[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Jabba]

So what? Each is still the result of biology, the exact same biological processes that lead to each brain.

"What" and "who" are synonymous in this case.

Right. Because the reproduction would be be a different brain.

Would the replica brain come from nowhere?

Right. Because the reproduction would be be a different brain.
- But, they came from identical biological processes. The biological processes did not determine/distinguish one brain, or one self, from the other. If we kept redoing the process, we'd keep getting different brains, and different selves. If somehow, we could keep doing this forever, we would get new brains, and selves, forever.
Would the replica brain come from nowhere?
- No. But the difference between the two (the particular selves that they developed, or that came with them) would (come from nowhere).

 

[godless dave]

Would the replica brain come from nowhere?
- No. But the difference between the two (the particular selves that they developed, or that came with them) would (come from nowhere).

If the brains didn't come from nowhere, then the selves didn't come from nowhere. It's that simple. The only "difference" between them is that there are two of them.

Remember, this is the scientific model we're talking about.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Right. Because the reproduction would be be a different brain.
- But, they came from identical biological processes. The biological processes did not determine/distinguish one brain, or one self, from the other. If we kept redoing the process, we'd keep getting different brains, and different selves. If somehow, we could keep doing this forever, we would get new brains, and selves, forever.

SINCE we cannot, the "number" of new brains is finite, a reflection of reality.

Which means, among other things, that you, Mr. Savage, "can't get there from here".

Never mind that "they" did not "come from" "identical biological processes", but "contingently similar biological processes".

Would the replica brain come from nowhere?
- No. But the difference between the two (the particular selves that they developed, or that came with them) would (come from nowhere).

No. The difference "between the two" would (come from) the differences in the biological processes that formed each--the contingencies of actual experience and the fundamental irreproducilbility of a single event, not to mention an entire event chain.

It's the "Do 'this', Annie" problem...

 

[Giordano]

It is clear that you are not listening. It is clear that YOU think that you, "the best man in the fight", are "winning" this "effective debate". Tragically, you do not understand that you are deluding yourself, and being dishonest with others.

Excellent post. I would add that not only is Mr. Savage deluding himself, but he is also deeply embarrassing his cause by continuing to state what almost anyone with a K-12 education knows is wrong. Again, Mr. Savage can believe anything he wishes, now that this is in Religion, but he cannot misstate the SM to make it wrong. He has become the strongest debunker of his cause here. Attempts to educate him by the others here have met with his complete refusal to acknowledge the facts about the SM. So these whole thread has become embarrassing, rather than convincing. Is that what Mr. Savage wants?

 

[PixyMisa]

Right. Because the reproduction would be be a different brain.
- But, they came from identical biological processes. The biological processes did not determine/distinguish one brain, or one self, from the other. If we kept redoing the process, we'd keep getting different brains, and different selves. If somehow, we could keep doing this forever, we would get new brains, and selves, forever.
Would the replica brain come from nowhere?
- No. But the difference between the two (the particular selves that they developed, or that came with them) would (come from nowhere).

Jabba, seriously: If you have two identical objects, how many identical objects do you have?

You seem perpetually astonished that the answer is two. How could you possibly expect anything else?

 

[Loss Leader]

7. The denominator in the formula for my existence, given the scientific model, is ∞.

No physical thing can have a denominator of infinity. Nothing that exists can have a denominator of infinity. If it exists, it is not part of an infinite set.

That's it. That's the end. There is nothing else.

People exist. Individuals are made of matter. It makes no difference if you could create exactly the same individual (with the same consciousness or not) over again. It makes no difference if you could somehow get the same atoms and molecules and potential energies in exactly the same configuration once, twice or a trillion times. So long as people are real, there cannot be infinity anything.

You came to exist. So the chance of your existence could not have been 1/inf. The two concepts are completely exclusive of each other. They cannot both be true. If you agree you exist, you cannot believe the chance of your existence was zero.

Find a way to make your silly math work without sending one of the values to zero by definition.

 

[Jabba]

6650->6682

Dave,
- I probably should have left out that stuff about "sharing" -- it seems to be more distracting than illustrative. I should have left #4 as,
4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self.
- And then,
5. In that sense, you came from nothing.
6. That is the sense that counts in our math, and
7. The denominator in the formula for my existence, given the scientific model, is ∞.
- Those last three are what I will begin trying to support.
5.1. Your self is not taken from a pool of potential selves.
5.2. Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as a potential self.
5.3. You were not a potential self before becoming an actual self.
5.4. You were nothing before your actual conception.

Dave,
- Do you agree with 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and/or 5.4?

 

[godless dave]

I agree with 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, but not 5.4. Before "conception" (not a scientific term), I didn't exist, but my father's sperm and my mothers eggs did, as did the matter I was eventually made out of.

 

[Agatha]

6650->6682

False. 6650 < 6682.

Dave,
- Do you agree with 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and/or 5.4?

I am not godless dave, and I am not likely ever to wear the mantle of LCP no matter how politely I point out your misunderstandings, but the problem with 5.1 et seq is that even if they are correct on their own, they are built on the 1-4 inclusive (which are incorrect), and you have also included 6 and 7 as being built on the preceding 5 numbered headings. 6 and 7 are outstandingly incorrect as there is absolutely no way you can shoehorn infinity into the scientific model.

5.1 to 5.3 are semantically correct. 5.4 is misleading and is better expressed as "you did not exist prior to your conception". Even then, the matter which gave rise to you did exist prior to your conception. However, nothing in 5.1 to 5.4 inclusive supports your assertion "5. in that sense, you came from nothing". The "you" to which you refer is not just the consciousness or self or whatever word you are currently using, it's also the body which contains the living neurosystem of which the consciousness is an emergent process. Since the living body does not - cannot - come from nothing, it's not correct to suggest that a consciousness or self comes from nothing.

 

[pakeha]

...- Anyway, there is no chemistry that is exclusive to one self. Your particular self is not determined by the chemistry, or by chemical processes.

No, Jabba, exactly the contrary is true.

Dave,
- No. A perfect replica of your brain would not repeat your particular sense of self. The new sense of self would be identical -- but, it would not be the same. It would not be the same "you."
- The "what" would be the same, but not the "who."

- But, that's the point. If we reproduce your brain after you die, YOU will not come back to life. It will be somebody else.

Jabba, you know very well why there is no such thing as a perfect replica or reproduction of anyone's brain. Why go on with this line of inquiry?

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, you still seem to be treating the "self" as separate from the brain it emerges from. In the scientific model, it's not. Its existence depends on that brain; its characteristics are determined by that brain. It is a property of that brain.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- I probably should have left out that stuff about "sharing" -- it seems to be more distracting than illustrative.

It's neither distracting or illustrative. It's just wrong.

I should have left #4 as,

4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self.

Are we all clones then?

- And then,

5. In that sense, you came from nothing.

In no sense did we come from nothing.

6. That is the sense that counts in our math, and

That is why your math(s) is nonsense.

7. The denominator in the formula for my existence, given the scientific model, is ∞.

No, it's the denominator in your formula.
It's just a bare assertion. It has nothing to do with any scientific model.

- Those last three are what I will begin trying to support.

5.1. Your self is not taken from a pool of potential selves.

No, it is an emergent property of a brain that was created from a limited number of possible brains.

5.2. Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as a potential self.

Every egg is a potential self.

5.3. You were not a potential self before becoming an actual self.

Now you're just repeating yourself.

5.4. You were nothing before your actual conception.

Trivially obvious.

 

[Giordano]

4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self.
- And then,

5. In that sense, you came from nothing.
6. That is the sense that counts in our math, and
7. The denominator in the formula for my existence, given the scientific model, is ∞.

- Those last three are what I will begin trying to support.

5.1. Your self is not taken from a pool of potential selves.
5.2. Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as a potential self.
5.3. You were not a potential self before becoming an actual self.
5.4. You were nothing before your actual conception.

Corrected:

4. There is a unique chemistry to each "self"- unique action potentials and synapses. This differences in chemistry is why I think one way and you think another. Do you know what action potentials are?

5.1. Your self is not taken from a pool of potential non-material "selves." Your sense of self, your consciousness, grew out of the physical chemistry of your brain. So there was no "self" before you developed your brain, but there were limits as to the type of brain you developed based on your DNA, development, and experiences.

5.2 Scientifically speaking there is no such thing as a potential self, or even a "self" as you intend to mean it. "Self" is an illusion that we have; it is not a real thing, but comes from our consciousness, which comes from our physical brain. You even consulted outside experts in this, and they just confirmed it is an illusion. Remember, your last recent definition of "self" employed "illusion" as part of the definition, but now you dropped that word. Why? Careless or intentional? Do you seek to find out where we differ, or do you seek to obscure it?

5.3 Same as 5.2. I was a fertilized gamete before I became conscious; was that a potential "self" as you define it?

5.4 I was clearly a sperm and an ovum before I was conceived and before I later became conscious. The pre-sperm cells and the ova were set aside during my parents development. As explained to you multiple times: I did not come from nothing (both my brain and the consciousness that it developed came from pre-existing physical objects).

6. Your math is incorrect and is not even based on the standard scientific model. You can re-read other posts if you want to know why.

7. You cannot divide by infinity in any mathematical representation of reality. There is no infinity in real life: anywhere or anything. This has been explained to you multiple times including by statistics professors. You can re-read other posts if you want to know why.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba, you still seem to be treating the "self" as separate from the brain it emerges from. In the scientific model, it's not. Its existence depends on that brain; its characteristics are determined by that brain. It is a property of that brain.

Exactly.

Again, Jabba, please understand what the scientific model actually says. You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot misstate the scientific model just to buttress your beliefs. You may believe that the "self" is separate from the brain, but that is NOT the scientific model. in court, if the prosecuting attorney says "one" you can't convince the jury he said "two" if he is there and can quote the transcript.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- Can we change that from "biological" to "chemical"? To me, "chemical" seems less ambiguous.

Can we change your claim to "Everything is immortal"?

- Anyway, there is no chemistry that is exclusive to one self.

So how does DNA testing work?

Your particular self is not determined by the chemistry, or by chemical processes.

My extensive experiments with alcohol have shown otherwise.

 

[Monza]

6650->6682
Dave,
- Do you agree with 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and/or 5.4?

These can just be summed up as, "Before something exists, it doesn't exist."

 

[Monza]

Right. Because the reproduction would be be a different brain.
- But, they came from identical biological processes. The biological processes did not determine/distinguish one brain, or one self, from the other. If we kept redoing the process, we'd keep getting different brains, and different selves. If somehow, we could keep doing this forever, we would get new brains, and selves, forever.

When you say we would keep getting different brains, keep in mind that they would be identical. This is the reason for the thought experiment; identical brains. The word different is only correct to distinguish that they are separate, i.e. distinct. Yet still identical. So different in this context shouldn't mean "not identical".

So you are wrong. If we kept replicating a brain, we would get identical brains and thus identical selves. If somehow we could keep doing this forever, we would get new brains/selves forever, but each one would be exactly identical to the other. We would only get a different (non-identical) self if the brain was physically/chemically different. But there are a finite number of differences possible.

You still seem to think that the self is some ethereal construct that gets attached to a brain. This is not the SM. You have been told repeatedly that the self is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem. I do not think you understand what this means.

Would the replica brain come from nowhere?
- No. But the difference between the two (the particular selves that they developed, or that came with them) would (come from nowhere).

There would only be a difference if the brains were different in physical/chemical makeup. If not, there would be no difference between the two selves. Remember, two identical things result in two things.

If you had two completely identical golf balls, I mean exactly alike down to each molecule and each atom and each electron state, you still have two golf balls. Now you take one of the golf balls and destroy it; you smash it then burn its remains in the fireplace. That golf ball is gone forever. The atoms still exist in the universe, but they are now dispersed elsewhere. That golf ball no longer exists. The second golf ball still exists. It is 100% identical to the other one that no longer exists. If you could replicate this second golf ball into another one, you would now have another golf ball exactly identical to the one that used to exist. The one that used to exist, that you destroyed, has no magical properties. It just existed at one time and now is no more. There are others that are identical. You could never tell the difference. It's not mysterious, or magical, or special. Selves are golf balls.

 

[Giordano]

When you say we would keep getting different brains, keep in mind that they would be identical. This is the reason for the thought experiment; identical brains. The word different is only correct to distinguish that they are separate, i.e. distinct. Yet still identical. So different in this context shouldn't mean "not identical".

So you are wrong. If we kept replicating a brain, we would get identical brains and thus identical selves. If somehow we could keep doing this forever, we would get new brains/selves forever, but each one would be exactly identical to the other. We would only get a different (non-identical) self if the brain was physically/chemically different. But there are a finite number of differences possible.

You still seem to think that the self is some ethereal construct that gets attached to a brain. This is not the SM. You have been told repeatedly that the self is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem. I do not think you understand what this means.




There would only be a difference if the brains were different in physical/chemical makeup. If not, there would be no difference between the two selves. Remember, two identical things result in two things.

If you had two completely identical golf balls, I mean exactly alike down to each molecule and each atom and each electron state, you still have two golf balls. Now you take one of the golf balls and destroy it; you smash it then burn its remains in the fireplace. That golf ball is gone forever. The atoms still exist in the universe, but they are now dispersed elsewhere. That golf ball no longer exists. The second golf ball still exists. It is 100% identical to the other one that no longer exists. If you could replicate this second golf ball into another one, you would now have another golf ball exactly identical to the one that used to exist. The one that used to exist, that you destroyed, has no magical properties. It just existed at one time and now is no more. There are others that are identical. You could never tell the difference. It's not mysterious, or magical, or special. Selves are golf balls.

I once thought that I finally finally figured out why Jabba doesn't seem to get the obvious: that two identical things are not the same thing. Jabba thinks that the "self" exists magically outside the physical brain and the brain is like a radio receiver that "tunes in" a given consciousness. Thus two physically identical brains would presumably "tune in" the same "self," allowing one "self" to look out of two sets of eyes (two brains). But in fact Jabba does not appear to believe this: he claims two physically identical brains would be linked to two non-identical "selves." I give up- I don't know why he thinks that way: two physically identical (in all ways) radios would tune to the same station. But Jabba disagrees with even this idea.

But enough of this analog- please, Jabba, just drop this impossible experiment and get to your "proof."

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Jabba, you still seem to be treating the "self" as separate from the brain it emerges from. In the scientific model, it's not. Its existence depends on that brain; its characteristics are determined by that brain. It is a property of that brain.

Jabba doesn't care, Jabba just needs to get infinity into his bayesian formula

 

[Giordano]

Jabba doesn't care, Jabba just needs to get infinity into his bayesian formula

True, but I don't get it. After being told so many times that infinity can not be put in his denominator due to the mathematic rules, he still insists on doing so.

Doesn't he realize that any very large number would work "his" way, but would also fit the mathematical rules? I think that a large number in the denominator would be wrong to use based on the scientific model, but at least it would work mathematically. 1/infinity does not. Apparently the scientific model must not only be improbable for Jabba, but it must be impossible!