[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Toontown]

If it were a different brain, it wouldn't be me, because it would have none of the same neurons.

If there was no existing 'you' brain, there wouldn't be any different neurons to differentiate any brain from the nonexistent 'you' brain.

 

[John Jones]

Actually, it is, in this case.

Yeah, I know it's counterintuitive. How could just any random brain be 'you'? Well, the way the one that is you is you. No particular reason. It just tautologically is.

Shut up. Shut up , SHUT UP!

 

[godless dave]

There, there, Dave. You'll know which one if it hits you. Oh wait, it did hit you. Did you feel that?

Is that supposed to make sense?

 

[Jabba]

At the risk of being told I'm being "condescending", upon what evidence do you base your suspicions?

Slowvehicle,
- My suspicion of a continuous non-physical existence between physical iterations seems to me like the best explanation for my current existence.
- As you know, based upon its statistical requirements, I think that the scientific theory that each of us has only one finite period of consciousness is extremely unlikely to be correct, and that my consciousness either exists continuously (in one form or another), or it returns periodically.
- There IS some further logic involved, but probably the primary "evidence" which has me thinking that we're continuous rather than periodic is what I've read about reincarnation and near death experiences. Clearly, you do not perceive much, if any, credibility in such reports -- but I do, and for better or worse, those reports probably are the "evidence" most responsible for my selection here.
- If I can find the time, I'll try to describe the "further logic" in my choice.

 

[Jabba]

It might. But first I would check your math.

Dave,
- Good. I can't remember what I'm putting off answering otherwise, but if I can't find anything more pressing, I'll try to give it (the "math") my best shot next...

 

[godless dave]

If there was no existing 'you' brain, there wouldn't be any different neurons to differentiate any brain from the nonexistent 'you' brain.

Since they would grow at a different time, in different circumstances, and be exposed to different stimuli, they would be different.

Toontown, do you accept the unique fingerprint hypothesis? It's pretty much the same as the unique brain hypothesis.

 

[dafydd]

dafydd,
- Keep in mind that I have never claimed that I could prove immortality -- I only claimed that I could essentially prove it.

Redifing words again. We know that you can't prove immortality, essentailly, unessentially, or any way. It doesn't exist.

 

[dafydd]

Slowvehicle,
- My suspicion of a continuous non-physical existence between physical iterations seems to me like the best explanation for my current existence.

You have entered the realms of fantasy.

 

[dafydd]

- If I can find the time, I'll try to describe the "further logic" in my choice.

In the shroud thread you were forever promising to address questions but never did and you're doing the same here. And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

 

[dafydd]

I'm hungry. I'll fry some eggs, or shall essentially fry some eggs? If I essentially fry them do I fry them or not? Jabba? What happens if I essentially type my next post? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Toontown]

But if you specify one target, you are making a prediction.

One more time. The U-brain hypothesis specified the target. It says this is the target that had to be hit from 14.7 billion light years away to light up my jungle, and that's exactly what happened, expectation 0.0000000......1, implied by the U-brain requirement. Not by me. I didn't predict anything.

If you observe that there are several possible targets, each with a particular likelihood, then you are talking about the expected likelihood. In this case there are billions of possible targets. That one particular target will be hit is unlikely. That, out of all the targets, some of them will be hit is very likely; you just don't know which ones.

Well, I kinda do know which one, Dave. It's kinda hard not to know. And I kinda do have a rough idea how ridiculous the expected likelihood of this one being hit is. So what am I supposed to do, pretend I don't know that? Fly up in the air and say,

'Well, there are a lot of targets down there, and some of them are sure to be hit, and the sum of all their hit expectations isn't so ridiculous if the set of all possible targets isn't too large. So I should definitely adopt the sum of all the hit expectations of all the targets as my expectation, because...well, because that's a bigger number, and I am definitely among that crowd. I'm not the whole crowd, and only Dave knows how my expectation of being among the crowd is affected in the least by those manipulations, but...whatever.

And I should do all that to avoid rejecting H₀ and accepting H₁ because________________?

 

[dafydd]

One more time. The U-brain hypothesis specified the target. It says this is the target that had to be hit from 14.7 billion light years away to light up my jungle, and that's exactly what happened, expectation 0.0000000......1, implied by the U-brain requirement. Not by me. I didn't predict anything.



Well, I kinda do know which one, Dave. It's kinda hard not to know. And I kinda do have a rough idea how ridiculous the expected likelihood of this one being hit is. So what am I supposed to do, pretend I don't know that? Fly up in the air and say,

'Well, there are a lot of targets down there, and some of them are sure to be hit, and the sum of all their hit expectations isn't so ridiculous if the set of all possible targets isn't too large. So I should definitely adopt the sum of all the hit expectations of all the targets as my expectation, because...well, because that's a bigger number, and I am definitely among that crowd. I'm not the whole crowd, and only Dave knows how my expectation of being among the crowd is affected in the least by those manipulations, but...whatever.

And I should do all that to avoid rejecting H₀ and accepting H₁ because________________?

But where is Waldo?

 

[dafydd]

If there was no existing 'you' brain, there wouldn't be any different neurons to differentiate any brain from the nonexistent 'you' brain.

What if you essentially existed?

 

[Toontown]

Since they would grow at a different time, in different circumstances, and be exposed to different stimuli, they would be different.

I didn't mean to imply that the supposed prerequisite 'you' brain would ever exist, which it very nearly didn't, so it's not an improbable scenario. In which case there would be no way to differentiate any brain from the nonexistent 'you' brain. Would it be nothingness forever then?

Seems odd to have all that sentience around and not experience any of it because of the imaginary tautological attributes of a nothing that doesn't exist and never will.

Toontown, do you accept the unique fingerprint hypothesis? It's pretty much the same as the unique brain hypothesis.

It's an obvious consequence of the U-brain hypo that if the prerequisite U-brain exists, then the tautologically selected 'you' exists, and has the fingerprints of the body in which the prerequisite U-brain resides.

 

[dafydd]

My eggs are waiting. Will no one tell me how to essentially fry them?

 

[dafydd]

It's an obvious consequence of the U-brain hypo that if the prerequisite U-brain exists, then the tautologically selected 'you' exists, and has the fingerprints of the body in which the prerequisite U-brain resides.

Hypo means 'beneath'. We already know that fingerprints are unique. And?

 

[Toontown]

Hypo means 'beneath'. We already know that fingerprints are unique. And?

Why haven't you made good on your promise to put me on ignore?

Every napalm munition is unique, but any of them will light up your jungle.

 

[dafydd]

Is that supposed to make sense?

Who knows?

 

[dafydd]

Why haven't you made good on your promise to put me on ignore?

Too entertaining to ignore

Every napalm munition is unique, but any of them will light up your jungle.

No, all naplam bombs of the same type are identical, if I showed you one and then put in a pile of identical bombs then you would have to guess if I asked you to pick out the one I showed you. What the statement actually means is anybody's guess. Stop the derials and get back on topic. Can you help Jabba out and explain the difference between proving something and essentially proving something? He now knows that he can't prove that immortality exists. Do you know how he could essentially prove it and could you please explain the difference? Here is a stack of individuals.

 

[dafydd]

Is the thread over? Jabba has now accepted that linking immortality with Bayesian Statistics is a non-starter, and all this tosh about unique brains has nothing to do with immortality, which anyway does not exist so what do we discuss?