[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[abaddon]

This century?

Let's be honest. This is just a rerun of the shroud thread where jabba will promise again and again that evidence will be forthcoming at some unspecified time in the future. It never happens. It's getting old.

 

[Kid Eager]

I revisit the thread after 3 months, and this is where it's at? Is there such a thing as recursive deja-vu?

 

[abaddon]

I revisit the thread after 3 months, and this is where it's at? Is there such a thing as recursive deja-vu?

Nope. It's just another Jabba thread promising to deliver evidence some time next century, maybe.

 

[Jabba]

The following are hills I am not willing to die on:
Here's the best you could have hoped for, Jabba.
The Four Stages of Paradigm Acceptance
Decade 1: Hostile opposition
Decade 2: Denial
Decade 3: Indifference
Decade 4: Waved off as self-evident
There is no "Decade 5: Profit"
There is no upside here. If your proposition is true, you're casting pearls before swine. If false, you're throwing up airballs.
It is unlikely that anything truly paradigm-shifting has ever been presented in this forum, or ever will be.

Toon,

- I agree that it is very unlikely that my argument will “win the day” in my lifetime, in any forum … 1%?
- However, I do still think that I’m right… 99%? I do think that we’re due for a paradigm shift of revolutionary proportions… I think that as we study individual consciousness, we will be forced to conclude that reality is “magical.” Reductionistically speaking, reality just doesn’t make sense. The whole IS greater than the sum of its parts. Reality is “alive” (like “Johnny Five”), and free (as in free-will v determinism)…
- And, I do think that there is an “upside” here…

- The above is a “brief” of what I’ll be trying to argue.
- If you haven’t read my thesis on “effective debate,” you can find two different presentations at http://messiahornot.com/Treatise.php and http://shrouddebates.com/?page_id=88.

 

[Toontown]

I think that as we study individual consciousness, we will be forced to conclude that reality is “magical.” Reductionistically speaking, reality just doesn’t make sense. The whole IS greater than the sum of its parts.

I think the above may be a misunderstanding.

Simple reductionism, in the sense to which you refer, is not a scientific principle. For example, I recall the concept of synergy (the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts) being discussed at some length in my Botany 1 class.

Logically speaking, a system cannot be nothing more than the simple sum of it's parts, by definition. The system is not present in any of the parts.

 

[carlitos]

At least "effective debate" is presented in the appropriate mocking / scare quotes. Perhaps a little self awareness is setting in there, Jabba?

 

[Jabba]

I think the above may be a misunderstanding.

Simple reductionism, in the sense to which you refer, is not a scientific principle. For example, I recall the concept of synergy (the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts) being discussed at some length in my Botany 1 class.

Logically speaking, a system cannot be nothing more than the simple sum of it's parts, by definition. The system is not present in any of the parts.

Toon,
- Are you accepting "strong emergence"?

 

[Ladewig]

I do think that we’re due for a paradigm shift of revolutionary proportions…

I know I'll sound like one of those skeptical *****s, but what is your definition of "due."
I am asking because about a century ago, folks like Edgar Cayce and Frank Buchanan were saying that the world was on the verge of a spiritual enlightenment of revolutionary proportions.

If you want to argue that "paradigm shift" ≠ "spiritual enlightenment" then please do. I don't think that I will be the only poster pointing out that both are buzzword phrases of their times and don't have much of a specific definition behind them (when used in this manner).

I think that as we study individual consciousness, we will be forced to conclude that reality is “magical.” Reductionistically speaking, reality just doesn’t make sense.

I apologize if this has already been brought up in the previous 19 pages.

Why is it necessary that the fringy parts reality make sense? Maybe that's just the way reality is.

 

[Toontown]

Toon,
- Are you accepting "strong emergence"?

According to the Wikipedia definition, "strong emergence" has the same meaning as "synergy" - the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

I acknowledge the concept.

 

[jt512]

Toon,

- I agree that it is very unlikely that my argument will “win the day” in my lifetime, in any forum … 1%?
- However, I do still think that I’m right… 99%? I do think that we’re due for a paradigm shift of revolutionary proportions…

There ought to be a rule analogous to Godwin's Law whereby the first person in a thread to mention "paradigm change" automatically loses the debate.

Ditto for mentioning "consciousness" and "quantum mechanics" within 50 words of each other.

 

[Jabba]

Jay,
- What do you think of "free will"?

 

[jt512]

Jay,
- What do you think of "free will"?

I think that the existence and nature of free will is a serious subject. But I might add "materialism" to the list.

 

[Jabba]

Jay,
- In other words, "materialism" is a serious subject?
- If so, I agree.
- In my opinion, free will doesn't "make sense," but I tend to believe in it anyway.

 

[jt512]

Jay,
- In other words, "materialism" is a serious subject?

In my opinion, no. It is either a fact or an axiom. I'm not sure which. Either way, there's no point in debating it.

Now, if it were up to me, the first person to mention "physicalism" in this thread automatically loses the debate.

 

[Toontown]

There ought to be a rule analogous to Godwin's Law whereby the first person in a thread to mention "paradigm change" automatically loses the debate.

Agreed.

You lose.

Ditto for mentioning "consciousness" and "quantum mechanics" within 50 words of each other.

Agreed.

You lose.

Now, if it were up to me, the first person to mention "physicalism" in this thread automatically loses the debate.

Agreed.

You lose.

Careful what you wish for.

Perhaps the list of subjects you do not wish to ban might be shorter.

 

[Jabba]

Furthermore, if your hypotheses concern the lives of all humans, then how can you justify only considering as data the likelihood of only your life?

[/QUOTE]

- It seems to me that this is the only significant objection to my argument. I THINK that I have an effective answer to this objection, but like before, it will take me a while to compose.

Jay,

- Actually, I either have multiple possible answers – or, multiple parts to the possible answer.
- Whatever, I’ll present these to you, one at a time, one ‘move’ at a time.

- I claim that given the hypothesis that all individual human consciousnesses are finite and single, the probability of me existing now is actually one in infinity (at best).

 

[Toontown]

Jay,

- Actually, I either have multiple possible answers – or, multiple parts to the possible answer.
- Whatever, I’ll present these to you, one at a time, one ‘move’ at a time.

- I claim that given the hypothesis that all individual human consciousnesses are finite and single, the probability of me existing now is actually one in infinity (at best).

Baby steps?

Cue hopefully preempted multiple rebuttals to the effect that everyones' individual odds are equally as daunting as yours, and yet everyone exists.

I suggest a rephrasing of your claim:

'Although it is inevitable that a plethora of equally unlikely things exist, the likelihood that I, specifically, would ever find myself among the existing is one in infinity, given the hypothesis that all individual human consciousnesses are finite and single. Thus, the combined likelihoods of all other things would have no bearing on my individual likelihood.'

 

[Jabba]

According to the Wikipedia definition, "strong emergence" has the same meaning as "synergy" - the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

I acknowledge the concept.

Toon,

- I sense a really important distinction between "weak" and "strong" emergence. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Strong_and_weak_emergence. Even though this article implies (through Corson) that synergy incorporates strong emergence

(From that article,
"The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts." (Anderson 1972)
The plausibility of strong emergence is questioned by some as contravening our usual understanding of physics. Mark A. Bedau observes:
"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."[8]),

-my understanding of synergy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy#Each_system_has_emergent_properties), even though it includes the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, is really just referring to weak emergence.
"We cannot understand any system by seeking to comprehend each component. When elements interact with each other there is a flow of energy between them, perhaps in the form of nutrients, water, food, or information. Synergy is when the sum of the whole system is greater than the sum of its parts; 1 + 1 = 3. We have the individual elements and we also have the relationship that adds further complexity and characteristics. Many parents will identify with having to manage not only the demands of each child but also the dynamic between them, which can create more work. The whole is not predictable from looking at the parts, because we do not know what the relationship and flow of energy is between them or how that will influence each part. From this synergy of interactions new properties will emerge. We cannot predict the wetness of water from looking at oxygen and hydrogen molecules separately. From neurons, consciousness and creativity emerge. The number of possible relationships increases exponentially with the number of parts."[11]Permaculture seeks to create more synergy in systems (whether they are gardens, groups or communities) by seeking to make beneficial relationships between the different elements of systems.involves only weak emergence.


- So anyway, I suspect that life, consciousness and free will are the result of strong emergence, and smack of "magic." What do you think?

 

[Jabba]

Baby steps?

Cue hopefully preempted multiple rebuttals to the effect that everyones' individual odds are equally as daunting as yours, and yet everyone exists.

I suggest a rephrasing of your claim:

'Although it is inevitable that a plethora of equally unlikely things exist, the likelihood that I, specifically, would ever find myself among the existing is one in infinity, given the hypothesis that all individual human consciousnesses are finite and single. Thus, the combined likelihoods of all other things would have no bearing on my individual likelihood.'

Toon,

- "Baby steps" is appropriate, and is a term that I often apply.
- Here, with "move," I'm suggesting a chess kind of format, where we each have a series of moves in mind, but we make only one move at a time, and ultimately base our next moves upon our opponent's consequent moves. I'm suggesting that such is a scheme that will actually make headway in a debate.

- Sorry about my last, series of moves (in my previous post) trying to anticipate your moves, but I hadn't really explained my preferred format previously.
- Hopefully, this plan will eventually become coherent and useful.

- With my current move, I'm really ignoring the meat of your post, but one baby step at a time...

 

[Toontown]

- So anyway, I suspect that life, consciousness and free will are the result of strong emergence, and smack of "magic." What do you think?

I think it is relatively easy to probabilistically put a serious dent in the assumption of finite uniqueness. I think working out the alternative is the hard part.

I think strong emergence, if I understand it, is another assumption. Essentially, it is assumed that properties arise through complex combinations of natural elements which cannot be reproduced in a simulation by applying the laws and elements of nature to the simulation.

But we know of no one able to do such a simulation, so how could anyone reach that conclusion except by a series of assumptions? And the more assumptions you combine to reach a conclusion, the more likely it is that the final conclusion will be wrong. Which, IMO, is probably what has happened. No one can actually do the simulation, yet some presume to predict how the simulation would turn out if it could be done.