[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Garrette]

*split infinitives are acceptable these days, apparently.

At times I find it to sadly be a result of poor writing skills. At others, I I find it to simply be an efficient and clear method of communication which has no real drawback save grammatical nostalgia.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Agatha,
- That's really what I'm trying to do right now -- it's just that 1) there are multiple premises in my syllogism, 2) right now I'm trying to show that, according to the scientific model, there should be no limit to the number of selves (or, senses of selves) possible, and 3) therefore, the likelihood of my current existence -- given the scientific model -- is at best, 7,000,000,000/∞.
- If I can do that, the scientific model must be wrong, and I do not exist for just one finite time.

Your continued evasion of requests for evidence is noted. Is it true to say you do not have any evidence?

 

[Jabba]

- Once more, into the breach. Here’s what I think that science thinks -- or at least, what I think that science SHOULD think.

1. A certain physical situation creates consciousness.
2. Each separate consciousness brings with it, or develops, a “self” – or, at least, a sense of self.
3. This self lasts a lifetime and/but never exists again…
4. This self is “BRAND NEW,” in that it was not selected from a limited pool of potential selves. There is no such pool.

5. On the other hand, there is a SENSE in which there IS a pool. But, such a “pool” is UN-limited.

6. Matter, energy, time and/or space may be finite and thereby limit the number of different selves that could ACTUALLY COME INTO EXISTENCE.
7. But even if any of these things is/are finite, the number of POTENTIAL selves is not.
8. Just WHO will come out is totally unlimited – there is no limited pool to choose from.
9. The biology did not determine the “who.”
10. My biology did not determine “me.”

11. Again, each new self is BRAND new – and while the TYPE of thing (or process) that this new self is, is determined by biology, the PARTICULAR self, itself, is determined by nothing…
12. That being the case, there is also nothing to limit its number.
13. And, the ‘number’ of POTENTIAL selves is infinite.
14. And at best, the likelihood of my current existence – given the scientific model – is 7,000,000,000/∞.
15. Or, zero.

 

[Garrette]

- Once more, into the breach.

Already wrong. It is "Once more UNTO the breach."

Here’s what I think that science thinks -- or at least, what I think that science SHOULD think.

Those are two entirely different things yet you continue to conflate them. Your argument hinges upon your ability to outline what science thinks and then to show that such thinking is wrong. Instead, you are merely saying that you do not like what science thinks and therefore wish to replace it.

In the immortal words of Adam Savage, what you are saying is: "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

This is a full stop, Jabba. Dead in the water. "Science says my boat can't fly, but it should say it's an airplane."

1. A certain physical situation creates consciousness.

Close enough for government work at the moment, though still with flaws.

2. Each separate consciousness brings with it, or develops, a “self” – or, at least, a sense of self.

No, no, a thousand times no, as has been repeatedly pointed out. You are trying to slip in the idea of the self as something separate from the consciousness. Consciousness does not bring anything "with it." The illusion of self is part of consciousness.

This is the second full stop, dead in the water issue. I continue only for the sake of my jollies.

3. This self lasts a lifetime and/but never exists again…

Third dead in the water, full stop flaw.

The self lasts an instant and is then recreated in the next instant.

4. This self is “BRAND NEW,” in that it was not selected from a limited pool of potential selves. There is no such pool.

Correct.

5. On the other hand, there is a SENSE in which there IS a pool. But, such a “pool” is UN-limited.

No, there is not. The pool is or the pool is not. "I know the boat's not a plane, but in a sense it's a plane."

No.

6. Matter, energy, time and/or space may be finite and thereby limit the number of different selves that could ACTUALLY COME INTO EXISTENCE.

Not "may." Do.

7. But even if any of these things is/are finite, the number of POTENTIAL selves is not.

Fourth full stop dead in the water.

No. Potential selves are limited by the potential combinations of matter, time, and energy. Since they are all finite, the potential selves are finite.

8. Just WHO will come out is totally unlimited – there is no limited pool to choose from.

No. See #7

9. The biology did not determine the “who.”

In conjunction with the environment, it most certainly did.

10. My biology did not determine “me.”

In conjunction with your environment, it most certainly did.

11. Again, each new self is BRAND new – and while the TYPE of thing (or process) that this new self is, is determined by biology, the PARTICULAR self, itself, is determined by nothing…

No. Now you add more words to obfuscate. Biology and environment determine the self. Replicate the biology and the environment and the selves will be identical until such time as either the environment or the experiences diverge.

12. That being the case, there is also nothing to limit its number.

That is not the case, and the number is limited.

13. And, the ‘number’ of POTENTIAL selves is infinite.

No. See all the above.

14. And at best, the likelihood of my current existence – given the scientific model – is 7,000,000,000/∞.

No. Pick nearly any response at random to your claims and you will see why.

Correction: You will have it explained to you; whether you see it or not is doubtful.

15. Or, zero.

No.


How truly sad. It is all laid out for you in your own words, Jabba. You admit quite blatantly that you have to distort science to end up with your desired conclusion yet you refuse to see it:

Here’s what I think that science thinks -- or at least, what I think that science SHOULD think.

There is no such pool... On the other hand, there is a SENSE in which there IS a pool.

Do you really not see it?

 

[carlitos]

- Once more, into unto the breach.

Shakespeare sez:

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead!
In peace, there ’s nothing so becomes a man,
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood.​

ETA - I find the continued use of martial metaphor offensive. This is not an adversarial process. No one here is an enemy. This is not a war. Nor a trial, or even a debate. It's a discussion forum. There are knowledgeable, thoughtful people here trying to correct Jabba's errors, and he acts as if we are fighting him. Delusions of grandeur, perhaps?

 

[Mojo]

- Once more, into the breach. Here’s what I think that science thinks -- or at least, what I think that science SHOULD think.

1. A certain physical situation creates consciousness.
2. Each separate consciousness brings with it, or develops, a “self” – or, at least, a sense of self.
3. This self lasts a lifetime and/but never exists again…
4. This self is “BRAND NEW,” in that it was not selected from a limited pool of potential selves. There is no such pool.

5. On the other hand, there is a SENSE in which there IS a pool. But, such a “pool” is UN-limited.

6. Matter, energy, time and/or space may be finite and thereby limit the number of different selves that could ACTUALLY COME INTO EXISTENCE.
7. But even if any of these things is/are finite, the number of POTENTIAL selves is not.
8. Just WHO will come out is totally unlimited – there is no limited pool to choose from.
9. The biology did not determine the “who.”
10. My biology did not determine “me.”

11. Again, each new self is BRAND new – and while the TYPE of thing (or process) that this new self is, is determined by biology, the PARTICULAR self, itself, is determined by nothing…
12. That being the case, there is also nothing to limit its number.
13. And, the ‘number’ of POTENTIAL selves is infinite.
14. And at best, the likelihood of my current existence – given the scientific model – is 7,000,000,000/∞.
15. Or, zero.

See Garrette's response above.

And even if you were correct in all of this (which you aren't), you still wouldn't have proved immortality because you have failed to disprove all the possible alternative models in which you have only one finite existence.

 

[Mojo]

Here’s what I think that science thinks -- or at least, what I think that science SHOULD think.

This is particularly revealing. You "think that science SHOULD think" something that is wrong so that you can prove that it is wrong.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Shakespeare sez:

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead!
In peace, there ’s nothing so becomes a man,
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood.​

ETA - I find the continued use of martial metaphor offensive. This is not an adversarial process. No one here is an enemy. This is not a war. Nor a trial, or even a debate. It's a discussion forum. There are knowledgeable, thoughtful people here trying to correct Jabba's errors, and he acts as if we are fighting him. Delusions of grandeur, perhaps?

Maybe the immortal words of Tom Jones are better apt:

"Friends, Romans...Countrymen!
Screw your courage to the sticking-place
And be not sick, nor pale with grief
That thou, her handmaid, art far more fair
Than she. Why doth the drum come hither?
...It comes for thee."

 

[Slowvehicle]

Already wrong. It is "Once more UNTO the breach."

Those are two entirely different things yet you continue to conflate them. Your argument hinges upon your ability to outline what science thinks and then to show that such thinking is wrong. Instead, you are merely saying that you do not like what science thinks and therefore wish to replace it.

In the immortal words of Adam Savage, what you are saying is: "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

This is a full stop, Jabba. Dead in the water. "Science says my boat can't fly, but it should say it's an airplane."


Close enough for government work at the moment, though still with flaws.


No, no, a thousand times no, as has been repeatedly pointed out. You are trying to slip in the idea of the self as something separate from the consciousness. Consciousness does not bring anything "with it." The illusion of self is part of consciousness.

This is the second full stop, dead in the water issue. I continue only for the sake of my jollies.


Third dead in the water, full stop flaw.

The self lasts an instant and is then recreated in the next instant.


Correct.


No, there is not. The pool is or the pool is not. "I know the boat's not a plane, but in a sense it's a plane."

No.


Not "may." Do.


Fourth full stop dead in the water.

No. Potential selves are limited by the potential combinations of matter, time, and energy. Since they are all finite, the potential selves are finite.


No. See #7


In conjunction with the environment, it most certainly did.


In conjunction with your environment, it most certainly did.


No. Now you add more words to obfuscate. Biology and environment determine the self. Replicate the biology and the environment and the selves will be identical until such time as either the environment or the experiences diverge.


That is not the case, and the number is limited.


No. See all the above.


No. Pick nearly any response at random to your claims and you will see why.

Correction: You will have it explained to you; whether you see it or not is doubtful.


No.


How truly sad. It is all laid out for you in your own words, Jabba. You admit quite blatantly that you have to distort science to end up with your desired conclusion yet you refuse to see it:

Here’s what I think that science thinks -- or at least, what I think that science SHOULD think.

There is no such pool... On the other hand, there is a SENSE in which there IS a pool.

Do you really not see it?

I applaud you--I ran smack-dab into #5 at my first skim, and could not go meaningfully on, nor safely back.

 

[Garrette]

Maybe the immortal words of Tom Jones are better apt:

"Friends, Romans...Countrymen!
Screw your courage to the sticking-place
And be not sick, nor pale with grief
That thou, her handmaid, art far more fair
Than she. Why doth the drum come hither?
...It comes for thee."

Finally! Someone who appreciates good country music!

I applaud you--I ran smack-dab into #5 at my first skim, and could not go meaningfully on, nor safely back.

Finally! Someone who appreciates me and my fine kale, onion, vinegar and cornbread lunches.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Finally! Someone who appreciates good country music!

Finally! Someone who appreciates me and my fine kale, onion, vinegar and cornbread lunches.

If you did not bring enough to share, you don't get to eat it, either! (...checks pantry for blue corn meal; checks schedule for a nine-mile bicycle ride to the farmer's market...)

 

[carlitos]

I applaud you--I ran smack-dab into #5 at my first skim, and could not go meaningfully on, nor safely back.

5. On the other hand, there is a SENSE in which there IS a pool. But, such a “pool” is UN-limited

3 ALLCAPS and a "sense" that there is an unlimited pool of ... something. Good choice.

 

[Agatha]

- Once more, into unto the breach.

Fixed your Shakespeare. The Bard has given you no permission to misquote him.

Here’s what I think that science thinks

OK, let's see if this is actually an accurate representation of the scientific model.

-- or at least, what I think that science SHOULD think.

What? Oh, Jabba. I cry. Are you actually reading the replies? What you think science should think is immaterial, both to you, and to science.

Analogy: Let us assume arguendo that I think science should think that every time I check my bank balance, the bank should automatically reward me with £20,000 free money. Neither the bank or science agrees, and what I think science should think is of no matter to reality.​

Everything in your numbered list which is wrong has been explained to you several times already, and simply restating your beliefs will not change that. You may have several posters on ignore (or be manually ignoring them) but having reality on ignore does not change the nature of reality.

1. A certain physical situation creates consciousness.

OK, though incomplete.

2. Each separate consciousness brings with it, or develops, a “self” – or, at least, a sense of self.

The illusion of self is part of the consciousness, not something which exists separately. This should stop your syllogism right there.

3. This self lasts a lifetime and/but never exists again…

No, the 'self' is an illusion arising from consciousness. The self is continuously changing, and consciousness ceases during sleep and general anaesthesia. You've hit another place where you need to stop, go back and make corrections to your premises.

4. This self is “BRAND NEW,” in that it was not selected from a limited pool of potential selves. There is no such pool.

Of course there is no pool, selves aren't hanging about waiting for a consciousness to join. The self is an illusory part of the process of consciousness.

5. On the other hand, there is a SENSE in which there IS a pool. But, such a “pool” is UN-limited.

No, and no. There is no sense in which there is a pool, and given that there is no pool (indeed, cannot be), it is not unlimited. Stop and go back, correcting your errors before you pile wrong conclusions on incorrect premises.

6. Matter, energy, time and/or space may be finite and thereby limit the number of different selves that could ACTUALLY COME INTO EXISTENCE.

Not 'may', are finite. Stop and fix this.

7. But even if any of these things is/are finite, the number of POTENTIAL selves is not.

Absolutely not. Stop, go back, and correct this. Consciousnesses (and therefore selves) are limited by the finite nature of matter and time.

8. Just WHO will come out is totally unlimited – there is no limited pool to choose from.

Nope. There is no pool, limited or unlimited. The consciousness that develops is entirely dependent on DNA plus experiences. Stop, go back, fix your errors.

9. The biology did not determine the “who.”

No! The 'who' is dependent on both biology and experiences. Both are necessary, neither is sufficient on its own. Stop, go back, fix this.

10. My biology did not determine “me.”

Nope. Biology and experiences is exactly what determines 'you'. As this is a conclusion based on inaccurate premise, it shouldn't be necessary to tell you to stop, go back, fix all the inaccurate premises and unwarranted leaps of logic.

11. Again, each new self is BRAND new – and while the TYPE of thing (or process) that this new self is, is determined by biology, the PARTICULAR self, itself, is determined by nothing…

No again. And remarkably difficult to parse. The consciousness of which the illusion of self is a part is determined by biology plus experiences. Stop, go back, try to understand where you went wrong.

12. That being the case, there is also nothing to limit its number.

As it's not the case, this point is both moot and inaccurate. Stop, go back, fix the errors.

13. And, the ‘number’ of POTENTIAL selves is infinite.

No, for all the reasons explained to you many, many times. A combination of finite things cannot be an infinite set. Stop and go back.

14. And at best, the likelihood of my current existence – given the scientific model – is 7,000,000,000/∞.

Do you actually understand the mathematical concept of infinity? Infinity is not "a really big number". Further, 7,000,000,000/∞ is exactly the same as 1/∞. It has never been the numerator we have objected to - you can put anything you like in there - it's always been the denominator to which objections have been made. You simply cannot put infinity into an equation that is referring to finite things. Stop, go back, review what 'infinity' means in mathematics and fix all the errors.

Analogy: There is a finite amount of flour, butter, sugar and eggs (and various flavourings) in the universe. There is a finite amount of time in the universe. Can an infinite amount of cakes be made out of these finite components, in a finite amount of time? I hope that you can see that the answer has to be no. Cakes are not selves, but the analogy holds good. It is simply impossible to input finite amounts of things into any process and produce infinite outcomes.​

15. Or, zero.

No, no and a thousand times no. Your conclusion has been built on an inaccurate premise. Stop and go back and fix all the errors, beginning right at the start.
I have highlighted all the instances where premises and conclusions are wrong.

Unless you fix ALL the errors, this is NOT the scientific model.

 

[Agatha]

That took me so long to type, the ninja skills of several other excellent posters beat me to the punch.

 

[Pixel42]

Delusions of grandeur, perhaps?

More like delusions of adequacy.

 

[Garrette]

Unofficial Office Pool - How Many Posts to Next Rewording?

Sorry, but as I created the pool, I get to choose first.

Counting Jabba's last post (with the numbered list of errors) as 0, I predict that the second of Jabba's posts will be the first to (a) redefine a word or (b) introduce a new word for the same concept, all to demonstrate that the fault, dear friends, is not in his fallacies, but in ourselves.

 

[Garrette]

That took me so long to type, the ninja skills of several other excellent posters beat me to the punch.

Ninjas don't punch. They slice with such deadly stealthiness that you do not slide apart until they are half a mile away.

 

[Garrette]

More like delusions of adequacy.

A tad harsh, perhaps, but still


I say that fully admitting that I have been far more harsh

 

[Garrette]

Somewhat seriously: It rather amazes me that within such a fairly small group, nearly everyone immediately caught the misquotation. Cool beans.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ninjas don't punch. They slice with such deadly stealthiness that you do not slide apart until they are half a mile away.

Two Words:

"Five-Point Palm Exploding Heart Strike"