[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[PixyMisa]

- That being "cleared up," I'll now try to show that the self that I'm talking about is real and will in fact continue after bodily death. I will begin my argument with trying to show that there should be an infinity of potential such selves.

Unless and until you can demonstrate that immaterial souls actually exist, the number of potential souls is ZERO.

- At least most of you guys think that my arguments are stupid, so I'm not sure why you're hanging in there... You should be able to find better, and more enjoyable, mind experiments elsewhere.

Most ideas are stupid. Weeding out stupid ideas is humanity's noblest endeavour.

 

[John Jones]

- I'll probably start tomorrow.

If your posting history is any indication, you won't start jack ***** tomorrow.

 

[pakeha]

...Are you perhaps suggesting this as a mechanism for reincarnation - that your "self" is present in two brains, one dying and one new, and when one brain dies, the "self" continues in the new brain? ...

Wasn't this the premise of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode?

ETA
Yes!
The Host (Star Trek: The Next Generation)^WP

 

[sackett]

Sackett,
- If you're like me, you feel naturally friendly towards other "old" people, so I'm glad to hear that you're still around (in general, but also specifically), so far...
- I fear oblivion because I want, very much, to stay around. But also, surely, I fear oblivion because I, and most other animals, must have a natural survival instinct.

Aw hell. Look. If I wasn't still around, I wouldn't be posting. That's oblivion: me not posting and you not reading it. Pretty simple.

As for survival: It's not the individual that survives, it's the breeding community. That survival actually requires the death of individuals, certainly if you're talking about multicellular life. Pretty often in communal species we observe self-destroying individuals (ant and termite examples are legion) who contribute to the life the breeding community by sacrificing themselves as individuals. And not just insects: I've seen footage of a reindeer bull rounding on a pursuing grizzly when he was safely across a stream. He was protecting his herd and the calves. Yes, he died in the struggle.

Naturally friendly toward old* people? Not me. I get fed to the gills by creaky old fools, some of them younger than me, who have abdicated from adulthood. They hold stubborn beliefs in crazy things, and they CANNOT be reasoned out of them, no matter what approach suppler minds take. They seem actually to like being confused.

* Why the quotes around old?

 

[Akhenaten]

- I'll probably start tomorrow.

1. No, you started 16 months ago.

1.1. How would you describe your progress so far?

1.1.1. What do you believe your answer to 1.1. (above) says about your qualifications to expound on the nature of "truly effective debate"?

 

[Akhenaten]

* Why the quotes around old?

He's used up his monthly quota of underlinings.

 

[sackett]

He's used up his monthly quota of underlinings.

Quota? Bah! Jabba blows his nose on your piteous quotas! Jabba is infinite! He can underline the whole universe if he chooses! For as long as he likes or as long as it takes him, whichever becomes infinite first!

Have you forgotten that he's a certified statistician?

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[Jabba]

- As to my argument for there being an infinite ‘number’ of potential selves (it will be largely what you've read before, but now we should be able to judge each assertion, by itself, one at a time):

1. There are two different "kinds" of “finiteness” – extrinsic and intrinsic.

2. Potential poker hands and potential combinations of numbers on a lottery ticket are intrinsically finite.
2.1. Each grouping has a preexisting “pool” of possible combinations. The pool of possible poker hands is much smaller than the pool of possible combinations on a lottery ticket.

3. Potential Volkswagens are only extrinsically finite.
3.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential Volkswagens. Any limit on the number of Volkswagens possible would be due to extraneous variables only.

4. And, what is extrinsically finite can be intrinsically infinite.
4.1. If we had infinite matter, energy and time, we could produce new Volkswagens forever.

5. Potential selves may be extrinsically finite -- but even if they are, they are intrinsically infinite.
5.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential selves. Any limit on the number of selves possible would be due to extraneous variables.

6. The appropriate ‘number’ of potential selves to be inserted into our Bayes formula is the intrinsic number.
6.1. There not being a preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self would be “brand“ new – with no limit on “who” exactly it would be…

- I had best leave it there for now.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- As to my argument for there being an infinite ‘number’ of potential selves (it will be largely what you've read before, but now we should be able to judge each assertion, by itself, one at a time):

1. There are two different "kinds" of “finiteness” – extrinsic and intrinsic.

2. Potential poker hands and potential combinations of numbers on a lottery ticket are intrinsically finite.
2.1. Each grouping has a preexisting “pool” of possible combinations. The pool of possible poker hands is much smaller than the pool of possible combinations on a lottery ticket.

3. Potential Volkswagens are only extrinsically finite.
3.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential Volkswagens. Any limit on the number of Volkswagens possible would be due to extraneous variables only.

4. And, what is extrinsically finite can be intrinsically infinite.
4.1. If we had infinite matter, energy and time, we could produce new Volkswagens forever.

5. Potential selves may be extrinsically finite -- but even if they are, they are intrinsically infinite.
5.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential selves. Any limit on the number of selves possible would be due to extraneous variables.

6. The appropriate ‘number’ of potential selves to be inserted into our Bayes formula is the intrinsic number.
6.1. There not being a preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self would be “brand“ new – with no limit on “who” exactly it would be…

- I had best leave it there for now.

Assuming there is an infinite number of potential selves, how does that support immortality?

Hans

 

[Jabba]

Ironically, he's now actually gotten around the problem that 1/inf. is zero by just putting his chance of his "soul's" existence at zero to begin with.

- Given A.

 

[Jabba]

Assuming there is an infinite number of potential selves, how does that support immortality?

Hans

Hans,
- By inserting infinity into my Bayes formula.
--- Jabba

 

[jt512]

5. Potential selves may be extrinsically finite -- but even if they are, they are intrinsically infinite.
5.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential selves. Any limit on the number of selves possible would be due to extraneous variables.

6. The appropriate ‘number’ of potential selves to be inserted into our Bayes formula is the intrinsic number.
6.1. There not being a preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self would be “brand“ new – with no limit on “who” exactly it would be…

Where are these "selves," what are they made of, and how do they interact with our brains? What extraneous variables limit their numbers, and how do they do that?

I had best leave it there for now.

Better yet, leave it there forever, and use your remaining finite existence to do something less silly.

 

[pakeha]

...
5. Potential selves may be extrinsically finite -- but even if they are, they are intrinsically infinite.
5.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential selves. Any limit on the number of selves possible would be due to extraneous variables.

6. The appropriate ‘number’ of potential selves to be inserted into our Bayes formula is the intrinsic number.
6.1. There not being a preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self would be “brand“ new – with no limit on “who” exactly it would be…

- I had best leave it there for now.

How can this be, Jabba? Consciousness is an emergent property of a neurosystem, so it's an intrinsically finite number, not intrinsically infinite.

- Given A.

Jabba, A and non-A have yet to be defined, remember?

 

[zooterkin]

- As to my argument for there being an infinite ‘number’ of potential selves (it will be largely what you've read before, but now we should be able to judge each assertion, by itself, one at a time):

1. There are two different "kinds" of “finiteness” – extrinsic and intrinsic.

No, there aren't.

2. Potential poker hands and potential combinations of numbers on a lottery ticket are intrinsically finite.

FTFY.

2.1. Each grouping has a preexisting “pool” of possible combinations. The pool of possible poker hands is much smaller than the pool of possible combinations on a lottery ticket.

There is no pre-existing pool. The number of combinations can be calculated.

3. Potential Volkswagens are only extrinsically finite.
3.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential Volkswagens. Any limit on the number of Volkswagens possible would be due to extraneous variables only.

Not true. There are a number of limits. One upper limit would be the number atoms in the universe. Another would be the materials available on the Earth, if you want to restrict things to this planet. These may be mind-bogglingly large numbers, but they are not infinite.

4. And, what is extrinsically finite can be intrinsically infinite.
4.1. If we had infinite matter, energy and time, we could produce new Volkswagens forever.

If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs...

Anyway, I'm not sure how producing a lot of identical cars sheds any light on conscious beings.

5. Potential selves may be extrinsically finite -- but even if they are, they are intrinsically infinite.

You need to define terms. The number of potential human beings at any time depends on the potential parents alive at that time. The numbers are, again, very large, but they are not infinite. That said, we also know that a person's genome is not the sole deciding factor in who they are; identical twins are separate people.

5.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential selves. Any limit on the number of selves possible would be due to extraneous variables.

I'm not sure why you view this as different from the number of possible poker hands.

6. The appropriate ‘number’ of potential selves to be inserted into our Bayes formula is the intrinsic number.

"Our"?

6.1. There not being a preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self would be “brand“ new – with no limit on “who” exactly it would be…

And?

 

[godless dave]

6. The appropriate ‘number’ of potential selves to be inserted into our Bayes formula is the intrinsic number.

Why?

 

[Akhenaten]

- As to my argument for there being an infinite ‘number’ of potential selves (it will be largely what you've read before, but now we should be able to judge each assertion, by itself, one at a time):

As long as one assertion is wrong, the whole argument collapses. You do realise that, don't you?

1. There are two different "kinds" of “finiteness” – extrinsic and intrinsic.

So you say. Who else thinks this?

2. Potential poker hands and potential combinations of numbers on a lottery ticket are intrinsically finite.

Just 'finite' will do fine, Jabba. You'll have a better chance of being on the same page as everyone else if you don't make up terms.

Intrinsic to what?

2.1. Each grouping has a preexisting “pool” of possible combinations. The pool of possible poker hands is much smaller than the pool of possible combinations on a lottery ticket.

Seems legit.

3. Potential Volkswagens are only extrinsically finite.

Just 'finite' will do fine, Jabba. You'll have a better chance of being on the same page as everyone else if you don't make up terms.

3.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential Volkswagens. Any limit on the number of Volkswagens possible would be due to extraneous variables only.

Even if all of the matter and energy in the Universe was converted into Volkswagens there would still be a limit to how many there could be.

Referring, for no apparent reason, to the amount of matter and energy in the Universe as an extraneous variables doesn't advance your argument at all.


Extraneous to what?

4. And, what is extrinsically finite can be intrinsically infinite.

That seems to indicate that the terms are meaningless.

4.1. If we had infinite matter, energy and time, we could produce new Volkswagens forever.

But we don't, so we can't.

Same deal with selves.

5. Potential selves may be extrinsically finite -- but even if they are, they are intrinsically infinite.

And I may be the king of Siam.

5.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential selves. Any limit on the number of selves possible would be due to extraneous variables.

Limits are limits and whatever the source of those limits is, anything which has limits is finite.

6. The appropriate ‘number’ of potential selves to be inserted into our Bayes formula is the intrinsic number.

Yes. The appropriate number, however, is not infinity.

6.1. There not being a preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self would be “brand“ new – with no limit on “who” exactly it would be…

Where are the selves whose bodies no longer exist?

- I had best leave it there for now.

I can think of better places to leave it.

 

[jt512]

6. The appropriate ‘number’ of potential selves to be inserted into our Bayes formula is the intrinsic number.

Into which term in Bayes theorem is this number of potential selves to be inserted?

 

[Akhenaten]

Ironically, he's now actually gotten around the problem that 1/inf. is zero by just putting his chance of his "soul's" existence at zero to begin with.

- Given A.

And what exactly are you claiming A is today?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- As to my argument for there being an infinite ‘number’ of potential selves (it will be largely what you've read before, but now we should be able to judge each assertion, by itself, one at a time):

It's exactly what we've read before. And the same criticisms apply.

1. There are two different "kinds" of “finiteness” – extrinsic and intrinsic.

It seems that some others in this thread may not quite understand what you mean by this, but I do. You are, however, wrong. The reason you believe that it's possible to make an infinite number of VWs is that each VW you'd make is identical. But if you're going to say that the resources with which you could make VWs is unlimited, then you could say that the number of cards in a deck of cards is infinite. If you've got an infinite number of aces and kings in a deck, then you could have infinite AK full houses. You're applying your labels inconsistently and creating different conditions which need to be met to fulfil them.

The truth is, to make it a fair comparison you need there to be different varieties of VWs (say, colour), and infinite cards in the deck. That way you're comparing apples and apples, rather than apples and oranges.

2. Potential poker hands and potential combinations of numbers on a lottery ticket are intrinsically finite.

So are arrangements of atoms in a brain, genetics of parents, and physical circumstances under which brains come to exist and experience the world.

4. And, what is extrinsically finite can be intrinsically infinite.
4.1. If we had infinite matter, energy and time, we could produce new Volkswagens forever.

If we had infinite matter, energy and time, we could produce new poker hands forever.