[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Loss Leader]

Does that help?

Not at all.

Here's why: Whether a working neurosystem can be replicated, copied, replaced, reproduced or anything else - and whether you call it a neurosystem, illusion of self, PSoS, self, soul or anything else - is all irrelevant to your conclusion.

The best formulation of any such statement logically does not and cannot lead to the conclusion that such self (or whathaveyou) came from nothing. It cannot logically lead to the conclusion that such self was undefined before its creation.

And even if all that were logically possible, it could not lead to the conclusion that there are infinite possible selves.

The universe is finite. The combinations of matter and energy are finite. Your theories are logically impossible. End of story.

 

[Jabba]

You appear to be getting close. I only have one immediate quibble. (I may have more later, but this is the only one that springs out at me.)


The highlighted bit sounds wrong, but I'm also not entirely sure what you think that means. The PSoS just is at the moment it occurs. It's not a continuous thing. It happens when you think of yourself, or access your memories and consider them from the context of the present.

The PSoS is an event or activity, not an object. The PSoS you may experience today is not the same PSoS as the one you may have experienced five years ago. It's a series of neurobiological events that happen in your brain, just as running is a series of events that happen in your legs. Memory is what gives it the illusion of continuousness.

Saying your PSoS is "fully defined prior to its actual existence" is like saying that your running is fully defined prior to its actual existence. It makes no sense, at least to me. What does it mean to "define" a particular instance of running?

The rest of your statement there seems to be an accurate summary, though...

xtifr,
- The reason I say "particular sense of self" -- instead of "particular self" -- is to allow for the whole "thing" to be a process, or even an illusion.
- Does that help?

 

[carlitos]

No, Jabba. The PPoS is your renaming of the sense of self, which is part of the activity of a functioning neurosystem.

The renaming thing is an activity of a malfunctioning neurosystem, I think.

 

[Akhenaten]

xtifr,
- The reason I say "particular sense of self" -- instead of "particular self" -- is to allow for the whole "thing" to be a process, or even an illusion.
- Does that help?

Is it ever going to sink in that people understand what you're saying perfectly well but are disagreeing with it?

Flailing about trying to think of dozens of ways of expressing exactly the same nonsense is never going to help.

 

[Jabba]

Not at all.

Here's why: Whether a working neurosystem can be replicated, copied, replaced, reproduced or anything else - and whether you call it a neurosystem, illusion of self, PSoS, self, soul or anything else - is all irrelevant to your conclusion.

The best formulation of any such statement logically does not and cannot lead to the conclusion that such self (or whathaveyou) came from nothing. It cannot logically lead to the conclusion that such self was undefined before its creation...

- But, Loss Leader -- if replicating a brain does not reproduce the original brain's PSoS, how can you say that the new PSoS is defined by the old brain? And, if it was undefined by the old brain, it must not be defined until the new brain gets here.

And even if all that were logically possible, it could not lead to the conclusion that there are infinite possible selves.

The universe is finite. The combinations of matter and energy are finite. Your theories are logically impossible. End of story.

- I'm claiming that even if our universe is finite and that there can be no other universes, the "who" that will come next -- if it is not already represented, or defined -- is unlimited, and the likelihood of my current existence, (given the scientific model) is infinitely small.

 

[godless dave]

- But, Loss Leader -- if replicating a brain does not reproduce the original brain's PSoS, how can you say that the new PSoS is defined by the old brain? And, if it was undefined by the old brain, it must not be defined until the new brain gets here.

It's defined by the new brain. Which is identical to the old brain.

 

[Mojo]

The reason I say "particular sense of self" -- instead of "particular self" -- is to allow for the whole "thing" to be a process, or even an illusion.

You need to provide definitions of "self" and "sense of self" and demonstrate that there is some distinction between them. I strongly doubt that anyone involved in this thread (apart from you) considers that a "sense of self" is something that is distinct from the "self" itself.

 

[Akhenaten]

Not at all.

Here's why: Whether a working neurosystem can be replicated, copied, replaced, reproduced or anything else - and whether you call it a neurosystem, illusion of self, PSoS, self, soul or anything else - is all irrelevant to your conclusion.

The best formulation of any such statement logically does not and cannot lead to the conclusion that such self (or whathaveyou) came from nothing. It cannot logically lead to the conclusion that such self was undefined before its creation...

- But, Loss Leader -- if replicating a brain does not reproduce the original brain's PSoS, how can you say that the new PSoS is defined by the old brain?

It's not defined by the old brain, but rather both brains are defined by the same factors. If every one of those factors is duplicated exactly then you'll get two identical brains (and therefore, two identical selves).

And, if it was undefined by the old brain, it must not be defined until the new brain gets here.

It's not. And?

And even if all that were logically possible, it could not lead to the conclusion that there are infinite possible selves.

The universe is finite. The combinations of matter and energy are finite. Your theories are logically impossible. End of story.

- I'm claiming that even if our universe is finite and that there can be no other universes, the "who" that will come next -- if it is not already represented, or defined -- is unlimited,

That's such obvious nonsense that I'm almost alarmed that you can't see it.

What would you say are the chances of an Eskimo couple giving birth to Nelson Mandela II? What would the likelihood be that that child would end up developing the same sense of self as the original Nelson Mandela?

. . . and the likelihood of my current existence, (given the scientific model) is infinitely small.

The likelihood of your current existence, given any model, is 100%.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Wow! Spent the first 6-8 pages of the thread looking for beef; none to be had. Hungry!

I've seen arguments for immortality based on Tegmark's quantum suicide, and that's confusing enough, but eventually can be dealt with.

As for the mysteries of qualia and self, let's not confuse the experience of being special with actually being so. All it takes is total anesthesia to experience the lack of self, including loss of temporal sense, when the machinery is off.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I'm claiming that even if our universe is finite and that there can be no other universes, the "who" that will come next -- if it is not already represented, or defined -- is unlimited, and the likelihood of my current existence, (given the scientific model) is infinitely small.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

I venture to surmise that there is not a single poster contributing to this thread that does not understand what you are claiming.

The problem is, few if any of us agree with you claim in gross or in fine; in degree of in detail.

Nothing you have posted supports your claim that the scientific model holds that the likelihood of your existence is "infinitely small". You hols that belief, but it cannot be ascribed to our understanding of consciousness as an emergent property of a neurosystem. If you are going to make that claim, you should not pretend that it represents the "scientific model"

Nothing you have posted supports your belief that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal".

 

[Mojo]

- But, Loss Leader -- if replicating a brain does not reproduce the original brain's PSoS, how can you say that the new PSoS is defined by the old brain? And, if it was undefined by the old brain, it must not be defined until the new brain gets here.

The new brain will have new "self" that is identical to the "self" that is a property of the original brain. If the new brain is identical to the original brain, then a "self" that is defined by the new brain will also be defined by the original brain, but it will not be the same self as the one that is a property of the original brain; it will be another "self", that happens to be identical to the one that is a property of the original brain.

 

[Mojo]

- I'm claiming that even if our universe is finite and that there can be no other universes, the "who" that will come next -- if it is not already represented, or defined -- is unlimited...

You are claiming that a finite universe is infinite.

 

[carlitos]

Why can't Johnny read?

The likelihood of your current existence, given any model, is 100%.

The likelihood of your current existence is 100%.

I wonder who will be the thousandth person to tell you this.

- Did it occur to you that if B is "My existence" (referring to Jabba, of course) then P(B|A) = 100%?

First, The probability of my having rolled a 20 was 5% prior to the roll, but it is 100%.

As far as we know, the odds of you existing in a universe where you exist are 1:1.
.

There was never a zero probability that you would exist. Nor is there even a concept called "essentially zero." Something is either zero or it isn't.

Jabba, please. Try something else. Harmonica, violin, family tree building, stamp collecting.... The problem is not your inability to communicate. The problem is that you are wrong. Stop wasting your life.

 

[PixyMisa]

- But, Loss Leader -- if replicating a brain does not reproduce the original brain's PSoS, how can you say that the new PSoS is defined by the old brain?

Simple: 1+1=2.

You are demanding that 1+1=1. It's not. Sorry.

- I'm claiming that even if our universe is finite and that there can be no other universes, the "who" that will come next -- if it is not already represented, or defined -- is unlimited, and the likelihood of my current existence, (given the scientific model) is infinitely small.

This is so obviously wrong that it's remarkable that it even exists as a sentence.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- At this point, I think that my communication problem has to do with the word "replicate" (and "define"). I now think that you're saying that while replicating my particular brain would "replicate" (and wholly "define") my PSoS, it would not "recreate" or "reproduce" my PSoS. I've been using those three words ("replicate" and "recreate"/"reproduce") as if they were synonyms...
- Does that help?

Wrong:

1. We fully understand you; your problem in communicating is not the problem here.

2. You are wrong: we are saying that replicating exactly your PSoS would indeed recreate or reproduce your PSoS exactly. The three are synonyms here.

3. Just read and understand the many other posts here to see why you are wrong. I can not and will not explain it any better.

 

[John Jones]

Wow! Spent the first 6-8 pages of the thread looking for beef; none to be had. Hungry!

I've seen arguments for immortality based on Tegmark's quantum suicide, and that's confusing enough, but eventually can be dealt with.

As for the mysteries of qualia and self, let's not confuse the experience of being special with actually being so. All it takes is total anesthesia to experience the lack of self, including loss of temporal sense, when the machinery is off.

It doesn't get any better for the nexy 170+ pages.

 

[Giordano]

- But, Loss Leader -- if replicating a brain does not reproduce the original brain's PSoS, how can you say that the new PSoS is defined by the old brain? And, if it was undefined by the old brain, it must not be defined until the new brain gets here.


- I'm claiming that even if our universe is finite and that there can be no other universes, the "who" that will come next -- if it is not already represented, or defined -- is unlimited, and the likelihood of my current existence, (given the scientific model) is infinitely small.

1. Wrong: everyone else here states that replicating a brain does fully reproduce the original PSoS. Read and understand the other posts here to see why you are wrong.

2. Wrong: no one in this forum or your outside consultants and in your web searches think that the "who" that comes next is potentially infinite. Read and understand the other posts here to see why you are wrong.

 

[Giordano]

More than that though, you're so hung up on this duplicate brains nonsense that you appear to have completely forgotten the actual topic.

Please read this^^^^. Thanks!

 

[Giordano]

Once again as predicted Jabba claims the poster is saying the opposite of what they are saying. Twice! in 24 hours.

Poster: I saw the car clearly and it was red.

Jabba: So you are saying the car was blue.

Poster: No, the car was red.

Jabba: So you agree with me that the car was blue.

Poster: No it was red.

Jabba: I think I am understanding you now, you are saying that the car was azure...

It must be very difficult when the "poster" doesn't understand you in this way.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Once again as predicted Jabba claims the poster is saying the opposite of what they are saying. Twice! in 24 hours.

Poster: I saw the car clearly and it was red.

Jabba: So you are saying the car was blue.

Poster: No, the car was red.

Jabba: So you agree with me that the car was blue.

Poster: No it was red.

Jabba: I think I am understanding you now, you are saying that the car was azure...

It must be very difficult when the "poster" doesn't understand you in this way.

So, the blue car had an illusion of its "sense of hue" as being observed as red...