Mojo
Mostly harmless
[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
- Status
It would be an identical but separate you at the moment of replication. godless dave is pointing out that he disagrees with you, he's not agreeing with you.
Unless you have an monozygotic [identical] twin or triplet, your biology is exclusive to you.
No. That is not the scientific model. The self is an illusory part of the process of consciousness; neither the consciousness nor what you are calling a 'self' is a tangible thing which can arrive, be taken on, or be brought.
Your biology together with every tiny experience and position in spacetime results in the process of consciousness, part of which is the illusion of the continuous self. The self isn't 'taken on'. As your biology and your experiences are exclusive to you, so is the process of consciousness that arises in your neurosystem.
Well, yes and no, but mostly no. Your sense of self is in a constant state of change, and it is an inseparable part of the process of consciousness that arises from your neurosystem. Once your neuorosystem dies, so does your consciousness and therefore your sense of self. Just because something is exclusive to you (or me, or anyone) has no bearing on whether it could continue after death.
What you hope is immaterial to reality, and needs to be completely severed from this part of your argument.
You have not even begun to show that your illusory sense of self has any relevance to 'immortality' at all, and I'm afraid the latter part of your last sentence is baffling because of the lack of evidentiary foundation.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I don't think he's trying to argue that. I think the business of it being exclusive to Jabba is part of his attempt to prove that "the scientific model" is wrong, and bring his false dilemma (that the only possibilities are "the scientific model" or immortality) into play.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- I guess this is our real point of divergence. It has to do with what "identical" includes. To me, the selves (or senses of self) would have different identities. These selves would be different. They would not be "identical."
- Cakes could be identical.
- Officially, VWs could not be identical -- their VIN numbers distinguish between them.
- Human brains go one step further. Each brain produces its own consciousness, possessing its own, living, VIN number. For me, in order for two consciousnesses to be identical, they would have to possess the same living VIN number.
Last edited:
Bingo. The irony being that it falls to us -- who disagree with him -- to make this clear as he is apparently incapable of articulating his argument.
Note to Jabba: This is not me stating that I do not understand you, so don't pounce upon that feeble idea. It is me pointing out that I and those of use responding to you, understand your argument very well, moreso than you do.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
What part of the scientific model is this based on?
I win! Two posts in and Jabba introduces "VIN Number" in place of "self."
To Jabba: No. First, your introduction of VIN Numbers as differentiating VWs is ludicrous; the premise was that VWs were replicated with the same physics. Second, you are continuing the fallacy of separating "self" from "consciousness."
Will you ever stop?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
We're not talking about real situations here, so there is no reason that, in one of your hypotheticals, two Volkwagens could not have the same VIN.
In the hypothetical situation that a perfect replica of your brain was produced, the "self" that was a property of the replica brain would be identical to your "self". If it was not, then the brains would have different properties and the second brain would therefore not be a perfect replica of your brain.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
What is the "VIN number" of your consciousness?
And what is a vehicle identification number number? Is it a number assigned to a VIN by the Department of Redundancy Department?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Anyway, this isn't true. They actually have a "living ISBN", which is the same for all copies of a particular consciousness, however many there are. And this actually proves that you have one finite existence, because if "selves" were to be reincarnated they would have a "living ISSN", not an ISBN.
If the selves were different, then the replication was not done exactly.
Part of the problem here is that since this whole business of replicating a person is impossible we don't have the precise language to express the concept of separate but identical selves.
And you would have two separate but identical cakes.
A precisely replicated VW would have the same VIN as the one copied. They would be separate but identical.
For two brains to be identical, they would have to be replicated exactly, both the biochemistry and the neural connections forged by the totality of experiences throughout the lifetime. While you have Rredefined 'sense of self' as 'living VIN
You are very wrong again, for the reasons detailed elsewhere on this thread. Read them.
But specifically about your "formula" (scare quotes): you are determined by your biology, by your physical brain. There is a "pool" to come from, in that your were very likely, by having a human brain, to have a human "sense of self." Further, you were significantly limited by your genetics and experiences in more ways than simply sensing you were human. You did not come from nowhere. I identify myself in part as having a good and somewhat sarcastic sense of humor. Oddly so did my dad, so do my brother, and my kids. Do you think these parts of our "senses of self" came from nowhere?
The sense of sense comes from a physical brain; the number of physical brains is finite in this universe, therefore the senses (illusions) of self are finite. You run out of brains and you run out of senses of self. And the number of possible senses of self are limited by the DNA and experience of those brains. Don't you think a bit alike some members of your family? Why do you think this is true?
Even more than that, when I think about the number of potential "senses of self" possible even abstractly (ignoring their finite physical roots), I think only that there are a LARGE number of potential senses of self, not an infinite number. Like different stars: a lot, but not infinite. Of course your sense of self is limited by your physical brain (which, by the way, is a mix of DNA, random chance, and experiences). But even more than that, everything, even theoretical potential things, are finite. Think of a theoretical man- you can think of many possibilities (brown hair, blonde hair, etc.), but not an infinite number of possible men. There are only so many possible men of which to think in theory. And a finite time to think of new potential men before the heat death of the universe.
Also, it is noted that you are trying to redefine "sense of self" as your definition of "self." Again, sense of self is an illusion, that comes from a physical brain. Even your outside consultant said that. Just like any illusion, it doesn't need to agree with physics. If due to thirst, you see a illusionary castle in the desert, you are not allowed to conclude that the physics of gravity must be wrong because the illusionary castle is too big to stand up without collapsing. It is an illusion; it cannot prove physics wrong.
Finally, I must admit it is amusing to hear you try to say something should be in the scientific model, when it is not, only to say that that something is wrong, and therefore invalidates the scientific model. Again, believe what you want, but don't falsely define the scientific model just to make it wrong.
Last edited:
You are wrong again. To find out why, read the other posts here. But by its definition, an illusion is NOT REAL. I would not try to climb the stairs in that illusionary desert castle I discussed in my last post. You can believe in this life that you have an immortal soul, but if this is an illusion, as the SM states, then don't buy a mansion now in anticipation of housing your reincarnated self in the next life. I can have an illusion that Cheryl Tiegs has fallen in love with me, but I need to keep that illusion separate from reality to avoid going to prison by violating the stalking laws.
I am sorry: to make this very clear are you claiming in this post that you believe, or claiming that the SM believes? This is central and very important to keep straight. You can believe anything you wish (unicorns, elves, etc.). But the SM disagrees with your beliefs. And, your derivation of your equation interprets the SM in a particular way, which is wrong and which is, in fact, your belief not the SM's. So. as I have asked before, would you please make certain in each of your posts whether you are speaking of your own theory, or what you think the SM says?
Last edited:
Actually, if one exactly duplicated a VW, the duplicate would have the same VIN number as the original. And it would be difficult to bake two identical cakes from the same recipe so as to truly duplicate them because they would different in small ways, unless duplicated absolutely exactly (which is not possible currently- have you tried baking?).
Again, the point of divergence is (and has always been) clear. You believe each human has a unique non-physical soul/self (whatever definition changing and rewording you have attempted to obscure this). SD indicate that a non-physical self does not exist.
If your proof of immortality depends on a non-physical self, please prove the existence of such a thing. Your next post would be a good time to do this. If you can...
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
The scientific model says there is a bottle of seven -up in my refrigerator which is controlling the fate of the universe. This is obiously wrong, therefore the scientific model is wrong, and everything that is not part of the scientific model is true and correct. Therefore immortality.
QED
QED
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
So you've completely given up any pretense at statistics, Bayesian or otherwise? You are no longer essentially proving anything?
Your argument is now: science must logically be wrong?
Do you understand the difference between your first stated argument and your current argument?
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage.
I venture to surmise you will continue to ignore this, but the chorus is swelling.
What is your evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?
I venture to surmise you will continue to ignore this, but the chorus is swelling.
What is your evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?
Jabba,
Thinking about it, I was further curious: you claim that one's "sense of self" is reincarnated after they die. But isn't one's sense of self really one's identity, my sense that I am a different entity from all the other humans and that I am separate from everyone else? If so, if I am reincarnated as Mr. Adam Smith, or Ms. Admette Smith, wouldn't I identify as them, rather than as me? Wouldn't I have a different "sense of self" compared to my current sense of self? So how would this be that my sense of self was reincarnated? What again is reincarnated in your theory, if not my memories, emotions, thought processes, ownership of things. or even who I think I am?
Obviously your definition of "sense of self" must be very different from the "sense of self" to which the other people here are referring. It must differ from the very basic nature of who I think I am.
Please feel free to answer this after you prove the "self/sense of self" exists in the SM. Thanks. I await your views with anticipation.
Thinking about it, I was further curious: you claim that one's "sense of self" is reincarnated after they die. But isn't one's sense of self really one's identity, my sense that I am a different entity from all the other humans and that I am separate from everyone else? If so, if I am reincarnated as Mr. Adam Smith, or Ms. Admette Smith, wouldn't I identify as them, rather than as me? Wouldn't I have a different "sense of self" compared to my current sense of self? So how would this be that my sense of self was reincarnated? What again is reincarnated in your theory, if not my memories, emotions, thought processes, ownership of things. or even who I think I am?
Obviously your definition of "sense of self" must be very different from the "sense of self" to which the other people here are referring. It must differ from the very basic nature of who I think I am.
Please feel free to answer this after you prove the "self/sense of self" exists in the SM. Thanks. I await your views with anticipation.
Last edited:
- Status