[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Garrette]

- Your brain may come from a limited pool of possible brains, but your brain does not determine "who" your observer is -- in that two exact matches in brains would not produce the same observer.

That doesn't mean the consciousness is ephemeral (I won't use "observer" anymore; your only intent with it is to obfuscate).

As has been repeatedly said, the consciousness is an emergent property of entirely physical things, including the brain itself but also including physical experiences.

 

[Jabba]

... Two separate, but identical, brains would produce two separate, but identical, observers. The number of potential observers is still limited by time, materials, and situations that could produce them.

- What do you mean by "identical" as it applies to observers. Note that you are using the plural for observer, and do not seem to be saying that these two brains would produce the same observer (singular).

Remember, in the scientific model, brains and observers are synonymous.

- Again, not quite.

 

[Jabba]

That doesn't follow. In the scientific model, the brain "determines" who the observer is because the brain is the observer.

Two exact matches of brains would produce two identical, but separate, observers, just as a Volkswagen factory can produce two identical, but separate, 2013 Beetles.

Dave,
- Didn't you agree with me that two identical brains would not produce the same observer?

 

[godless dave]

- What do you mean by "identical" as it applies to observers. Note that you are using the plural for observer, and do not seem to be saying that these two brains would produce the same observer (singular).

Identical - meaning they have the same properties, look the same, and act the same (until they start receiving different stimuli, which would happen immediately).

Here's yet another analogy: my wife has a red 2013 Volkswagen Beetle. Somebody in Cleveland probably has an identical red 2013 Volkswagen Beetle. When the person in Cleveland drives her car, the odometer on my wife's car does not go up.

- Again, not quite.

How so?

Dave,
- Didn't you agree with me that two identical brains would not produce the same observer?

Yes, and I'm still saying the same thing. Two identical brains would produce two identical observers.

 

[PixyMisa]

Dave,
- Didn't you agree with me that two identical brains would not produce the same observer?

Consciousness (what you are referring to as "the observer") is a function of the brain.

If you have two brains you will have two observers.

The observer is not an entity in its own right, and if you persist in thinking of it that way you will only confuse yourself. The observer is simply what the brain is doing.

Two brains, two observers. (Assuming the brains are functioning.) Always.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Yeah. This is one of those distinctions that is especially hard to convey.

Exactly like trying to distinguish between blindness and an inability to see.

In Swahili.

To a ferret.​

And yet here you are.

- Given that time &/or energy &/or matter are/is finite, the number of observers is limited and finite.

Yes.

- But then, if there is no limited pool of different, potential, observers -- there being absolutely no preexistence of potential observers -- who actually comes is totally unlimited.

No.

And what's more you're attempting, quite dishonestly, to pass this nonsense off as a corollary of the previous correct statement.

In other words, the number of different, potential observers is unlimited.

No, not "in other words" at all. A non sequitur such as your statement above is most definitely not just another way of stating the facts that you started out with.

- In the sense that you had absolutely no preexistence, you came from nothing -- which thought about, should take your breath away and show you that the likelihood of your current existence is, at best (remember the word "current"), one over infinity (given the hypothesis that each potential observer has but one, finite time to exist, at most).

Your breathless wonder notwithstanding, you're talking exactly the same nonsense that's been pointed out to you as being nonsense a hundred times.

If only there was some way of making more than one poster's words visible to you at a time then you would see this for yourself.

- That, probably, will not give us closure -- but it should get us started.

The rest of us will just wait here until you and dave come around again, will we?

 

[Akhenaten]

Even recognizing that distinction, wouldn't you use the number of possible brains when calculating the probability of one existing?

Dave,
- Yes -- if you mean one of those brains. But, we've accepted that the very same brains would not produce the same observer.

We have bloody not.

 

[Garrette]

That, probably, will not give us closure -- but it should get us started.

Started? So soon? I shouldn't advise rushing into anything; I'm stilling pre-stretching before warm-ups.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Your brain may come from a limited pool of possible brains, but your brain does not determine "who" your observer is -- in that two exact matches in brains would not produce the same observer.

Are you trying to pretend that it's just you and Dave in this discussion and that him alone telling you that you're wrong means that there's a 50% chance that you're actually right?

You're in for a rude shock if the other 95% of the thread ever becomes visible to you.

 

[Garrette]

We have bloody not.

Jabba is confusing "same" and "identical."

You probably realize that, but in a serious attempt to get him to do so, also, I offer the following:

Jabba, "Same" does not equal "identical" in the sense we have been using here.

Same = singular, one

Identical = indistinguishable but distinct

 

[Akhenaten]

Jabba is confusing "same" and "identical."

You probably realize that, but in a serious attempt to get him to do so, also, I offer the following:

Jabba, "Same" does not equal "identical" in the sense we have been using here.

Same = singular, one

Identical = indistinguishable but distinct

No worries.

I wonder how long it will be before Jabba again confuses the two and I have godless dave has an opportunity to quote your explanation.

 

[jond]

Consciousness (what you are referring to as "the observer") is a function of the brain.

If you have two brains you will have two observers.

The observer is not an entity in its own right, and if you persist in thinking of it that way you will only confuse yourself. The observer is simply what the brain is doing.

Two brains, two observers. (Assuming the brains are functioning.) Always.

It's really too bad that Jabba will ignore this...

 

[Jabba]

Identical - meaning they have the same properties, look the same, and act the same (until they start receiving different stimuli, which would happen immediately).

Here's yet another analogy: my wife has a red 2013 Volkswagen Beetle. Somebody in Cleveland probably has an identical red 2013 Volkswagen Beetle. When the person in Cleveland drives her car, the odometer on my wife's car does not go up.



How so?



Yes, and I'm still saying the same thing. Two identical brains would produce two identical observers.

Dave,
- But we agree that they would not produce the same observer.
- We also agree that these observers do not come from a limited pool of different, potential observers -- which I'm saying means that who exactly will come is "brand new" -- and, as such, is absolutely unlimited. This is where we currently need closure.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- But we agree that they would not produce the same observer.
- We also agree that these observers do not come from a limited pool of different, potential observers

Of course they do - the pool is the matter required to make brains.

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, I asked this earlier but you didn't respond: do you understand the difference in meaning here between the words "same" and "identical"?

I recognise you are only responding to godless dave at the moment (which, by the way, is exceedingly impolite to everyone else in the thread) but assuming you were honest when you stated that you hadn't put all the other participants on ignore, there really is no reason that you cannot clear this point up - it would take very little time to do so.

I'd also appreciate knowing whether you have, or you intend to, correct your falsehood to Dr Hoel regarding your assertion that everyone on this forum considers you "crazy or stupid". This is a direct lie, not just about me but about many other people, and you really should correct it at your earliest opportunity.

 

[PixyMisa]

Dave,
- But we agree that they would not produce the same observer.

Two brains, two observers.

- We also agree that these observers do not come from a limited pool of different, potential observers -- which I'm saying means that who exactly will come is "brand new" -- and, as such, is absolutely unlimited. This is where we currently need closure.

Absolute garbage.

These "observers" are brain function. Brains are finite. There is a finite number of possible distinct brains, and thus, a finite number of possible distinct observers.

You are wrong, Jabba. The only closure you will ever get on this is when you accept that fact.

 

[Akhenaten]

Of course they do - the pool is the matter required to make brains.

I'm pretty sure I can make a picture of that.

Prolly shouldn't though.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, I think answering this question might shed some light on our misunderstanding:

Remember, in the scientific model, brains and observers are synonymous.

- Again, not quite.

How so?

 

[Loss Leader]

But then, if there is no limited pool of different, potential, observers -- there being absolutely no preexistence of potential observers -- who actually comes is totally unlimited. In other words, the number of different, potential observers is unlimited.

Complete nonsense. If there is no pool, then the pool is not unlimited. The pool is nonexistent. Something cannot both be infinitely large and nonexistent. You're crossing out a zero and substituting infinity for absolutely no logical reason other than your desire to do so.

- In the sense that you had absolutely no preexistence, you came from nothing -- which thought about, should take your breath away and show you that the likelihood of your current existence is, at best (remember the word "current"), one over infinity (given the hypothesis that each potential observer has but one, finite time to exist, at most).

1/inf. is zero. The likelihood of my current existence was not zero. I know this because I'm here. You want to treat infinity as being equal to "a whole lot". It isn't. In fact, earlier in your very same post, you wanted to treat infinity as being a substitute for zero. It's not that, either. It's definitely not both things in two different parts of the same thought.

 

[Monza]

Monza,
- That's the "special case" issue, which I accept is critical, but doesn't seem quite as critical if I can show why infinity should be in the formula. Which is what I am now trying to do.
- Whatever, "special case" is the issue I plan to address next...

I don't understand what you mean by special case. My example is the same as yours. The paradox comes from the use of infinity as a number. As someone here said the other day, it is not a number but it is a concept. A useful concept in certain situations, but not in the way you are attempting.