[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[pakeha]

xtifr

- Currently, there exists a "me," a conscious "self" that, according to the scientific model, never existed before and will never exist again -- even if we were able to chemically replicate the brain that is currently producing it. According to that model, a chemical replica would produce a perfect copy of me, but not actually me -- or at least, not the "me" to which I'm alluding...
- To me, that means that there is no chemical definition exclusive to that me.
- It could be, however, that the addition of space/time coordinates to the chemical definition would solve that "problem," give me an exclusive definition and allow that me to be actually replicated.

- Dave disagrees with at least part of the above. Do you? And if so, what part(s) do you disagree with?

No, Jabba.
"- Currently, there exists a "me," a conscious "self" that, according to the scientific model, never existed before and will never exist again -- even if we were able to chemically replicate the brain that is currently producing it. "

A sense of self isn't something that's produced.
It's an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

 

[abaddon]

No, Jabba.
"- Currently, there exists a "me," a conscious "self" that, according to the scientific model, never existed before and will never exist again -- even if we were able to chemically replicate the brain that is currently producing it. "

A sense of self isn't something that's produced.
It's an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

Oh, I wouldn't do that. Jabba assumes that if you insert quotes, you defacto agree with him. It matters not a whit which words were quoted. Nor which of his were quoted.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Currently, there exists a "me," a conscious "self" that, according to the scientific model, never existed before and will never exist again

Think of it as being the particular instance of a class, or a unique arbitrary expression of a common process. In that, you are truly one and only.

Not a big deal, though. Like a snowflake.

-- even if we were able to chemically replicate the brain that is currently producing it. According to that model, a chemical replica would produce a perfect copy of me, but not actually me -- or at least, not the "me" to which I'm alluding...

Any purported (mythical) replica, if faithful to whatever degree of detail needed (an unknown at this point, but that is not required for our purposes) would be indistinguishably you. To state otherwise is to claim an immaterial source of mind, a religious claim to be defended only in religious terms.

The "me" to which you are alluding is the common experience of feeling, and being, unique (in a universe without replication, that is). The fact that you can speak about this concept with others is what reveals it to be a common experience.

Unique being is common. Otherwise you couldn't allude to it.

- To me, that means that there is no chemical definition exclusive to that me.

Does not follow. Implies immaterial foundations.

- It could be, however, that the addition of space/time coordinates to the chemical definition would solve that "problem," give me an exclusive definition and allow that me to be actually replicated.

Overcomplicated. You do not need to understand anything except the relation between common natural processes and the individual results of each expression of them. That kind of uniqueness holds no mystery whatsoever in science. Each pebble on a beach is unique. Like your fingerprints, or DNA.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Think of it as being the particular instance of a class, or a unique arbitrary expression of a common process. In that, you are truly one and only.

Not a big deal, though. Like a snowflake.

Any purported (mythical) replica, if faithful to whatever degree of detail needed (an unknown at this point, but that is not required for our purposes) would be indistinguishably you. To state otherwise is to claim an immaterial source of mind, a religious claim to be defended only in religious terms.

You peeked!

The "me" to which you are alluding is the common experience of feeling, and being, unique (in a universe without replication, that is). The fact that you can speak about this concept with others is what reveals it to be a common experience.

Unique being is common. Otherwise you couldn't allude to it.

Does not follow. Implies immaterial foundations.

Overcomplicated. You do not need to understand anything except the relation between common natural processes and the individual results of each expression of them. That kind of uniqueness holds no mystery whatsoever in science. Each pebble on a beach is unique. Like your fingerprints, or DNA.

This is the heart of Mr.Savage's dilemma. He wants to believe that there is an immortal, transcendent, immanence about himself that exists independently of this too, too sullied flesh.

He's been trying for more than a year to find a way to make that claim sound as it is the most reasonable way to interpret reality; for more than a year, it's been a non-starter.

It's the Shroud^TM and Shroud II^TM threads, all over again.

(BTW, very well-spoken post)

 

[godless dave]

xtifr

- Currently, there exists a "me," a conscious "self" that, according to the scientific model, never existed before and will never exist again -- even if we were able to chemically replicate the brain that is currently producing it. According to that model, a chemical replica would produce a perfect copy of me, but not actually me -- or at least, not the "me" to which I'm alluding...

In exactly the same way that everything about the copy's body would be identical to the original body, but would not be the original body.

Does that mean the original body came from nowhere?

 

[Giordano]

In exactly the same way that everything about the copy's body would be identical to the original body, but would not be the original body.

Does that mean the original body came from nowhere?

Yes! And an identical copy of you would have identical fingerprints as the original. The duplicated fingerprints would be part of the duplicate. Nonetheless, the original fingerprints would be buried if the original you died. The original fingerprints would rot, but the copies would not.

Does this mean that the fingerprints somehow have a special unique property that is not duplicated in the copy?

 

[Giordano]

But Jabba, you give every indication of misunderstanding the "exact replicate" discussion. As mentioned by others, it is impossible to do this experiment in realty, at least right now, so it cannot help prove your theory. One can't actually do it to get a result and therefore prove which argument is correct. It is only a hypothetical. So please move on. Or perhaps you have no evidence and therefore nothing to move on with?

 

[John Jones]

xtifr

- Currently, there exists a "me," a conscious "self" that, according to the scientific model, never existed before and will never exist again -- even if we were able to chemically replicate the brain that is currently producing it. According to that model, a chemical replica would produce a perfect copy of me, but not actually me -- or at least, not the "me" to which I'm alluding...
- To me, that means that there is no chemical definition exclusive to that me.
- It could be, however, that the addition of space/time coordinates to the chemical definition would solve that "problem," give me an exclusive definition and allow that me to be actually replicated.

- Dave disagrees with at least part of the above. Do you? And if so, what part(s) do you disagree with?

Cite some reference to this scientific model or please be quiet. Even if said model is wrong, it doesn't prove immortality.

Give it up!

 

[Hlafordlaes]

He wants to believe that there is an immortal, transcendent, immanence about himself that exists independently of this too, too sullied flesh.

He's not the only one. The beck and call of the idea of the qualia of experience confounded even Schrodinger, and lots of folks. The very special experiential nature of our inner lives, its vividness and immediacy, its detachment and the resulting separate reality all conspire to create the greatest illusion of all: the immortal self. We cannot share all that is in us fully in ways that easily dispel the notion that we are more than a passing fancy of nature. It takes discipline.

I am more, rails the id (or whatever; I don't do psychiatry).

Consciousness is magical in the same way the little water maelstrom that forms in the drain is magical. It's real, yet ephemeral. The sum of its parts, only more beautiful. It emerges, and is gone.

Sucks, really. So I sympathize.

 

[Slowvehicle]

He's not the only one. The beck and call of the idea of the qualia of experience confounded even Schrodinger, and lots of folks. The very special experiential nature of our inner lives, its vividness and immediacy, its detachment and the resulting separate reality all conspire to create the greatest illusion of all: the immortal self. We cannot share all that is in us fully in ways that easily dispel the notion that we are more than a passing fancy of nature. It takes discipline.

I am more, rails the id (or whatever; I don't do psychiatry).

Consciousness is magical in the same way the little water maelstrom that forms in the drain is magical. It's real, yet ephemeral. The sum of its parts, only more beautiful. It emerges, and is gone.

Sucks, really. So I sympathize.

I can sympathize. And, had Mr. Savage simply admitted that he wanted to beleive in "immortality", but could not figure out how to make it plausible under what he calls the "SM" (or scientific model), this would have been a differently-entertaining experience.

Instead, Mr. Savage's argument is that the non-existent "immortal soul" is more plausible than the infinite unlikeliness of what we observe; and that if we only understood what he is saying, we would see how wrong the SM is, and how deluded we are.

I ought to simply stop reading, or posting in, this thread...but that would feel , to me, as if I had ceded a point (and Mr. Savage has, in the past, claimed that a lack of response meant that he had "won", and that he should apply to the MDC). So it goes on.

To misquote Trudeau, "It's future former posters I'm thinking about..."

Call me Ahab, or don't, I guess.

 

[Giordano]

I love how we all come up with ever simpler explanations and analogies, thinking that the next one will let Jabba understand at last! Of course, Jabba gives every indication of not wanting to understand why his theory is wrong, or perhaps he already does understand.

 

[John Jones]

It's known as deliberate obdurance.

I would give my eye teeth if Jabba would respond to this.

 

[John Jones]

I can sympathize. And, had Mr. Savage simply admitted that he wanted to beleive in "immortality", but could not figure out how to make it plausible under what he calls the "SM" (or scientific model), this would have been a differently-entertaining experience.

Instead, Mr. Savage's argument is that the non-existent "immortal soul" is more plausible than the infinite unlikeliness of what we observe; and that if we only understood what he is saying, we would see how wrong the SM is, and how deluded we are.

I ought to simply stop reading, or posting in, this thread...but that would feel , to me, as if I had ceded a point (and Mr. Savage has, in the past, claimed that a lack of response meant that he had "won", and that he should apply to the MDC). So it goes on.

To misquote Trudeau, "It's future former posters I'm thinking about..."

Call me Ahab, or don't, I guess.

Moby Dick has always been one of my favorites.

 

[pakeha]

Oh, I wouldn't do that. Jabba assumes that if you insert quotes, you defacto agree with him. It matters not a whit which words were quoted. Nor which of his were quoted.

I'm sure you're quite right about that.
It won't happen again.

Think of it as being the particular instance of a class, or a unique arbitrary expression of a common process. In that, you are truly one and only.

Not a big deal, though. Like a snowflake.



Any purported (mythical) replica, if faithful to whatever degree of detail needed (an unknown at this point, but that is not required for our purposes) would be indistinguishably you. To state otherwise is to claim an immaterial source of mind, a religious claim to be defended only in religious terms.

The "me" to which you are alluding is the common experience of feeling, and being, unique (in a universe without replication, that is). The fact that you can speak about this concept with others is what reveals it to be a common experience.

Unique being is common. Otherwise you couldn't allude to it.



Does not follow. Implies immaterial foundations.



Overcomplicated. You do not need to understand anything except the relation between common natural processes and the individual results of each expression of them. That kind of uniqueness holds no mystery whatsoever in science. Each pebble on a beach is unique. Like your fingerprints, or DNA.

[ . . .]
(BTW, very well-spoken post)

Seconded.

 

[Jabba]

As far as the copy is concerned, it, not you, would be you. And as far as the rest of us are concerned, both would be you. Why do you think your perspective is more important than the copy's?...

xtifr,

- I do understand that first sentence. The second sentence is confusing.

- I don’t mean to say that my perspective is more important than the copy’s perspective. It’s just that I want to be able to talk about my perspective so that I know that you know what I’m talking about. I suspect that you, and our compatriots here, do know what I’m talking about – just that I can’t get you guys to focus on it …
- For now, I’ll just call it “my illusion of my continuous self” -- that illusion to which I and others are referring, when we think of, or speak about, an “afterlife.” It’s the sense of self that we (me and these others) wish not to lapse into eternal oblivion -- but which, the scientific model holds will do exactly that.

- I would like to focus on that particular concept, and would like to agree upon a word/term/phrase that would exclusively, and clearly, refer to it.
- Your thoughts?

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, from your perspective, your sense of self would be Jabba.

From the copy's perspective, the copy's sense of self would be Jabba.

 

[Mojo]

xtifr,

- I do understand that first sentence. The second sentence is confusing.

- I don’t mean to say that my perspective is more important than the copy’s perspective. It’s just that I want to be able to talk about my perspective so that I know that you know what I’m talking about. I suspect that you, and our compatriots here, do know what I’m talking about – just that I can’t get you guys to focus on it …
- For now, I’ll just call it “my illusion of my continuous self” -- that illusion to which I and others are referring, when we think of, or speak about, an “afterlife.” It’s the sense of self that we (me and these others) wish not to lapse into eternal oblivion -- but which, the scientific model holds will do exactly that.

- I would like to focus on that particular concept, and would like to agree upon a word/term/phrase that would clearly refer to it.
- Your thoughts?

It's really quite simple. The copy would not be you. Even if it was completely identical to you in all respects, including its "self", it would not be you. The copy would be another person identical to you. It would, as far as the rest of us are concerned, be indistinguishable from you, but you would know which was you and which was the copy (although the copy would, of course, disagree).

 

[Giordano]

Actually, an intriguing question is if organisms that replicate by binary fission, like many bacteria, are immortal (well, long lived). At one level, part of them lives on in their progeny (although ultimately, due to dilution, it becomes a reductionist philosophy problem like Washington's oft repaired axe). Does the original bacterium die, or does it go on in its progeny?

By the way, this is just a philosophy question, Jabba. It does not relate to your "proof." No need to respond.

The good news relevant to Jabba's desire to not die is that we do achieve it, in part, through our kids! Yes, they may not receive much of us physically, but they each have about half of our genes. I am sorry for some of the genes I have contributed, but happy about others. I see parts of my long dead Dad in my sons: isn't that pretty special? Isn't that life after death? Also, I hope some of what I do in my life, not just my DNA, will "live on" and affect the world after I die. That may be egotistical, but it keeps me going.

 

[Giordano]

xtifr,

- I do understand that first sentence. The second sentence is confusing.

- I don’t mean to say that my perspective is more important than the copy’s perspective. It’s just that I want to be able to talk about my perspective so that I know that you know what I’m talking about. I suspect that you, and our compatriots here, do know what I’m talking about – just that I can’t get you guys to focus on it …
- For now, I’ll just call it “my illusion of my continuous self” -- that illusion to which I and others are referring, when we think of, or speak about, an “afterlife.” It’s the sense of self that we (me and these others) wish not to lapse into eternal oblivion -- but which, the scientific model holds will do exactly that.

- I would like to focus on that particular concept, and would like to agree upon a word/term/phrase that would exclusively, and clearly, refer to it.
- Your thoughts?

You are wrong. Read the other posts here to understand why. Many of them are quite good explanations! I will not try to repeat them.

 

[Giordano]

- I would like to focus on that particular concept, and would like to agree upon a word/term/phrase that would exclusively, and clearly, refer to it.
- Your thoughts?

Perhaps it doesn't exist, and that is why you have such a problem finding a word for it? It is interesting: we have words for everything that exists, and even some things that do not exist: dragons, unicorns, etc. But we don't even have a word for what you mean. Does that tell you anything?

Actually, we do have a word for what you mean: spirit. But you don't want to use that word because the SM rejects that such a thing exists. So you are seeking a weasel word that means the same thing to you, but which is not so clearly defined that the others here will understand what you mean and therefore reject it.