[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Are you saying that if we replicated the DNA and the specific matter that you were made of, the self we produced would be you?

No. It would be a separate self that was identical to the way I was when I was born (roughly), just like the last time I answered this question.

 

[carlitos]

Since "replicating the brain" isn't possible, could we move onto reality please?

Christ, this has been explained 100 times in this thread. 2 different things that are identical are not the same. Go out to your car - you have 4 identical tires, but they aren't the same tire.

 

[Giordano]

- But, you said that it wouldn't be you if we replicated your brain.

That is what he still still saying and has explained why.

Again, your post appears to be more interested in your misinterpretation of his post, instead of what he really said and continues to say.

Do you care at all what we really think, what anyone really thinks and posts? You have attempted to post misleading interpretations and redefinitions previously in this thread. Do you think it is not noticed? Again, what is the point? You are only discrediting your own OP.

 

[Giordano]

Since "replicating the brain" isn't possible, could we move onto reality please?

Christ, this has been explained 100 times in this thread. 2 different things that are identical are not the same. Go out to your car - you have 4 identical tires, but they aren't the same tire.

"Reality?" That would be a novel direction.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- But, you said that it wouldn't be you if we replicated your brain.

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage!

How many times would you like to have this explanation repeated to you?

The consciousness that is an emergent property of a specific neurosystem is shaped by a combination of the inherited form and structure of that neurosystem, and the experiences to which the neurosystem has been subjected.

"...the physical, inherited characteristics of the brain and the things that brain has experienced..."

From two atomic-level identical brains (were such a thing possible {and it is not ["really"]}) would emerge two personalities that would diverge at the instant their experiences diverged, and to the extent that those experiences continued to diverge.

Because, you know, the "characteristics" of a "consciousness" are determined by a combination of the brain itself and the things that happen to it.

 

[godless dave]

(of course, you couldn't make a copy of me using the same matter I'm made of without destroying me in the process).

 

[HighRiser]

Dave,
- Are you saying that if we replicated the DNA and the specific matter that you were made of, the self we produced would be you?

This rhetoric you're hung up on doesn't further your cause. Even if someone could be replicated; that someone could not be replicated an infinite number of times because there are not infinite resources available.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Since "replicating the brain" isn't possible, could we move onto reality please?

Christ, this has been explained 100 times in this thread. 2 different things that are identical are not the same. Go out to your car - you have 4 identical tires, but they aren't the same tire.

Wait.

"Reality", or "reality", or "REALITY", or "essentially reality", or "the scientific model"?

Or something else?

 

[godless dave]

This rhetoric you're hung up on doesn't further your cause. Even if someone could be replicated; that someone could not be replicated an infinite number of times because there are not infinite resources available.

You saw the forest while I was looking at individual trees. Yes. This is the crux of this particular mistake.

 

[Garrette]

- But, you said that it wouldn't be you if we replicated your brain.

Jabba, it really isn’t that difficult, and it really shows that the failure to understand here is on your part, not ours.

[table="Selves – Identical vs. Different vs. Divergent"]Step in Process|Initial DNA|Identical but Different DNA
Embryonic Development| Brain | Identical but Different Brain
Interim Result | Distinct Self, Determined by the DNA that Formed it | Identical but Different Self
Experience | Divergent Self | Different Divergent Self, No Longer Identical to the Other Self

[/table]

 

[Sideroxylon]

I'm going to sleep, during which consciousness will go into shutdown mode. I will probably wake up tomorrow and remember typing this and a multitude of other events stored in my physical brain. The consciousness that logs in here tomorrow will have a sense of continuity with the presently typing consciousness.

 

[Jabba]

- Maybe a better way to present my claim in this case is that while there is a preexisting "recipe" for consciousness in general, there is no preexisting recipe for your particular self. Each new consciousness inherently creates, produces, brings with it a brand new specific self.
- I say such a thing based upon the assumption that if we were somehow able to replicate the specific brain and DNA of a specific self, we would not replicate the self in that new brain. We would not have one self looking out two sets of eyes.

 

[Garrette]

- Maybe a better way to present my claim in this case is that while there is a preexisting "recipe" for consciousness in general, there is no preexisting recipe for your particular self. Each new consciousness inherently creates, produces, brings with it a brand new specific self.
- I say such a thing based upon the assumption that if we were somehow able to replicate the specific brain and DNA of a specific self, we would not replicate the self.

You use new words to say the same old errors.

You are assuming from the get go that there is a consciousness separate from the physicality that gave rise to it. This is wrong. If there is a limit on the physicality that can give rise to consciousness, then there is a limit on what consciousnesses can be given rise to.

Under the Scientific Model, consciousness IS PHYSICAL. You don't like it. It doesn't feel right to you. It is counter to the epiphany you had. But you are wrong.

You are trying to prove that there is a consciousness which is not physical. Fine, but your proof, to be valid, cannot start by assuming what you want to prove.

 

[carlitos]

- Maybe a better way to present my claim in this case is that while there is a preexisting "recipe" for consciousness in general, there is no preexisting recipe for your particular self. Each new consciousness inherently creates, produces, brings with it a brand new specific self.
- I say such a thing based upon the assumption that if we were somehow able to replicate the specific brain and DNA of a specific self, we would not replicate the self in that new brain. We would not have one self looking out two sets of eyes.

Since "replicating the brain" isn't possible, could we move onto reality please?

Christ, this has been explained 100 times in this thread. 2 different things that are identical are not the same. Go out to your car - you have 4 identical tires, but they aren't the same tire.

 

[George]

- Maybe a better way to present my claim in this case is that while there is a preexisting "recipe" for consciousness in general, there is no preexisting recipe for your particular self. Each new consciousness inherently creates, produces, brings with it a brand new specific self.
- I say such a thing based upon the assumption that if we were somehow able to replicate the specific brain and DNA of a specific self, we would not replicate the self in that new brain. We would not have one self looking out two sets of eyes.

My one set of eyes and my finite memory tells me you've posted this rubbish before.

 

[godless dave]

- Maybe a better way to present my claim in this case is that while there is a preexisting "recipe" for consciousness in general, there is no preexisting recipe for your particular self. Each new consciousness inherently creates, produces, brings with it a brand new specific self.
- I say such a thing based upon the assumption that if we were somehow able to replicate the specific brain and DNA of a specific self, we would not replicate the self in that new brain. We would not have one self looking out two sets of eyes.

You're just restating what is still wrong.

The recipe for my particular self starts with my DNA.

Two identical twins will have two separate selves that start out being identical. They came from the same recipe.

It would be impossible to have one self looking out of two sets of eyes, because those each set of eyes would be connected to a separate brain, and the brains would not be connected together.

Edited to add: I'm going to go with the recipe analog you used. If you have a recipe for baked macaroni and cheese casserole, and you make it once on Monday, and then again on Thursday, do you have two different casseroles or just one?

Can create an infinite number of casseroles?

 

[Mojo]

- But, you said that it wouldn't be you if we replicated your brain.

If you have two identical objects, how many of them do you have?

 

[Humots]

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage!

How many times would you like to have this explanation repeated to you?

The consciousness that is an emergent property of a specific neurosystem is shaped by a combination of the inherited form and structure of that neurosystem, and the experiences to which the neurosystem has been subjected.

"...the physical, inherited characteristics of the brain and the things that brain has experienced..."

From two atomic-level identical brains (were such a thing possible {and it is not ["really"]}) would emerge two personalities that would diverge at the instant their experiences diverged, and to the extent that those experiences continued to diverge.

Because, you know, the "characteristics" of a "consciousness" are determined by a combination of the brain itself and the things that happen to it.

The science fiction author Poul Anderson wrote a short story in which an alien device destroyed an Earth astronaut and created two atomic-level identical copies.

These copies were in a featureless, symmetrical room. There was a handle that would open a door, but the two astronauts were perfectly in sync. Every time one of them tried to use the handle, the other would completely duplicate the movement and prevent the handle from moving.

The astronaut(s) understood exactly what had happened, and had no problem with being duplicates. Each one just wanted to resolve the problem and live.

Because of the limited environment, there was no simple way to get out of sync. If the room had had something as simple as a mark on one wall, both would have thought something like "the one nearest the mark opens the door".

Eventually, they would have fallen out of sync just because of some normal brain fart. But they didn't have time for that. The air was running out. If they didn't leave the room in a matter of minutes, both would die.

Finally, each picked a hair (the same hair, identical) and blew it up in the air. There was enough variation in the room's air currents that one copy's hair hit the ground first. That was all it took.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Maybe a better way to present my claim in this case is that while there is a preexisting "recipe" for consciousness in general, there is no preexisting recipe for your particular self. Each new consciousness inherently creates, produces, brings with it a brand new specific self.
- I say such a thing based upon the assumption that if we were somehow able to replicate the specific brain and DNA of a specific self, we would not replicate the self in that new brain. We would not have one self looking out two sets of eyes.

No. No, not at all. No.

Others will point out other problems with this, but here is a glaring fault:

Each new consciousness inherently creates, produces, brings with it a brand new specific self.

No.

From each new functioning neurosystem emerges a new, unique consciousness. The number of potential consciousnesses determined by the number of potential neurosystems (a finite number).

Each new consciousness IS a brand new, specific "self" ("observer"/"representation"/"recipe"/"iteration"). The number of potential "selves" ("observers"/"representations"/"recipes"/"iterations") IS the number of potential consciousnesses.

Your reset founders at the starting tape.

 

[Mojo]

Each new consciousness inherently creates, produces, brings with it a brand new specific self.

You have previously used the terms "consciousness" and "self" as if they were synonymous. Now you are implying that they are different. You need to define these terms in a way that differentiates them.