[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[dlorde]

Apparently all of the tens of billions before you made the same decision and so we're left with not a trace of their immortal selves.

It's almost as if they no longer exist.

Good thing too - think of the crush...

I'm happy to leave reality as I found it (perhaps a little tidier).

Physical impossibility apart, the idea of immortality seems to me ultimately pointless (an eternity of non-physical disembodiment? no thanks) or ultimately selfish (I want another body, and another, and another - yawn).

Perhaps we can have a sense of physical continuation as our finite 4D world-lines are in some way encoded in the ever-expanding wavefunction of the universe... then again, maybe not.

 

[Aepervius]

The idea of immortality is attractive to me only for one single reason : see how good / far away from reality our own physical prediction for the far future turns out.

But then again I would die happy with a time machine to exectly check the same.

 

[Garrette]

The idea of immortality is attractive to me only for one single reason : see how good / far away from reality our own physical prediction for the far future turns out.

But then again I would die happy with a time machine to exectly check the same.

My reason for desiring immortality is more prurient: infinite opportunities to couple with some certain peoples. Sorry, Kate Beckinsale. You'll forget it ever happened when Brad Pitt chances along.

 

[Giordano]

Sometime I worry how people will treat my things after I am dead: will they throw away my little mementos, or wreak my car by not changing the oil?

But can you imagine how someone might treat my soul? What if they dirty it, or abuse it? No way! I with diorde: I am taking it with me.

 

[Humots]

I think immortality is too vague a term to use in any non-religious argument.

The mythical idea of immortality (Greek for example) seems to imply not only never dying, but never aging (but able to grow and change), never getting tired (but able to sleep and dream), never being hungry or thirsty (but still having an appetite), and so on.

In other words, living forever with none of the disadvantages.

In current religions, it's already taken care of. The soul is beyond the mortality of the flesh, God will take care of it, Heaven is wonderful, etc.

But all of this is mythical.

I would settle for not aging, and having the freedom to end my life if I see no point in continuing. Being able to do some kind of reset would also be nice.

The only non-religious concept of immortality that approaches mythical immortality is part of the Singularity: mind uploading, personality editing and the like.

The SF author Norman Spinrad wrote a novel "Deus X", in which a form of mind uploading is possible.

Note: by form, I am referring to the arguments as to whether an "uploaded" mind is actually me (a continuation of my consciousness as complete as the one that happens every day) or just "someone" who remembers being me.

Which case applies depends (speculating wildly) on the mechanics of the upload. In Spinrad's novel, uploading involves examining a living brain (non-destructively) and creating a program that emulates the original person. This would come under the "remembers" case, since the original is still around after the process is complete.

In the novel, the Catholic Church is trying to decide if uploads have souls. They decide to upload a dying priest who rejects this idea and have him argue as an upload that he has no soul.

This is done, and interesting things ensue.

 

[Giordano]

I think immortality is too vague a term to use in any non-religious argument.

The mythical idea of immortality (Greek for example) seems to imply not only never dying, but never aging (but able to grow and change), never getting tired (but able to sleep and dream), never being hungry or thirsty (but still having an appetite), and so on.

In other words, living forever with none of the disadvantages.

In current religions, it's already taken care of. The soul is beyond the mortality of the flesh, God will take care of it, Heaven is wonderful, etc.

But all of this is mythical.

I would settle for not aging, and having the freedom to end my life if I see no point in continuing. Being able to do some kind of reset would also be nice.

The only non-religious concept of immortality that approaches mythical immortality is part of the Singularity: mind uploading, personality editing and the like.

The SF author Norman Spinrad wrote a novel "Deus X", in which a form of mind uploading is possible.

Note: by form, I am referring to the arguments as to whether an "uploaded" mind is actually me (a continuation of my consciousness as complete as the one that happens every day) or just "someone" who remembers being me.

Which case applies depends (speculating wildly) on the mechanics of the upload. In Spinrad's novel, uploading involves examining a living brain (non-destructively) and creating a program that emulates the original person. This would come under the "remembers" case, since the original is still around after the process is complete.

In the novel, the Catholic Church is trying to decide if uploads have souls. They decide to upload a dying priest who rejects this idea and have him argue as an upload that he has no soul.

This is done, and interesting things ensue.

I think the original Twilight Zone had an episode called "Escape Clause" where the devil granted immortality, but allowed one to change one's mind about it. If I remember correctly, one soon wanted out of immortality. It was too boring.

 

[Giordano]

In the novel, the Catholic Church is trying to decide if uploads have souls. They decide to upload a dying priest who rejects this idea and have him argue as an upload that he has no soul.

This is done, and interesting things ensue.

I like the idea of a Turing Test: if you can't tell it does not have a "soul" in response to any and all questions, then it does have a "soul" (assuming for the moment souls exist as defined by religion).

Of course, identical twins each have half a "soul" and triplets have a third of a "soul" each as I see it...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There was a short story I read once. Possibly called "What Use Is A Glass Dagger?" In it there was a wizard who had done some quest or acquired something or other which meant that he gained immortality. What he hadn't taken account of was that he wouldn't stop ageing.

In fact, when we meet him, he's nothing but a skeleton. Not even a skeleton covered in skin, but just a skeleton. Unable to move at all, or anything like that, but still alive and aware.

 

[Jabba]

- I just sent the following to Dr. Hoerl at Union.

Roger,

In trying to determine the “likelihood” of my current existence, given the scientifically popular worldview that each of us can exist for only one finite timespan, how do I justify using the likelihood of my specific current existence in the Bayesian formula – rather than the likelihood of someone/anyone’s current existence?
I accept that communicating my justification for such to thoughtful minds is difficult -- if not impossible -- but nevertheless, I do believe the usage to be entirely appropriate…
To do that, I need to show that I am somehow set apart from other potential “selves” -- and, in a way that allows for a reasonably possible worldview, about my existence, other than the currently popular one. If I can do that, I think I win.

Hopefully, that communicates.

What do you think?

If it’s OK with you, I’d like to take this one small step at a time. That way, though we may never get past the first page or two, we should be able to tell when we’re on the same page.

Thanks.
Rich

 

[dlorde]

- I just sent the following to Dr. Hoerl at Union.
<..gibberish..>

Don't pester the poor man; whatever he's done, he doesn't deserve that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If it’s OK with you, I’d like to take this one small step at a time.

He has my pity.

 

[John Jones]

- I just sent the following to Dr. Hoerl at Union.

Roger,

In trying to determine the “likelihood” of my current existence, given the scientifically popular worldview that each of us can exist for only one finite timespan, how do I justify using the likelihood of my specific current existence in the Bayesian formula – rather than the likelihood of someone/anyone’s current existence?
I accept that communicating my justification for such to thoughtful minds is difficult -- if not impossible -- but nevertheless, I do believe the usage to be entirely appropriate…
To do that, I need to show that I am somehow set apart from other potential “selves” -- and, in a way that allows for a reasonably possible worldview, about my existence, other than the currently popular one. If I can do that, I think I win.

Hopefully, that communicates.

What do you think?

If it’s OK with you, I’d like to take this one small step at a time. That way, though we may never get past the first page or two, we should be able to tell when we’re on the same page.

Thanks.
Rich

You're trying to draw him into a second 18 month long cycle of ignoring every opinion that disagrees with you, and then doing a fringe reset.

Have you no idea how rude it is to keep asking the same question because you didn't like the replies you got?

Dr. Hoerl,

Be afraid of this thread. Be very afraid.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I just sent the following to Dr. Hoerl at Union.

Roger,

In trying to determine the “likelihood” of my current existence, given the scientifically popular worldview that each of us can exist for only one finite timespan, how do I justify using the likelihood of my specific current existence in the Bayesian formula – rather than the likelihood of someone/anyone’s current existence?
I accept that communicating my justification for such to thoughtful minds is difficult -- if not impossible -- but nevertheless, I do believe the usage to be entirely appropriate…
To do that, I need to show that I am somehow set apart from other potential “selves” -- and, in a way that allows for a reasonably possible worldview, about my existence, other than the currently popular one. If I can do that, I think I win.

Hopefully, that communicates.

What do you think?

If it’s OK with you, I’d like to take this one small step at a time. That way, though we may never get past the first page or two, we should be able to tell when we’re on the same page.

Thanks.
Rich

Good Evening, Mr. Savage:

I wonder--if you are going to correspond with, and only respond to, "Roger", why are you here?

If you intend to laboriously reiterate every one of the "arguments" you have presented here, to "Roger", as if no one had ever disagreed with your claims, or pointed out the problems with your "debate" style, why are you here?

If you are going to continue to rudely ignore most of the posts on this thread; and misstate, misrepresent, or misinterpret the few you deign to notice; and tell outright lies about the participants in this thread; why are you here?

If you are going to pretend that the overwhelming majority of the posts that point out that your claims about the existence of the "soul", and its "immortality", are only due to you not explaining your scheme quite well enough; why are you here?

Here is a fresh, new, intriguing idea: Why not simply present every bit of evidence (practical, empirical, objective evidence) you can muster for the very existence of the "soul"/"observer"/"self"/"sense of self"/"consciousness",and for its state of immortality? That way, we can see, all at once, why you are making the claims you are making.

If nothing else, it would be a refreshing change.

 

[Giordano]

There was a short story I read once. Possibly called "What Use Is A Glass Dagger?" In it there was a wizard who had done some quest or acquired something or other which meant that he gained immortality. What he hadn't taken account of was that he wouldn't stop ageing.

In fact, when we meet him, he's nothing but a skeleton. Not even a skeleton covered in skin, but just a skeleton. Unable to move at all, or anything like that, but still alive and aware.

By Larry Niven, I think. Great story! Spoiler alert. It begins with a world where magic is limited by the amount of "mana" available. This source of magic power is finite and can be used up. So showy big magic exhausts the amount of mana in a location faster than small magic. In the beginning the wizard, who has used magic to stay young, is one day attacked by a magic sword and by a swordsman. The wizard uses a way to deplete mana from the surroundings to beat the sword and swordsman (I will not reveal how). But as a result the wizard's magic stops working and he gets very old looking until he can be carried to a fresh, mana-filled location.

Another good short story is " The Rule of Names" by Ursula Le Guin. It also involves magic.

 

[Giordano]

Good Evening, Mr. Savage:

Here is a fresh, new, intriguing idea: Why not simply present every bit of evidence (practical, empirical, objective evidence) you can muster for the very existence of the "soul"/"observer"/"self"/"sense of self"/"consciousness",and for its state of immortality? That way, we can see, all at once, why you are making the claims you are making.

If nothing else, it would be a refreshing change.

After all this time: what is your evidence and "proof?" Please?

 

[pakeha]

Don't pester the poor man; whatever he's done, he doesn't deserve that.

I'm reminded of the dr Proton episodes of The Big Bang Theory.

 

[John Jones]

Good Evening, Mr. Savage:

I wonder--if you are going to correspond with, and only respond to, "Roger", why are you here?

If you intend to laboriously reiterate every one of the "arguments" you have presented here, to "Roger", as if no one had ever disagreed with your claims, or pointed out the problems with your "debate" style, why are you here?

If you are going to continue to rudely ignore most of the posts on this thread; and misstate, misrepresent, or misinterpret the few you deign to notice; and tell outright lies about the participants in this thread; why are you here?

*cough* The Tablecloth of Turin debacle *cough*

 

[Humots]

I think the original Twilight Zone had an episode called "Escape Clause" where the devil granted immortality, but allowed one to change one's mind about it. If I remember correctly, one soon wanted out of immortality. It was too boring.

I remember that episode. The guy making the deal was a total hypochondriac, obsessed with all the things that could possibly kill him.

The devil offered him invulnerability, including immortality. There was an escape clause: he could die if he wanted. Of course, if he lived forever the devil would never get his soul.

He immediately started doing all sorts of life-threatening things just to get a thrill. His wife thought he had gone crazy.

When the thrill wore off he got bored, and decided to jump off the roof of his building. His wife tried to stop him, and wound up falling off herself. He then called the police and confessed to her murder, saying "Let's give the electric chair a whirl."

Unfortunately, his lawyer was too good, and got him a sentence of (ta da) life imprisonment without parole.

That's when he invoked the escape clause, much to the devil's amusement, and promptly died of a heart attack.

 

[Humots]

- I just sent the following to Dr. Hoerl at Union.

Roger,

In trying to determine the “likelihood” of my current existence, given the scientifically popular worldview that each of us can exist for only one finite timespan, how do I justify using the likelihood of my specific current existence in the Bayesian formula – rather than the likelihood of someone/anyone’s current existence?
I accept that communicating my justification for such to thoughtful minds is difficult -- if not impossible -- but nevertheless, I do believe the usage to be entirely appropriate…
To do that, I need to show that I am somehow set apart from other potential “selves” -- and, in a way that allows for a reasonably possible worldview, about my existence, other than the currently popular one. If I can do that, I think I win.

Hopefully, that communicates.

What do you think?

If it’s OK with you, I’d like to take this one small step at a time. That way, though we may never get past the first page or two, we should be able to tell when we’re on the same page.

Thanks.
Rich

Jabba: this is just ridiculous. We expected you to ask him to rule on the validity of terms like intrinsicly and extrinsicly finite, or whether the probability 1/infinity makes sense.

Instead, you are presenting him with your original claim in all its glory. I don't think he will have the time or the interest to read the entire thread plus your website just to figure out what the hell you are talking about. Life is too short.

 

[jt512]

Jabba: this is just ridiculous. We expected you to ask him to rule on the validity of terms like intrinsicly and extrinsicly finite, or whether the probability 1/infinity makes sense.

Instead, you are presenting him with your original claim in all its glory. I don't think he will have the time or the interest to read the entire thread plus your website just to figure out what the hell you are talking about. Life is too short.

Nice touch, that.