[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Mojo]

But to me, that would mean that your body/brain does not define you exclusively – “you” are but one of many (an infinity?) of possible personas defined by your body/brain.
- But then, I’m pretty sure that you have claimed that it does define you exclusively…

And, as usual, you are wrong. The "self" is not purely determined by the genetics of the particular brain that produces it; it is the result of the genetics, the experiences, and the environment. A particular brain will produce different "selves" at different times because it will have different experiences and environments at different times, and so will be in different states. But if you could exactly reproduce a brain in the exact state that it was in at a particular instant, then the "self" produced by the reproduced brain would, at that particular instant, be identical to the "self" produced by the original brain at that same instant.

Why are you having so much trouble understanding this?

 

[Jabba]

First, I have to say, good job on the quoting. That was a really good way to do it; really clear. Thanks…

- Thank YOU.

xtifr,
- I’m still trying to figure out where we agree, and where we disagree. In this case, you didn’t quite catch what I said.
- I didn’t say that a loaf of banana bread doesn’t involve ANY emergent properties – I said that a loaf of banana bread doesn’t involve consciousness…

I'm fine up to here.

- Great.

… Then, I went on to say that there is something about consciousness that is special. Do you have any objections or reservations so far?

Well, yeah. Now you're outside the scientific model again. The scientific model doesn't say there's anything special about consciousness. It's a remarkably complex emergent property—perhaps the most complex we've studied—but that's a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.
You're welcome to believe there's something special about consciousness. I know many people who do.* And if there were something special about it, it wouldn't disprove the scientific model, which doesn't actually claim there isn't something special about it. But it also doesn't claim there is something special about it. It's outside of the model, which doesn't depend on the truth of that proposition either way, so it's irrelevant, if your goal is to disprove the scientific model.

- This raises a possibly ineffable question… The specialness that I’m claiming, and to which I’m alluding, is (that) consciousness provides an “identity” for the specific object that produces it; an identity that would distinguish that object from any other -- otherwise chemically identical -- object. If that sentence is coherent to you, do you accept it?...
(Interestingly, this is where you’re suggestion about space/time coordinates may threaten my little applecart… And, I’ll get to that as soon as possible.)

 

[Mojo]

- Great.

Super.

 

[John Jones]

-[...]And, I’ll get to that as soon as possible.)

How many times do you expect people to fall for that?

 

[Mojo]

This raises a possibly ineffable question… The specialness that I’m claiming, and to which I’m alluding, is (that) consciousness provides an “identity” for the specific object that produces it; an identity that would distinguish that object from any other -- otherwise chemically identical -- object.

Do you have any evidence that this "soul" exists?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- This raises a possibly ineffable question… The specialness that I’m claiming, and to which I’m alluding, is (that) consciousness provides an “identity” for the specific object that produces it; an identity that would distinguish that object from any other -- otherwise chemically identical -- object. If that sentence is coherent to you, do you accept it?...
(Interestingly, this is where you’re suggestion about space/time coordinates may threaten my little applecart… And, I’ll get to that as soon as possible.)

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage:

I, personally, am of the opinion that, were it possible to structurally (down to the effects of the experiences your neurosystem has undergone) replicate, perfectly, your brain, the replica would have the same sense of "self"--that is, each would be convinced that he was the "original", "real" Rich Savage, and neither would "feel like" the replica.

You would have no way of demonstrating (given perfect replication) whether "you" were "you_א" or "you_ב"; nor would anyone else, without some external signifier.

 

[godless dave]

- This raises a possibly ineffable question… The specialness that I’m claiming, and to which I’m alluding, is (that) consciousness provides an “identity” for the specific object that produces it; an identity that would distinguish that object from any other -- otherwise chemically identical -- object. If that sentence is coherent to you, do you accept it?...
(Interestingly, this is where you’re suggestion about space/time coordinates may threaten my little applecart… And, I’ll get to that as soon as possible.)

Jabba, while we wait for xtifr to respond, do you think you could explain which part of the scientific model of consciousness supports this claim?

 

[pakeha]

- Unfortunately, I’m still trying to make sure that I understand your position.
- As I understand your position, you believe that reproducing your body/brain would not bring you back to life – it would not reproduce “you.” You believe that reproducing your body/brain would create an “identical” PSoCS (Particular Sense of Continuous Self), but not “you.”
- But to me, that would mean that your body/brain does not define you exclusively – “you” are but one of many (an infinity?) of possible personas defined by your body/brain.
- But then, I’m pretty sure that you have claimed that it does define you exclusively…

- I rail on about this because it relates to my claim for infinity…

No, Jabba.
Do you remember how consciousness is defined?
Do you remember why many and infinity are not the same thing?

[ . . .]

- This raises a possibly ineffable question… The specialness that I’m claiming, and to which I’m alluding, is (that) consciousness provides an “identity” for the specific object that produces it; an identity that would distinguish that object from any other -- otherwise chemically identical -- object. If that sentence is coherent to you, do you accept it?...
(Interestingly, this is where you’re suggestion about space/time coordinates may threaten my little applecart… And, I’ll get to that as soon as possible.)

No, Jabba. consciousness doesn't provide anything more than evidence of a functioning neurosystem.

 

[Giordano]

- Unfortunately, I’m still trying to make sure that I understand your position.
- As I understand your position, you believe that reproducing your body/brain would not bring you back to life – it would not reproduce “you.” You believe that reproducing your body/brain would create an “identical” PSoCS (Particular Sense of Continuous Self), but not “you.”
- But to me, that would mean that your body/brain does not define you exclusively – “you” are but one of many (an infinity?) of possible personas defined by your body/brain.
- But then, I’m pretty sure that you have claimed that it does define you exclusively…

- I rail on about this because it relates to my claim for infinity…

We certainly know that it is required for your claim to infinity. Unfortunately it is wrong! The standard model states that exactly duplicating your brain would exactly duplicate you: there would be two of you, each of which thought like you, felt like you, and would believe itself to be you. Read the other posts to understand why you are wrong. Particularly read the one about exactly duplicating the Mona Lisa. Do paintings have selves like you believe people do?

Now, if you want to claim in your model a non-physical self, you would have to prove it. Because it is not part of the SM. But go ahead and prove it if you wish to try.

By the way: is it now a claim to immortality? Not a proof?

 

[xtifr]

- This raises a possibly ineffable question… The specialness that I’m claiming, and to which I’m alluding, is (that) consciousness provides an “identity” for the specific object that produces it; an identity that would distinguish that object from any other -- otherwise chemically identical -- object. If that sentence is coherent to you, do you accept it?...

I believe I understand what you're saying, yes. However, no, I do not accept it.

No personal sense of identity distinguishes the original from the copy. They both have an identical personal sense of identity. As far as the copy is concerned, it is you, and "you" are other. The only thing that distinguishes the two is location. Nothing about consciousness is at play.

The copy and original are separate objects in separate places, and thus, are not just one object (and boy does that feel like a silly thing to have to spell out). But each has exactly the same "personal sense self." Subjectively, each is you, and the other is not. From the outside, it depends on whether you imagine things from the original's perspective or the copy's. Neither one is me, but they're both a "you".

Imagine that you didn't know which was the copy. (The copying happened while you were unconscious or something.) How would you tell whether you were the original or the copy? You couldn't. But you would still be you, either way.

As for your case where "you" die before the new living copy is created: that is indistinguishable from the case where a dead copy is provided and the original (still living) you is moved forward in time.

(As I mentioned earlier, English doesn't cope with this situation very well, which is why you're getting apparently contradictory answers from people. It depends on how you define "you", in a language where "you" (singular) normally only has one possible referent.)

So, bottom line, the copy would be a different object from the original, but that has nothing to do with consciousness! There is no "property of consciousness" that distinguishes the two! Only the fact that they are distinct physical objects. Like two loaves of banana bread.

(Interestingly, this is where you’re suggestion about space/time coordinates may threaten my little applecart… And, I’ll get to that as soon as possible.)

Can't wait.

 

[Giordano]

- This raises a possibly ineffable question… The specialness that I’m claiming, and to which I’m alluding, is (that) consciousness provides an “identity” for the specific object that produces it; an identity that would distinguish that object from any other -- otherwise chemically identical -- object. If that sentence is coherent to you, do you accept it?...

You would be wrong to believe this. Already explained as to why.

 

[Giordano]

(Interestingly, this is where you’re suggestion about space/time coordinates may threaten my little applecart… And, I’ll get to that as soon as possible.)

No you won't. You never answer or address any post that threatens or disproves your theory. Never.

 

[Giordano]

Does the fact that you have been singularly unable to evince any kind of actual agreement or complicity tell you anything about your claim,at all?

(Hint: the fact that you need agreement in order to pretend to be able to perform a mathematically prohibited perversion ought not to make you work even more frantically to pretend someone, somewhere, buys your position. Instead, it ought to lead you to ponder why you need to perform a mathematically indefensible unnatural act.)

Not to mention that you seem to have lost sight of the fact that all this about "duplicating" brains is hypothetical.

^^^ worth reinterating!

 

[Hokulele]

- This raises a possibly ineffable question… The specialness that I’m claiming, and to which I’m alluding, is (that) consciousness provides an “identity” for the specific object that produces it; an identity that would distinguish that object from any other -- otherwise chemically identical -- object. If that sentence is coherent to you, do you accept it?...

If you were to undergo a duplication process, without being told by someone who performed the process, would you know whether you were the original, or the duplicate?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Jabba,

I have looked at the thread and I have yet to find any sort of clear statements or proof of any kind. In the presumed case that you were able to use, say, Bayesian statistics to show the potential for immortality, even then science would require that be used to make a testable prediction. A math proof, in and of itself, can be suggestive, even entirely correct, but it cannot be considered valid until confirmed by observation.

If your goal was to provide the mathematical foundation for a testable hypothesis, you should have proceeded forthwith from the start.

On the other hand, if you wish to use a natural phenomenon (consciousness) to explain the existence of a non-natural phenomenon or state of being (immortality), please note that you cannot get there from here. The twain never meet, by definition. So whatever consciousness may be, no amount of rational or other argument is alone sufficient to posit, let alone prove, anything unseen, immeasurable, or which lacks observations that can be peer reviewed.

Immortality, posited in natural terms, is not a useful concept in a universe heading for heat death. Longevity, maybe. So, indeed, from the start the idea requires an extra assumption of some place/state/manifold/heaven for such immortality to be realized. So, not only would you need to prove that mind is hosted not by matter, but by an immaterial realm of some sort, but that the realm itself even exists, and finally, that said realm uniquely and solely ties to this one via the mind.

That is a set of extraordinary claims, requiring extraordinary evidence. Not the informal statements of belief and opinion given so far.

...

One gets the sense that because you feel unique as an individual, you feel that uniqueness must stem from some cause or attribute that is "ineffable," meaning (as I understand you) indefinable and so not observable.

This is a belief, not a statement of a working hypothesis. You are welcome to hold such beliefs, many people do. However, it is a disfavor to others to attempt to formulate a belief using the methods reserved for methodological naturalism. The two simply do not mix and yield the kind of confusing narrative that characterizes the thread so far.

 

[Giordano]

Okay Jabba, you exactly duplicate yourself, including your physical brain. We mix up the two people, so no one can trace back the original vs the duplicate. One is killed. The killed one will believe that they, Jabba, died. The other one will believe that they, Jabba, lived. 50% of the time the original died, 50% the duplicate. But both would feel and believe that they are Jabba. Okay?

 

[jond]

Okay Jabba, you exactly duplicate yourself, including your physical brain. We mix up the two people, so no one can trace back the original vs the duplicate. One is killed. The killed one will believe that they, Jabba, died. The other one will believe that they, Jabba, lived. 50% of the time the original died, 50% the duplicate. But both would feel and believe that they are Jabba. Okay?

Ever the optimist? Good luck, Giordano, maybe you too could earn the mantle of LCP! Oh, and you too Hlafordlaes! (This really is getting ridiculous...)

 

[Giordano]

Ever the optimist? Good luck, Giordano, maybe you too could earn the mantle of LCP! Oh, and you too Hlafordlaes! (This really is getting ridiculous...)

I don't know why I do it. I keep swearing I won't. But I can't resist. I teach as part of my job, so maybe that is the problem…

Anyway, I will have to work on an acceptance speech if I win LCP. I should go to allow myself time to do so.

 

[AdMan]

JABBA,

Why is it that you answer only one or at most two people at a time? Do you understand that this is an Internet forum, open for discussion to all members who choose to participate?

Your earlier proposed a form of "discussion," which was accepted (for some unfathomable reason) by mods here for a bit, failed miserably because you yourself abandoned it. Yet now you appear to be at it again.

It looks like you have no idea where you are discussing this subject, and you apparently do not understand how incredibly rude you are by simply ignoring virtually all posts in this thread except the ones you pick and choose and feel relatively comfortable commenting on.

This is a discussion forum. Stop being an arrogant jerk.

 

[John Jones]

JABBA,

Why is it that you answer only one or at most two people at a time? Do you understand that this is an Internet forum, open for discussion to all members who choose to participate?

You earlier proposed a form of "discussion," which was accepted (for some unfathomable reason) by mods here for a bit, yet failed miserably because you yourself abandoned it. Yet now you appear to be at it again.

It looks like you have no idea where you are discussing this subject, and you apparently do not understand how incredibly rude you are by simply ignoring virtually all posts in this thread except the ones you pick and choose and feel relatively comfortable commenting on.

This is a discussion forum. [...]

Indeed.

Jabba, your invisible jury doesn't exist. You haven't made one iota of progress in proving immortality in 18+ months.

If you're going to ignore most of the posters here, why not take this exercise in futility to PMs or email?