Proof of Immortality III

[Jabba]

These two:

Dave,
- Maybe I understand now.

- From before:
- The self appears to be an immaterial emergent property somehow connected to the material brain.
- H allows for no immaterial selves. It allows for consciousness to be strictly material.

- To me, the self appears to be an immaterial emergent property somehow connected to the material brain -- whereas, H allows for there to be no immaterial self involved. It allows for consciousness to be strictly material.
- Does that help?

- I still don't see how they contradict each other. I think that consciousness, itself, is non-physical. H includes the possibility that consciousness is totally physical...

 

[Jabba]

Garrette,
- Do you accept that given the one, finite, lifetime (at most) hypothesis, the likelihood of your current existence is unimaginably small?

 

[Monza]

Garrette,
- Do you accept that given the one, finite, lifetime (at most) hypothesis, the likelihood of your current existence is unimaginably small?

Based on prior knowledge (e.g. that Garrette exists) I would say the likelihood of his current existence is 1.

 

[Toontown]

Once again, in case you missed it: any and all evidence must certainly exist to be useful as evidence. To obtain any evidence at all:

1. the evidence must first come into existence

2. you must become aware of it's existence

3. you must have sense enough to differientiate it from all the other random, improbable crap that happens.

Once again, your application if this sort of reasoning to Jabba's argument relies on him being a predetermined target. He isn't.

The sharpshooter fallacy you're trying to invoke again does not apply. Jabba does not need to be a predetermined target to pose a simple question as to what might better explain his sentient experience than H. To legitimately pose that question, he need only have the evidence he has - his (probability 1) sentient experience, if and only if H puts a ludicrously low prior probability on the emergence of his specific sentient experience.

I won't speak for Jabba here, as to how he actually reasons it out. I'll speak only for myself. Which is exactly appropriate, because my own subjective sentient experience is what I use. Not yours, not Jabba's, not a random chunk of detritus in the oort cloud. My specific sentient experience. In fact, that is the only way Jabba's formula can be used.

I pose a simple question: is anything I see significantly inconsistent with H? I answer no, except for one thing - my specific sentient experience. Given H, that specific sentient experience should never have happened with a certainty converging very nearly on 1. And yet I see precisely that, with a certainty of precisely 1, when H all but mandates that I, specifically, should be seeing nothing at all, ever. My own specific sentient experience, I conclude, is inconsistent with H.

And that one inconsistency, I conclude, is a giganogargantuan whopper.

Now, let's get back to your battle of wits with Stanley. Stanley has realised that your superior knowledge of statistics has rendered his bluff ineffective, so offers you a different bet. His bet is that he exists. According to you the odds against this are one to 10^80!. He's offering you 10:1.

Do you accept his bet?

No, let's not bother with yet another bogus analogy which only serves to highlight your continued failure to grasp my actual perspective.

Of course I wouldn't take his bet. I know he exists. I know I exist. I know all the evidence I've ever used has always existed, which is what made it evidence in the first place.

Let's go with another analogy, something simple but closer to my actual perspective:

A cosmologist explains his hypothesis of the nature of the universe to me (this has actually happened, here and in other forums, only the claimants were not cosmologists). I rule his hypothesis out, citing the fact that his hypothesis, if true, would practically rule out my own specific existence, with a certainty converging on 1. He ridicules my response, and I pose a very simple question: what kind of idiot accepts a hypothesis which practically rules out his own existence? The logically challenged cosmologist then goes on to demonstrate precisely what kind of idiot does that.

 

[JayUtah]

Garrette,Do you accept that given the one, finite, lifetime (at most) hypothesis, the likelihood of your current existence is unimaginably small?

I don't. And how many times has simply asking your critics to agree with your various assertions actually worked for you?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Maybe I understand now.

- From before:
- The self appears to be an immaterial emergent property somehow connected to the material brain.
- H allows for no immaterial selves. It allows for consciousness to be strictly material.

- To me, the self appears to be an immaterial emergent property somehow connected to the material brain -- whereas, H allows for there to be no immaterial self involved. It allows for consciousness to be strictly material.
- Does that help?

- I still don't see how they contradict each other. I think that consciousness, itself, is non-physical. H includes the possibility that consciousness is totally physical...

So H includes scenarios where the self is material a scenarios where it isn't?

 

[Mojo]

Of course I wouldn't take his bet. I know he exists.

Precisely my point. Jabba's argument has the same flaw as Stan's bet. If Jabba didn't exist he wouldn't be making it.

If, when called, Stan just once came up with a royal flush, would you immediately claim that the game was rigged?

Let's go with another analogy, something simple but closer to my actual perspective:

A cosmologist explains his hypothesis of the nature of the universe to me (this has actually happened, here and in other forums, only the claimants were not cosmologists). I rule his hypothesis out, citing the fact that his hypothesis, if true, would practically rule out my own specific existence, with a certainty converging on 1. He ridicules my response, and I pose a very simple question: what kind of idiot accepts a hypothesis which practically rules out his own existence? The logically challenged cosmologist then goes on to demonstrate precisely what kind of idiot does that.

There's your problem. It doesn't actually rule out your existence.

I'm not sure why saying that evidence that is consistent with a hypothesis is not evidence against that hypothesis makes one "logically challenged".

 

[Jabba]

So H includes scenarios where the self is material a scenarios where it isn't?

Dave,
- Assuming that "a" above should be "and," the answer is "yes."

 

[Toontown]

Precisely my point. Jabba's argument has the same flaw as Stan's bet. If Jabba didn't exist he wouldn't be making it.

That is your mistake, not mine. Or Jabba's. There is no mystical prohibition against using one's own existence as evidence. One's own existence, in that sense, differs not a whit from any other evidence, as I just pointed out yesterday.

The aquisition of any evidence requires:

1. the evidence must first come into existence

2. one must become aware of it's existence

3. one must have sense enough to differentiate the evidence from all the other random crap that happens

Give up the mystical attidude. Your sentient experience is no different from any other evidence.

There's your problem. It doesn't actually rule out your existence.

No, that's also your problem. You apparently do not understand what it means to rule out a hypothesis. Hypotheses are ruled out at chosen degrees of certainty. For example, if a hypothesis is ruled out with 0.999 certainty, then the hypothesis is almost certainly false, but there remains a 0.001 probability that the hypothesis is true.

If you want that 0.001, you can have it. If you annoy me enough I'll even give you a couple of thousandths to entice you to take it. Myself, I don't want it. You can have it.

I'm not sure why saying that evidence that is consistent with a hypothesis is not evidence against that hypothesis makes one "logically challenged".

Figure this one out, and you'll have made it to square 1.

I have a hypothesis that says there is 10 ^-1000 probability that a black hole will emit a dead rat during a random hour of observation. We begin to observe a black hole, and within moments a nearly dead rat pops out of it.

You want that hypothesis? Take it. You can have it. I don't want it. I almost certainly made a mistake when I formulated it. That hypothesis is as dead as the rat. Sure, the rat is only 0.99999... dead. Go ahead and try to resuscitate the rat if you want. It's your life.

 

[godless dave]

So in scenarios where selves are material and produced by the brain, the likelihood of a particular self existing would be the same as the likelihood of its physical body existing, right?

 

[Mojo]

So in scenarios where selves are material and produced by the brain, the likelihood of a particular self existing would be the same as the likelihood of its physical body existing, right?

Apparently not. It seems that existence is impossible.

 

[Toontown]

So in scenarios where selves are material and produced by the brain, the likelihood of a particular self existing would be the same as the likelihood of its physical body existing, right?

If one insists on clinging to the concept of the "self" as the only way to see the light of day in such a scenario, then tautologically yes to the highlighted part. One has stuck oneself with that conclusion.

If one then enters into certain kinds of discussions, one may also be stuck with explaining how one is a "skeptic" if one believes with starry-eyed faith that one's "self" has emerged victorious in the face of (roughly) 10 ^80! odds.

Apparently not. It seems that existence is impossible.

Failure to reach square 1 noted.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

The acquisition of any evidence requires:

1. the evidence must first come into existence

- philosophy; serves taste only

2. one must become aware of it's existence

- given; okay for science

3. one must have sense enough to differentiate the evidence from all the other random crap that happens

- restates the question; no explanation given.

For a 'thing' to be evidence of something requires that 'the thing' relate to other elements within a framework in manners understood or predicted, generally speaking.

Give up the mystical attidude. Your sentient experience is no different from any other evidence.

Evidence of what, in what framework? Choices:

(a) woo of your preference
(b) a scientifically supported and well-circumscribed definition for working with the concept

No, that's also your problem. You apparently do not understand what it means to rule out a hypothesis. Hypotheses are ruled out at chosen degrees of certainty. For example, if a hypothesis is ruled out with 0.999 certainty, then the hypothesis is almost certainly false, but there remains a 0.001 probability that the hypothesis is true. If you want that 0.001, you can have it. If you annoy me enough I'll even give you a couple of thousandths to entice you to take it. Myself, I don't want it. You can have it.

But nothing makes the 0.01 be the opposite of any 0.99, in principle.

Granted, you can refer to a philosophical concept that is binary, but that makes {'there is'|nul} your only working material; purely philosophical in nature. Evidence within this framework is purely rationalist and can play with itself for all eternity doesn't answer questions.

Or you can use science to give meaning to a concept such as 'self' and then determine the validity of the idea of immortality. Currently, given that there is zero evidence that any scientifically defined notion of 'self' is immortal, frankly, there is simply no reason to pursue the idea.

I have a hypothesis that says there is 10 ^-1000 probability that a black hole will emit a dead rat during a random hour of observation. We begin to observe a black hole, and within moments a nearly dead rat pops out of it.

You want that hypothesis? Take it. You can have it. I don't want it. I almost certainly made a mistake when I formulated it. That hypothesis is as dead as the rat. Sure, the rat is only 0.99999... dead. Go ahead and try to resuscitate the rat if you want. It's your life.

That is not a hypothesis, it is empty conjecture. The numbers in any real cases are derived, ultimately, from counts in observation. Zero counts ever for a speculated data point means, well... 'Sorry, next idea please.'

So about that making it to square one...

 

[Jabba]

So in scenarios where selves are material and produced by the brain, the likelihood of a particular self existing would be the same as the likelihood of its physical body existing, right?

- Yeah.

 

[zooterkin]

No, that's also your problem. You apparently do not understand what it means to rule out a hypothesis. Hypotheses are ruled out at chosen degrees of certainty. For example, if a hypothesis is ruled out with 0.999 certainty, then the hypothesis is almost certainly false, but there remains a 0.001 probability that the hypothesis is true.

So you wouldn't believe someone who said they had a winning lottery ticket?

I have a hypothesis that says there is 10 ^-1000 probability that a black hole will emit a dead rat during a random hour of observation. We begin to observe a black hole, and within moments a nearly dead rat pops out of it.

You want that hypothesis? Take it. You can have it. I don't want it. I almost certainly made a mistake when I formulated it. That hypothesis is as dead as the rat. Sure, the rat is only 0.99999... dead. Go ahead and try to resuscitate the rat if you want. It's your life.

Well, I think I see your problem. The unlikely event wasn't predicted, it happened, and we're trying to explain it afterwards.

 

[Toontown]

Well, I think I see your problem. The unlikely event wasn't predicted, it happened, and we're trying to explain it afterwards.

Wrong, in the universe of the analogy. The hypothesis in the analogy did make a prediction: 1 dead rat emission per 10 ¹⁰⁰⁰ hours.

That dead rat came about a trillion years too soon. Hypothesis ruled out with 0.9999999..... certainty. It could, however, be revived with a trillion years or so of further observation and no more dead rats, thereby cancelling out the one dead rat observation. Might be worth a shot if you have a trillion years to spare and plenty of confidence you won't see any more dead rats. But one more dead rat, and you're down another trillion years. And you just saw one.

 

[zooterkin]

Wrong, in the universe of the analogy. The hypothesis in the analogy did make a prediction: 1 dead rat emission per 10 ¹⁰⁰⁰ hours.

That dead rat came about a trillion years too soon. Hypothesis ruled out with 0.9999999..... certainty. It could, however, be revived with a trillion years or so of further observation and no more dead rats, thereby cancelling out the one dead rat observation. Might be worth a shot if you have a trillion years to spare and plenty of confidence you won't see any more dead rats. But one more dead rat, and you're down another trillion years. And you just saw one.

What's it meant to be an analogy for?

 

[godless dave]

Below I've linked to a photo of Mount Rainier. Consider the exact details of what it looks like, the position of each piece of rock. What do you think was the likelihood that it would look exactly like that at the time the photo was taken?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Rainier_from_the_Silver_Queen_Peak.jpg

 

[jsfisher]

A fair number of the recent posts to this thread have included unhealthy amounts of incivility, attacks on the arguer, and just general bickering. Forty one posts now have a new home in AAH where they will be reviewed for further moderation as appropriate.

I thank you all in advance for you cooperation in returning this thread to the civil discussion of the topic of which I know you are all capable.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jsfisher

 

[Nonpareil]

I have a hypothesis that says there is 10 ^-1000 probability that a black hole will emit a dead rat during a random hour of observation. We begin to observe a black hole, and within moments a nearly dead rat pops out of it.

You want that hypothesis? Take it. You can have it. I don't want it. I almost certainly made a mistake when I formulated it. That hypothesis is as dead as the rat. Sure, the rat is only 0.99999... dead. Go ahead and try to resuscitate the rat if you want. It's your life.

Still trying to argue that "long shot" is equivalent to "impossible", I see.

Good luck with that.