[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[godless dave]

Dave,

- The one observer would have two points of view.

Sure - if such a thing existed.

- And probably, it is not the specific sperm and ovum that produce a specific self. Probably, any time a sperm and ovum come together, they produce a brand new consciousness (as an emergent property), and that consciousness inherently has a "self." And that self is brand new -- out of thin air so to speak. If a brand new self is created whenever an ovum and sperm cell come together, there should be an infinity of potential selves.

I don't see how that follows. There is a finite number of sperm and a finite number of ova.

 

[godless dave]

Akhenaten,
- No. The "self," or "observer," is what I think that I can essentially prove is immortal. I also think that I haven't done a very good job of communicating what I mean by those words. I keep hoping that I can do better at it.

I think I understand what you mean by those words. What is lacking is any reason to believe such things exist.

 

[Jabba]

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,
- If I ever knew about the "Ship of Theseus Paradox," I had forgotten about it. Looking up in Wikipedia, I found,
To preserve the ship, any wood that wore out or rotted was replaced; it was, thus, unclear to philosophers how much of the original ship actually remained, giving rise to the philosophical question whether it should be considered "the same" ship or not. Such philosophical questions about the nature of identity are sometimes referred to as the Ship of Theseus Paradox.

- I'm not claiming that the ship would have been born with a "self."

 

[Jabba]

Sure - if such a thing existed.



I don't see how that follows. There is a finite number of sperm and a finite number of ova.

Dave,
- But here, I was saying that the specificity of the self probably doesn't depend upon the specificity of the sperm and ovum.

- And probably, it is not the specific sperm and ovum that produce a specific self. Probably, any time a sperm and ovum come together, they produce a brand new consciousness (as an emergent property), and that consciousness inherently has a "self." And that self is brand new -- out of thin air so to speak. If a brand new self is created whenever an ovum and sperm cell come together, there should be an infinity of potential selves.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- But here, I was saying that the specificity of the self probably doesn't depend upon the specificity of the sperm and ovum.

- And probably, it is not the specific sperm and ovum that produce a specific self. Probably, any time a sperm and ovum come together, they produce a brand new consciousness (as an emergent property), and that consciousness inherently has a "self." And that self is brand new -- out of thin air so to speak. If a brand new self is created whenever an ovum and sperm cell come together, there should be an infinity of potential selves.

I still don't see how an infinite number of potential selves follows from that.

 

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten,
- No. The "self," or "observer," is what I think that I can essentially prove is immortal.

Any chance of you making a start on it?

I also think that I haven't done a very good job of communicating what I mean by those words.

No kind of a job at all, in fact.

I keep hoping that I can do better at it.

It seems a faint hope, given that whatever your point was when you started this thread it's now more obscure than it ever was.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If a brand new self is created whenever an ovum and sperm cell come together, there should be an infinity of potential selves.

Only if you believe that the number of sperms and eggs in the world are infinite, rather than being a large number.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- I'll try to get back to your first point next.
- In regard to your second point, I'm talking about a shared "observer." If the two bodies actually shared the same observer, their exposure would not be different. This observer would be exposed to the events of both bodies.

Mr. Savage:

At the risk of being accused of being condescending, may I point out that there are, in my opinion, a few problems with the idea of a "shared observer"?

If what you are calling the "observer" is what is usually called "consciousness", or "the mind", you are describing something that is usually taken to be an emergent property of the brain, or a specific neural system.

How can one emergent property be "shared" among two or more different neural systems? Are you proposing that the "observer" is something other than a property of the neural system? Is this where you go metaphysical on us?

Not to mention, even if it were possible to bifurcate a single "observer" between two neural systems (or among several neural systems), would not that very bifurcation result in the differentiation of the parts of the self? (NOTE: I am not accepting the premise; I am raising issues to get clarification).

Assume for just a moment that an individual body could be precisely cloned, down to fingerprints and the random arrangements of capillaries in the skin. Assume further that a single "observer" could be bifurcated precisely, and installed in the two identical brains such that, at that moment of "installation", the neural systems, their housings, and the "observer" installed in each were identical--not just "practically identical", but identical in every way.

Now, wake them up. Would not the fact that one of the "observers" woke up on the left, and the other on the right, immediately begin to differentiate the formerly-identical "observers"?

Or are you postulating some undetectable, undefinable, undemonstrated way in which the "observer" is not a property of the neural system, but some other cosmic phenomenon?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Squeegee,
- If I ever knew about the "Ship of Theseus Paradox," I had forgotten about it. Looking up in Wikipedia, I found,
To preserve the ship, any wood that wore out or rotted was replaced; it was, thus, unclear to philosophers how much of the original ship actually remained, giving rise to the philosophical question whether it should be considered "the same" ship or not. Such philosophical questions about the nature of identity are sometimes referred to as the Ship of Theseus Paradox.

- I'm not claiming that the ship would have been born with a "self."

Way to miss the point entirely. Even after I explained it twice. Let's look at a different example, then, if both Theseus and Trigger's broom bamboozle you.

Here in the UK there is a group called the Sugababes. They've had something of a tumultuous history. When they first formed, the line-up consisted of Mutya Buena, Keisha Buchannan, and Siobhán Donaghy. Siobhán left soon after the first single, "Overload" was released and she was replaced by Heidi Range. A few years later Mutya left and was replaced by Amelle Berrabah. Then Keisha left and was replaced by Jade Ewen.

There are now no original members of the group left. However, Mutya, Keisha and Siobhán have formed a new group which they have named MKS, after their initials.

So the question is - which current group is it that released "Overload"? The group called the Sugababes has the continuity of being one entity since that single, but there's not one part of the group that wrote or performed a single note of it. MKS contains all 3 parts of the group that wrote and performed that single, but they don't have the continuity.

And if all that's a little too obscure for you - we, as people, are the Sugababes in this metaphor. We have the apparent continuity to the earlier entities that were known as us but, in reality, everything has changed.

That's what the Ship of Theseus paradox is about - if all the parts of something have changed so that nothing of the original is left, then is it really the same entity?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- And probably, it is not the specific sperm and ovum that produce a specific self.

Why is that probable? As consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and brain structure is determined by DNA, then it's extremely improbable that the specific consciousness that is produced isn't specific to that specific egg and sperm.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,

- The one observer would have two points of view.

- And probably, it is not the specific sperm and ovum that produce a specific self. Probably, any time a sperm and ovum come together, they produce a brand new consciousness (as an emergent property), and that consciousness inherently has a "self." And that self is brand new -- out of thin air so to speak. If a brand new self is created whenever an ovum and sperm cell come together, there should be an infinity of potential selves.
- That sounds like I'm agreeing that each of us can only exist for one, finite lifetime -- but I'm not. I'm just saying that the scientific model should conclude that the number of potential selves is infinite, and the likelihood of my current existence is actually about seven billion over infinity (rather than one over infinity) -- but who's counting?

Mr. Savage:

At the risk of being accused of being "condescending", "infinity" is not just a very large number. "infinity" is not just a really, really, really, very large number. "Infinity" is an infinitely large number, and is sharply distinct from any finite number, no matter how large. "Way, seriously, gosh-wow super improbable, squared," is not "odds of one over infinity"--by an infinite number of orders of magnitude.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Akhenaten,
- No. The "self," or "observer," is what I think that I can essentially prove is immortal. I also think that I haven't done a very good job of communicating what I mean by those words. I keep hoping that I can do better at it.

Mr. Savage:

At the risk of being accused of being "condescending", I might suggest that you demonstrate, with practical, empirical, evidence, this thing you are calling the "observer". It seems to me that you are trying to define a "soul" into existence, without the fairest bit of evidence.

I am also still uncertain what you think you mean by "essentially prove".

Are you talking about a "soul"?

Is what you are talking about "immortal"?

 

[Jabba]

I think I understand what you mean by those words. What is lacking is any reason to believe such things exist.

Dave,
- Unfortunately, I think that if I was describing this thing effectively, you would know that it exists...
- I'm going to try to move on to other parts of my argument for immortality. Hopefully, that will provide some clues as to what I'm trying to describe as a "self."

 

[godless dave]

Oh, I believe there's a part of my brain that "observes" things and that feels like "me". I suspect it makes up most of the brain. I just don't think it's immutable over my lifetime.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- I'm going to try to move on to other parts of my argument for immortality. Hopefully, that will provide some clues as to what I'm trying to describe as a "self."

Isn't this a tacit admission that the style of debating you came to this board to pioneer is a failure? If even you can't stick to it, then why should anyone else adopt it?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- Unfortunately, I think that if I was describing this thing effectively, you would know that it exists...
- I'm going to try to move on to other parts of my argument for immortality. Hopefully, that will provide some clues as to what I'm trying to describe as a "self."

Mr. Savage:

At the risk of being accused of being "condescending", I am rather of the opinion that, if "this thing" existed, you would be able to describe it, or define it, or demonstrate it, more effectively.

I truly do not think you should "go on" to other parts of your argument, as you have not even begun to lay a foundation for this part...

Particularly the "one over infinity" bit...

 

[abaddon]

Dave,
- Unfortunately, I think that if I was describing this thing effectively, you would know that it exists...
- I'm going to try to move on to other parts of my argument for immortality. Hopefully, that will provide some clues as to what I'm trying to describe as a "self."

Hang on a second. You are changing horses from "essentially prove" to "provide some clues"? For reals?

Is everyone else supposed to simply try and guess from whatever clues you might eventually condescend to provide what it is that your point is?

Is this a forum version of a cryptic crossword?

 

[Jabba]

The meaning of self

Oh, I believe there's a part of my brain that "observes" things and that feels like "me". I suspect it makes up most of the brain. I just don't think it's immutable over my lifetime.

Dave,

- "Me" does change, but it's still me. I am still aware -- and to some extent, I'm aware of the changes.

- Maybe, this will help.
- The "me" I'm talking about is the the "thing" that those who believe in reincarnation are referring to as occurring over and over again. Whether they are right or not, they and I are talking about the same thing. Certainly, the characteristics of this thing are expected to change totally between occurrences -- yet, it's the same "person," or "self" each time.

- You and I may never agree, but thanks for staying with me.

 

[Agatha]

How can it possibly be the same person/self/consciousness if it doesn't have the memories and experiences which are an integral part of the self?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- The "me" I'm talking about is the the "thing" that those who believe in reincarnation are referring to as occurring over and over again.

Yes, we know. Now what you have to do is establish that it exists.