godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
I don't see the difference.
[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
- Status
I don't see the difference.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Gee, I wonder how that could happen.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
3.1415926
Looks like you're going all round on us.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
- Before, you said that specifications of "me" would yield copies of me, rather than me. Do your "expanded" specifications yield you?
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
I don't understand the question.
A copy of me is identical to me. That's what makes it a copy. The specifications that produce me would also produce a copy of me (if that were physically possible to do). That's what makes them copies.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- I guess you're saying that your expanded specifications would yield you once, but after that they would only yield copies of you?
If the numbering changes because posts are sent to AAH, you are going to be confused by your own numbering system. Far better to use the linking facility.
I tend to doubt that, though I suspect he's not saying what you want him to say.
Yes. Note the "re" in reapplied. If I use a recipe twice I get two identical but separate cakes, not one cake. One is a copy of the other.
That's because godless dave isn't saying that there are no specifications for 'you'. On the contrary, like everyone else, he's pointing out that your DNA inherited from your parents is the specification for 'you'. Along with your experience and memories, this is what shapes the process of consciousness from which the sense of self arises.
Both. When the sperm combines with the egg and parental DNA is combined to form the child's DNA, that is the first (and in reality, the only) time the specifications for a particular person is used.
In your thought experiment where a person can be copied/replicated/cloned, that DNA would be used again, and all the experiences and memories leading up to the moment of copying would be the same. After the moment of copying (and please remember this is not possible in reality), the two identical but separate selves would begin to diverge and become non-identical selves, as their experiences and memories from that point would be different.
At no time following the moment of copying would these two identical but separate selves be one self/one consciousness - there would be no instance of one consciousness looking through both sets of eyes.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
That's the definition of "copy", yes.
Still thinking we are not understanding, instead of not agreeing with you, huh?
This is pretty amazing! Now you think that it must be Godless Dave who does not even understand what he wrote, rather than you not understanding what he wrote? Odd, every else here understands what he meant to mean, as does he. Listen: he thinks exactly what he wrote! The cake post by Agatha was great- try to understand it: one cake can be made to the same specifications as the other, and both are duplicates of one another in style and gross appearance, yet you have two cakes, not one. So they are not the same cake.
But let me provide an imperfect, but pretty good analog for you. Our DNA specifies human development as my architect wrote (specified) the blueprints for my house (I know DNA is not exactly a blueprint, but close enough here). The contractors built my house using the blueprint as a guide (as my polymerases, ribosomes, and proteins built me), but each adapted the blueprint slightly (perhaps to avoid a rock in my front yard, or to lay the plumbing a little better) so that my house, immediately when it was completed, was a lot like, but recognizably different (if you looked carefully) from other houses built to the same blueprint. Same as identical twins. With more time, and different families living in my house vs, other homes built to the same blueprint, my house diverged more and more from other homes built to the same blueprint (they had different experiences, like identical twins). In the same way, my brain is specified by my DNA, but was affected by some random chance events and by my experience. Part of me (my brain and my mind and self that came from it) was specified by my DNA, but not like a straightjacket, and my experiences further changed (and continues to change) my view of "self" as time went on.
Last edited:
Jabba,
It is generally good, to be certain you understand something, to reword it in your own way. Yet you clearly prove that you don't understand what is posted here when you do reword it in your own way. You have to stop playing your own "song" (your own theory) in your head when you read other people's posts and try to understand fresh what they actually wrote. You have to try to stop interpreting what they wrote according to your theory, because your theory is wrong and they are trying to explain what is really right.
Also stop using your own definitions of word, like "self" and "you" (which I think you are now trying to mean the same as "self"). It is easy to look up the standard definitions and use them. The idea is to communicate your ideas to others, which requires meaning the same thing when each use a given word. Please! Again, if you don't know the standard meaning of a word (like emergent), please look it up! It is easy to do so on the Web.
It is generally good, to be certain you understand something, to reword it in your own way. Yet you clearly prove that you don't understand what is posted here when you do reword it in your own way. You have to stop playing your own "song" (your own theory) in your head when you read other people's posts and try to understand fresh what they actually wrote. You have to try to stop interpreting what they wrote according to your theory, because your theory is wrong and they are trying to explain what is really right.
Also stop using your own definitions of word, like "self" and "you" (which I think you are now trying to mean the same as "self"). It is easy to look up the standard definitions and use them. The idea is to communicate your ideas to others, which requires meaning the same thing when each use a given word. Please! Again, if you don't know the standard meaning of a word (like emergent), please look it up! It is easy to do so on the Web.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
OK. Now it makes sense...
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Arrogant much?
That's not what Dave said.
Please get a new Babel Fish.
You are wrong.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I'd love to read your explanation of this benefit.
I just hope it includes the reason(s) why you, and you alone, are unable to track the discussion.
- Status