[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

I encourage you not to take these criticism, and the growing air of disenchantment with your approach, to heart.

Instead, consider simply taking a new tack, starting with what you consider to be actual evidence that the "soul" (or any kind of consciousness that is independent of a specific neurosystem) exists, and is "immortal".

 

[Aepervius]

You can't! It is not allowed mathematically in your formula. But why do you want to do this at all? As I have said in the past, you could use 1,000,000,000 instead. It is still wrong biologically, but at least it is allowed by the math.

Hint: forget duplicating brains and dividing by infinity and just get to the rest of your proof.

He want desperatly to divide by infinity as this is the ONLY way he can make his "hypothesis" work. As soon as you use a fix number, even mind boggingly enormouse, he cannot anymore use bayes theorem to revisitate the original hypothesis, as the probability is not zero anymore.


Basically it is the holy cloth all over again : he start with his pet claim, then he adapt everything else to confirm his theory, and ignore everything else.

ETA: Or alternatively he harps on it because he is a troll and knows he can get a cheap and easy rise out of dividing by infinity.

 

[abaddon]

xtifr,

- I do want to address those points. I also want to address the issue of time and space coordinates, and I still want to justify dividing by infinity.
- I recognize the problem that time and space coordinates bring to my claim of infinity, but I was sort of hoping that no one would consider the issue important enough to bring up... But then, maybe the time/space coordinate issue will help with the "define" issue. As superficially at least, those coordinates could finish preexisting definitions for each of us and ruin my claim of infinity...
- Does this help?

- I'll be back.

Jabba, I have more or less given up posting in this thread, because you simply ignore responses, but this just puts a tin lid on it.

You are outright stating that you are fully aware of the flaws in your argument, you simply hoped nobody would notice.

After a couple of years and hundreds of posts wherein this fatal flaw has been copiously noted from the outset, not only do you admit it, but you ask that it be ignored.

Well, no. Your confession of two years of lying gets no absolution. You even have the cojones to accuse others of disrespect. When you flat out state you have been lying all along.

Respect is not a right. It is a thing earned by honest effort. You have now burned all of yours.

Ashes and dust. That is all you have.

 

[Humots]

xtifr,

- I do want to address those points. I also want to address the issue of time and space coordinates, and I still want to justify dividing by infinity.
- I recognize the problem that time and space coordinates bring to my claim of infinity, but I was sort of hoping that no one would consider the issue important enough to bring up... But then, maybe the time/space coordinate issue will help with the "define" issue. As superficially at least, those coordinates could finish preexisting definitions for each of us and ruin my claim of infinity...
- Does this help?

- I'll be back.

Jabba, I am at a loss as to how time and space coordinates could possibly be relevant.

The only reference to time and space coordinates that I can recall had to do with people pointing out that a difference in initial location for two brains that are otherwise identical in structure and experience would be enough for the consciousnesses emerging from the two brains to develop in different ways.

This observation has nothing to do with space/time coordinates. It is simply that the two consciousnesses would observe the world from different perspectives.

Do I have that right? I'm not asking you, Jabba, I am asking the people who originally pointed this out.

Trying to drag in "time and space coordinates" looks all too much like an attempt to add one more bullet point to the effective debate list.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Jabba, I am at a loss as to how time and space coordinates could possibly be relevant.

The only reference to time and space coordinates that I can recall had to do with people pointing out that a difference in initial location for two brains that are otherwise identical in structure and experience would be enough for the consciousnesses emerging from the two brains to develop in different ways.

This observation has nothing to do with space/time coordinates. It is simply that the two consciousnesses would observe the world from different perspectives.

Do I have that right? I'm not asking you, Jabba, I am asking the people who originally pointed this out.

Trying to drag in "time and space coordinates" looks all too much like an attempt to add one more bullet point to the effective debate list.

I fear it is simply more "let's just call the red car, 'blue' since I think 'you guys' all agree with me anyway, even though you keep insisting that the red car (that I call blue) is really red" misdirection.

 

[pakeha]

[ . . .] I still want to justify dividing by infinity. [ . . .]

To sig or not to sig, that is the question.

[ . . .]Jabba, it is about as insane as using as basic premise that the "christian religion pretend that jesus was a raptor dynosaur". This is as false as THAT. [ . . .]

Indeed.
Everybody knows jesus wasn't a raptor dynosaur.
He did, however, include them in his ministry

 

[Slowvehicle]

To sig or not to sig, that is the question.

You gotta get siggy widdit!

 

[xtifr]

Jabba, I am at a loss as to how time and space coordinates could possibly be relevant.

The only reference to time and space coordinates that I can recall had to do with people pointing out that a difference in initial location for two brains that are otherwise identical in structure and experience would be enough for the consciousnesses emerging from the two brains to develop in different ways.

No, I brought time/space coordinates into the discussion (and Planck length). He was arguing that two identical brains would have no biological reason for having separate senses of self. I pointed out that there was a very simple physical reason: they'd be different objects with different locations.

This observation has nothing to do with space/time coordinates. It is simply that the two consciousnesses would observe the world from different perspectives.

It's more than just that. The two brains would each have a separate consciousness, even during the very brief time where those consciousnesses would remain identical. And that's because of of, yes, space/time. They'd be separate objects.

Many other people tried to make the same point, simply by saying they'd be separate (but identical) objects, but Jabba didn't seem to grasp the point until I mentioned separate space/time coordinates. That...seems to have gotten through, somehow. And appears to have, at least temporarily, stumped him.

Do I have that right? I'm not asking you, Jabba, I am asking the people who originally pointed this out.

Trying to drag in "time and space coordinates" looks all too much like an attempt to add one more bullet point to the effective debate list.

It's not. It's the first thing that's gotten him to acknowledge that separate-but-identical objects would be separate objects. He seems to be genuinely worried about the concept, hence the "I was sort of hoping that no one would consider the issue important enough to bring up" comment. (And boy, ain't that telling?)

Let's let him run with it and see where he tries to go. If he tries to twist it into something that doesn't make sense, I assure you, everyone will be all over that nonsense!

 

[Loss Leader]

New sig line.

 

[pakeha]

Bravo.
This is the discernment that separates mods from us hoi polois.

 

[Garrette]

Bravo.
This is the discernment that separates mods from us hoi polois.

10 points for using hoi polloi correctly! Huzzah!

Three cheers and a tiger for you!

 

[pakeha]

Ta eva so.
I grossly misused the term in another thread some months ago.
It's comforting to know my progress is appreciated.

 

[Humots]

No, I brought time/space coordinates into the discussion (and Planck length). He was arguing that two identical brains would have no biological reason for having separate senses of self. I pointed out that there was a very simple physical reason: they'd be different objects with different locations.


It's more than just that. The two brains would each have a separate consciousness, even during the very brief time where those consciousnesses would remain identical. And that's because of of, yes, space/time. They'd be separate objects.

Many other people tried to make the same point, simply by saying they'd be separate (but identical) objects, but Jabba didn't seem to grasp the point until I mentioned separate space/time coordinates. That...seems to have gotten through, somehow. And appears to have, at least temporarily, stumped him.


It's not. It's the first thing that's gotten him to acknowledge that separate-but-identical objects would be separate objects. He seems to be genuinely worried about the concept, hence the "I was sort of hoping that no one would consider the issue important enough to bring up" comment. (And boy, ain't that telling?)

Let's let him run with it and see where he tries to go. If he tries to twist it into something that doesn't make sense, I assure you, everyone will be all over that nonsense!

Thanks for the clarification.

I thought Jabba was introducing some new Jabba-stuff, especially with the reference to Zeno's Paradox; i.e. trying to twist it into something that doesn't make sense.

 

[xtifr]

- I recognize the problem that time and space coordinates bring to my claim of infinity, but I was sort of hoping that no one would consider the issue important enough to bring up...

Wow. Just...wow.

You do realize that it is the point I have been trying to bring up for months now. The main thing I've been focused on, to the point where I was advising others to let minor quibbles go, because this was such a major issue, yes?

And were you really just hoping that nobody would bring it up? Or had it simply never occurred to you? And if the former, why has it taken you so long to begin addressing the question? I mean, once it was raised, surely it was time to stop hoping. And that time was long ago. Did you really not see that?

Oh well, no matter. Now that it has been brought up, do you have a response?

But then, maybe the time/space coordinate issue will help with the "define" issue. As superficially at least, those coordinates could finish preexisting definitions for each of us and ruin my claim of infinity...

Yeah, you know, I'm suddenly much less interested in the "preexisting definitions" issue, especially if the separate locations thing will, er, finish it. However, I think that may mean that I can answer your earlier question about whether I agree about the preexisting definitions. I think I do not. I'm still not sure, but it seems like a side issue compared to the different locations thing vs. infinity. Maybe we should focus on that, and return to preexisting definitions only if it proves necessary.

- Does this help?

Wow, I'm just...I'm...Wow! I'm not entirely sure, but I think, maybe, yes?

 

[Jabba]

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

Dave,
- I'm claiming that there is something about my "self" that would NOT get replicated if my brain were replicated. That “something” is the thing, process or illusion of my continuous lifetime self that disappears -- supposedly, never to return -- at the death of my brain. You agree that I would not return to life if my brain were perfectly replicated; yet, you claim that every aspect of my particular sense of self would be replicated by replicating my brain. Those seem contradictory to me. This is where we seem to be passing in the night.

 

[Garrette]

Dave,
- I'm claiming that there is something about my "self" that would NOT get replicated if my brain were replicated. That “something” is the thing, process or illusion of my continuous lifetime self that disappears -- supposedly, never to return -- at the death of my brain. You agree that I would not return to life if my brain were perfectly replicated; yet, you claim that every aspect of my particular sense of self would be replicated by replicating my brain. Those seem contradictory to me. This is where we seem to be passing in the night.

Except we're not passing in the night. You're sailing your ship repeatedly onto the reef in front of our lighthouse. We're desperately shining the light into your wheelhouse, screaming frantically that you've run aground while you maintain flank speed as the hull rips apart beneath you. Occasionally you step onto your deck, look surprised that there's a lighthouse, and yell for us to join you on your ruined boat because, hey, the rocks have kept you from sinking completely.

 

[Garrette]

And I would like to extend a long overdue Thank You to xtifr who remained mostly quiet or absent at the beginning of this thread but who has become and remained the best at identifying, clarifying, and remaining focused on key issues. I can't find an individual post that I would nominate for TLA, but for body of work, it has been supremely educational.

 

[pakeha]

^
Seconded.

Dave,
- I'm claiming that there is something about my "self" that would NOT get replicated if my brain were replicated. That “something” is the thing, process or illusion of my continuous lifetime self that disappears -- supposedly, never to return -- at the death of my brain. You agree that I would not return to life if my brain were perfectly replicated; yet, you claim that every aspect of my particular sense of self would be replicated by replicating my brain. Those seem contradictory to me. This is where we seem to be passing in the night.

What do you mean by 'supposedly, never to return'?
Of course it can't return, Jabba. Do you remember how a sense of self and consciousness are defined?

 

[jond]

Dave,
- I'm claiming that there is something about my "self" that would NOT get replicated if my brain were replicated. That “something” is the thing, process or illusion of my continuous lifetime self that disappears -- supposedly, never to return -- at the death of my brain. You agree that I would not return to life if my brain were perfectly replicated; yet, you claim that every aspect of my particular sense of self would be replicated by replicating my brain. Those seem contradictory to me. This is where we seem to be passing in the night.

We understand your position. We are also quite certain that it's wrong. Here's why:

You agree that I would not return to life if my brain were perfectly replicated; yet, you claim that every aspect of my particular sense of self would be replicated by replicating my brain. Those seem contradictory to me.

As has been pointed out countless times, the sense of self is not a static thing. It is constantly changing, evolving. Thus a replication of your brain would replicate your sense of self at the moment of replication. (Note the critical piece here--AT THE MOMENT OF REPLICATION.) The moment after the replicated brain starts functioning in the new body, it would begin to change as its experiences would be different from yours from that moment forward.

Similarly, if a perfect copy of your brain were recreated from the beginning state (the moment sperm and egg do their thing) your sense of self would not be "reborn", because it would be impossible for the new person to have the exact same experiences that you've had. Thus it's sense of self would not be the same as yours.

There is no contradiction here. Do you understand this?

 

[Pixel42]

Dave,
- I'm claiming that there is something about my "self" that would NOT get replicated if my brain were replicated. That “something” is the thing, process or illusion of my continuous lifetime self that disappears -- supposedly, never to return -- at the death of my brain. You agree that I would not return to life if my brain were perfectly replicated; yet, you claim that every aspect of my particular sense of self would be replicated by replicating my brain. Those seem contradictory to me. This is where we seem to be passing in the night.

Would a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa be the Mona Lisa?

If the original Mona Lisa was destroyed and a perfect replica made would the replica be the original returned?

ETA:

What distinguishes the original from the replica is its spacetime coordinates. If an object's worldline though spacetime is continuous it is the original; if there are two worldlines there is an original and a replica.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldline