[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
godless dave said:
Yes:



1) Identical twins come from the same sperm and ovum, but they don't share a self. The reason they don't share a self is because there are two of them, not one. So even though their brains start out nearly identically, each has its own point of view.

2) Also, brains develop in response to stimuli, so two brains that started out as identical will develop differently because they will be exposed to different stimuli.
Click to expand...
Dave,

- I have read that identical twins do not have exactly the same DNA. As noted often above, this stuff is difficult to convey effectively, and I couldn't figure out easily how to switch over to DNA differences, so I left it to you (or someone else) to provide the segway...
- There is much more to say about this issue, but I had best stick to one step (or perhaps two) at a time
- Above, you say that the brains of nearly identical twins start out "nearly identical." Accepting that their original brains are only nearly identical, you would seem to be accepting my DNA switch?

- I'll get to your #2 as soon as possible.
 
I'm pretty sure identical twins have identical DNA. But other factors affect development, even in the womb.
 
godless dave said:
I'm pretty sure identical twins have identical DNA. But other factors affect development, even in the womb.
Click to expand...
Dave,

- You may be right about the DNA, I'll try to track that down.

- The question here is when the "self" is established. We know that it's established, and remains the same, at least by the time of our earliest memory -- even though our "characteristics" are being revised for many years thereafter.
 
godless dave said:
I don't think the self remains the same.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- Yeah. This is a big tripping point.
- Granted that our anatomy, knowledge and even our personality change greatly over the years, there was still the same something observing the whole time. This "observer" is the "self" I'm referring to. Does that help?
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Yeah. This is a big tripping point.
- Granted that our anatomy, knowledge and even our personality change greatly over the years, there was still the same something observing the whole time.
Click to expand...

I don't entirely agree with that. We can say it's the same self in that there is continuity from its beginning through its end, but it is not static; it changes throughout that time, much like we live on the same planet earth that formed 4.5 billion years ago or so, but many aspects of it have changed during that time.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Yeah. This is a big tripping point.
- Granted that our anatomy, knowledge and even our personality change greatly over the years, there was still the same something observing the whole time. This "observer" is the "self" I'm referring to. Does that help?
Click to expand...
The something that was observing 55 years ago was very different to the something that is typing this now. AIUI not one single atom that made up that little girl is still present in this old lady. The only thing that connects them is the fact that I have some memories of being that little girl. That's why I have a problem with the idea that a future something could be me in any meaningful sense if it didn't have any of my memories.

A hypothetical entity capable of seeing more dimensions than we do could presumably see my worldline through four-dimensional spacetime and confirm that it was contiguous. Perhaps the POV of that hypothetical entity is the best one to use as you continue your argument.
 
Pixel42 said:
The something that was observing 55 years ago was very different to the something that is typing this now. AIUI not one single atom that made up that little girl is still present in this old lady.
Click to expand...

Even more than that, the original paper which gave the insight that atoms and molecules in the human body are replaced concluded that within a single year 98% of the atoms in your body will have been replaced. So, for example, the me that joined this forum would have been a completely different me than is typing these words now. The continuity of perception creates the illusion that I'm the same person I was, but I'm really not.

We're all ships of Theseus.
 
Dave, Pixel & Squeegee,
- How about this?
- What we're talkin about is sort of analogous to a camera and and its film. You guys are talkin about the film. I'm talkin about the camera. The film changes, but the camera stays the same (basically). The camera is the "observer" or "self."
- I suspect that won't help, but it's worth a try.
 
Jabba said:
Dave, Pixel & Squeegee,
- How about this?
- What we're talkin about is sort of analogous to a camera and and its film. You guys are talkin about the film. I'm talkin about the camera. The film changes, but the camera stays the same (basically). The camera is the "observer" or "self."
- I suspect that won't help, but it's worth a try.
Click to expand...

You can't define something into existence via metaphor.

Consciousness - "self" - is an emergent property of brain activity. Brain activity is constantly changing, and the physical brain itself is also constantly changing.

If the ship of Theseus is too much for you, then let's look at another name for this paradox - "Trigger's broom". There was a series here in the UK called Only Fools And Horses, in which there was a road sweeper called Trigger. In one episode he won an award for using the same broom for 20 years. He then revealed that that broom had had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in that 20 year period.

Now, it's true that there's a certain continuity there - he would never have replaced the head and handle at the same time - but nevertheless the original broom had long since been replaced. The same's true of you and your brain. You have a continuity of thought from one moment to the next, and you can remember back to events many years in your past. But you are not the same person you were then. There's not one single atom that's the same, and there's certainly not one particular brain pattern that's remained unchanged in that time - brain patterns are far more ephemeral.

You seem to be thinking of the idea of "self" as if it's an actual thing, rather than an emergent property of a constantly-changing machine.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You can't define something into existence via metaphor.

Consciousness - "self" - is an emergent property of brain activity. Brain activity is constantly changing, and the physical brain itself is also constantly changing.

If the ship of Theseus is too much for you, then let's look at another name for this paradox - "Trigger's broom". There was a series here in the UK called Only Fools And Horses, in which there was a road sweeper called Trigger. In one episode he won an award for using the same broom for 20 years. He then revealed that that broom had had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in that 20 year period.

Now, it's true that there's a certain continuity there - he would never have replaced the head and handle at the same time - but nevertheless the original broom had long since been replaced. The same's true of you and your brain. You have a continuity of thought from one moment to the next, and you can remember back to events many years in your past. But you are not the same person you were then. There's not one single atom that's the same, and there's certainly not one particular brain pattern that's remained unchanged in that time - brain patterns are far more ephemeral.

You seem to be thinking of the idea of "self" as if it's an actual thing, rather than an emergent property of a constantly-changing machine.
Click to expand...
Squeegee,

- I accept that physically speaking (at least in any usual sense) we are different entities from one second to the next.
- However, there appears to be a self, an observer, an awareness of existence, that has existed ever since I was 2 years old -- at least. Previously, I had believed that once my physical body had given up its "ghost," it (the ghost) would never, ever return. I assume that you still believe that about your particular ghost -- your "self."
- Am I correct?

- I would say that the emergent property is consciousness, and consciousness inherently involves a "self."
 
More than a year later, and Jabba isn't any closer to proving immortality than he was the day he claimed he would.
 
Jabba said:
- However, there appears to be a self, an observer, an awareness of existence, that has existed ever since I was 2 years old -- at least.
Click to expand...

The key word in that sentence is "appears".

Previously, I had believed that once my physical body had given up its "ghost," it (the ghost) would never, ever return. I assume that you still believe that about your particular ghost -- your "self."
- Am I correct?
Click to expand...

I don't think that after I die there will ever be a consciousness that has any continuity with my present consciousness, no.

- I would say that the emergent property is consciousness, and consciousness inherently involves a "self."
Click to expand...

I think consciousness is hard to define, as is "self". Does a dog have consciousness and self?

But I will certainly grant you that consciousness in humans creates an impression of a singular self to the human, so long as you grant that this impression is mistaken.
 
John Jones said:
More than a year later, and Jabba isn't any closer to proving immortality than he was the day he claimed he would.
Click to expand...


I predict that shortly he is going to announce that he is sorry he is so slow, but he will soon commence approaching thinking about how to present a possible way to address an initial preliminary step in coming to think about that.

Interspersed with a bunch of unnecessary dashes, of course.
 
Jabba said:
Squeegee,
- I accept that physically speaking (at least in any usual sense) we are different entities from one second to the next.
- However, there appears to be a self, an observer, an awareness of existence, that has existed ever since I was 2 years old -- at least...
Click to expand...
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
...
You seem to be thinking of the idea of "self" as if it's an actual thing, rather than an emergent property of a constantly-changing machine.
Click to expand...
Jabba said:
... Previously, I had believed that once my physical body had given up its "ghost," it (the ghost) would never, ever return. I assume that you still believe that about your particular ghost -- your "self."
- Am I correct?...
Click to expand...
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
...I don't think that after I die there will ever be a consciousness that has any continuity with my present consciousness, no.
Click to expand...
Squeegee,
- You're "present consciousness" and it's continuity over your physical lifetime, is the actual "thing" I'm talking about. Your present consciousness is the thing that I claim actually does continue past your physical lifetime. We just can't express it after our body dies (and, we can't remember it when we come back in a different body -- if reincarnation is the answer). I'm not talking about the underlying, constantly changing machine.
 
Squeegee,
- It is this consciousness that most of us treasure and don't want it to go away for good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom