Proof of Immortality, VI

[JimOfAllTrades]

Well, if you're counting bits of information, both players have the same number of bits of information.

Edited: On second thought, I see what you're getting at. I shouldn't say "more" information, I should say "more significant" information.

If both players have 4, 5, 6, 7, who has more significant information when the 3 turns up?

 

[Toontown]

If both players have 4, 5, 6, 7, who has more significant information when the 3 turns up?

That happens, very rarely. But it didn't, and that small probability does not even remotely justify the player with the 3, 3 assuming the turn 3 is not significant to him, based on what can only be an ideological bias.

With a slightly different board, the turn 3 could remotely possibly give an opponent a flush. But only an idiot would check and fold the 3,3,3 based on that remote possibility.

Strike 42, dude.

 

[Toontown]

Swung on and missed by Toontown.

Why is the player holding threes's information "more significant"? Put another way, why is three threes "more significant" than two jacks and a three?

I hope, for your sake, you don't think you're making a point. I hope, for your sake, you're just being a troll.

What specific kind of information is being sought by both players? Which player is getting more significant information of the useful kind from the turn 3?

Don't worry. I already gave you the answer to this apparently brain-twisting question, in the exact post you just quoted. Hopefully you won't embarrass yourself by failing to answer the question correctly.

I'm not even bothering to keep track of your strikes any more. This isn't really like baseball. A poster who figuratively strikes out can't be forced to return to the dugout. He can continue to swing the figurative bat at air molecules all day long. And he'll hit some, too. But most of the threatened molecules will just flow around the bat.

 

[carlitos]

Thread topic: (essentially) proving immortality using Bayesian statistics.

Thread topic not : crappy analogies or how to play Texas Hold 'Em

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

That happens, very rarely. But it didn't, and that small probability does not even remotely justify the player with the 3, 3 assuming the turn 3 is not significant to him, based on what can only be an ideological bias.

With a slightly different board, the turn 3 could remotely possibly give an opponent a flush. But only an idiot would check and fold the 3,3,3 based on that remote possibility.

Strike 42, dude.

A swing and miss on the question (and on preview I see Mojo beat me to that expression).

You seem to be saying (among the jabs at our collective ability to understand) that Jabba isn't entirely wrong because the subjective view is perfectly valid, and may give one person more information or more significant information than it gives someone else.

Then you dodge my question my by saying it doesn't happen very often that everyone has the same information in a card game. This means that it does in fact happen, and implies you're afraid to address it as it relates to the analogy's applicability to Jabba's "proof".

Jabba's scenario is the card game equivalent of everybody having the same hand and everyone is waiting for the same card. He even says there is nothing different between him and everyone else, that we are all special in exactly the same way, i.e. that our subjective viewpoints are all the same in this regard.

So your stories about how the subjective viewpoint may give different information may be true but do not apply in this case.

 

[Fudbucker]

Swung on and missed by Toontown.

Why is the player holding threes's information "more significant"? Put another way, why is three threes "more significant" than two jacks and a three?

Because each player does a Bayesian analysis every time a card is revealed.
Pr(H)= My hand is superior
Pr(E)= The cards that are turned up
K(background knowledge)= my facedown cards

For the player with facedown 3's, Pr(H given E) is going to increase significantly if the upcards are 3,8,Q. For the player with facedown jacks, Pr(H given E), isn't going to change much.

 

[Mojo]

Because each player does a Bayesian analysis every time a card is revealed.
Pr(H)= My hand is superior...

Why would one hand be "superior" to another?

ETA: This question is aimed at Toontown, who has just swung and missed for the second time.

 

[Jabba]

Indeed, life requires matter to not only exist in a certain configuration but to behave in certain ways. Unless I die in a fire or catastrophic explosion there will be a period of time in the future when I am no longer alive but my body still exists.

So now we're back to this question:

If, at the beginning of the universe, the likelihood of Mount Rainier's current existence was very small, is that a reason to doubt the materialist hypothesis for Mount Rainier's current existence?

If the answer is no, why is a similarly small likelihood for your current existence a reason to doubt the materialist hypothesis for your existence?

Dave,
- Remember, it isn't the size of the likelihood that determines the legitimacy of a target -- the size of the likelihood is relevant only when the event can be otherwise suspected of being a target. In order to be identified as a legitimate target, the particular event needs to be somehow "meaningfully set apart" (like the second cousin of the lottery controller winning the lottery) from the multitude of other similar events. Mt Rainier is different in some respects from every other mountain, but not, apparently, in a way that is meaningful to the issue at hand. In regard to this issue at hand, there is nothing to suggest that Rainier is not the precise result of physics, nor that it won't wither away like any other mountain...

 

[jt512]

Apparently not. You just admitted you still don't get it, after I practically spoon fed it to you.

He was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The fact is there is nothing to understand. You're talking nonsense.

 

[jt512]

In regard to this issue at hand, there is nothing to suggest that Rainier is not the precise result of physics, nor that it won't wither away like any other mountain...

In regard to the issue at hand, there is nothing to suggest that Jabba is not the precise result of physics, nor that he won't wither away like every other human being.

 

[Fudbucker]

Why would one hand be "superior" to another?

ETA: This question is aimed at Toontown, who has just swung and missed for the second time.

Because it has a greater chance of winning.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- Remember, it isn't the size of the likelihood that determines the legitimacy of a target -- the size of the likelihood is relevant only when the event can be otherwise suspected of being a target. In order to be identified as a legitimate target, the particular event needs to be somehow "meaningfully set apart" (like the second cousin of the lottery controller winning the lottery) from the multitude of other similar events. Mt Rainier is different in some respects from every other mountain, but not, apparently, in a way that is meaningful to the issue at hand. In regard to this issue at hand, there is nothing to suggest that Rainier is not the precise result of physics, nor that it won't wither away like any other mountain...

And, in the materialistic understanding (you know, the thing your trying to disprove), consciousness is a process in a functioning brain. Brain stops functioning, consciousness stops. However unlikely your functioning brain may be, the materialistic theory is still far more likely than your insistence that consciousness/soul/self exists as a separate item. Because your brain still exists, and we know that we can alter your sense of self in very well understood ways by altering your brain. So the only way for you to disprove the materialist explanation is to demonstrate the existence of the "selves" and all your torturing of statistics isn't going to get you there.

 

[abaddon]

He was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The fact is there is nothing to understand. You're talking nonsense.

This thread started on 21st November 2012. No "benefit of the doubt" remains, only the certainty that it is a crock.

 

[JesseCuster]

In regard to this issue at hand, there is nothing to suggest that Rainier is not the precise result of physics, nor that it won't wither away like any other mountain...

Human beings wither away as well. A lot faster than mountains.

You're going to wither away too Jabba. There's nothing to suggest that you are not the precise result of physics, nor that you won't wither away like any other human.

Did you think that stating what you just did somehow digs you out of your hole?

edit: Beaten to it. Dang.

 

[abaddon]

Human beings wither away as well. A lot faster than mountains.

You're going to wither away too Jabba. There's nothing to suggest that you are not the precise result of physics, nor that you won't wither away like any other human.

Did you think that stating what you just did somehow digs you out of your hole?

edit: Beaten to it. Dang.

Yeah, that happens often when the arguments presented are bovine fecal matter. Chances are somebody else got there first.

 

[JayUtah]

...the size of the likelihood is relevant only when the event can be otherwise suspected of being a target.

Yes, the probability of obtaining a sample is relevant only to anything when that particular sample is identified beforehand as the target. You can't do that in your model. You cite lots of analogies in which that information was provided, but then beg the question that they are just like your model. The only reason you can give for yourself being the target is that it was chosen. That commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, which it's clear by now you don't understand at all.

In order to be identified as a legitimate target, the particular event needs to be somehow "meaningfully set apart" (like the second cousin of the lottery controller winning the lottery) from the multitude of other similar events.

No.

It doesn't have to be "meaningfully" set apart. It can be arbitrarily set apart. I can invent my own hands for poker, as long as we all agree ahead of time what those hands mean. The don't need to employ the patterns of colors or pips. They can just be whatever I want them to be. They acquire meaning only when I give them meaning. The key is that they have to be set apart before we start playing. In your allegedly corrupt lottery example above, it is not the nature of the relation that is the problem, but that the relation existed prior to the lottery and so could be said to have affected it.

Once again you're ignoring why the Texas sharpshooter is a fallacy and arguing that significance or evidence arises in nothing more than what you read into the problem after the fact. If you can't see why the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a fallacy, then you're simply not intellectually equipped to have this discussion. We've been more than forebearing.

Mt Rainier is different in some respects from every other mountain, but not, apparently, in a way that is meaningful to the issue at hand. In regard to this issue at hand, there is nothing to suggest that Rainier is not the precise result of physics, nor that it won't wither away like any other mountain...

Get used to hearing this. It's been said up-thread, but it bears repeating. You are different in some respects from every other human being, but it is not material to the issue at hand. There is nothing to suggest that you are not the precise result of physics, nor that it won't wither away just like any other human.

In materialism, consciousness and self-awareness are properties. They arise from the physical organism, when that organism is in proper working order and meets the criteria for emergence. Your utter insistence that self-awareness must be a soul under all theories has been a five-year annoyance. You are clearly unable to see beyond your own belief, and clearly unable to grasp other theories, even to refute them. You have a very limited vision when it comes to this problem. You simply cannot think outside your trench, and it's time to own up to that as the reason you fail at philosophy and mathematics.

 

[JayUtah]

Did you think that stating what you just did somehow digs you out of your hole?

This is where he begs the question and says the difference between him and a mountain is that he's alive. In materialism, that means the the properties of one kind of entity are somehow impervious to the same mechanics by which the properties of all other entities operate. He endows himself with some magical property just so he can say materialism doesn't account for it. Special pleading.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes, the probability of obtaining a sample is relevant only to anything when that particular sample is identified beforehand as the target. You can't do that in your model. You cite lots of analogies in which that information was provided, but then beg the question that they are just like your model. The only reason you can give for yourself being the target is that it was chosen. That commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, which it's clear by now you don't understand at all.



No.

It doesn't have to be "meaningfully" set apart. It can be arbitrarily set apart. I can invent my own hands for poker, as long as we all agree ahead of time what those hands mean. The don't need to employ the patterns of colors or pips. They can just be whatever I want them to be. They acquire meaning only when I give them meaning. The key is that they have to be set apart before we start playing. In your allegedly corrupt lottery example above, it is not the nature of the relation that is the problem, but that the relation existed prior to the lottery and so could be said to have affected it.

Once again you're ignoring why the Texas sharpshooter is a fallacy and arguing that significance or evidence arises in nothing more than what you read into the problem after the fact. If you can't see why the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a fallacy, then you're simply not intellectually equipped to have this discussion. We've been more than forebearing.



Get used to hearing this. It's been said up-thread, but it bears repeating. You are different in some respects from every other human being, but it is not material to the issue at hand. There is nothing to suggest that you are not the precise result of physics, nor that it won't wither away just like any other human.

In materialism, consciousness and self-awareness are properties. They arise from the physical organism, when that organism is in proper working order and meets the criteria for emergence. Your utter insistence that self-awareness must be a soul under all theories has been a five-year annoyance. You are clearly unable to see beyond your own belief, and clearly unable to grasp other theories, even to refute them. You have a very limited vision when it comes to this problem. You simply cannot think outside your trench, and it's time to own up to that as the reason you fail at philosophy and mathematics.

What criteria is that?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Remember, it isn't the size of the likelihood that determines the legitimacy of a target -- the size of the likelihood is relevant only when the event can be otherwise suspected of being a target. In order to be identified as a legitimate target, the particular event needs to be somehow "meaningfully set apart" (like the second cousin of the lottery controller winning the lottery) from the multitude of other similar events. Mt Rainier is different in some respects from every other mountain, but not, apparently, in a way that is meaningful to the issue at hand. In regard to this issue at hand, there is nothing to suggest that Rainier is not the precise result of physics, nor that it won't wither away like any other mountain...

Just like a person.

 

[JayUtah]

What criteria is that?

Define emergent property and you'll have your answer.