Proof of Immortality II

[Jabba]

- I’m now thinking that Toon is right to be focusing on the fact that my current existence is significant only to me.
- I was worried that such didn’t really “set me apart” from the crowd – which needs to happen if P(me|A) is to equal 1/10⁸⁰! instead of 1.00. And, that worry was why I thought that I (we) needed only to be set apart from non-conscious bits of space.
- For the moment, I still think that the latter thought is correct, just that it’s much more difficult to “experiment with” than is the former thought…

- That’s all I have to say about that – for now.

 

[Garrette]

- I’m now thinking that Toon is right to be focusing on the fact that my current existence is significant only to me.
- I was worried that such didn’t really “set me apart” from the crowd – which needs to happen if P(me|A) is to equal 1/10⁸⁰! instead of 1.00. And, that worry was why I thought that I (we) needed only to be set apart from non-conscious bits of space.
- For the moment, I still think that the latter thought is correct, just that it’s much more difficult to “experiment with” than is the former thought…

- That’s all I have to say about that – for now.

Doesn't matter. Your error (one of many) is exactly the same as Toontown's. Your argument for specialness boils down to nothing more than this:

I'm the pre-selected target (and therefore special) because I'm me.

 

[Garrette]

To be fair, Toontown would likely extend his argument along these lines:

I am not specific/the target/special because I am me. I am specific/the target/special because I could have been anyone else and yet am still me.

Top with variations of universal consciousness, the oversoul, unseverable unity, and the like, and there you have it.

I could be wrong, of course, but that is what Toontown's early posts pointed out, and his recent posts do nothing to make me think it has changed.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I’m now thinking that Toon is right to be focusing on the fact that my current existence is significant only to me.

That hurts you far more than it helps you. If your existence is significant only to you, it is such only because you now exist. You're ignoring the fact that you didn't have to exist or that, if the universe were run again from the beginning, it might be very unlikely that you would ever exist.

You are calling yourself the target and then marveling at how amazing it is that you were hit. But, if you hadn't been hit, it might be someone else calling himself the target and marveling at his good fortune.

You have only one data point. All you can surmise is that your existence is compatible with the way the universe works. You are possible. That is the start and end of everything you can say on the subject.

But even if we assume your faulty reasoning was correct, you still need to explain why you are different from any other lump of atoms of your weight. How is a dog, in your theory, different from a robot dog? Or a VW or any other thing?

 

[Giordano]

- I’m now thinking that Toon is right to be focusing on the fact that my current existence is significant only to me.
- I was worried that such didn’t really “set me apart” from the crowd – which needs to happen if P(me|A) is to equal 1/10⁸⁰! instead of 1.00. And, that worry was why I thought that I (we) needed only to be set apart from non-conscious bits of space.
- For the moment, I still think that the latter thought is correct, just that it’s much more difficult to “experiment with” than is the former thought…

- That’s all I have to say about that – for now.

The best way to look at it is that almost any number appearing on the die would represent a "hit" (a conscious human being) if the die represented the products of a fertilization by human gametes. You, your sister, me: each side of the die is a hit, and it only become significant to you (not "lucky" in the sense of the advance probabilities): almost any side coming up would produce a human being who could have wondered why they same up in particular (yes, I am aware that a significant fraction of human fertilizations do not come to term-but that doesn't apply to the central argument here). So, if you want to calculate what are the chances of a human fertilization producing a conscious human being, then your math is wrong. The possibility that your parents would produce a rock as a child rather than a human being is extremely low.

If instead you decide that conscious creatures are the only hits you would consider "as winners," then here also any conscious creature, any ant or bee, would count, not only a particular ant or bee. Thus your math is wrong here too. The chance of a queen bee producing a bee, any bee, is fairly high: it is very unlikely to produce an ant, or a rock. Your math, and your way of thinking about it, doesn't incorporate this in your statistics. Also this is also Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, because you define after the fact that only conscious creatures are significant: I think ferns are pretty special because they can do photosynthesis, and my fern tells me that it doesn't count consciousness as particularly special and only counts photosynthetic organisms in its math.

I hope that you see that you are thinking that conscious creatures must be special because you think that they must have a "soul", then using this retrospect special target to prove that there must be "souls." There are no souls (or whatever you wish to call it) that are things, so conscious creatures are not particularly special because they have a soul. The ability to be aware of your surroundings and of your "separateness" from others of your species is a process from a neural system, not a thing. It goes away when you die. For that matter, plants have a simple awareness of their surroundings too: where light it, where water is, literally which way is up. So the dividing line between conscious organisms and not is far grayer than you might think.

 

[Giordano]

- I’m now thinking that Toon is right to be focusing on the fact that my current existence is significant only to me.
- I was worried that such didn’t really “set me apart” from the crowd – which needs to happen if P(me|A) is to equal 1/10⁸⁰! instead of 1.00. And, that worry was why I thought that I (we) needed only to be set apart from non-conscious bits of space.
- For the moment, I still think that the latter thought is correct, just that it’s much more difficult to “experiment with” than is the former thought…

- That’s all I have to say about that – for now.

Again, I urge you to get your information about statistics from the many other experts here, and not Toontown's posts, which I view as not particularly accurate nor useful for your goal.

-That's all I have to say about that- for now.

 

[Nonpareil]

Specific very unlikely things do not happen all the time.

<snip>

Nonspecific unlikely things, OTOH, do happen all the time.

"Specific", in this instance, meaning "those that I've chosen to see as important". As Garrette says, the formation of your consciousness, or Jabba's consciousness, is not a special occurrence in any way, except to you.

It feels that way because it is that way.

Non sequitur.

It is that way because my existence is the most specific and significant thing that could ever have been observed by me. My existence is specific and significant to me because it makes the difference between my existing and not existing.

And yet it isn't significant to the system. Asserting that it is is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

You are not special.

This exemplifies the fundamental error you all keep stubbornly clinging to. You keep calling unspecific events "unlikely" while at the same time arguing that they aren't really unlikely.

Some unspecific event is not unlikely. Some unspecific event is inevitable.

And this exemplifies the fundamental error that you both keep clinging to.

Some unspecific event is just as unlikely as every other. Some unspecific event will happen anyway.

It's exactly as likely in the first twenty as any other.

Which means nothing.

It means exactly what it says.

And you made this meaningless remark in response to my pointing out to you that a sample size of 20 does not justify expecting to see 20 consecutive 20's.

I never said it did. Stop putting words in my mouth and read for comprehension.

Firstly, I never said that the sample size is only twenty die rolls. In fact, I said exactly the opposite; the sample size approaches infinity.

Secondly, twenty twenties in a row does not prove that the die is loaded. It may give you a reason to investigate, but you do have to actually investigate. The die might be loaded, but it also might not. It might have simply been chance, because things like that do happen.

And finally, as Garrette says, Jabba's proposed "bucket of souls" model is better represented by a single die, every face of which is a different possible consciousness. The repeated twenties example is an illustration of probability law, nothing else.

FYI, You are talking about hard evidence without even being aware of what you are talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, thank you. The fact that you keep assigning made-up arguments to me doesn't change that.

Something being unlikely is not hard evidence. If you think the die is loaded, look. At. The die. The results might give you reason to suspect that it is, but they are not proof.

In the same way, a cop cannot use "his car was weaving all over the place" as proof that someone was driving drunk. It certainly gives them cause to pull the person over, but until the breathalyzer comes up positive, they don't have proof.

There is a difference between "cause to suspect" and "actual evidence of tampering".

I’m now thinking that Toon is right to be focusing on the fact that my current existence is significant only to me.

Everyone has been saying this since this discussion began.

Saying that this is evidence of things being weighted in your favor is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[Mojo]

Your reasoning is as fundamentally flawed as Mojo's, and in the same way. It's a thread bias. Possibly a forum bias.

It feels that way because it is that way. It is that way because my existence is the most specific and significant thing that could ever have been observed by me. My existence is specific and significant to me because it makes the difference between my existing and not existing.

To the rest of the universe, not so much.

You have no idea what you're talking about. For all you know, the majority of the sentient beings in the universe may agree with me.

Do you have any evidence that the majority of sentient beings in the universe have even heard of you, let alone think that your existence is significant?

 

[Mojo]

"Specific", in this instance, meaning "those that I've chosen to see as important". As Garrette says, the formation of your consciousness, or Jabba's consciousness, is not a special occurrence in any way, except to you.

Which means that it cannot be "specific" until after it has happened, when Toontown, or Jabba, is available to draw his target round it.

 

[Nonpareil]

Which means that it cannot be "specific" until after it has happened, when Toontown, or Jabba, is available to draw his target round it.

Precisely.

 

[Garrette]

I consider my existence significant to only one more observer than you consider yours to be. That observer would be me. I don't care that you consider yourself insignificant to yourself because you didn't exist until you existed, so your existence is "after the fact" of your previous nonexistence. T'was ever thus, but nevermind.

You're a smart person so it puzzles me when you so blatantly insert what is not there into others' statements. I never said my existence is not significant to me. I never implied it, either. What I said/implied is that it has absolutely no bearing on the conditional probability that is the subject of this thread.

That point remains.

You think that's one too many. I think your thoughts on the subject are no more than ill-founded ideological dogma. If the difference between existing and not existing is insignificant, then what is significant?

Is the truck that will run you down if you run in front of it insignificant?

Perhaps I was mistaken when I said it is apparent that you understand conditional probability. This confusion of the different meanings of significance indicate otherwise.

You have an odd notion of fairness. If I wanted to be fair, I wouldn't make ignorant predictions about what you would say if you were to say it.

Perhaps, but you would certainly make unfounded judgments on others' ability to comprehend topics.

I've no issue with my notion of fairness. I said it was a prediction based on your posts and that I might be wrong. Nothing you have said indicates that I am wrong, though. But if I am, please say so. You don't even have to tell me what your argument actually would be; just say I'm wrong. I will take you at your word.

If you are so very curious to know what eveyone thinks about immortality,

I'm not.


...

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to remove quote of moderated content.

I'm not asking you to explain anything complicated at all. I am pointing out that your idea of individual feeling significance being sufficient to gainsay the fact of the TSS fallacy is wrong.

 

[Nonpareil]

You think that's one too many. I think your thoughts on the subject are no more than ill-founded ideological dogma. If the difference between existing and not existing is insignificant, then what is significant?

Is the truck that will run you down if you run in front of it insignificant?

You are conflating significant to you, personally with significant in terms of probability.

They are not the same.

 

[Giordano]

Perhaps I was mistaken when I said it is apparent that you understand conditional probability. This confusion of the different meanings of significance indicate otherwise.

You are of course, completely correct in the rest of your post. But I only wanted to emphasize that in my reading of all of Toontown's posts, I too have concluded that his posts exhibit no little or no understanding of conditional probability. What Toontown as a person thinks or understands I cannot judge: I am referring only to his posts here.

 

[Garrette]

Very odd: so you believe that an entity does not need to know that you exist to think that you are significant? How do you see this working? I generally have been limited to including things I know of in my list of significant things. Perhaps these things that I do not know of are in the blanks at the end of my list of significant things.

Also, it appears that your current argument, as presented here (that no one except yourself should consider your existence significant) appears to contract your recent post that the rest of the universe appears to be reading your mind. I presume that you believe that the rest of the universe does consider you significant, but that they shouldn't? That is indeed modest of you.

I am generally in agreement with you (but I rarely post when all I have to say is "I agree"), but you are misreading Toontown here.

To paraphrase, he said "Only I consider myself significant; other sentient beings agree."

He does not mean they agree that Toontown is significant; he means that they agree that each individual, and only that individual, considers itself significant."

 

[Toontown]

You are conflating significant to you, personally with significant in terms of probability.

They are not the same.

They are if I'm playing poker, just for an obvious example of the glaringly obvious.

I look at my hole cards. They carry probabilistic meaning to me which is not privy to the other players.

 

[Toontown]

Perhaps I was mistaken when I said it is apparent that you understand conditional probability. This confusion of the different meanings of significance indicate otherwise.

I've no doubt that you are grievously mistaken about a number of things. Including your newfound belief in my confusion about the purported different meanings of "significance".

Put in it's most simple form, "significant" means potentially informative. This does not change willy-nilly simply because you are talking about probabilistic events.

Significant probabilistic events carry various forms of information if you have the means to grasp it. The oncoming truck carries information specifically about the likelihood of your survival if you rush out in front of it, if you have the means to grasp the information.

 

[Nonpareil]

They are if I'm playing poker, just for an obvious example of the glaringly obvious.

I look at my hole cards. They carry probabilistic meaning to me which is not privy to the other players.

Again, you fail to grasp the difference between the two.

Your hand matters to you; it is "significant", meaning that you care.

Your hand is just another one of X possible hands that might be dealt out; the fact that you happened to get this particular one is not "significant", meaning that it (EDIT: does not) cause us to consider that our idea of the probability of any given hand turning up is wrong.

 

[Giordano]

I am generally in agreement with you (but I rarely post when all I have to say is "I agree"), but you are misreading Toontown here.

To paraphrase, he said "Only I consider myself significant; other sentient beings agree."

He does not mean they agree that Toontown is significant; he means that they agree that each individual, and only that individual, considers itself significant."

Got it. Thanks!

Important point: it is still irrelevant to calculations of probability, and recognition of a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

To help out Jabba (and Toontown) I do think it is useful to distinguish "significant" events (I drew a card that completed my four-of-a kind) from the terms "lucky" or "special" in a probability sense.

The advance probability of rolling a 20 on a 20-sided die is not "special" or "lucky"in terms of the laws of probability. It is 1:20 just as any other 1-20 number. The significance of rolling a 20 may mean a lot, if I bet on that 20.

 

[Toontown]

Which means that it cannot be "specific" until after it has happened, when Toontown, or Jabba, is available to draw his target round it.

I didn't need to draw any target around my brain's existence. Reality did that. My specific brain's potential existence was the metaphorical target (given the Unique Brain Assumption) ever since the beginning of the universal expansion. The metaphorical bullet hole in the specific target (my brain's specific potential existence) is my brain's actual existence.

The Unique Brain Assumption implies that shouldn't have happened with certainty converging on 1. This, I am repeatedly admonished, has no bearing on the validity of the Unique Brain Assumption. I am informed that I must simply swallow the Unique Brain Assumption and it's implied giganogargantuan prior odds against my existence, like a careless bass swallows a lure without even knowing or acknowledging what it is swallowing.

 

[Garrette]

I've no doubt that you are grievously mistaken about a number of things.

I've no doubt of that, either. Fortunately, my mistakes do not extend to this topic.

Including your newfound belief in my confusion about the purported different meanings of "significance".

Newfound and continuing.

Put in it's most simple form, "significant" means potentially informative. This does not change willy-nilly simply because you are talking about probabilistic events.

Let's run with this, substituting words:

My existence is potentially informative to me but to no one else.

I think that's a fair summation of your point, and I have no real disagreement with it, at least not until you try to do anything with it.

Potentially informative of what? It is potentially informative, certainly, that you do, indeed, exist. But you are saying that it is potentially informative in regard to which model of the universe is more likely to be correct. Moreover, you are saying -- without using the words -- that being potentially informative indicates a pre-selection such that the TSS fallacy does not apply. It is here that you go massively off the rails.

Significant probabilistic events carry various forms of information if you have the means to grasp it. The oncoming truck carries information specifically about the likelihood of your survival if you rush out in front of it, if you have the means to grasp the information.

One of those pieces of information is NOT pre-selection.