes as it is for any other formula. You have been suckered in by the fringe belief that Bayesian methodology lets you assign an arbitrary probability to any old belief and then, somehow, obtain a fact from it. As I have explained countless times, it does nothing of the sort. You can certainly guess at your priors and also guess at your likelihood ratio. But what you may not do under those circumstances is pretend that the number that falls out of the bottom of such a computation has any more significance than mindless arithmetic gristmilling. It has the significance you require only when you have given proper obeisance to the significance of the elements of your model.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Or as SMBC put it :

http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4127

This is why I am a frequentist .

 

[Pixel42]

Or as SMBC put it :

http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4127

This is why I am a frequentist .

OK, that cartoonist has definitely been reading this thread.

 

[Belz...]

I see Jabba's back to ignoring certain posters again.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Or as SMBC put it :

http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4127

This is why I am a frequentist .

I posted that ages ago!

 

[JayUtah]

Jabba is neither the first, nor will be the last, to try this stunt. Pretending that Bayes offers some statistical confidence in what amounts to an entirely made-up picture of the facts is a tried-and-true ploy in fringe argumentation.

 

[Mojo]

I posted that ages ago!

In a previous lifetime?

 

[Jabba]

...Remember: your consciousness is not a constant thing; it changes with time, and your consciousness at a given time is the result of the state of your brain at that time. Your brain, including the consciousness it produces, is the result of your genetics and your environment....

Mojo,
- But, there is a sense of self that continues through one’s lifetime (for the most part) – but scientifically speaking, will never exist again. That particular sense of self would probably be missing from a perfect physical replica and that would allow for us to calculate the likelihood of a self’s current existence as totally random, which allows for an infinity of potential selves.

 

[godless dave]

Mojo,
- But, there is a sense of self that continues through one’s lifetime (for the most part) – but scientifically speaking, will never exist again. That particular sense of self would probably be missing from a perfect physical replica

It would not be missing. The perfect physical replica would have also have a sense of self in exactly the same way the original did.

 

[Belz...]

- But, there is a sense of self that continues through one’s lifetime (for the most part)

How do you know? Seriously, how do you know? You're only aware of your sense of self NOW. You couldn't begin to try to determine whether it's the same sense of self you had a second ago. For all you know, it might be re-created every few seconds and you wouldn't be able to notice.

Also don't forget that this sense of self isn't the actor; it's the audience.

That particular sense of self would probably be missing from a perfect physical replica

Only because it's a separate process, even if it's identical. You're not saying anything useful.

and that would allow for us to calculate the likelihood of a self’s current existence as totally random, which allows for an infinity of potential selves.

That doesn't follow. You've made no attempt to link one to the other.

 

[godless dave]

How do you know? Seriously, how do you know? You're only aware of your sense of self NOW. You couldn't begin to try to determine whether it's the same sense of self you had a second ago. For all you know, it might be re-created every few seconds and you wouldn't be able to notice.

I didn't address this part of Jabba's statement but I agree with Argumemnon.

 

[zooterkin]

That particular sense of self would probably be missing from a perfect physical replica

Why?

 

[JayUtah]

But, there is a sense of self that continues through one’s lifetime (for the most part)...

No, you're simply gainsaying what Mojo has said. You've provided no evidence for anything under H that fits this description. You've just repeatedly demanded that such a thing must exist, and what you demand exists bears an uncanny resemblance to a soul. There is nothing in H that qualifies as a soul.

...but scientifically speaking, will never exist again.

There is nothing scientific about this assertion.

That particular sense of self would probably be missing from a perfect physical replica...

Not under H. Under H everything that is attributable to you is a product of the physical organism interacting with its environment, including ongoing processes and subjective impressions. As you have been told repeatedly, you must evaluate P(E|H) as if H were true, not as if you supposed there was something it didn't account for.

...and that would allow for us to calculate the likelihood of a self’s current existence as totally random, which allows for an infinity of potential selves.

Not by any method you have shown.

Thank you for playing Daily Reset. Any clue when you'll actually be entertaining the comments of anyone else in this discussion?

 

[jond]

Mojo,
- But, there is a sense of self that continues through one’s lifetime (for the most part) – but scientifically speaking, will never exist again. That particular sense of self would probably be missing from a perfect physical replica and that would allow for us to calculate the likelihood of a self’s current existence as totally random, which allows for an infinity of potential selves.

Why do you continue to insist that this sense of self is an entity that could exist on it's own, when you are fully aware that in H it is a process in the brain, a sub process in that ongoing process we call consciousness. What happens to your sense of self when you are put under general anesthesia? What happens to you sense of self when your brain has a traumatic injury?

 

[Jabba]

I see Jabba's back to ignoring certain posters again.

- I am. But, I only have so much time, I'm trying to put together a map, and adversaries are piling on. And also, some adversaries are being too unfriendly again.
- Some of my adversaries have provided a list or two of disagreements. I can't remember where they are, but I can probably use them on my map if someone will point me to them...

 

[jond]

- I am. But, I only have so much time, I'm trying to put together a map, and adversaries are piling on. And also, some adversaries are being too unfriendly again.
- Some of my adversaries have provided a list or two of disagreements. I can't remember where they are, but I can probably use them on my map if someone will point me to them...

Rather than making a map, you would do well to either address the numerous posts that destroy your argument or acknowledge your defeat.