[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Filippo Lippi]

6-1-18-3-9-3-1-12

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- Before, you said that specifications of "me" would yield copies of me, rather than me. Do your "expanded" specifications yield you?

- I guess you're saying that your expanded specifications would yield you once, but after that they would only yield copies of you?

Do you have any idea at all of the topic of the thread?

 

[John Jones]

2.718281828

 

[Akhenaten]

delete

And that's exactly what eventually happens to us all, Jabba, your fantasies notwithstanding.

 

[Slowvehicle]

6443-6357

6452-6443Dave,
- I don't think that you're saying what you mean to be saying.
- First you say that your specifications reapplied would produce a copy of you. It would not produce you.
- Then, when I say that you seem to be saying that there are no specifications for you, you say that there are, and provide the above. But, are these the specifications for "you," or are they specifications for copies of you?

Have you read anything else that has been posted this morning?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Don't worry about all that numbering. They are for my benefit, not yours.

..then why post them?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I guess you're saying that your expanded specifications would yield you once, but after that they would only yield copies of you?

Again, I cannot speak for godless dave, but I do wish you would at least read this, from earlier:

The "specifications" that "made " the consciousness we are proud to know as "godless dave" are the instantiation of his heredity, influenced by the environment in which his body developed, influenced by the experiences he has had. His precise nature is a contingency; had he different genes, or different development (different/less/more food exposure to disease etc.), or different experiences (raised by wolves, raised in orbit,etc.); he would be different. His consciousness would be different.
Nowhere is there a template of "godless dave-ness", ensuring that the universe would be blessed with this instantiation of him.
And no, that does not mean that there are infinite,or even unlimited, "possible 'godless daves' ".
You should be embarrassed by your insistence on creating a way to say the same wrong thing in a way that you will not be called on it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You, Jabba, aren't using the same definitions as anyone.

At the risk of seeming to pile on, part of the reason, Mighty One (may you post forever!), is that Mr. Savage rarely uses the same definitions he, himself, uses, in any consistent way.

Is "recipe" similar to, or just analogous with, "mold"?
(and so on)

 

[Giordano]

At first I thought I had accidentally wandered into the "telepathy, pick a number" thread. Can we link them?

 

[Giordano]

Have you read anything else that has been posted this morning?

That was my question too.

 

[Giordano]

Do you have any idea at all of the topic of the thread?

Thanks for this reminder; it is easy to go off on tangents here.

One thing, though: clearly Jabba needs us to accept that there is a "self" that is separate from the physical so that can be reincarnated. If "self" simply arises from the brain and is linked to the brain, then when the brain dies there is no "self" to be reincarnated.

That is why Jabba keeps trying to bring these ideas up. But two things, Jabba: your idea of "self" is not part of the SM, no matter how you change your words, and most everyone here does not accept it as true at this point. So you must prove it with evidence, as you promised to do. Or did you, Jabba, never intend to do this and only said you would?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Thanks for this reminder; it is easy to go off on tangents here.

One thing, though: clearly Jabba needs us to accept that there is a "self" that is separate from the physical so that can be reincarnated. If "self" simply arises from the brain and is linked to the brain, then when the brain dies there is no "self" to be reincarnated.

That is why Jabba keeps trying to bring these ideas up. But two things, Jabba: your idea of "self" is not part of the SM, no matter how you change your words, and most everyone here does not accept it as true at this point. So you must prove it with evidence, as you promised to do. Or did you, Jabba, never intend to do this and only said you would?

I second the motion.

Further, Mr. Savage, I call the question: Have you any evidence (you know the drill: objective, practical, empirical evidence) of the existence of the "soul", or its "immortality"? If so, now is time, and past time,to presentit.

If not, now is time, and past time, to let this thread go the way of Shroud^TM and Shroud II^TM.

(As a clarification, "calling the question" is a rarely-appropriate rule of procedure whereby, when a "debate" has gone on unwarrantedly long, and is no longer moving forward,but simply circling the drain; a binding vote is taken whether the debate should be allowed to continue. If you want to play "court", or play "procedure", this is the time to fish, or cut bait.)

SO:

Got Evidence?

 

[Giordano]

I have to admit that every evening I would think, "Jabba finally got what we are all telling him, is embarrassed about his previous posts and theory, and has quietly dropped the thread rather than admit he was wrong." But most mornings he was here again with an even more amazing incorrect statement. For a long time, this was entertaining for me, to see how Jabba could apparently misunderstand the standard model in yet another way. I rationalized it by thinking Jabba was just further convincing lurkers (if any) of the errors in his theory. But I think it just served to make me feel better about my own views, not a healthy emotion.

So, Jabba, it is indeed time to quit this thread. There is probably no one left lurking to convince, and if there was, you are only convincing them further that you are mistaken in your views. You are now getting further and further away from the promise in your OP and repeating yourself. To quote a movie, a shark probably has to keep moving to live. This "discussion" has stopped moving and should die. Let it.

 

[pakeha]

Dave,
- I'm not sure why I didn't stick to your choice of words -- specifically, "specifications." From, "Something made to the same specifications as me is a copy of me. It's not me." I get that there are no specifications for you. Is that an acceptable interpretation?

Once again, Jabba, it seems you've lost track of the definition of consciousness.

 

[Humots]

- I guess you're saying that your expanded specifications would yield you once, but after that they would only yield copies of you?

Jabba, are you assuming that there would be a specific difference between you and a copy of you?

I do not mean the differences due to separate environments and experience. I mean a "copy" difference that possibly all the copies would have in common.

If so, this would be wrong.

Suppose I create a cake using a recipe, then I use that same recipe to create a copy of the cake. But then I leave the room, and someone swaps the two cakes around a few times and smears the icing on one cake and puts candles on the other.

When I come back in, I can't tell which cake is the original and which is the copy. There are differences between the cakes, but there is no difference that identifies the copy as such.

 

[John Jones]

I second the motion.

Further, Mr. Savage, I call the question: Have you any evidence (you know the drill: objective, practical, empirical evidence) of the existence of the "soul", or its "immortality"? If so, now is time, and past time,to presentit.

If not, now is time, and past time, to let this thread go the way of Shroud^TM and Shroud II^TM.

(As a clarification, "calling the question" is a rarely-appropriate rule of procedure whereby, when a "debate" has gone on unwarrantedly long, and is no longer moving forward,but simply circling the drain; a binding vote is taken whether the debate should be allowed to continue. If you want to play "court", or play "procedure", this is the time to fish, or cut bait.)

SO:

Got Evidence?

I couldn't have said it any better.

 

[xtifr]

It's a person the same as you.

Yes, identical but distinct. However, unless you knew beforehand which was the copy, you'd have no way of telling them apart. (Or, if you were one of the individuals, of knowing which was the original.)

Which, to clarify for Jabba, does not mean the same person as you.

Right. Whether or not you say that the copy is "you" or isn't "you" (both of which are reasonable statements, since the language isn't designed to cope with this situation very well), the underlying facts remain the same. You'd have two identical-but-distinct people.

- I guess you're saying that your expanded specifications would yield you once, but after that they would only yield copies of you?

You're arguing semantics, Jabba. The language isn't designed to cope with this concept. It's like verb tenses for time travelers--we don't have any.

Either statement, "the copy is you" or "the copy isn't you", is true for some sense of "you". There's no way to distinguish the two people, and unless you knew in advance, you couldn't tell which was the original. For all intents and purposes, they're both "you", but they're still separate people, so one of them is not the you I'm currently addressing. You can call it "another you" or simply a copy. It doesn't affect the reality of such an unprecedented situation.

I prefer calling it "another you", because that makes it more clear, I think, that there's no meaningful difference between the two. They're both completely valid people, with real memories of identical things. Neither can really claim to be more real than the other or anything. However, if saying it's "another you" makes you think of "one person looking out of two sets of eyes" (which is the error GD is trying to avoid, I think), then you're completely misunderstanding. The copy is a completely separate "you". From your perspective, it's another individual. From my perspective, though, you're both as much "you" as anyone can be, and there's no reason to prefer one over the other.

I read a lot of science fiction, so I'm comfortable with the notion of someone who isn't me, but is. I realize it's a tricky notion, though, so you may need to spend some time on it.

To summarize the most important point: "the copy is you" and "the copy isn't you" are both correct statements! It's a purely semantic distinction. The actual definition of the word "you" isn't precise enough to say either statement is incorrect. So, ultimately, neither statement will help your thesis.

 

[Loss Leader]

You're arguing semantics, Jabba. The language isn't designed to cope with this concept. It's like verb tenses for time travelers--we don't have any.

Use the tense appropriate to the perspective of the subject. If I buy a can of coke on Tuesday and go back in time a week, I would say:

"I bought a can of coke yesterday."

- or -

"You will see me buy a can of coke next week."

However, it is important to note that the Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.

 

[xtifr]

Use the tense appropriate to the perspective of the subject.

But what if the subject is a time-traveler too? What if I'm addressing multiple subjects, all of whom have taken, and are going to take, different paths through time? Samuel R. Delany's marvelous non-linear novella, "Empire Star", is an excellent example of just how tangled things can get in such cases.

However, it is important to note that the Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.

And a good thing for the English language it is!

 

[Slowvehicle]

But what if the subject is a time-traveler too? What if I'm addressing multiple subjects, all of whom have taken, and are going to take, different paths through time? Samuel R. Delany's marvelous non-linear novella, "Empire Star", is an excellent example of just how tangled things can get in such cases.

And a good thing for the English language it is!

According to Douglas Adams, in the future, the English language "willing won-haved-to-beening" proven the VSD wrong...