[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slowvehicle said:
I am not so much disagreeing with you, as with what I suspect is Mr. Savage's premise, which seems to be that statistics proves 'god'. I guess...
Click to expand...
Slowvehicle,
- I thought that I had posted the following, already -- I guess not...

Jabba said:
Jay,
- I'll try to be more specific, but I don't really understand why they are not specific enough already.
- I have two hypotheses -- one, the complement of the other. Could be that what I've called them confuses the issue -- "R" and "NR," for instance. I should probably just name them "A" and "Non-A," with A being simply "we each live only one, short, life at most."
- Would that help?
Click to expand...
...
jt512 said:
No, because you didn't do anything.
Click to expand...
Jay,
- I was trying to do something – I was trying to remove the GOD connotation from the R hypothesis. I can’t really remove the religious connotation – it seems intrinsic. But a GOD is not.
- The trouble is that while the word “religious” does not necessarily require a god, it does connote a god (or, gods), and leads to confusion here…

jt512 said:
But, if that's your hypothesis, then there is no data at all to support the alternative.
Click to expand...
- I’m pretty sure that technically you’re wrong.
- There is plenty of supportive data – it’s just that this supportive data may not be CREDIBLE. And in your opinion, it isn’t…
- If you agree, I’ll try to move on past technicalities.



- Here’s hoping that you’re still out there somewhere…
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- I thought that I had posted the following, already -- I guess not...


<snip the same nonsense that's now been posted THREE TIMES>
Click to expand...


Do you bother to read the thread at all, or do you just post randomly?

You reposted it less than 24 hours ago here:




and received a response here:


 
Last edited:
All you've done is change the label from R and NR to A and NA. That's just a label. You haven't changed what you mean by that label. Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that changing the name of something changes what it is.

Your A hypothesis is "we each live only one, short, life at most."

Which means that nonA includes:
-some of us life several lives
-some of us live one long life
-some of us never live any life
-all of us live several lives
-all of us live long lives
-all of us never live any life
(just to name a few)

And you have not presented any evidence that any of these things are other than impossible.

What is the supporting data you claim supports the idea of immortality? Vague allusions to decks of cards and probability are not data.
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- I thought that I had posted the following, already --
Click to expand...

... and you were right.

I thought I had posted the following already ...

Pixel42 said:
So the scientific consensus predicts lots of "decks full of aces" now as a result of events unfolding according to the laws of nature, and lots of "decks full of aces" is exactly what we have. So how is this evidence against the scientific consensus?
Click to expand...

... and I was right.

How about you answer, instead of going back to the beginning and starting again?
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- I thought that I had posted the following, already -- I guess not...


...
Jay,
- I was trying to do something – I was trying to remove the GOD connotation from the R hypothesis. I can’t really remove the religious connotation – it seems intrinsic. But a GOD is not.
- The trouble is that while the word “religious” does not necessarily require a god, it does connote a god (or, gods), and leads to confusion here…

- I’m pretty sure that technically you’re wrong.
- There is plenty of supportive data – it’s just that this supportive data may not be CREDIBLE. And in your opinion, it isn’t…
- If you agree, I’ll try to move on past technicalities.



- Here’s hoping that you’re still out there somewhere…
Click to expand...

Which has...what...to do with your four aces card hand?

And demonstrates immortality...how?
 
Slowvehicle said:
Which has...what...to do with your four aces card hand?

And demonstrates immortality...how?
Click to expand...
Slowvehicle,
- I was just responding to your suspicion below.
Slowvehicle said:
I am not so much disagreeing with you, as with what I suspect is Mr. Savage's premise, which seems to be that statistics proves 'god'. I guess...
Click to expand...
- And, I’m trying to "essentially prove" immortality. I’m not trying to essentially prove “God.” Leaving God out of my thesis on immortality should make my thesis easier to eventually, and essentially, prove.
 
Agatha said:
Jabba said:
... An unwritten idea I had was about "civilization" after science proves immortality.
Click to expand...
Already been done by John Wyndham in Trouble With Lichen, and no doubt other authors too.
Click to expand...
Doesn't everyone wonder sometime or other what it would be like if we were all immortal?
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- I was just responding to your suspicion below.

- And, I’m trying to "essentially prove" immortality. I’m not trying to essentially prove “God.” Leaving God out of my thesis on immortality should make my thesis easier to eventually, and essentially, prove.
Click to expand...

And yet, 'god' (or a 'god', or 'God') is the reason you are willing to commit unfounded libel in some of your other arguments...

Are you expecting to be taken seriously (after Shroud Thing© and Return of the Shroud Thing©) when you imply that a "religion without a 'god' " is what motivates you?

Why is this thread different?
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- I was just responding to your suspicion below.

- And, I’m trying to "essentially prove" immortality. I’m not trying to essentially prove “God.” Leaving God out of my thesis on immortality should make my thesis easier to eventually, and essentially, prove.
Click to expand...
Just having some evidence (any evidence) in support of your NA hypothesis would be a better start in "essentially proving" immortality. Show that the phenomenon of immortality exists before you start worrying about the mechanism behind it.
 
Jabba said:
Jay,
- I was trying to do something – I was trying to remove the GOD connotation from the R hypothesis. I can’t really remove the religious connotation – it seems intrinsic. But a GOD is not.
- The trouble is that while the word “religious” does not necessarily require a god, it does connote a god (or, gods), and leads to confusion here…
Click to expand...

That had exactly as much effect on your argument as changing the text to blue has.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- I contend that such poses serious reservations to the current, consensus, scientific position that each "self" is the result of entirely specific physical events and will exist for one finite life at most. Given that hypothesis, you shouldn't be here -- and especially, you shouldn't be here now.
Click to expand...
Rubbish.

Agatha said:
Already been done by John Wyndham in Trouble With Lichen, and no doubt other authors too.
Click to expand...
I rather liked Piper's Last Enemy which involves a society discovering the indisputable fact of reincarnation in their world. Text here.

Akhenaten said:
You don't have a thesis.
Click to expand...
Nope. Just a rehash of Egnor's syllogism. Which is complete crap pushed by and IDiot.
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- I was just responding to your suspicion below.

- And, I’m trying to "essentially prove" immortality. I’m not trying to essentially prove “God.” Leaving God out of my thesis on immortality should make my thesis easier to eventually, and essentially, prove.
Click to expand...
No, you are not. "Proving" immortality is simply your first step in egregiously sliding god under the door.

You still evade the fact that the probability of you existing is precisely 1. Because you exist.

All of the events throughout history and even pre-history, no matter how individually unlikely they may seem prima facie, have a probability of 1. Because they happened, and you are here now.
 
Agatha said:
Just having some evidence (any evidence) in support of your NA hypothesis would be a better start in "essentially proving" immortality. Show that the phenomenon of immortality exists before you start worrying about the mechanism behind it.
Click to expand...
I beg your pardon, that should be showing some evidence for the A (not NA) hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
You still evade the fact that the probability of you existing is precisely 1. Because you exist.
All of the events throughout history and even pre-history, no matter how individually unlikely they may seem prima facie, have a probability of 1. Because they happened, and you are here now.
Click to expand...

I have a quibble with your argument.

The fact that Jabba exists is not in question.

Jabba is attempting to use his individual (probability 1) existence as a test of the following hypothesis:

Jabba said:
I contend that such poses serious reservations to the current, consensus, scientific position that each "self" is the result of entirely specific physical events and will exist for one finite life at most.
Click to expand...

It is actually quite convenient that Jabba's evidence (himself) actually exists.

You may well argue that Jabba's existence does not constitute a valid test of the above hypothesis. However, arguing that the actual existence of Jabba's evidence invalidates the evidence misses the point entirely.

I also have a quibble with Jabba's argument. I contend that Jabba's argument can only possibly have validity to oneself, in reference to oneself. It isn't applicable to others. Nor is it applicable to oneself from others' POV.

I won't try to explain the above contention unless someone responds in a manner which suggests some understanding of the contention - which I consider unlikely, irrespective of the validity of the contention.
 
Toontown said:
I have a quibble with your argument.

The fact that Jabba exists is not in question.

Jabba is attempting to use his individual (probability 1) existence as a test of the following hypothesis:



It is actually quite convenient that Jabba's evidence (himself) actually exists.

You may well argue that Jabba's existence does not constitute a valid test of the above hypothesis. However, arguing that the actual existence of Jabba's evidence invalidates the evidence misses the point entirely.

I also have a quibble with Jabba's argument. I contend that Jabba's argument can only possibly have validity to oneself, in reference to oneself. It isn't applicable to others. Nor is it applicable to oneself from others' POV.

I won't try to explain the above contention unless someone responds in a manner which suggests some understanding of the contention - which I consider unlikely, irrespective of the validity of the contention.
Click to expand...
Toontown,

- I think that I have the same quibble -- and it's disconcerting -- but, I also think that I can get around it.
- I also have another quibble, but I don't want to even mention it until later...

- Anyway, from my own argument, there needs to be something special about ME, or the ENORMOUS combination of events that led to ME, that sets me and mine apart from them and theirs... After all, they too are equally improbable.
- Hopefully, that response is in a manner suggestive of my understanding. If not, you may need to try again.

- Whatever, I'm still working on an answer to your quibble...
 
jt512 said:
...But, if that's your hypothesis, then there is no data at all to support the alternative.
Click to expand...
...
Jabba said:
...
- I’m pretty sure that technically you’re wrong.
- There is plenty of supportive data – it’s just that this supportive data may not be CREDIBLE. And in your opinion, it isn’t…
- If you agree, I’ll try to move on past technicalities…
Click to expand...
Jay,
- Do you agree with my wording?
 
So, Jabba,
What exactly is the point of this thread?

Why is it important to you that we acknowledge you theory?


I am asking because I cannot imagine repeatedly posting on a board with over a thousand active posters and not having a single one of them agree with any part of my philosophy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom