Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Mojo]

Pixel,
- If I understand what you're saying, two of the elements in our Bayesian formula provide "likelihoods" of events after the events have already occurred (given that a particular hypothesis is true), and their likelihoods are not 100%.

And that's why they are wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

But what if someone else makes the same things as Tim? Wouldn't that be Tim's woodworking reborn?

Only if it's a table with an indeterminate number of legs.

 

[ferd burfle]

Pixel,

- If I understand what you're saying...

Ah, a new way of saying "do you agree that..."

...two of the elements in our Bayesian formula...

Got a frog in your pocket? Your proposed use of Bayes, and the errors therein, are yours and yours alone.

...provide "likelihoods" of events after the events have already occurred (given that a particular hypothesis is true), and their likelihoods are not 100%.

Huh??? The "likelihood" of an event given that it has occurred is 1, which is why this thread failed on page 1.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Loss Leader]

Pixel,
- If I understand what you're saying, two of the elements in our Bayesian formula provide "likelihoods" of events after the events have already occurred (given that a particular hypothesis is true), and their likelihoods are not 100%.

What? That was the opposite of what was said. After an event occurs, the chance of it occurring is 100%.


That is why Bayesian inference requires new knowledge. You can't just set some knowledge apart and decide it's going to be your posterior probability. If you already knew it, it should all be factored into your prior probability. And the prior probability that you exist is 1.

 

[John Jones]

Well, I don't care if it rains or freezes, Long as I have my plastic Jesus, Riding on the dashboard of my car

Through all trials and tribulations, We will travel every nation, With my plastic Jesus I'll go far.

Edit to add the quote marks.

 

[Pixel42]

Pixel,
- If I understand what you're saying, two of the elements in our Bayesian formula provide "likelihoods" of events after the events have already occurred (given that a particular hypothesis is true), and their likelihoods are not 100%.

In a lottery there are a few people who won and many more who lost. I can talk to people in either group, congratulating or commiserating as appropriate. If I go to a meeting attended only by lottery winners, however, and talk to someone there, I know the likelihood of me talking to a lottery winner is 100%. Congratulations will be the appropriate response to each and every one.

If a lottery was a valid analogy for existence the way you are trying to use it there would be selves who exist and selves who don't and I could talk to the ones who don't and commiserate with them. I can't because the draw has already taken place and I can only talk to the winners. The likelihood of someone I can talk to being a winner is 100%.

 

[Jabba]

In a lottery there are a few people who won and many more who lost. I can talk to people in either group, congratulating or commiserating as appropriate. If I go to a meeting attended only by lottery winners, however, and talk to someone there, I know the likelihood of me talking to a lottery winner is 100%. Congratulations will be the appropriate response to each and every one.

If a lottery was a valid analogy for existence the way you are trying to use it there would be selves who exist and selves who don't and I could talk to the ones who don't and commiserate with them. I can't because the draw has already taken place and I can only talk to the winners. fadThe likelihood of someone I can talk to being a winner is 100%.

Pixel,
- I was referring to an old-fashioned lottery in which only one lot was drawn.
- Every combination of every sperm and every ovum (of the same species) make up a potential self.

 

[Jabba]

That, and the fact that a lottery or raffle drawing is not analogous to how human "selves" come into existence.

Jabba, it seems like you are imagining potential selves as existing somewhere in immaterial form, waiting for a brain to attach to. This is nothing at all like any scientific model of consciousness. You didn't exist in any form before your brain existed, just as a match flame doesn't exist before the match is struck.

Dave,
- No. As explained above, I assume that any combination of any sperm and any ovum (of the same species) constitute a potential self.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Pixel,
- I was referring to an old-fashioned lottery in which only one lot was drawn.
- Every combination of every sperm and every ovum (of the same species) make up a potential self.

Dave,
- No. As explained above, I assume that any combination of any sperm and any ovum (of the same species) constitute a potential self.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Good Morning! I hope you are having safe and pleasant weather (I'm a bit snowed in, so we have postponed brewing the Honey-Wheat Beer until next week).

I am aware that you will likely not respond to this, but I have a bit of unexpected free time. I will use it to point out that your assumption that "any" human sperm and "any" human egg represent "potential selves" is just that--an unsupported and unwarranted assumption.

To refer to the impossible combination of one of my sperm with one of Pina Baush's eggs as a "potential" self is to ignore the facts of history, entropy, and human mate selection...

I remain unwillingly celibately yours, &ct.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- No. As explained above, I assume that any combination of any sperm and any ovum (of the same species) constitute a potential self.

Yes, and in so doing, you are conflating a DNA chain with a "self."

Oddly, you then want the "selves" to come from an infinite pool as well as to outlive the DNA. How can both be true?

In any case, you have never answered with any sort of definition of "self" besides the workings of the human brain. How is it not just a healthy neurosystem? And if that's all it is, how could it be immortal?

And how many "going 60 mph" are there?

 

[Pixel42]

Pixel,
- I was referring to an old-fashioned lottery in which only one lot was drawn.

And? What difference to my response do you suppose that makes?

I'll edit it appropriately:

In a lottery there is one person who won and many more who lost. I can talk to the person or people in either group, congratulating or commiserating as appropriate. If I go to a meeting attended only by the lottery winner, however, and talk to that person, I know the likelihood of me talking to the lottery winner is 100%. Congratulations will be the appropriate response to that person.

If a lottery was a valid analogy for existence the way you are trying to use it there would be one self who exists and selves who don't and I could talk to the ones who don't and commiserate with them. I can't because the draw has already taken place and I can only talk to the winner. The likelihood of the person I can talk to being a winner is 100%.

- Every combination of every sperm and every ovum (of the same species) make up a potential self.

And? What difference do you suppose that makes to my response? It makes no difference whatsoever.

 

[Jabba]

That, and the fact that a lottery or raffle drawing is not analogous to how human "selves" come into existence.

Jabba, it seems like you are imagining potential selves as existing somewhere in immaterial form, waiting for a brain to attach to. This is nothing at all like any scientific model of consciousness. You didn't exist in any form before your brain existed, just as a match flame doesn't exist before the match is struck.

Dave,
- How are they not analogous?

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- How are they not analogous?

There are no ticket holders waiting to "win" the prize of getting a body.

There is no pool of any size, including infinity, of prospective souls. There is no such thing as a prospective soul. There are bodies which, when functioning, produce an ever-changing illusion of self.

Yeesh.

 

[Mojo]

- How are they not analogous?

Your consciousness is just what your brain is doing.

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- No. As explained above, I assume that any combination of any sperm and any ovum (of the same species) constitute a potential self.

Any combination of any sperm or any ovum can potentially constitute multiple selves in the case of identical twins. Do identical twins have a "single self looking out of two pairs of eyes"?

 

[Mojo]

- How are they not analogous?

Your consciousness is just what your brain is doing.

If you want something analogous from a lottery, it would be something like the winning combination of numbers (as distinct from the winner, or the winning ticket) in the UK lottery. It isn't a raffle, in which a ticket is drawn from the set of all the tickets sold: the numbers are generated from a load of balls. Until it is selected, the winning combination does not exist, and the winning combination is just the set of numbers that is selected, whatever they happen to be. It doesn't have to be a set of numbers that is "special"; very often there is no winning ticket.

 

[The Sparrow]

How many going 60 mph are there?
Why are you shifting to new topics Jabba, we still haven't heard your answer on this one.

 

[JayUtah]

Dave,
- No. As explained above, I assume that any combination of any sperm and any ovum (of the same species) constitute a potential self.

But that's not a pool of lottery contestants whose cardinality lets you reason about the likelihood of being born. It's an abstract concept you invented to maybe get you your coveted Big Denominator. It's already been explained to you by a simple reductio ad absurdum how you can't reason that way. And you know it doesn't work, because that's what gives rise to your bare assertion that humans are "somehow" different in this respect.

 

[JayUtah]

Dave,
- How are they not analogous?

Because in a lottery, the pool of contestants exist as actual entities. The cardinality of that set lets you reason meaningfully about the chance of winning a lottery. "Potential selves" are not entities, nor does the concept have any meaning when talking about properties. That hot mess of pseudo-philosophy is just something you invented solely to conjure up a cardinality where there is none. You don't get to invent concepts and paste them into someone else's theory just so you can use that concept to falsify it. That's a classic straw man.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- No. As explained above, I assume that any combination of any sperm and any ovum (of the same species) constitute a potential self.

How are those "potential selves" relevant to the likelihood of a particular self existing?