[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[lenny]

Was it merely the degree of giganogargantuan odds or was it some characteristic of sentience itself?

to answer the question (for me): there is a central role played by the characteristic of sentience myself.

 

[Jabba]

- The main claim in my last post is that there is a reasonable possibility that we are not stuck with one, finite existence.
- Maybe, the prior probability that we do have either multiple lives, or that our one life is infinite, is very small -- but, compared to the unlikelihood of me, given the complementary possibility, the prior probability that we have either multiple lives, or one infinite lifetime, is enormous...

 

[zooterkin]

- The main claim in my last post is that there is a reasonable possibility that we are not stuck with one, finite existence.

Only for certain definitions of "reasonable".

- Maybe, the prior probability that we do have either multiple lives, or that our one life is infinite, is very small -- but, compared to the unlikelihood of me, given the complementary possibility, the prior probability that we have either multiple lives, or one infinite lifetime, is enormous...

Please, show your working. Why on earth should it be more likely to have multiple or infinitely long lives, given how unlikely any one specific life might be? You don't have a jot of evidence for either possibility, do you?

 

[lenny]

I don't know what you want. You say stuff, I say stuff back.

for the record:

what i'd like is an argument.

we find we have different, conflicting views/conclusions.
we work out a set of assumptions, and a framework.

we agree on some assumptions, disagree on others perhaps and clarify them.

we answer each others questions without insult with minimal diversion (hesitation or repetition : ), and determine whether or not we disagree fundamentally on any critical assumption. if so: we're done, and agree to disagree, and understand why.

if we more or less agree on the assumptions we follow the argument through toward the conclusion, and see exactly where along the way we diverge (as we must since we hold conflicting conclusions)

we learn that:
a) one of us made a mistake, and we're done
b) both of us made mistakes, and we start over. but for this thread we're done
c) an additional assumption on which we disagree, agree to disagree and we're done
d) our conclusions were not, in fact, in contradiction. and we're done

the key is to work together to get to the end, to learn something. which outcome is not as important as getting there.

that's what i like.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- The main claim in my last post is that there is a reasonable possibility that we are not stuck with one, finite existence.
- Maybe, the prior probability that we do have either multiple lives, or that our one life is infinite, is very small -- but, compared to the unlikelihood of me, given the complementary possibility, the prior probability that we have either multiple lives, or one infinite lifetime, is enormous...

Yeah, please explain:

Given that a) your present existent was a priori very unlikely, how does it b) follow that it is more likely that you have some kind of infinite life?

How do you infer b from a?

Hans

 

[Jabba]

Zoo and Hans,
- Forgetting for the moment that you are here now, under which hypothesis are you more likely to be here now?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Zoo and Hans,
- Forgetting for the moment that you are here now, under which hypothesis are you more likely to be here now?

If I have always been here?

Sorry, won't work. Your claim pertains to my coming into existence. The possible duration of my existence does not enter the quotation.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

If I have always been here?

Sorry, won't work. Your claim pertains to my coming into existence. The possible duration of my existence does not enter the quotation.

Hans

Hans,
- My claim pertains to comparing the "likelihood" (using Bayesian terminology) of you currently being in existence given that you can exist only once at most for a finite period of time versus the likelihood of you currently being in existence given that you either exist multiple times or you exist infinitely.
- Unfortunately, I don't really understand your second sentence...

 

[Jabba]

Garrette,

- As mentioned before, I find this stuff really difficult to convey effectively. Consequently, I'll try to explain one estimate at a time.

- P(SM|me) = P(me|SM)*P(SM|k)/P(me|SM)*P(SM|k)+P(me|NSM)*P(NSM|k)
- P(me|SM), the "likelihood" of me ever existing (for now, I'll ignore the likelihood of me currently existing), given NR, is either one over a "giganogargantuan" number, or one over infinity.
- I say that because I assume that the number of potential selves is at least giganogargantuan, and probably infinite.
- And, I claim that because I figure that the number of potential selves includes, at least, all the possible combinations of potential but unrealized ova (past, present and future)and sperm cells (past, present and future), and does not preclude evolution. If that doesn't sound infinite, I'm not expressing the idea effectively.
- And actually, I think it's worse than that. I'll explain later.

- Whatever -- I'll leave it at that for now.
- Let me know what you think so far.

...

I can't speak for Garrette, but here's my problem with your argument in that post:

You haven't demonstrated that the sum probability of your current existence is greater than it is when given the chance/null explanation/hypothesis.

In other words, you haven't demonstrated that the your existence can't be explained by chance. If anything, your math in post #944 shows the opposite.

...

Dave,

- Sorry that I haven't expressed my position better. I think I lost you with "Hello." Actually, I think I lost you with the "sum probability" and the "chance/null explanation/hypothesis." I'm now doubting my own choice of words...
- I'll need to think about it more -- but for now, I think I should have just said that the likelihood of my current existence, given the "scientific model" (one finite existence), is MUCH less than the likelihood of my current existence, given that one of the alternative models is true. I think I can validly make such a claim because any alternative model would have my existence being either infinite or multiple.
- Does that help at all?

- Later, I'll try to get to the second part of your objection.

...
Dave,
- Above, you say, "In other words, you haven't demonstrated that the your existence can't be explained by chance. If anything, your math in post #944 shows the opposite."
- First, I didn't claim that my existence can't be explained by chance -- I just claimed that my existence is extremely unlikely (not that it's impossible) given the scientific model. Do you still think that my math supports the opposite?

 

[abaddon]

...

...

...
Dave,
- Above, you say, "In other words, you haven't demonstrated that the your existence can't be explained by chance. If anything, your math in post #944 shows the opposite."
- First, I didn't claim that my existence can't be explained by chance -- I just claimed that my existence is extremely unlikely (not that it's impossible) given the scientific model. Do you still think that my math supports the opposite?

What is the probability of you having posted on the JREF forum?

Is it 1?

Is it 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001? And is that infinitely improbable?

 

[Ladewig]

Garrette,

- I still claim that "friendly" debate tends to be much more constructive than does "unfriendly" debate. A lot of the time, you (in particular) do seem to be friendly when addressing my arguments. Above however, when you say, "No. There are two glaring errors, both of which have been pointed out more than once:" you don't sound very friendly.
- In trying to be friendly, I would have said, "I think that there are actually two errors, and that both have been claimed previously." -- or, something like that. I would add "I think," drop "glaring" and change "pointed out" to "claimed." I think that would have given your respondent (me) more (at least subconscious) incentive to be open-minded about your claim...

Twenty six pages have passed.
Some posters approached you in a more polite manner.
Some posters approached you in a less polite manner.
You have rejected everything said in the past 26 pages and your current position is in indistinguishable from your original position.

What difference do manners make in this debate?

 

[Ladewig]

Garrette,


- What if this issue for us is like calculus to a worm?

And what if this issue is as useless and imagined as the philosophical ramblings of a pothead?

- We humans seem to think two different ways -- "analytically," and "holistically." Apparently, this difference is the product of having two different cerebral hemispheres -- one processes data analytically, while the other processes holistically.
- Some of us humans sense -- or imagine -- something we call "transcendence." Apparently, from my readings, the analytic hemisphere is "transcendence blind." Re transcendence, this hemisphere does not sense -- or, imagine -- what the other hemisphere does sense -- or imagine...
- Maybe, transcendence is real, and the analytic hemisphere really is transcendence blind.

- And then, I suspect that our belief in mortality is much less supported than we tend to think that it is. Why do we tend to think that we have but one, finite life anyway?
- Mostly, I think that's because we don't remember existing before the current life, and no one seems to be around afterwords.
- Couldn't it be that we simply forget previous lives, and that we go into a different "plane" or "dimension" (or something) after our previous lives?

Yes. It could be that. But just because we can imagine something does not make that thing true.

It could be the case that the entire universe was created last Thursday and that everyone was created with elaborate and detailed memories of existing before last Thursday. But nothing is gained by saying "Last Thursdayism" is more probable (and reasonable) than "This Morningism," therefore we should spend more time considering that "Last Thursdayism" is the most accurate description of the universe.

- Maybe, transcendence is real, and the analytic hemisphere really is transcendence blind.

And maybe transcendence is not real and the holistic hemisphere really is fantasy-prone.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans,
- My claim pertains to comparing the "likelihood" (using Bayesian terminology) of you currently being in existence given that you can exist only once at most for a finite period of time versus the likelihood of you currently being in existence given that you either exist multiple times or you exist infinitely.
- Unfortunately, I don't really understand your second sentence...

Sorry, I meant equation.

The odds, according you your (faulty) argument, is that I'm extremely unlikely to exist at all. This argument implies that I don't exist always, because that would defeat the argument.

And, as has already been pointed out many times, it is not interesting what the a priori chance of my existence is. The fact is that I do exist.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

- In Bayesian statistics, we're looking for the implications that a new piece of evidence has upon the truth value of an existing hypothesis. To do that, we need to estimate the "likelihood" of that "event" occurring given (only) the particular existing hypothesis. We are not estimating the probability that the event did occur when the given is that it did occur. The former is relevant to the truth value of that existing hypothesis.
- If, for instance, our existing hypothesis is that a particular coin is "fair," but when we flip it 100 times, it comes up heads 100 times, our new piece of evidence has serious implications upon our existing hypothesis.

 

[Jabba]

Garrette,

- It seems to me, for instance, that reincarnation is a reasonable possibility. You probably don't think much of the evidence -- but, I'm impressed by some of it.

- Some of the claimed evidence for near death experiences also seems pretty impressive.

- And then, I suspect that "now" isn't what we think it is.
- Most likely such a claim just sounds weird -- but for some reason, I "intuit"(?) real meaning to it. One way to begin alluding to this intuition of mine is, to wonder what's happening "now" a million light years away? Does "now" stretch across this universe?
- Another thing to think about is a different version of "Groundhog Day," the movie. What if something like the movie is true, only nothing changes? Our film just keeps re-playing, and we're "never" the wiser. Maybe, people in the future will be wiser, and discover in their one lifetime, the truth... What do later generations do about that? (Weird, huh?)

- What if this issue for us is like calculus to a worm?

- We humans seem to think two different ways -- "analytically," and "holistically." Apparently, this difference is the product of having two different cerebral hemispheres -- one processes data analytically, while the other processes holistically.
- Some of us humans sense -- or imagine -- something we call "transcendence." Apparently, from my readings, the analytic hemisphere is "transcendence blind." Re transcendence, this hemisphere does not sense -- or, imagine -- what the other hemisphere does sense -- or imagine...
- Maybe, transcendence is real, and the analytic hemisphere really is transcendence blind.

- And then, I suspect that our belief in mortality is much less supported than we tend to think that it is. Why do we tend to think that we have but one, finite life anyway?
- Mostly, I think that's because we don't remember existing before the current life, and no one seems to be around afterwords.
- Couldn't it be that we simply forget previous lives, and that we go into a different "plane" or "dimension" (or something) after our previous lives?

Garrette,
- Do you accept that the sum probability of at least one of my claims being true supplies sufficient prior probability that my NSM is true in order to validly consider my NSM in the Bayesian formula?

 

[Jabba]

- Somewhere back in time, I provided the following information and claims. Since that time, I've received numerous questions and objections. I think that I have now answered all of those. Have I missed anything?

- Below, “SM” is the current consensus “Scientific Model”; “NSM” is any possible explanatory model other than the “SM.” “k” is existing knowledge minus the implications I perceive in the fact of my own existence. Here’s the formula:
- P(SM|me) = P(me|SM)*P(SM|k)/P(me|SM)*P(SM|k)+P(me|NSM)*P(NSM|k)

- 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%.

- Consequently:
- P(SM|me) = (~.0000…1)*(.99)/(~.0000…1)(.99)+(.9)(.01)
- P(SM|me) = ~.0000…1/~.0000…1+.009
- P(SM|me) = ~.0000…1/~.009
- P(SM|me) = ~.0000…1

- If I haven't missed anything, I must have won!
- And therefore, most likely, each of us individual consciousnesses either live multiple lives or are infinitely alive!

 

[godless dave]

You haven't addressed the objections to this:

- My estimates:
- P(me|SM) either approaches zero, or is simply unimaginably small. (I think that it approaches zero.)

Beyond that, you have a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. You have proposed an alternate model for the existence of human consciousness, and declared that under this alternate model, the likelihood of a particular human consciousness coming into existence is higher than in the standard naturalistic model. It does not follow from this that the alternate model is more likely to be true than the standard naturalistic model.

I could imagine a model of snowflake formation where the existence of an individual snowflake shape is more likely than in the currently accepted model of snowflake formation. This does not make the model itself more likely.

 

[Pixel42]

And therefore, most likely, each of us individual consciousnesses either live multiple lives or are infinitely alive!

If the chances of the sequence of events that produced my individual consciousness occurring even once is vanishingly small then surely the chances of that individual consciousness occurring multiple times is a hell of a lot smaller?

And what on earth does "infinitely alive" mean?

 

[Jabba]

If the chances of the sequence of events that produced my individual consciousness occurring even once is vanishingly small then surely the chances of that individual consciousness occurring multiple times is a hell of a lot smaller?

And what on earth does "infinitely alive" mean?

Pixel,
- The chances of the sequence of events that produced my individual consciousness occurring even once is vanishingly small is according to the current scientific model that I will only exist, at most, for one, finite lifetime.
- Infinitely alive means that you will never cease to exist.

 

[Jabba]

You haven't addressed the objections to this:



1) Beyond that, you have a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. You have proposed an alternate model for the existence of human consciousness, and declared that under this alternate model, the likelihood of a particular human consciousness coming into existence is higher than in the standard naturalistic model. It does not follow from this that the alternate model is more likely to be true than the standard naturalistic model.

2) I could imagine a model of snowflake formation where the existence of an individual snowflake shape is more likely than in the currently accepted model of snowflake formation. This does not make the model itself more likely.

Dave,
- Re #1, according to Bayesian statistics, it does follow from this that the alternate model is more likely to be true than the standard naturalistic model.
- Re #2, can you describe that model for me?