[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Toontown]

Incidentally I'm a graduate mathematician and I've never heard the phrase "odds to one" before either. Probability is confusing and counter-intuitive enough as it is, it's probably not wise to make up your own terms and expect other people to understand them.

How do you say 4 : 1? I say "four to one". Hence, odds to one. How is that confusing?

 

[Jabba]

Jay, Toon and Lenny,

- Everyone else seems to disagree with my estimates:

- P(me|SM) either approaches zero, or is simply unimaginably small. (I think that it approaches zero.)
- For P(SM|k), I’m ALLOWING that given our existing knowledge, P equals 99%. (I don’t THINK that it’s nearly that much.)
- P(NSM|k) is simply what’s left after subtracting P(SM|k) – or, 1%.

- What do you guys think?

 

[Toontown]

I stand corrected on that point. Your equations are consistent.

Thank you, and the first one is more simple than your "odds" equation, and converting it's output to your "odds" is a matter of hitting the reciprocal key.

 

[Jabba]

How do you say 4 : 1? I say "four to one". Hence, odds to one. How is that confusing?

Toon,
- Once you explain, I can see what you meant. I would argue that in your presentations, you tend to leave out a lot of "intermediate" steps/explanations.

 

[dafydd]

Jay, Toon and Lenny,

- Everyone else seems to disagree with my estimates:

- P(me|SM) either approaches zero, or is simply unimaginably small. (I think that it approaches zero.)
- For P(SM|k), I’m ALLOWING that given our existing knowledge, P equals 99%. (I don’t THINK that it’s nearly that much.)
- P(NSM|k) is simply what’s left after subtracting P(SM|k) – or, 1%.

- What do you guys think?

I think that's it's nonsense and that there is no such thing as immortality.

 

[Pixel42]

How do you say 4 : 1? I say "four to one". Hence, odds to one. How is that confusing?

Four is a number. Four is not an example of odds. "Four to one" is an example of odds.

"The odds are four to one" is an expression I immediately understand. "The odds to one are four" makes no sense to me unless I stop and think about what it might possibly be intended to mean.

"Odds to one" is an expression I've never come across before and which threw me completely. I re-read the context and worked out what you meant by it, but I'd recommend not using it if you want to be generally understood.

 

[Toontown]

Jay, Toon and Lenny,

- Everyone else seems to disagree with my estimates:

- P(me|SM) either approaches zero, or is simply unimaginably small. (I think that it approaches zero.)
- For P(SM|k), I’m ALLOWING that given our existing knowledge, P equals 99%. (I don’t THINK that it’s nearly that much.)
- P(NSM|k) is simply what’s left after subtracting P(SM|k) – or, 1%.

- What do you guys think?

I think your estimates are better than are necessary for the level of competition you are facing.

My only quibble is that it is not necessary to plug them into the Bayes formula. P(me|SM) tells the tale. It's value is roughly equivalent to the probability that the assumption of finite uniqueness is correct.

 

[dafydd]

Four is a number. Four is not an example of odds. "Four to one" is an example of odds.

"The odds are four to one" is an expression I immediately understand. "The odds to one are four" makes no sense to me unless I stop and think about what it might possibly be intended to mean.

"Odds to one" is an expression I've never come across before and which threw me completely. I re-read the context and worked out what you meant by it, but I'd recommend not using it if you want to be generally understood.

As an ex-bookmaker the term four to one on makes sense but the odds to one are four?

 

[Jabba]

I know what I'm talking about up to a point.

Of course those are emergent properties. How emergent, I don't know. As emergent as it takes to give rise to a sentient experience. If 'strong emergence' is what it takes to get there, then nobody knows what they're talking about once that kicks in.

But maybe you don't need to know all about magic. Seems to me the question you raise by rejecting the finite uniqueness assumption is not 'what is the precise mechanism by which sentient experience arises?', but 'how is it that there is no alternative to sentient experience?'. If you think the answer to that is in the strongly emergent and prohibitively complex mechanism, then good luck explaining...

Toon,
- I think that I accept that the question I raise by rejecting the finite uniqueness assumption is not 'what is the precise mechanism by which sentient experience arises?'. I think that the question I raise is, 'Doesn't that leave only two alternatives: 1) At least one of us humans has an infinite time-span of consciousness, or 2) At least one of us humans will exist more than once?'

 

[Toontown]

As an ex-bookmaker the term four to one on makes sense but the odds to one are four?

I don't know where she got that. I never said "the odds to one are four". I always say "four to one" when I'm expressing a value, which is self-explanatory. But when it it is pompously demanded that I explain a thought I used an example of odds to one to express, I'll say I mean "odds to one".

 

[Toontown]

Toon,
- Once you explain, I can see what you meant. I would argue that in your presentations, you tend to leave out a lot of "intermediate" steps/explanations.

Intermediate steps just confuse them more or provide them more contrived bones of contention to lock onto.

 

[dafydd]

I don't know where she got that. I never said "the odds to one are four". I always say "four to one" when I'm expressing a value, which is self-explanatory. But when it it is pompously demanded that I explain a thought I used and example of odds to one to express, I'll say I mean "odds to one".

I would like to add the the possibility of Jabba proving that immortality exists are about a googolplex to one.

 

[Pixel42]

I don't know where she got that.

That was just my attempt to use the phrase "odds to one" in a sentence which made some sort of sense.

 

[Toontown]

Toon,
- I think that I accept that the question I raise by rejecting the finite uniqueness assumption is not 'what is the precise mechanism by which sentient experience arises?'. I think that the question I raise is, 'Doesn't that leave only two alternatives: 1) At least one of us humans has an infinite time-span of consciousness, or 2) At least one of us humans will exist more than once?'

I say if you're going to reach a conclusion, reach a conclusion. You've already stuck your neck out pretty far. Don't go all wobbly now. Given the rejection of finite uniqueness,

How likely is 1) ?

How likely is it that only one human will exist only once?

 

[Toontown]

That was just my attempt to use the phrase "odds to one" in a sentence which made some sort of sense.

You failed. How about

Q: What kind of "odds" are you talking about?

A: I'm talking about odds to one. Wasn't it obvious?

 

[Jabba]

...Of course those are emergent properties. How emergent, I don't know. As emergent as it takes to give rise to a sentient experience. If 'strong emergence' is what it takes to get there, then nobody knows what they're talking about once that kicks in.

But maybe you don't need to know all about magic. Seems to me the question you raise by rejecting the finite uniqueness assumption is not 'what is the precise mechanism by which sentient experience arises?', but 'how is it that there is no alternative to sentient experience?'. If you think the answer to that is in the strongly emergent and prohibitively complex mechanism, then good luck explaining...

Toon,
- These paragraphs seem loaded with meaning I'm missing. The following are two more of my missing links.
1) Do you accept that the "level" of emergence necessary in order to result in what we call "consciousness" would "smack" of "magic"?
2) Wouldn't real "magic" be unexplainable by definition?

 

[Jabba]

I say if you're going to reach a conclusion, reach a conclusion. Given the rejection of finite uniqueness,

How likely is 1) ?

How likely is it that only one human will exist only once?

Toon,
- Don't understand. I didn't say only one, I said at least one.

 

[dafydd]

Toon,
- These paragraphs seem loaded with meaning I'm missing. The following are two more of my missing links.
1) Do you accept that the "level" of emergence necessary in order to result in what we call "consciousness" would "smack" of "magic"?
2) Wouldn't real "magic" be unexplainable by definition?

We seem to have strayed away from the topic of the thread. Have you given up trying to prove that immortality exists?

 

[Pixel42]

You failed. How about

Q: What kind of "odds" are you talking about?

A: I'm talking about odds to one. Wasn't it obvious?

Nope, that doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Toontown]

Toon,
- Don't understand. I didn't say only one, I said at least one.

"At least one" implies all, many or a low probability. A low probability implies that you are unlikely to observe yourself, which is similar to the situation with finite uniqueness.