Proof of Immortality II

[dlorde]

...
3) If we could, somehow, produce new brains forever, we could produce new, distinct, experiencers forever.
4) In such a universe, the number of distinct experiencers would be infinite.

No. Infinity is not a number. If they could be kept alive indefinitely(!), the number would grow ever larger but could never be infinite. It would always be infinitely short of infinity.

 

[pakeha]

Dave,
- You didn't respond to Toon's response.

Jabba is that really all you've taken away from the last several pages of posts?

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- You didn't respond to Toon's response.

Hypocrisy meter: [....../] Pegged-out.

You didn't respond to most of the peeps on this thread the last two years!

 

[Butter!]

Dave,
- You didn't respond to Toon's response.

 

[Jabba]

...to calculate the likelihood of that person existing given "A", you need to include all the factors that A says led to her existence.

Dave,
- For the moment, I'll just say, "No, you don't." Not in Bayesian statistics.
- For now, a better explanation will have to wait. Talk to you soon.

Dave,
- I’ll give it a try now.
- First, you should probably look up Bayesian probability. Here’s a little bit from Wikipedia:
Bayesian probability belongs to the category of evidential probabilities; to evaluate the probability of a hypothesis, the Bayesian probabilist specifies some prior probability, which is then updated in the light of new, relevant data (evidence).[1] The Bayesian interpretation provides a standard set of procedures and formulae to perform this calculation.
In contrast to interpreting probability as the "frequency" or "propensity" of some phenomenon, Bayesian probability is a quantity that we assign for the purpose of representing a state of knowledge,[2] or a state of belief.[3] In the Bayesian view, a probability is assigned to a hypothesis, whereas under the frequentist view, a hypothesis is typically tested without being assigned a probability.

- Next, if you analyze the Bayesian formula I’m using, you see that there is no place to include all the factors that led to my existence.
- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

- Here, we are NOT asking for the likelihood of my existence – we already know that I exist. What we’re really asking is, “What is the random likelihood that I would exist if the theory at issue is true?” Or better yet, “What is the random likelihood that all the events necessary for my existence to occur would, themselves, occur IF THE THEORY AT ISSUE IS TRUE?”
- I think I’ll leave it there for now.

- So once again, does that help…?

 

[Jabba]

- I should have added, "Our conclusion would have a bearing upon the (posterior) probability of the theory."

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- I’ll give it a try now.
- First, you should probably look up Bayesian probability. Here’s a little bit from Wikipedia:
Bayesian probability belongs to the category of evidential probabilities; to evaluate the probability of a hypothesis, the Bayesian probabilist specifies some prior probability, which is then updated in the light of new, relevant data (evidence).[1] The Bayesian interpretation provides a standard set of procedures and formulae to perform this calculation.
In contrast to interpreting probability as the "frequency" or "propensity" of some phenomenon, Bayesian probability is a quantity that we assign for the purpose of representing a state of knowledge,[2] or a state of belief.[3] In the Bayesian view, a probability is assigned to a hypothesis, whereas under the frequentist view, a hypothesis is typically tested without being assigned a probability.

- Next, if you analyze the Bayesian formula I’m using, you see that there is no place to include all the factors that led to my existence.
- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

You literally set out the definition and then immediately violate it. This is genuine crazy talk. You put aside the exact words you read as you read them so as to substitute your preferred ideas. You will never calculate anything correctly if you don't even allow yourself to comprehend how to calculate things correctly.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- Still trying to find wording that we can agree upon.

No you're not.

You're attempting to claim agreement where none exists and arguing the finer points of a discussion about nothing based only on your own unique definitions of words that present no difficulty in their nuances to an average five-year-old.

1) A new, separate, distinct brain produces a new, separate, distinct experiencer.

Just as the scientific thingy dictates.

2) Even if my brain were perfectly duplicated, it would not duplicate me -- it would not bring me back to life.

You're equivocating (again) about the meaning of "me".

3) If we could, somehow, produce new brains forever, we could produce new, distinct, experiencers forever.

And decks of cards, beer, Volkswagens, runners, eggplants and Tyrannosauruses.

4) In such a universe, the number of distinct experiencers would be infinite.

It's an imaginary Universe of your own creation. You can create whatever weird properties for it that you wish, but the real Universe in which we exist remains as uncaring and unaffected by your fantasies as ever.

 

[Akhenaten]

It would duplicate you. It wouldn't bring you back to life, it would create a new you that was exactly identical to the original you. That's what duplication means.

In the scientific model, every aspect of the experiencer is determined by the brain.

- Could you agree that in some sense it would not duplicate me?

What you want the LCP to agree to is that the original and the duplicate would be different because they'd have different immortal souls.

It's never going to happen.

I think you know what I mean by that -- is there a word I could use instead of "duplicate"?

The reliance of your pretend argument on switching between definitions means that whatever word is used will become meaningless with your very next post.

Why would anyone bother?

 

[Akhenaten]

It would duplicate you. It wouldn't bring you back to life, it would create a new you that was exactly identical to the original you. That's what duplication means.

- How about in the sense that duplicating my brain would not duplicate my sense of continuing self?

No, because when you say "sense of continuing self" you actually mean "immortal soul" and nobody here is silly enough to fall for such a clumsy attempt at subterfuge.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Back to #3:
3) If we could, somehow, produce new brains forever, we could produce new, distinct, experiencers forever.

But we can't. End of story.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Unfortunatrly, I'll need to go back and remind myself of how we ended our previous discussion re the use of such information in Bayesian statistics...
- Seeya later.

You're going to read the thread?

Wonders will never cease.

 

[Mojo]

Next, if you analyze the Bayesian formula I’m using, you see that there is no place to include all the factors that led to my existence.

Could this, perhaps, indicate that there may be a problem with the formula you are using? Just a thought.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm sure at some point all this is going to lead back somehow to proving immortality.

I strongly doubt that this was ever the OP's intention.

More likely the whole epic mess is nothing more than an attempt to demonstrate that the principles of Truly Effective Debate™ can be employed to prove any proposition, no matter how ridiculous it is draw out even the most insubstantial discussion to whatever lengths are demanded by its proponent's need for attention..

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- You didn't respond to Toon's response.

Others did. How do you validate your ignorance of those responses?

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

- Here, we are NOT asking for the likelihood of my existence – we already know that I exist. What we’re really asking is, “What is the random likelihood that I would exist if the theory at issue is true?” Or better yet, “What is the random likelihood that all the events necessary for my existence to occur would, themselves, occur IF THE THEORY AT ISSUE IS TRUE?”

There is no theory at issue. That we live but once is the simple statement of an obvious, evidence-based truth and the only way you might conceivably call it into question is by providing some evidence of the immortal soul upon which your definition of "me" depends.

- I think I’ll leave it there for now.

If you really thought, you'd just drop it altogether and consider yourself fortunate to have had the opportunity to learn that such a childish idea as immortality isn't really a thing.

- So once again, does that help…?

Of course not. It doesn't even help to convince anyone that you're even remotely interested in finding the truth.

 

[John Jones]

Hello Jabba,

Your arguments have gotten as thorough a trashing these last 24 hours as they have ever gotten.

I suggest you do another fringe reset. I don't think you're going to pull a rabbit out of your hat this late in the show.

Why not revive your Shroud of Turin thread? At least you knew when to capitulate. /derail

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
In the Bayesian view, a probability is assigned to a hypothesis, whereas under the frequentist view, a hypothesis is typically tested without being assigned a probability.

- Next, if you analyze the Bayesian formula I’m using, you see that there is no place to include all the factors that led to my existence.
- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

- Here, we are NOT asking for the likelihood of my existence – we already know that I exist. What we’re really asking is, “What is the random likelihood that I would exist if the theory at issue is true?” Or better yet, “What is the random likelihood that all the events necessary for my existence to occur would, themselves, occur IF THE THEORY AT ISSUE IS TRUE?”

I think (rather strongly, given that I use Bayesian statistics in my work) that the use of the formula requires that the correct values be assigned given the model to be tested (the Scientific Model, in this case). Since you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand the Scientific Model, and that the values you assign are therefore ridiculously incorrect (infinity, for just one example) and are used only to make the Scientific Model prediction wrong, I think this is just a way to make up strawmen, assign them an illusion of mathematics, and then prove them wrong. Contrary to your claims for the Bayesian formula, there is a place to include (where you must include) all the factors that led to your existence: all the factors that the Scientific Model evokes, if that if the model that you seek to test.

But you know that, don't you?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I’ll give it a try now.
- First, you should probably look up Bayesian probability. Here’s a little bit from Wikipedia:
Bayesian probability belongs to the category of evidential probabilities; to evaluate the probability of a hypothesis, the Bayesian probabilist specifies some prior probability, which is then updated in the light of new, relevant data (evidence).[1] The Bayesian interpretation provides a standard set of procedures and formulae to perform this calculation.
In contrast to interpreting probability as the "frequency" or "propensity" of some phenomenon, Bayesian probability is a quantity that we assign for the purpose of representing a state of knowledge,[2] or a state of belief.[3] In the Bayesian view, a probability is assigned to a hypothesis, whereas under the frequentist view, a hypothesis is typically tested without being assigned a probability.

- Next, if you analyze the Bayesian formula I’m using, you see that there is no place to include all the factors that led to my existence.
- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

- Here, we are NOT asking for the likelihood of my existence – we already know that I exist. What we’re really asking is, “What is the random likelihood that I would exist if the theory at issue is true?” Or better yet, “What is the random likelihood that all the events necessary for my existence to occur would, themselves, occur IF THE THEORY AT ISSUE IS TRUE?”
- I think I’ll leave it there for now.

- So once again, does that help…?

No. It does not explain where you get 1/infinity.

I also don't understand what new, relevant data you are using to update the probability.

 

[Jabba]

I think (rather strongly, given that I use Bayesian statistics in my work) that the use of the formula requires that the correct values be assigned given the model to be tested (the Scientific Model, in this case). Since you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand the Scientific Model, and that the values you assign are therefore ridiculously incorrect (infinity, for just one example) and are used only to make the Scientific Model prediction wrong, I think this is just a way to make up strawmen, assign them an illusion of mathematics, and then prove them wrong. Contrary to your claims for the Bayesian formula, there is a place to include (where you must include) all the factors that led to your existence: all the factors that the Scientific Model evokes, if that if the model that you seek to test.

But you know that, don't you?

Giordano,
- Roughly speaking, what are the different values you would insert?