[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Garrette]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Napoleons.jpg[/qimg]​

Adulation and huzzahs are becoming commonplace in regard to your postings, but it would be rude to stop merely for that reason. Hence:


Ho hum.... BRAVO!!! Sigh....

 

[Slowvehicle]

Adulation and huzzahs are becoming commonplace in regard to your postings, but it would be rude to stop merely for that reason. Hence:


Ho hum.... BRAVO!!! Sigh....

The Mighty One bravely bears the mantle of casual omnimagnificence, no?

 

[Jabba]

1) Ah, ok, yes, that's not a tautology. It's simply a pointless observation that doesn't further the discussion.

2) Once again, you're getting confused between the idea of identical things and the same thing. Which renders the highlighted bit meaningless.

3) Replicating the physics/chemistry of your brain would produce an identical sense of self (or cheese). It would not be the same sense of self, because two different things are two different things, even if they're identical, but it would be an identical sense of self, in all respects. At least at the instant of creation.

4) With or without your bizarre "mold", your sense of self (like your sense of cheese) is entirely dependent on chemistry (or chemistry and physics, depending on how you define the boundaries between those two sciences. I prefer to say it depends on physics, since that's the broader term, and necessarily includes all of chemistry).

xtifr,

Re #1: In further discussion, I'll try to show why this observation does further the discussion.

Re #2: To me, the problem here is figuring out effective words to use for actually communicating with each other.

Re #3: Replicating the physics/chemistry of my brain would not replicate the “me” that science says will pass into eternal oblivion. If it would not replicate that “me,” how can we say that the results of replication are identical?

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.

- 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.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, what distinguishes your sense of self from mine is very simple - yours is inside your head, and mine is inside mine. Even if you created an exact replica of me (which, practically speaking, isn't possible), there would be a separate self just like there would be a separate body. There would be a separate self because there would be a separate body.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, do you understand now how human senses of self do not come from nowhere, but from a chain of biological causality?

Dave,
- It seems to me that there is a link missing in this chain of biological causality. There is no biological formula for "me" -- for my particular sense of self that science says will pass into eternal oblivion upon my biological death.

 

[Garrette]

And what seems to you is wrong.

Argument from Personal Incredulity.

Assuming the Nonsensequent.

Willful ignorance of the science that has been repeatedly explained.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- It seems to me that there is a link missing in this chain of biological causality. There is no biological formula for "me" -- for my particular sense of self that science says will pass into eternal oblivion upon my biological death.

Sperm and egg meet and combine DNA. Blastocyst develops into zygote, zygote develops into fetus. Along the way cells differentiate into neurons, which divide and develop into a brain. Between birth and age 3, that brain develops a sense of self.

What's missing?

 

[Agatha]

Dave,
- It seems to me that there is a link missing in this chain of biological causality. There is no biological formula for "me" -- for my particular sense of self that science says will pass into eternal oblivion upon my biological death.

So you don't possess DNA?

The biological formula for you is your DNA. Your sense of self arises as an emergent property from your brain and is influenced by both the chemistry of your brain and your experiences since the formation of your neurosystem.

This is why we keep pointing out that if it were possible to replicate you, at the moment of replication there would be two separate but identical selves - one you, and one your clone. However, as your experiences would immediately start to differ, the consciousnesses would no longer be identical.

 

[Hokulele]

Re #2: To me, the problem here is figuring out effective words to use for actually communicating with each other.

The problem here is you are trying to figure out effective words to get people to agree to something that is completely wrong.

It is like trying to find words to effectively communicate 2+2 = Peanut Butter. There are none, because it isn't.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, what distinguishes your sense of self from mine is very simple - yours is inside your head, and mine is inside mine. Even if you created an exact replica of me (which, practically speaking, isn't possible), there would be a separate self just like there would be a separate body. There would be a separate self because there would be a separate body.

Dave,

- Maybe, that is the right answer, and we've been secretly agreeing with each other all along...
- There is no biological formula that distinguishes your sense of self from mine. There was no biological formula that when reached would cause "you" to exist rather than "me," or anyone else. The biological formula simply produced the human level of consciousness; it did not specify the particular sense of self included.

- That's how, according to science, you came from nowhere. No biological formula required, or requires, "you."

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,

- Maybe, that is the right answer, and we've been secretly agreeing with each other all along...
- There is no biological formula that distinguishes your sense of self from mine. There was no biological formula that when reached would cause "you" to exist rather than "me," or anyone else. The biological formula simply produced the human level of consciousness; it did not specify the particular sense of self included.

- That's how, according to science, you came from nowhere. No biological formula required, or requires, "you."

You need a long, long time alone with the words "necessary" and "sufficient."

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- Maybe, that is the right answer, and we've been secretly agreeing with each other all along...
- There is no biological formula that distinguishes your sense of self from mine. There was no biological formula that when reached would cause "you" to exist rather than "me," or anyone else. The biological formula simply produced the human level of consciousness; it did not specify the particular sense of self included.

Sure it did. The particular sense of self is the one that is in that particular brain.

- That's how, according to science, you came from nowhere. No biological formula required, or requires, "you."

No. I came from somewhere. I came from a fertilized human egg.

What is "me" but this body? What else do you need to identify it as "me"?

 

[PixyMisa]

Dave,

- Maybe, that is the right answer, and we've been secretly agreeing with each other all along...
- There is no biological formula that distinguishes your sense of self from mine. There was no biological formula that when reached would cause "you" to exist rather than "me," or anyone else. The biological formula simply produced the human level of consciousness; it did not specify the particular sense of self included.

- That's how, according to science, you came from nowhere. No biological formula required, or requires, "you."

Self is brain function.

 

[jond]

Sperm and egg meet and combine DNA. Blastocyst develops into zygote, zygote develops into fetus. Along the way cells differentiate into neurons, which divide and develop into a brain. Between birth and age 3, that brain develops a sense of self.

What's missing?

Jabba, what is missing?

 

[gabeygoat]

- There is no biological formula that distinguishes your sense of self from mine. There was no biological formula that when reached would cause "you" to exist rather than "me," or anyone else.

what on earth would lead you to believe that?

 

[Mojo]

Replicating the physics/chemistry of my brain would not replicate the “me” that science says will pass into eternal oblivion. If it would not replicate that “me,” how can we say that the results of replication are identical?

If you could somehow perfectly replicate the physical and chemical nature of your brain, then the two brains would have identical properties, so the "self" that was an emergent property of the replica brain would be identical to the "self" that is an emergent property of your brain. It would not be you, it would be an exact replica of you. Remember: if you have two identical things, there are two of them, not one.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,

- Maybe, that is the right answer, and we've been secretly agreeing with each other all along...
- There is no biological formula that distinguishes your sense of self from mine. There was no biological formula that when reached would cause "you" to exist rather than "me," or anyone else. The biological formula simply produced the human level of consciousness; it did not specify the particular sense of self included.

- That's how, according to science, you came from nowhere. No biological formula required, or requires, "you."

It's hardly even fun anymore...

 

[Agatha]

Dave,

- Maybe, that is the right answer, and we've been secretly agreeing with each other all along...
- There is no biological formula that distinguishes your sense of self from mine. There was no biological formula that when reached would cause "you" to exist rather than "me," or anyone else. The biological formula simply produced the human level of consciousness; it did not specify the particular sense of self included.

- That's how, according to science, you came from nowhere. No biological formula required, or requires, "you."

No. This is incorrect.

Read the replies from everyone, whether you choose to reply or not. You appear to be labouring under a fundamental error in thinking that everyone is of the same biology, and also thinking that a person's biological make-up is not a factor in their consciousness (part of which is their sense of self).

Science does NOT say that you "came from nowhere". Sperm meets egg, DNA combines, cells divide to form a blastocyst which becomes a zygote which becomes a foetus leading to the birth of a child who will have their own unique consciousness shaped by their DNA and experiences. A person's consciousness is indivisible from their living brain inside their skulls, because consciousness is an emergent property of a living neurosystem. The 'you' that you are is not something separate from your body or brain, it's something that arises from your neurosystem contained within your living body.

'You', your consciousness and the sense of self that is a part of that consciousness together come from that process which is well understood and has been going on for many thousands of years over and over again.

 

[Sideroxylon]

It's hardly even fun anymore...

Oh, I'm still having a few giggles as a spectator.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Re #3: Replicating the physics/chemistry of my brain would not replicate the “me” that science says will pass into eternal oblivion. If it would not replicate that “me,” how can we say that the results of replication are identical?

Because the terms "identical" and "the same" have different meanings.