Proof of Immortality II

[Slowvehicle]

Mojo,

- Mostly, I think that anyone with the semblance of an open mind, cannot believe that "~A" is impossible. They can think that it is highly, even extremely, improbable -- but, not impossible. If everyone here thinks that "~A" is impossible, it's probably time for me to move on.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

As I have pointed out, you tired this dodge in the Hankie Hanky Panky threads.

You are equivocating "logically impossible" with "impossible as a practical consideration". Anyone with the semblance of an honest debate technique would have scruples about so doing.

- Note, however, that if the probability of ~A is greater than 1/10⁸⁰!, the Bayesian formula would conclude that ~A is, in fact, correct. Consequently, if you think that the probability of ~A (albeit "impossible") is actually greater than 1/10⁸⁰!, you should figure that ~A is correct.

Note, however, that you are still misusing and misapplying your misunderstanding of Bayes' work. And of basic statisticl notation.

~A still means "everything that is not A".

I truly do wish you would simply provide your evidence that the "soul" exists" and is "immortal"...

 

[godless dave]

- Note, however, that if the probability of ~A is greater than 1/10⁸⁰!, the Bayesian formula would conclude that ~A is, in fact, correct.

Once again, that's not how Bayesian statistics works. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Consequently, if you think that the probability of ~A (albeit "impossible") is actually greater than 1/10⁸⁰!, you should figure that ~A is correct.

If the probability of ~A being correct were equal or greater to 1/10⁸⁰!, it wouldn't be impossible. "Impossible" means a probability of being correct of zero. Not a very small number, zero.

If, for the sake of argument, I were to say that it's possible that A is wrong, the probability I would assign to it being wrong would be a lot less then 1/10⁸⁰!.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Note, however, that if the probability of ~A is greater than 1/10⁸⁰!, the Bayesian formula would conclude that ~A is, in fact, correct. Consequently, if you think that the probability of ~A (albeit "impossible") is actually greater than 1/10⁸⁰!, you should figure that ~A is correct.

If one was to take this paragraph and show to... 100 random people let's say and ask them what was being discussed how many would guess "Immortality?"

 

[jsfisher]

- Note, however, that if the probability of ~A is greater than 1/10⁸⁰!, the Bayesian formula would conclude that ~A is, in fact, correct.

First off, the Bayesian formula would not conclude anything as fact. It might support a conclusion of likelihood, but not one of fact.

Second, you are ignoring the impact of P(me|~A).

Finally, since you have devolved away from A being our science-based understanding of reality back to something that attempts to sneak in soul, your presumed P(me|A) is meaningless.

 

[Mojo]

If everyone here thinks that "~A" is impossible, it's probably time for me to move on submit some evidence in favour of immortality.

FTFY.

 

[Mojo]

Note, however, that if the probability of ~A is greater than 1/10⁸⁰!, the Bayesian formula would conclude that ~A is, in fact, correct. Consequently, if you think that the probability of ~A (albeit "impossible") is actually greater than 1/10⁸⁰!, you should figure that ~A is correct.

You have already established that the probability of A being correct is "a very little less than 1.00", remember:

- I'll double check my figures, but this should do.
- P(A|me) = P(me|A)*P(A)/(P(me|A)*P(A)+P(me|~A)* P(~A))
- P(A|me) = .5 *.01/ (.05 * .01 + 1/10⁸⁰! * .99)
- P(A|me) = .005/(.005+(a little less than1/10⁸⁰!))
- P(A|me) = (a very little less than 1.00)

So for ~A to be more likely, it will need to have a probability that is much greater than you suggest.

 

[Jabba]

Anyway, Jabba, how would your formula look if "A" was defined as "the hypothesis that selves are immortal"?

Mojo,
- I'll double check my figures, but this should do.
- P(A|me) = P(me|A)*P(A)/(P(me|A)*P(A)+P(me|~A)* P(~A))
- P(A|me) = .5 *.01/ (.05 * .01 + 1/10⁸⁰! * .99)
- P(A|me) = .005/(.005+(a little less than1/10⁸⁰!))
- P(A|me) = (a very little less than 1.00)

You have already established that the probability of A being correct is "a very little less than 1.00", remember:


So for ~A to be more likely, it will need to have a probability that is much greater than you suggest.

Mojo,
- Note that A in the formula above is the hypothesis that selves are immortal.

 

[Jabba]

FTFY.

Mojo,
- I don't know what FTFY means.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Mojo,
- Note that A in the formula above is the hypothesis that selves are immortal.

We could flip them round since the numerical values are completely arbitrary. In that case you've just disproven your own hypothesis.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- Note that A in the formula above is the hypothesis that selves are immortal.

You haven't provided any reason that the numbers should be different if selves are mortal. The same sequence of events, resulting in your corporeal existence, is needed in both cases. The amount of time for which your body exists is the same in both cases. You have the same number of bodies in both cases. There are the same number of "potential selves" (if we even accept your contention about the nature of "selves") in both cases.

 

[Mojo]

Mostly, I think that anyone with the semblance of an open mind, cannot believe that "~A" is impossible. They can think that it is highly, even extremely, improbable -- but, not impossible. If everyone here thinks that "~A" is impossible, it's probably time for me to move on.

Anyway, which "A" are you considering here? You have been conflating (at least) two different hypotheses, one being that selves have a single finite existence, and one being that your existence is the lucky result of chance.

 

[Akhenaten]

Evidence before conclusions, please.

Mojo,

- Mostly, I think that anyone with the semblance of an open mind, cannot believe that "~A" is impossible.

Ask the next 100 people you encounter whether they believe that "~A" is impossible.

Just that.

No two-years-worth of idiotic preamble about what "A" supposedly means. No endless attempts to redefine common English words and phrases. No meaningless to-and-fro about the odds that the square root of a jam jar is an even number.

Simply ask them "Do you believe that ~A is impossible?"


I'm sure it will alter your perspective somewhat*.

They can think that it is highly, even extremely, improbable -- but, not impossible. If everyone here thinks that "~A" is impossible, it's probably time for me to move on.

You are unable to move on, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

- Note, however, that if the probability of ~A is greater than 1/10⁸⁰! . . .

How did you decide that this was the magic number, Jabba?

Do you even remember yourself?

. . . the Bayesian formula would conclude that ~A is, in fact, correct.

As people who actually understand the formula have so frequently pointed out to you, no it would not.

Consequently, if you think that the probability of ~A (albeit "impossible") is actually greater than 1/10⁸⁰!, you should figure that ~A is correct.

That you consider yourself to be in a position to tell anyone what they should think is ludicrous⁹⁰!




*I lied. I don't think it will alter your perspective one iota but the thought of you doing it brightens my day.



ETA: Oh damn! Ninja'd by JoeBentley.

 

[Jabba]

Anyway, which "A" are you considering here? You have been conflating (at least) two different hypotheses, one being that selves have a single finite existence, and one being that your existence is the lucky result of chance.

Mojo,
- I'm assuming that you still believe that ~A is less probable than 1/10⁸⁰! Is that correct?

 

[Akhenaten]

Mojo,
- I'm assuming that you still believe that ~A is less probable than 1/10⁸⁰! Is that correct?

Why don't you read the question again?

Apparently it's still not getting through to you that nobody even knows for sure what you mean by ~A any more.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Note, however, that if the probability of ~A is greater than 1/10⁸⁰!, the Bayesian formula would conclude that ~A is, in fact, correct. Consequently, if you think that the probability of ~A (albeit "impossible") is actually greater than 1/10⁸⁰!, you should figure that ~A is correct.

If one was to take this paragraph and show to... 100 random people let's say and ask them what was being discussed how many would guess "Immortality?"

Exactly.

Jabba has become so trapped in his own spherical argument that he doesn't realise that he's no longer communicating with anyone other than the dozen-or-so people in the entire Universe who understand Jabbanese.

Every one of whom disagrees with everything he says.

 

[Mojo]

Apparently it's still not getting through to you that nobody even knows for sure what you mean by ~A any more.

Including Jabba.

 

[Jabba]

Including Jabba.

Mojo,
- "~A" is the proposition that "A" is not correct. "A" is the proposition that each potential self has but one, finite, life to live at most.

 

[Akhenaten]

Mojo,
- I don't know what FTFY means.

Sig worthy.

 

[Akhenaten]

Apparently it's still not getting through to you [Jabba] that nobody even knows for sure what you [Jabba] mean by ~A any more.

Including Jabba.

viz.

- "A" being the hypothesis that each potential self has but one, finite, time of existence -- at most.

- Note that A in the formula above is the hypothesis that selves are immortal.

"A" is the proposition that each potential self has but one, finite, life to live at most.

And those examples are just from the last 24 hours.

quod erat demonstrandum

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- "~A" is the proposition that "A" is not correct. "A" is the proposition that each potential self has but one, finite, life to live at most.

Looking at the evidence, it stacks up vastly in favour of consciousness being the result of brain processes, and therefore ceasing when those brain processes cease.

Unless, of course, you can change the habit of a (single, finite) lifetime and actually provide some evidence to the contrary.