[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[carlitos]

I hope that I'm not the first to note that I imagine another acronym for PPoS.

 

[Giordano]

Another approach: change the agreed on definition:

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

Jabba: Do you mean it was red, perhaps with a little bit of magenta?

Poster: Well, it was awfully red.

Jabba: Can you claim that there was no magenta at all in the red?

Poster: Well, maybe a little, little bit of magenta, but almost all deep red.

Jabba: So you are saying that the car was mostly red, with a little bit of magenta, which is blue and red?

Poster: Maybe, if at all, just a little bit of blue and red. It was mainly red.

Jabba: Well, to simplify it, let us just get rid of the term red and talk about the blue car...

 

[Aepervius]

And you forgot the absolute classic :

Poster : the car was red. 650 nm photon. Red tomatoe.

Jabba : so we are on the same level that the car was red with bluish tint, that is, blue under my itnerpretation, and the probability of the car exisitng was 1/infinite, and thus dark blue ?

 

[Jabba]

I'm not sure what you mean by "help". I understand what you mean. I disagree with you. I think you're wrong. More importantly for this discussion, I think you are claiming the scientific model says something it doesn't.

- My communication must be getting even worse.
- I'll try again. I 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. Correct?

 

[godless dave]

- My communication must be getting even worse.
- I'll try again. I 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. Correct?

Replicating your brain would result in a personal sense of self that is identical in all respects to your personal sense of self, except the new sense of self would be in the replica brain, not in your brain.

 

[Mojo]

- My communication must be getting even worse.
- I'll try again. I 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. Correct?

It would produce a second "PSoS" identical to yours.

 

[zooterkin]

- My communication must be getting even worse.

Seems unlikely to be possible.

- I'll try again. I 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. Correct?

No.

 

[Loss Leader]

- 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.

Undefined DOES NOT MEAN unlimited.

Let's try an experiment. I wake up today and decide to buy a cup of coffee on my way to work. Between my house and my office, there are maybe 20 places to buy coffee and they're brewing new batches all the time. So, when I make my decision, can we say exactly which coffee and water molecules will end up in my cup and at what temperature? There's probably some upper limit of water and coffee beans available to there stores, so the potential cups of coffee are very large but not infinite.

I decide as I'm driving to stop at Buckstarts. Now the amount of water is even more limited and the coffee beans are limited to the ones in that store. I still can't tell exactly what my cup of coffee will be like.

I get to Buckstarts at 8:45 a.m. I could have any of 5 different blends of coffee served 20 different ways each made by 1 of 3 barristas. The possible molecules that will end up in my cup are getting more limited but there are still so many possible arrangements we probably wouldn't want to count them.

I decide to have dark roast. There are 8 people ahead of me and they just started brewing a new batch. So, I know my cup of coffee is coming out of the water and beans in that machine. I can't tell which molecules will end up in my cup at what temperature, but I know that there are many things my coffee can't be: it can't be from another store; it can't be from another type of bean; it can't be from any water not already in the machine; it can't be from any beans not already in the machine.

My barrista is Elana. She is not the most motivated person and tends to let orders sit while she texts her friends. She pours my coffee and I see it sitting there in the cup. I know exactly which molecules will be my coffee, but I can't know the temperature I'll receive them at. After 3 minutes, Elana gives me my coffee. I now know exactly the molecules and their temperature.

But it doesn't stop there. What molecules will be left and what temperature will they be when I'm halfway finished with my cup. As I drink, the possibilities shrink until they are certain.

Exactly like this, a person does not come from nothing. From a long enough distance, the possible person that can be formed is exceptionally difficult to calculate. But as each cause leads to each effect, those possibilities narrow and narrow until only one is left. Your parents marry; they relate with each other on a specific day; one sperm wins the race; in utero you are well-nourished; you are born full-term and healthy; your mother holds you within minutes of birth; your crib has a little airplane mobile; you break your arm skiing ... every little thing influences your sense of self.

Nothing comes from nothing. Understand that.

 

[Giordano]

- My communication must be getting even worse.
- I'll try again. I 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. Correct?

Wrong. Please just read the other posts here to find out why.

Maybe if you only repeat it, we would understand... No, you tried that already.

Maybe if you said it louder, we would understand... Have you tried all caps?

 

[Humots]

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.

This ^^^.

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.

And this ^^^.

- My communication must be getting even worse.
- I'll try again. I 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. Correct?

And we get the same "I think that you're saying...", nearly word for word.

Your ability to read and comprehend seems to be nonexistent. Or are you just ignoring Giordano?

I agree with him entirely.

 

[pakeha]

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?

Not really.
Do you remember how consciousness is defined?

On the other hand, that means Wesley Crusher was killed hundreds of times, and that's something I think we can all support.

 

[jond]

Undefined DOES NOT MEAN unlimited.

Let's try an experiment. I wake up today and decide to buy a cup of coffee on my way to work. Between my house and my office, there are maybe 20 places to buy coffee and they're brewing new batches all the time. So, when I make my decision, can we say exactly which coffee and water molecules will end up in my cup and at what temperature? There's probably some upper limit of water and coffee beans available to there stores, so the potential cups of coffee are very large but not infinite.

I decide as I'm driving to stop at Buckstarts. Now the amount of water is even more limited and the coffee beans are limited to the ones in that store. I still can't tell exactly what my cup of coffee will be like.

I get to Buckstarts at 8:45 a.m. I could have any of 5 different blends of coffee served 20 different ways each made by 1 of 3 barristas. The possible molecules that will end up in my cup are getting more limited but there are still so many possible arrangements we probably wouldn't want to count them.

I decide to have dark roast. There are 8 people ahead of me and they just started brewing a new batch. So, I know my cup of coffee is coming out of the water and beans in that machine. I can't tell which molecules will end up in my cup at what temperature, but I know that there are many things my coffee can't be: it can't be from another store; it can't be from another type of bean; it can't be from any water not already in the machine; it can't be from any beans not already in the machine.

My barrista is Elana. She is not the most motivated person and tends to let orders sit while she texts her friends. She pours my coffee and I see it sitting there in the cup. I know exactly which molecules will be my coffee, but I can't know the temperature I'll receive them at. After 3 minutes, Elana gives me my coffee. I now know exactly the molecules and their temperature.

But it doesn't stop there. What molecules will be left and what temperature will they be when I'm halfway finished with my cup. As I drink, the possibilities shrink until they are certain.

Exactly like this, a person does not come from nothing. From a long enough distance, the possible person that can be formed is exceptionally difficult to calculate. But as each cause leads to each effect, those possibilities narrow and narrow until only one is left. Your parents marry; they relate with each other on a specific day; one sperm wins the race; in utero you are well-nourished; you are born full-term and healthy; your mother holds you within minutes of birth; your crib has a little airplane mobile; you break your arm skiing ... every little thing influences your sense of self.

Nothing comes from nothing. Understand that.

Well said! And certain to be ignored...

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, what part of your proposition do you think we don't understand?

 

[carlitos]

- My communication must be getting even worse.
- I'll try again. I 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. Correct?

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.

This ^^^.

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.

And this ^^^.

- My communication must be getting even worse.
- I'll try again. I 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. Correct?

And we get the same "I think that you're saying...", nearly word for word.

Your ability to read and comprehend seems to be nonexistent. Or are you just ignoring Giordano?

I agree with him entirely.

Jabba, just cut it out already.

 

[xtifr]

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?

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?

No, that doesn't help. We may already be on the same page about that point. It's the "fully defined prior to its actual existence" part that doesn't make any sense to me. I can't tell if I agree or disagree on that point, because I'm really not sure what you mean by that.

And the illusion part is the appearance of continuity. A sense of self is an event that occurs, and its a unique event each time, even in the same brain.

- 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 indirectly by the old brain, which is the template it was copied from. It's defined directly by the new brain, which it's a part of. And I'm still not sure what you mean by "defined". That doesn't seem like the right word to use, especially the way you've been using it.

Bottom line though, you still haven't addressed my points about physical location, finite universe, and the Planck length, even though you acknowledged them a few posts back. How you define the PSoS doesn't help you if you can't get past those points. (Assuming you actually still want to justify dividing by infinity.)

 

[Akhenaten]

- My communication must be getting even worse.

Hard to believe but yes, it is.

- I'll try again. I 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. Correct?

Any chance you could provide the Jabbanese meanings for "replicate", "recreate" and "reproduce"?

I have a more-than-sneaking suspicion that they're different to the English meanings.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- My communication must be getting even worse.
- I'll try again. I 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. Correct?

Good Evening, Mr. Savage!

it is not that your "communication" is "getting worse". It is not that I, and others, don't understand what you are saying; it is that your claims are unsupportable; some are demonstrably wrong; and what you claim is the "scientific model" does not contain, nor even support, the things you say it does.

No matter how many times you redefine the same concepts using different words.

 

[John Jones]

- My communication must be getting even worse.
- I'll try again. I 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. Correct?

Everyone here understands what you are communicating.

You're just flat wrong, and mostly off-topic the last several weeks.

If you can't get back to the topic in the OP, I shall suggest to the Mods that your posts be considered violations of rule 11.

Have a nice day, sir. :-D

 

[PixyMisa]

- My communication must be getting even worse.

No, it's about the same.

- I'll try again. I 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. Correct?

1+1=2, Jabba. Most two-year-olds can grasp this fact.

 

[AdMan]

- My communication must be getting even worse.
- I'll try again. I 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. Correct?

See if you can get through one meaningful sentence about your beliefs without using quotation marks. The fact you apparently can't suggests to me that even to you your ideas aren't very clear at all, and you should work on that and on finding the right and precise language to use before you attempt to convince anyone else.