[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

So now that this thread is rightly in R&P then why not call his bluff and agree with him. Let him paint himself into a corner.

I have tried. I've asked him if there are more people today than ever before on Earth (which is historic fact), where do the extra "selves" come from? If these extra selves are created de novo according to his theory, why are any selves reincarnated (recycled)? Doesn't this invalidate his proof of reincarnation? If both do happen, however hard to prove, then are some of us reincarnated and others freshly made? Can one tell the two apart?

So far, silence on his part.

 

[Giordano]

But, I assume that you would agree that perfectly replicated human embryos would not be identical, in that they would not have identical selves -- even if we were able to give them identical environments till consciousness emerged.

Simply not true. One: impossible to do. Two, if you could duplicate them exactly down to every molecular detail, and somehow had identical environments (which means they would occupy the same space-impossible again) they would think alike according to me and the SD. Again I am not talking just duplicating the DNA or even the neurons in the brains, but duplicating the exact action potentials, all other chemical compositions, and synapses.

Very telling: so you have been following the criticisms and the discussion involving environment all along. Probably you have been following more than that. But you absolutely refuse to incorporate any of this discussion into your thinking, or even to bring up objections. Don't have any counterarguments, do you?

 

[Jabba]

They also have different eyes, different noses, different kidneys, different heads, different brains, different hands, all made from the same genome.

- But these would all be identical if we were able to provide identical environments for both.

 

[carlitos]

And if my grandma had wheels she'd be a schoolbus. Again, reality please?

 

[Giordano]

- But these would all be identical if we were able to provide identical environments for both.

No.

Read what I and others just wrote if you want to know why. But perhaps you already have learned why your post is wrong. But posted it nonetheless... Why do identical twin have different fingerprints? Hint- it is not environmental differences only.

 

[abaddon]

- But these would all be identical if we were able to provide identical environments for both.

Right. So we must provide clone parents, clone schools, clone siblings, clone school friends, the clone parents of said school friends, not to mention all of their various antecedents, grandparents, ancestors et al.

We must provide for every instant of their lives, we must make sure that there is not interaction whatsoever between these parallel existences, we must make sure that all is identical.

Surely you can see that this is untenable?

It's turtles all the way down, as you would have it.

 

[George]

I have tried. I've asked him if there are more people today than ever before on Earth (which is historic fact), where do the extra "selves" come from? If these extra selves are created de novo according to his theory, why are any selves reincarnated (recycled)? Doesn't this invalidate his proof of reincarnation? If both do happen, however hard to prove, then are some of us reincarnated and others freshly made? Can one tell the two apart?

So far, silence on his part.

I know.
I have followed every tittle and jot of Jabbas threads. This one is now an agony to read it is sooo over the top that I'm thinking he has become bored and is getting ready to throw the towel in and start a new one.
It's an abomination. I'm sure Jabba takes great delight in reading page after page of intelligent knowledgeable feedback. Not because he thinks he's winning mind you but because he is receiving feedback, all these lovely thousands of pages of feedback, just for Jabba. Just the sort of feedback his kind need to thrive.
He's a troll.

 

[John Jones]

Jabba,

If you have any point at all, would you please get on with it? You haven't come close to essentially proving immortality by any means.

As hard as it is to believe, this thread makes your Shroud of Turin thread look like an intellectual exercise.

Maybe the two threads ought to be merged as an example of how NOT to provide effective debate by the best man in the fight.

 

[Humots]

This question I find a very interesting one: general anesthesia versus sleep. Yes, I agree with Hokulele that when I woke up from general anesthesia I had no sense of the passage of time; I had been "shut off" for a while and then turned "back on" and this did feel very different from my nightly sleep. Intriguing. Yet I do know that we all go through different stages of sleep, so I wonder if the lighter stages of sleep, or some continued querying of the external environment (i.e. is someone trying to shake me awake?) gives us the sense of the passage of time when we sleep, as opposed to general anesthesia when someone can cut open our guts and we remain unaware...

I have heard that comatose patients have shown signs of being at least partly aware of what was said around them while they were out.

One story was that a woman woke up speaking with the same Irish accent as her nurse, but that is fourth or fifth hand at best.

 

[AdMan]

- But these would all be identical if we were able to provide identical environments for both.

Jabba, if you're only going to address one poster's comments and insultingly ignore everyone else's contributions, why don't you take this to PMs? Do you really think you are convincing anybody with your unending nonsense?

 

[Sideroxylon]

- But these would all be identical if we were able to provide identical environments for both.

A copy to a sub-atomic level of an individual would result in the creation of another new stand-alone self. It would be no more you than a child or twin sibling would be - at least in the key sense you seek, Jabba. If circumstances meant that you had to die but your new copy was going to live you would find little comfort in that because from your perspective he would not be you.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba, if you're only going to address one poster's comments and insultingly ignore everyone else's contributions, why don't you take this to PMs? Do you really think you are convincing anybody with your unending nonsense?

Lucky Dave! First prize: one week free vacation reading Jabba's posts. Second prize: two weeks free vacation reading Jabba's posts.

Seriously I agree with AdMan: if Jabba is going to only respond to Godless Dave, then Jabba should PM him. At least then others won't know of all of our criticisms. Sorry Dave, some have greatness thrust upon them; it is not your fault.

 

[Giordano]

I liked the question: if you had two identical VWs, how many VWs would you have?
Hint: 2 identical VWs. Would they be the same VW? Hint: no. Is that because they have different "selves?" ??
Jabba: what do you think?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- If I understand your question, yes. But, I assume that you would agree that perfectly replicated human embryos would not be identical, in that they would not have identical selves -- even if we were able to give them identical environments till consciousness emerged.

"Asked and answered,Counselor. Is there a point lurking in the underbrush of your rhetoric?"

 

[PixyMisa]

- But these would all be identical if we were able to provide identical environments for both.

If you have one marble, and then you duplicate it so that you have two identical marbles, how many marbles do you have?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Right. So we must provide clone parents, clone schools, clone siblings, clone school friends, the clone parents of said school friends, not to mention all of their various antecedents, grandparents, ancestors et al.

We must provide for every instant of their lives, we must make sure that there is not interaction whatsoever between these parallel existences, we must make sure that all is identical.

Surely you can see that this is untenable?

It's turtles all the way down, as you would have it.

Simply not true. One: impossible to do. Two, if you could duplicate them exactly down to every molecular detail, and somehow had identical environments (which means they would occupy the same space-impossible again) they would think alike according to me and the SD. Again I am not talking just duplicating the DNA or even the neurons in the brains, but duplicating the exact action potentials, all other chemical compositions, and synapses.

Very telling: so you have been following the criticisms and the discussion involving environment all along. Probably you have been following more than that. But you absolutely refuse to incorporate any of this discussion into your thinking, or even to bring up objections. Don't have any counterarguments, do you?

Perhaps someone whose posts he still admists to reading might suggest to Mr. Savage that he read Nancy Freedman's Joshua, Son of None.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- I think that the appropriate terminology here would be that 2 sets of identical chemistry produce different results. OK?

No, that's just plain wrong, obviously. I think you'll find that it's a lynchpin of chemistry that results are replicable.

What you seem determined to ignore is that even in the unlikely case that two identical brains could be produced they would instantaneously begin to diverge both physically and chemically.

 

[Akhenaten]

There would be two sets of identical chemistry forming two identical results.

Dave,
- I don't think they should be called identical -

What you think is not a limiting factor in any discussion of any subject.

- they have different selves.

Only in the instant of their creation. After that it's every man for himself, so to speak.

 

[Mojo]

Are two Volkswagen Beetles idientical if they are from the same model year, are made to the same specifications, and painted the same color?

- If I understand your question, yes.

If two Volkswagen Beetles are identical, how many of them are there?

 

[Akhenaten]

Are two Volkswagen Beetles idientical if they are from the same model year, are made to the same specifications, and painted the same color?

- If I understand your question, yes.

Aye, there's the rub.

But, I assume that you would agree that perfectly replicated human embryos would not be identical, in that they would not have identical selves -- even if we were able to give them identical environments till consciousness emerged.

Why would you make this assumption when you've been told hundreds of times that that nobody agrees to what you're proposing?

Your adamant refusal to understand that identical ≠ same is breathtaking, as is your constant juxtaposition of terms such as "consciousness" and "self" as though they were separate entities.