[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[xtifr]

Re #3: Replicating the physics/chemistry of my brain would not replicate the “me” that science says will pass into eternal oblivion.

It would replicate a "you". Not the "you", because there'd no longer be just one, so the definite article would no longer be appropriate, but it would still be a you.

(Also, science doesn't say that you will "pass into eternal oblivion". Consciousness is an action, not a thing. If you had been running, and you stopped, you wouldn't say that that run had "passed into eternal oblivion". You'd simply say that it was no longer taking place.)

If it would not replicate that “me,” how can we say that the results of replication are identical?

Because they are identical. In fact, it's silly to describe it any other way. You can't meaningfully say that something is identical with itself. (Well, you could, but it would be silly.) Identical implies at least two things.

Re #4: I also like the referral to physics. I was afraid that I might have to explain my usage, so opted for chemistry instead. But then, my sense of self (that “me”) is not entirely dependent upon chemistry and physics – there is no physical or chemical formula distinguishing my sense of self from yours.

Once again, your sense of self (which is not "you", but simply a sense, like your sense of cheese) is entirely dependent on chemistry and physics. At least in the standard scientific model we're supposedly still discussing. There is a physical or chemical formula distinguishing you from me. Different biology, and different biology alone is what makes us different people.

If we had identical biology and physics, we'd be identical. We wouldn't be the same person, but we'd each be one of the two mes that would exist at that point.

Xtifr, I respond to Dave’s responses sooner and more often than I do to yours because his responses tend to deal with fewer sub-issues per response.

That's fine. I wasn't worried, but thanks for clarifying.

 

[Garrette]

Well, yeah--you would be.

Oh....you...

I....

Just you wait.....


You can BET that if I were wittier I would have a devastating comeback right now!

So there.

 

[Jabba]

6355-6350

Dave,
- Let's try this. Would you be resurrected?

6357-6355

No.
Something made to the same specifications as me is a copy of me. It's not me.

6368-6357

- In other words, there is no mold for you.

6371-6368

Yes, there is. "Me" is the first person made from that "mold". If you could clone me, the clone would be the second person made from that mold. It would start off identical to how I started off (but would quickly diverge, as others have pointed out).
What makes me me is that I am this person, the person whose self is inside a skull in east central Minnesota, typing at this keyboard.

Dave,
- I'm not sure why I didn't stick to your choice of words -- specifically, "specifications." From, "Something made to the same specifications as me is a copy of me. It's not me." I get that there are no specifications for you. Is that an acceptable interpretation?

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave
- I'm not sure why I didn't stick to your choice of words -- specifically, "specifications."

Because it's an autonomic reaction on your part to translate everything into Jabbanese.

From, "Something made to the same specifications as me is a copy of me. It's not me." I get that there are no specifications for you. Is that an acceptable interpretation?

Why do you always have to resort to interpretations?

Why don't you just respond to the things people actually say?

 

[Agatha]

Dave,
- I'm not sure why I didn't stick to your choice of words -- specifically, "specifications." From, "Something made to the same specifications as me is a copy of me. It's not me." I get that there are no specifications for you. Is that an acceptable interpretation?

Holy non-sequitur, Batman.

What you have inferred from godless dave's explanation does not follow at all.

Consider: From, "Something made to the same recipe as my birthday cake is a copy of a cake. It's not the original cake." I get that there are no recipes for cakes.

I am sure you can see that does not follow in the slightest, so I'm not sure why you would think that your interpretation is an acceptable interpretation of godless dave's explanation.

There is a 'specification' for each and every one of us. It's the DNA we inherit from our parents, combined with our experiences and memories. That's the recipe/specification/mould that makes you 'you', and makes me 'me', and the same for every person that has ever lived on this planet.

 

[xtifr]

No.

Something made to the same specifications as me is a copy of me. It's not me.

I think that's a fuzzy concept that language doesn't handle gracefully.

It's not the same person, but it is, essentially, another you. There would be (at the instant of creation) no difference between the two; they'd both be different yous.

Depending on how you define "you". And "me".

 

[Mojo]

6355-6350

6357-6355

6368-6357

6371-6368

Have you been talking with PeaceCrusader?

 

[Mojo]

I think that's a fuzzy concept that language doesn't handle gracefully.

It's not the same person, but it is, essentially, another you.

It's a person the same as you.

 

[PixyMisa]

Dave,
- I'm not sure why I didn't stick to your choice of words -- specifically, "specifications." From, "Something made to the same specifications as me is a copy of me. It's not me." I get that there are no specifications for you. Is that an acceptable interpretation?

No. It's unacceptable due to it being completely, utterly, obviously, hopelessly and hilariously wrong.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Oh....you...

I....

Just you wait.....


You can BET that if I were wittier I would have a devastating comeback right now!

So there.

Runnin' rings around me, rhetorically, ain'cha?

 

[Slowvehicle]

6355-6350

6357-6355

6368-6357

6371-6368
Dave,
- I'm not sure why I didn't stick to your choice of words -- specifically, "specifications." From, "Something made to the same specifications as me is a copy of me. It's not me." I get that there are no specifications for you. Is that an acceptable interpretation?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

You should quit this, you really should.

The "specifications" that "made " the consciousness we are proud to know as "godless dave" are the instantiation of his heredity, influenced by the environment in which his body developed, influenced by the experiences he has had. His precise nature is a contingency; had he different genes, or different development (different/less/more food exposure to disease etc.), or different experiences (raised by wolves, raised in orbit,etc.); he would be different. His consciousness would be different.

Nowhere is there a template of "godless dave-ness", ensuring that the universe would be blessed with this instantiation of him.

And no, that does not mean that there are infinite,or even unlimited, "possible 'godless daves' ".

You should be embarrassed by your insistence on creating a way to say the same wrong thing in a way that you will not be called on it.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I'm not sure why I didn't stick to your choice of words -- specifically, "specifications." From, "Something made to the same specifications as me is a copy of me. It's not me." I get that there are no specifications for you. Is that an acceptable interpretation?

No. Here are the specifications for me, simplified for sake of discussion (and because I'm not a biologist):

My initial DNA.

The factors that affected how that DNA was expressed.

The factors that effected my brain's development in the womb and throughout life.

 

[godless dave]

Holy non-sequitur, Batman.

What you have inferred from godless dave's explanation does not follow at all.

Consider: From, "Something made to the same recipe as my birthday cake is a copy of a cake. It's not the original cake." I get that there are no recipes for cakes.

I am sure you can see that does not follow in the slightest, so I'm not sure why you would think that your interpretation is an acceptable interpretation of godless dave's explanation.

There is a 'specification' for each and every one of us. It's the DNA we inherit from our parents, combined with our experiences and memories. That's the recipe/specification/mould that makes you 'you', and makes me 'me', and the same for every person that has ever lived on this planet.

Bingo.

I think that's a fuzzy concept that language doesn't handle gracefully.

One reason for that is that we're talking about a hypothetical situation that doesn't occur in nature. It doesn't really even occur in artificial cloning, as I understand it.

 

[zooterkin]

6355-6350

5

6357-6355

2

6368-6357

11

6371-6368

3

HTH.

 

[Agatha]

Quite, quite brilliant, Zooterkin.

 

[Jabba]

I think that's a fuzzy concept that language doesn't handle gracefully.

It's not the same person, but it is, essentially, another you. There would be (at the instant of creation) no difference between the two; they'd both be different yous.

Depending on how you define "you". And "me".

xtifr,
- For the moment at least, I agree with you. Dave and I are not using the same definitions -- at least, not consistently.

 

[Mojo]

It's a person the same as you.

Which, to clarify for Jabba, does not mean the same person as you.

 

[Mojo]

I think that's a fuzzy concept that language doesn't handle gracefully.

It's not the same person, but it is, essentially, another you. There would be (at the instant of creation) no difference between the two; they'd both be different yous.

Depending on how you define "you". And "me".

xtifr,
- For the moment at least, I agree with you. Dave and I are not using the same definitions -- at least, not consistently.

Note how Jabba carefully ignores the part of the post that explains how he is wrong, and then implies that xtifr agrees with him.

But if you must go down this road, Jabba, please could you provide the definitions you are using for "you" and "me", and explain how Dave's definitions differ from them.

 

[Jabba]

6443-6357

6355-6350
6357-6355
6368-6357
6371-6368
Dave,
- I'm not sure why I didn't stick to your choice of words -- specifically, "specifications." From, "Something made to the same specifications as me is a copy of me. It's not me." I get that there are no specifications for you. Is that an acceptable interpretation?

6452-6443

No. Here are the specifications for me, simplified for sake of discussion (and because I'm not a biologist):
My initial DNA.
The factors that affected how that DNA was expressed.
The factors that effected my brain's development in the womb and throughout life.

Dave,
- I don't think that you're saying what you mean to be saying.
- First you say that your specifications reapplied would produce a copy of you. It would not produce you.
- Then, when I say that you seem to be saying that there are no specifications for you, you say that there are, and provide the above. But, are these the specifications for "you," or are they specifications for copies of you?

 

[Jabba]

- Don't worry about all that numbering. They are for my benefit, not yours.