[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slowvehicle said:
...you should see if godless dave will quote the post for you...
Click to expand...

I thought it was tried before. I shall try once again.

Dear godless dave, would you mind asking Jabba this question:

"Jabba, have you read or even heard of Douglas Adams? "
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
...However, it is important to note that the Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.
Click to expand...
xtifr said:
...And a good thing for the English language it is! :D
Click to expand...

Ninja'd yet again.
I'm beginning to think my thoughts are mere cheap knock-offs of those produced by other functioning neurosystems.

More coffee.
 
Akhenaten said:
I'd love to read your explanation of this benefit.
Click to expand...


Once he's got us all used to the numbers, he'll introduce his new calendar, China will invade the Spratley Islands and force the cancellation of the 2012 Olympic Games, and Jabba, having stocked up on duct tape and draught excluders, will get ten wives and immortality.

ETA: sorry, wrong thread.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- Don't worry about all that numbering. They are for my benefit, not yours.
Click to expand...

If you look at a quoted block, you'll see a little arrow next to the person's name. If you click on that arrow, it takes you to the original post that was quoted. You can usually trace back a whole thread that way.
 
godless dave said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- I guess you're saying that your expanded specifications would yield you once, but after that they would only yield copies of you?
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
That's the definition of "copy", yes.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- To me, you seem to be saying that your specs do not "specify" you, they simply allow for you. Can I go with that?
 
I am not speaking for godless dave, but that doesn't work for me. DNA is more of a blueprint or recipe (though these are not exact analogies) for an individual person. Change any part, even a tiny bit, of the DNA and a completely different person will result.

'Allow' implies that the specifications (as you call them) are more passive than prescriptive.

ETA: Further, your conclusion that godless dave is saying that specifications "allow for" a person rather than specify them does not follow from the posts that you quoted.

I am honestly not being snarky or rude here, but are you actually reading and thinking about what people are saying? Because this is not the first time you've referred to someone's post(s) and then drawn a conclusion which appears to have little connection to what was actually said.

I recognise you are only replying to godless dave and xtifr - which is the height of rudeness on your part - but I hope that even if you choose not to address points made by others, you will do us all the courtesy of at least reading and considering our posts.
 
Last edited:
No, Jabba.
Remember why two identical consciousnesses cannot exist?
Remember how consciousness is defined?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,
- To me, you seem to be saying that your specs do not "specify" you, they simply allow for you. Can I go with that?
Click to expand...

Agatha said:
I am not speaking for godless dave, but that doesn't work for me. DNA is more of a blueprint or recipe (though these are not exact analogies) for an individual person. Change any part, even a tiny bit, of the DNA and a completely different person will result...
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- I don't understand the inclusion of that last sentence -- my hypothetical does not include any changes to the DNA. Dave says that an exact recreation of my DNA, and even the first three years of my life, would produce a copy of me, but not me.
 
Garrette said:
In other words, we're still not quite understanding Jabba? Maybe if he uses different words it will help.
Click to expand...


No, we're understanding him only too well. That's why he keeps using different words in the hope that he will be able to trick someone into agreeing with him.
 
Mojo said:
No, we're understanding him only too well. That's why he keeps using different words in the hope that he will be able to trick someone into agreeing with him.
Click to expand...
Surely my sarcasm was not that understated.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,

- I don't understand the inclusion of that last sentence -- my hypothetical does not include any changes to the DNA. Dave says that an exact recreation of my DNA, and even the first three years of my life, would produce a copy of me, but not me.
Click to expand...


Thank you for replying, I appreciate it.

An exact reproduction of you is a copy of you. An exact reproduction of a famous painting (down to individual brush strokes) is a copy, not the original. An exact reproduction of a cake is a copy of a cake. In each case, you end up with two identical but separate persons/paintings/cakes. These aren't exact analogies as paintings and cakes are not people.

Now in the case of reproducing a person, this isn't actually possible so we are talking theoretically. But supposing we could reproduce you, together with your memories and experiences, then at the moment of replication there would be one 'you' and one identical copy of 'you' - and nobody, not even the two 'yous' would be able to determine which 'you' was the original and which the copy. Each one would believe themselves to be the original, but they still have two separate consciousnesses.

Those two separate but identical consciousnesses are both you, one is original, one is a copy and they cannot be distinguished. After the moment of reproduction, the two selves would immediately begin to diverge and become more and more different. However, this would not help identify the original from the copy.

However, as I said, this is theoretical as in the real world, such reproduction is impossible. Even identical twins have different observations and experiences in the womb.

Back in the real world where such reproduction of self is impossible, what bearing does this have on the likelihood of immortality or any kind of continuation of consciousness after death?

Perhaps the most important question to ask is if consciousness were to be reborn in another person, which I think is your claim, but without any memory of the previous life, in what way could this be distinguished from the scientific understanding of consciousness permanently ceasing to occur following the death of the brain?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,
- To me, you seem to be saying that your specs do not "specify" you, they simply allow for you. Can I go with that?
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
No.
Click to expand...

- But Dave, you say that an exact recreation of your DNA and the first three years of your life would produce a copy of you rather than you. Those same specs would not specify you in the sense that they would distinguish between you and your copies -- by referring to your specs, we could not pick you out of a crowd consisting of you and your copies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom