[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

1. I've been trying to develop a syllogism from the different premises upon which Dave and I agree. Here's where I am so far. I’ve included numbers so as to make reference easier.

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage!

I was concerned when you did not post yesterday--I hope all is well.

In the hour that this has been up, I have been multi-ninja-ed. I choose to go ahead and post my response--not to speak for godless dave, or to supplant the opinions of others, but to demonstrate, once again , that there are multiple avenues one may travel and still reach irreconcilable disagreement with your position.

2. CONSCIOUSNESS is an emergent property of a certain type of physical occurrence or situation.
3. This “type” of physical situation may be that of a living brain. (Dave says that it is that of a living brain.)

This is but one point, and you are misstating godless dave's position.

Consciousness is an emergent property of a neurosystem. A functioning neurosystem of sufficient complexity develops consciousness. If you want to dispute this, rephrasing it will not do. You must, instead, present evidence of a single instance of a consciousness existing independent of a neurosystem.

Have you, perhaps, such evidence?

4. Each consciousness involves a DIFFERENT “self” -- or, different “observer ” – than do the rest of consciousnesses.

You seem to have forgotten your claim that "consciousness", "self", and "soul" are all synonyms for "observer", in your parlance.

By your previous claim, each different "consciousness" IS a different "self". Each different "self" IS a different "observer". Each different "observer" IS a different "soul".

By observation, each "observer/soul/self/consciousness" IS a discrete, unique, individual entity; a specific emergent property of a specific neurosystem. Unless and until you present evidence that there is a difference between the "observer" and the "self" (that is, unless and until you repudiate your claim that "observer", "self", "soul", and "consciousness" are synonymous) your claims are not only contradictory, they are unsupported--and they do not represent any accurate picture of the state of our understanding.

5. You are one of those observers.

Word games. I am conscious--AS A RESULT of the emergent property of my unique neurosystem.

6. You have been that observer for a number of years, despite all your experiences during that time.
7. So, in that sense, you have been the same observer for all those years.

Again, aren't you the one who claims that part of your problems with this "debate" is that your faculties have diminished? You have changed since you were 20, no?

I will grant that my consciousness includes a sense of continuity; OTH, all I have to do is look at my high school yearbook pictures, or old stills from theatrical performances in which I was involved (the 1989 production of Godspell is typical), to dispel any scintilla of a credible claim that my consciousness has not (mercifully) undergone significant changes. Not to mention that I do, in fact, remember what I was like before the coma.

8. This difference (or, separation) between lifetime observers is not the result of specific physical situations. (Two brains that were exactly alike would not produce the same observer.)

I simply and fundamentally disagree. The observation that consciousness appears to be an emergent property of a neurosystem, and that each unique neurosystem appears to produce a unique consciousness, and that no consciousness has ever been demonstrated to exist apart from the neurosystem of which it is an emergent property, all indicate that it is, in fact, a "physical situation" (or a suite of "physical situations") that determines the differences among unique individual consciousnesses. Not to mention that pesky problem of the fact that a "shared consciousness" such as you talk about has never been demonstrated; nor has the existence of a consciousness apart form the "physical situation" of a neurosystem.

9. In that sense, the number of lifetime observers possible is not limited by physics, chemistry or biology.

I fundamentally disagree with this non sequitur.

Since consciousness appears to be an emergent property of a neurosystem; and since the only neurosystems that have been demonstrated to be complex enough to manifest consciousness are, in fact, biological systems, the very existence of "observers" ("consciousnesses"/"selves"/"souls") is determined by, and dependent upon, "physics, chemistry, [and] biology".

With all that entails.

10. The only physical limitation to the number of lifetime observers would be in the amount of time, energy or matter available.

This is, perhaps, a bit of oversimplification. Since time appears to be finite; since space is demonstrably finite; since matter is demonstrably finite; and since energy is demonstrably finite; even in its simplified form this claim demonstrates that "consciousness" ("self"/"soul"/"observer") cannot be "immortal, limited as neurosystems are by the physical realities of the observable universe. If you disagree with the idea that the universe is, in fact, finite,this is another of those annoying places where you should present evidence that supports your disagreement.

11. Barring a finite amount of time, energy or matter, the amount of potential lifetime observers is infinite.
12. If any of these is finite, the number of observers possible would seem to be finite...

Right. The universe is finite. So much for "immortality".

13. You, however, were NOT drawn from any preexisting limited pool of potential observers.
14. You are a BRAND NEW observer, having no preexistence of any kind; and in other words, there is absolutely no limit on who the next observer will be...

Other than the limits you delineated above: that is, the fact that the universe is, in fact, finite. The number of "potential" "selves" ("souls"/"observers"/"consciousnesses") is bounded by the number of potential neusrosystems; which number is limited by energy, space, time, and raw materials.

15. That is the sense in which the 'number' of potential observers is infinite, and why the likelihood of YOUR current existence -- given the hypothesis of one finite life at most -- is 1/∞.

In addition to continuing to assume your conclusion, you are continuing to try to demonstrate how an impossibility is more likely that what is, in fact, observed. Despite the fancy footwork, you have not presented a new argument; you have merely buble-wrapped what you have been saying all along.

I do sincerely wish that you would start at the other end, that is, with your evidence (you know the drill: practical, empirical, objective evidence) that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal".

 

[Humots]

No, that's his point. The likelihood of your existence under the current scientific model is a very low number. So low that he can call it zero. Then, as you point out, that means that you can't possibly exist under the current scientific model. You do exist. Therefore the current scientific model must be wrong. Therefore immortality.

This is arbitrary. How low must a number be that it can be called zero?

In formal mathematics, there is no number so low that it can be called zero. There are an infinite number of smaller numbers between any number, no matter how low, and zero.

There can be a real world situation where a number is so low it can be treated as zero, but the actual value of that number would depend on the situation.

If I am calculating the current position of Jupiter, a difference of one millimeter can be treated as zero.

If I am calculating the position of a brain tumor for surgery, one millimeter can not be treated as zero.

 

[xtifr]

I'm just going to focus on the key bits here.

7. So, in that sense, you have been the same observer for all those years.

It's an illusory sense, but for the sake of debate, I'm inclined to allow it. Let's call it an apparent continuity of consciousness. Whatever, I concede it exists, and realize it's what you think must be immortal. If you could demonstrate that this apparent continuity of consciousness went on forever, I would concede that you had fulfilled your promise to "essentially prove" immortality.

8. This difference (or, separation) between lifetime observers is not the result of specific physical situations. (Two brains that were exactly alike would not produce the same observer.)

No, no, no. Here you go completely off the rails. Two brains that were identical would differ because of specific physical situations. They wouldn't be located in the same place in spacetime.

If you waved your magic Star Trek™ teleporter wand and made two of me appear side-by-side where only one had existed before, the two would have an identical apparent continuity of consciousness up to the point of the split, but would immediately become different from that point on. (For example, one would perceive a copy on the left, while the other would perceive a copy on the right.)

9. In that sense, the number of lifetime observers possible is not limited by physics, chemistry or biology.

And now you've lost the thread completely. This is the exact opposite of the truth. The number of possible lifetime observers is completely limited by physics, chemistry, and biology (among other things). And is therefore finite.

The rest of your points depend on this erroneous conclusion, and are therefore not worth discussing. You're not going to get to 1/inf., so either find an argument that doesn't depend on 1/inf., or concede the debate.

 

[Loss Leader]

No, that's his point. The likelihood of your existence under the current scientific model is a very low number. So low that he can call it zero. Then, as you point out, that means that you can't possibly exist under the current scientific model. You do exist. Therefore the current scientific model must be wrong. Therefore immortality.

Except that (at this point in the argument) he's inside the scientific model. He can't show the model to be false within the model. There has to be some level of logic. This isn't an episode of Community.

 

[Humots]

15. That is the sense in which the 'number' of potential observers is infinite, and why the likelihood of YOUR current existence -- given the hypothesis of one finite life at most -- is 1/∞.

The fact that the number of possible things of some kind is infinite does not require that the likelihood of any individual thing existing is "1/∞".

As jt512 pointed out:

We need to give them unequal probabilities that sum to 1 over the entire set. Let's consider the set of all positive integers i, i=1,2,3,.... We could, for instance, assign each integer the probability (1/2)ⁱ. These probabilities sum to 1 over the set of all integers, as required, and otherwise satisfy the axioms of probability.

If we number the thingies with the integers 1, 2, ... using some individual distinguishing property (assuming they are all distinct) then each has a non-zero probability of being chosen, or whatever. There are probably other ways of assigning non-zero probabilities to each member of an infinite set.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Except that the reality of the scientific model is that once the mother and father have done their thing and the egg has been fertilized the likelihood of a "self"'s existence is exactly 1. It's not at all unlikely. Because a "self" is nothing more than the particular combination of genes and experiences that a person has. A person simply cannot be anything other than who they are, therefore there really is no such thing as a potential self.

If there is no infinite pool of selves waiting to be born (and there isn't, even Jabba has agreed to this), then this whole 1/infinity thing is total nonsense.

This is arbitrary. How low must a number be that it can be called zero?

In formal mathematics, there is no number so low that it can be called zero. There are an infinite number of smaller numbers between any number, no matter how low, and zero.

There can be a real world situation where a number is so low it can be treated as zero, but the actual value of that number would depend on the situation.

If I am calculating the current position of Jupiter, a difference of one millimeter can be treated as zero.

If I am calculating the position of a brain tumor for surgery, one millimeter can not be treated as zero.

I didn't say it was my argument.

Except that (at this point in the argument) he's inside the scientific model. He can't show the model to be false within the model.

Why not? Isn't that how it works? Newton came up with a way of describing the motion of objects, and that's still used to this day. However, a discrepancy in the orbit of Mercury demonstrated that Newton's laws were flawed. That's finding a flaw in a scientific model while within the model.

That's how these things go - you look at a scientific model, you apply it to the real world, and if it doesn't correctly map the real world, then it's false. So, if Jabba could demonstrate that it was impossible for you to exist under "the current scientific model" (whatever he's claiming that is today), and that demonstration was water-tight and unquestionably correct, then there would be two possible conclusions - you don't exist, or the "current scientific model" is flawed.

 

[John Jones]

1. I've been trying to develop a syllogism from the different premises upon which Dave and I agree. Here's where I am so far. I’ve included numbers so as to make reference easier.

[...]

I was likewise a little concerned when you disappeared for more than a day. Having said that, on to your syllogism:

*facepalm* That is among the most specious logic I have seen you use yet . I'll skip the details, because everyone else has covered them. The way you try to use equivocation to slip-in convenient definitions, and the way you use excruciating verbosity to camouflage baseless and faulty assertions, anyone would think you took us for morons.

Back to you.

 

[jond]

I didn't say it was.

I know, sorry, didn't mean to imply that I thought you were making this argument.

 

[Jabba]

As Garrette pointed out, time, energy, and matter available are part of the biological, chemical, and physical limitations...

Dave,
- I was trying to distinguish between the number of observers possible, given physical reality, and the number of different, potential observers possible, given physical reality. I claim that they are not the same, and that the number of different, potential observers is not limited by the specific physical makeup of brains.

 

[Loss Leader]

That's how these things go - you look at a scientific model, you apply it to the real world, and if it doesn't correctly map the real world, then it's false. So, if Jabba could demonstrate that it was impossible for you to exist under "the current scientific model" (whatever he's claiming that is today), and that demonstration was water-tight and unquestionably correct, then there would be two possible conclusions - you don't exist, or the "current scientific model" is flawed.

I see your point. However, Jabba isn't trying to do any of that. He's explicitly trying to compare the scientific model to some alternate form of thinking. So, he is bound by that model when he is describing that model.

Copernicus, for example, compared the heliocentric model to the geocentric one. When describing where Mars should be according to the geocentric model, he was actually bound by that model. He then compared that prediction to actual observation to show that they didn't match. Also, I might be talking about Keppler.

In this example, Jabba must use the scientific model's definition of a conscious person in describing the scientific model's definition of a conscious person. He then may show that there are observations that contradict the model. He hasn't done any of this.

But you were right. I misspoke in my great haste to reference Community.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I was trying to distinguish between the number of observers possible, given physical reality, and the number of different, potential observers possible, given physical reality. I claim that they are not the same, and that the number of different, potential observers is not limited by the specific physical makeup of brains.

It's not limited by the specific physical makeup of brains, but it's still limited by physics, chemistry, and biology.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I see your point. However, Jabba isn't trying to do any of that. He's explicitly trying to compare the scientific model to some alternate form of thinking. So, he is bound by that model when he is describing that model.

Copernicus, for example, compared the heliocentric model to the geocentric one. When describing where Mars should be according to the geocentric model, he was actually bound by that model. He then compared that prediction to actual observation to show that they didn't match. Also, I might be talking about Keppler.

In this example, Jabba must use the scientific model's definition of a conscious person in describing the scientific model's definition of a conscious person. He then may show that there are observations that contradict the model. He hasn't done any of this.

But you were right. I misspoke in my great haste to reference Community.

Oh, yes, you're absolutely right that if Jabba is describing "the current scientific model", then he actually has to use what is the current scientific model, rather than just make stuff up and attribute it to that.

 

[Loss Leader]

I was trying to distinguish between the number of observers possible, given physical reality, and the number of different, potential observers possible, given physical reality.

This sentence has no meaning whatsoever. Since each person is different, the set of all possible people is the same as the set of all different possible people. Since each possible person is a potential person, the set of all possible observers is the same as the set of all different, potential observers.

You've just said nothing ... not a blessed thing.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, would you agree that there are an infinite number of possible grains of sand in the universe?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- I was trying to distinguish between the number of observers possible, given physical reality, and the number of different, potential observers possible, given physical reality. I claim that they are not the same, and that the number of different, potential observers is not limited by the specific physical makeup of brains.

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage!

In what way do you claim that the number of "observers possible", and the number of "different, potential observers" differ? How is one to distinguish between the number of "observers possible" and the number of "different, potential observers"?

Further, given that the universe appears to be finite, and to consist of a finite amount of matter and energy; and that time appears to be finite; and that space is finite; how are the limitations upon the the number of "observers possible" and the number of "different, potential observers", different?

Are you trying to imply that "observer" is not, in fact (in spite of what you said before), synonymous with "self"/"soul"/"consciousness"; allowing you to claim that consciousness is, in fact, not an emergent property of neurosystems; even can, in fact, exist independently of a neurosystem?

Please indicate the slightest scintilla of a consciousness demonstrated to exist independent of a neurosystem.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Not to bring up a delicate point, Mr. Savage, but have you yet corrected the scurrilous untrue accusation you made about JREF members, including me, in your message to "Roger"?

 

[Giordano]

1. I've been trying to develop a syllogism from the different premises upon which Dave and I agree. Here's where I am so far. I’ve included numbers so as to make reference easier.

2. CONSCIOUSNESS is an emergent property of a certain type of physical occurrence or situation.
3. This “type” of physical situation may be that of a living brain. (Dave says that it is that of a living brain.)

4. Each consciousness involves a DIFFERENT “self” -- or, different “observer ” – than do the rest of consciousnesses.

5. You are one of those observers.

6. You have been that observer for a number of years, despite all your experiences during that time.
7. So, in that sense, you have been the same observer for all those years.

8. This difference (or, separation) between lifetime observers is not the result of specific physical situations. (Two brains that were exactly alike would not produce the same observer.)
9. In that sense, the number of lifetime observers possible is not limited by physics, chemistry or biology.

10. The only physical limitation to the number of lifetime observers would be in the amount of time, energy or matter available.
11. Barring a finite amount of time, energy or matter, the amount of potential lifetime observers is infinite.
12. If any of these is finite, the number of observers possible would seem to be finite...

13. You, however, were NOT drawn from any preexisting limited pool of potential observers.
14. You are a BRAND NEW observer, having no preexistence of any kind; and in other words, there is absolutely no limit on who the next observer will be...
15. That is the sense in which the 'number' of potential observers is infinite, and why the likelihood of YOUR current existence -- given the hypothesis of one finite life at most -- is 1/∞.

I will not repeat the many excellent responses to your post that others here have already posted. I don't have much to add. But I will spend the time to address some of the specifics in your post.
1. Why are you pretending to address only Dave in this post, when he disagrees strongly with you and the flaws in your math and logic have been pointed out by many others here in addition to him? Is this a private discussion? If somehow you manage to find something/anything you and Godless Dave agree to, does this mean that the concerns of everyone here will vanish and you should continue with your "proof?"
2. In the standard model, consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain. Why the re-wording?
3. Not may, but is.
6 & 7. My "observer" has clearly changed during the years, as has yours. I can't see or hear as clearly as I once did; I observe less of these things. On the other hand, I pay more attention to women's bodies than I did at age 5. My worries are different. I therefore maintain that I am clearly a different "observer" now compared to before: the "observer" has changed.
8. Your idea of two identical brains with different observers has been universally denied here and our reasoning explained at length to you. You are clearly wrong to make this statement if you cannot explain why we are wrong to deny it.
9. Absolutely wrong, for the many reasons explained to you here.
10. Your statement fails to take into account the biology of the brain, and the strong likelihood that your parents and early life limited the physical number of possible "observers" you could be due to the genetics, development, and experiences you had.
11. Yes, as in theory anything might be infinite if energy, materials, and time is infinite. But this is a stupid hypothesis: again IF my Aunt Milly was a motorcycle, I could ride to work. But again, energy, materials, and time are all finite.
12. Yes.
13 &14. In the standard model, consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain. This is the physical limit, based on genetics, development, and experience, on who I could have been as an "observer" (by which you mean "self"). I could/can not have been anyone. Nor can the next "observer" be anyone. I was determined from a limited number of possibilities, by my genetics, development, and experiences. I was born to human parents. and thus was very likely to have a human "self" not a dog "self." Further, I was very likely to think like my siblings and like my parents, not like Charlie Manson.
15. We have explained the fatal flaws in your "logic" and "statistics" already.

After all this time you have not changed your argument at all in response to our posts. Why do persist? You only convince the people here ever more of your errors and your dogmatic dedication to your seriously flawed theory.

 

[Giordano]

So Jabba,

No response to our posted concerns with your theory? No changes at all to correct the flaws?

 

[Giordano]

Oh, yes, you're absolutely right that if Jabba is describing "the current scientific model", then he actually has to use what is the current scientific model, rather than just make stuff up and attribute it to that.

In fact, I find his posts a confusing mix of what he thinks is the standard model, what is the standard model, and what he thinks is his non-standard model. I tried to clarify the first from the last in a posted question many pages ago, but he never bothered to respond. Not that it really matters- typically the first is as wrong as the last.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- I was trying to distinguish between the number of observers possible, given physical reality, and the number of different, potential observers possible, given physical reality. I claim that they are not the same, and that the number of different, potential observers is not limited by the specific physical makeup of brains.

I almost thought I understood your point-maybe I have read enough of your posts. But ultimately, I can not. What on earth did you mean here?