[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

You just don't understand.


Did I say that before?

Do people here remember Catch 22?
"Now, where were we? [said the colonel] Read me back the last line."

" 'Read me back the last line,' " read back the corporal who could
take shorthand.

"Not my last line, stupid!" the colonel shouted. "Somebody
else's."

" 'Read me back the last line,' " read back the corporal.

"That's my last line again!" shrieked the colonel, turning purple
with anger.

"Oh, no, sir," corrected the corporal. "That's my last line. I
read it to you just a moment ago. Don't you remember, sir? It was only a
moment ago."

"Yes, indeed, you can see Major Major,
when he isn't there.

That is, he'll see you, all right,
but only in his office,
and only when he's not there.

The other times, when he's in...
he's not there
to be seen.

Except when he's out."

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'm about to have a hot shave, do some laundry, and then have a steaming shower too, but I bet Jabba won't take another look at his position re: Immortality and Bayesian Statistics while I'm doing all this.


Will you?

Do I hafta?

 

[Loss Leader]

I have highlighted the key word in your post. Unfortunately, this forum doesn't enable me to make it blink or slap people upside the head.

No.

You Can Do This, Though.

 

[Jabba]

...
Yes there is. The biological processes that resulted in my body existing are exclusive to my body.

If you somehow could duplicate those processes exactly and produce a duplicate, the duplicated processes would be exclusive to that duplicate.

This is the crux of the issue, Jabba.

Dave,
- Still trying to figure out exactly where our opinions first diverge.
1. I have a sense of self that science says will not survive the death of my brain, nor will it ever return.
2. There is no biology that exclusively produces me such that by duplicating that biology, I would live again.
- So far, so good?

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- Still trying to figure out exactly where our opinions first diverge.
1. I have a sense of self that science says will not survive the death of my brain, nor will it ever return.
2. There is no biology that exclusively produces me such that by duplicating that biology, I would live again.
- So far, so good?

One step forward and two steps back.

 

[George]

Dave,
- Still trying to figure out exactly where our opinions first diverge.

Here you go. Post #434 28/12/2012

Well there's your problem. Very improbable is not the same as zero; not even close.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Still trying to figure out exactly where our opinions first diverge.
1. I have a sense of self that science says will not survive the death of my brain, nor will it ever return.
2. There is no biology that exclusively produces me such that by duplicating that biology, I would live again.
- So far, so good?

Duplicating that biology would produce a duplicate of you. It would be a distinct organism that would be identical to you. All the characteristics, including its sense of self, would be determined by biology, just like every other organism.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Dave,
1. I'm afraid I can't accept that.
2. This mission to prove my immortality is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

 

[Garrette]

Duplicating that biology would produce a duplicate of you. It would be a distinct organism that would be identical to you. All the characteristics, including its sense of self, would be determined by biology, just like every other organism.

And it would think it was the original and would have no means of proving otherwise, but despite being identical and despite thinking of itself as the original it would still be a distinct and separate being.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
1. I'm afraid I can't accept that.
2. This mission to prove my immortality is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

"I can't do that, Dave."

 

[Slowvehicle]

And it would think it was the original and would have no means of proving otherwise, but despite being identical and despite thinking of itself as the original it would still be a distinct and separate being.

...and its "identicality" (to coin a neologism) would continue only so long as the circumstances were identical. The moment that the expereince of the two organisms varied in any way, to any liminal degree, the organisms would consequently vary.

Which says nothing about either havin g a soul, or being immortal.

(Not that Mr. Savage will read this, or respond if he does...)

 

[Jabba]

Duplicating that biology would produce a duplicate of you. It would be a distinct organism that would be identical to you. All the characteristics, including its sense of self, would be determined by biology, just like every other organism.

- But, what are the odds that I would live again?

 

[Mojo]

There is no biology that exclusively produces me such that by duplicating that biology, I would live again.

If we could, somehow, perfectly duplicate your biology we would duplicate you, because your biology is what you are. Identical biology would produce an identical "self". However, you would not live again; another entity identical to you would live.

Remember: if you have two identical items, you have two of them, not one.

 

[Mojo]

- But, what are the odds that I would live again?

It wouldn't be you. It would be another person identical to you. Creating a second person identical to you after you have died would not make you "live again", any more than creating a second person identical to you while you were still alive would mean that you would be looking through two pairs of eyes.

Remember: if you have two identical items, you have two of them, not one.

 

[Garrette]

- But, what are the odds that I would live again?

1. Define "I." This is not a facetious question. Do you mean the actual, same consciousness that knows it is the actual, same consciousness? Or do you mean a consciousness that thinks it is the actual, same consciousness but is really only identical (in the instant of replication) but not the same? Or do you mean a consciousness that does not think it is the actual, same consciousness and cannot be shown to be the actual, same consciousness?
Something else?

2. What do you think the odds are?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- Still trying to figure out exactly where our opinions first diverge.
1. I have a sense of self that science says will not survive the death of my brain, nor will it ever return.
2. There is no biology that exclusively produces me such that by duplicating that biology, I would live again.
- So far, so good?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage.

I wonder if you are aware that you and godless dave are not alone in the room?

I wonder why, when you were given a one-on-one venue, with all the limitations you insisted upon, you kippered off; yet here, where it is rude, and dismissive, and disrespectful, so to do, you pretend there is only one interlocutor...

Ah, well.

 

[godless dave]

- But, what are the odds that I would live again?

0. "You" are one particular organism, by definition.

 

[Garrette]

...and its "identicality" (to coin a neologism) would continue only so long as the circumstances were identical. The moment that the expereince of the two organisms varied in any way, to any liminal degree, the organisms would consequently vary.

Which says nothing about either havin g a soul, or being immortal.

(Not that Mr. Savage will read this, or respond if he does...)

Agreed on all counts, but I left it out of my addendum just to keep things focused.

 

[Mojo]

- But, what are the odds that I would live again?

In the particular scenario you have just described, 1/∞, because the particular scenario you have just described does not describe you living again; it describes another entity, identical to you, living again.

You would still be dead.

 

[Mojo]

- But, what are the odds that I would live again?

To quote Louis Jordan, "you only live but once, and when you're dead you're done".