[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Toontown]

Wrong again.

If you start, as you are, with what the bullet hit, you are trying to get away with the Texas Sharpshooter--even if you do not understand that (or pretend not to see it for rhetorical advantage).

I don't start with what the bullet hit. I reject the hypothesis that requires the bullet to hit a specific target (or else) I don't start anything at all.

Didn't I just explain that? I'm pretty sure I did, but see, it's like this: The unique brain assumption put the target around the bullet, and I used the target with the bullet hole in it to reject the assumption.

 

[godless dave]

I think we've been through this before, Dave. But tell me again. At what level of improbability (P-value) would you reject a hypothesis?

It would have to be completely impossible for me to reject the hypothesis. But that's not relevant to this discussion, because the "unique brain hypothesis" is not improbable.

As to the fatal flaw in your analogy:

The purpose of probability is to deal with incomplete knowledge.

Where is the incomplete knowledge in your analogy? Our knowledge of the lottery is complete. There is no need to test any hypothesis about how someone won the lottery. We know how someone won the lottery.

You, however, can offer no explanation why that particular brain is mysteriously assigned to be 'you'.

Yes, I can. The brain is not "assigned" to be me, it is me. The reason the brain is me is because my parents had sex, conceived a child, and he was born.

Anyway, the lottery example shows why you shouldn't reject a hypothesis just because that hypothesis predicts multiple possible outcomes each of which is individually unlikely, even if you don't have complete knowledge of how the process works.

The unique brain assumption is just that - an assumption. So why shouldn't the unique brain assumption be tested, and if it flunks the test, why shouldn't the corollary be favored?

What's to test? We have a pretty good idea how mammalian brains evolved and human beings evolved and we know exactly how they reproduce.

Should you choose to test the offending assumption, why shouldn't you test it from the viewpoint that provides the information to test it, instead of flapping around up in the sky chirping that you don't see any reason to question the assumption from up there, when in fact what you don't see is anything at all. Because you're in the wrong place.

How is that the wrong place? Isn't an objective viewpoint the best position to test everything?

The corollary to the unique brain assumption is no less counterintuitive, doesn't flunk the observational test, and therefore should be favored.

First of all, a corollary isn't an alternative, but I'll go with your nonstandard wording for now.

You have not provided any alternatives to the "unique brain hypothesis" so I can't judge how counter-intuitive they are. But I can judge that the "unique brain hypothesis" is not in the least bit counter-intuitive. Animals reproduce, most of them sexually. Humans reproduce sexually. Their offspring are slightly different from their parents. That means their brains start out being different from their parents' brains, and since brains change in response to stimuli and experience, each grows to be different than every other brain in existence. Each offspring experiences consciousness from its own perspective. What's counter-intuitive about that?

 

[godless dave]

Wrong again. As I explained, the unique brain assumption places the target.

No, it doesn't. It places billions upon billions of possible targets, and only a few of them are hit.

 

[godless dave]

It is not simply that every brain is different. It's that only one of them can ever be 'you'.

Those two sentences are different ways of saying the same thing. If each brain is different, then obviously each one can only be that one.

 

[Toontown]

Those two sentences are different ways of saying the same thing. If each brain is different, then obviously each one can only be that one.

OK, we have a believer in the unique brain assumption. Which explains why you've been hassling me so much.

But wait. I'm pretty sure you denied believing that a few pages back.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You asked for an explanation. You got it. Now you want another, and then you'll want another, and then another. I know the stupid little game.

It's very simple. The assumption is that there is only one unique, dauntingly complex biological organization, occurring at a unique set of time coordinates, in a unique set of spacial coordinates, that can ever be 'you'.

It is not simply that every brain is different. It's that only one of them can ever be 'you'. If the prerequisite one ever happens to occur.

That's the unique brain assumption. If you don't get it, you don't get it. If you don't agree with it, you don't agree with it. If you want another explanation which you will immediately proceed to willfully misinterpret, I'll link you to A.L.I.C.E.

...are you saying that you reject the idea that there is only one unique self that is the emergent property of my nervous system?

 

[jt512]

If you have something better, I'm sure everyone would be fascinated.

WTF is so difficult to understand? Egg + sperm. Done.

Either your unique brain is the only brain that could ever light up your jungle, or it's not the only brain that could ever light up your jungle, loosely speaking.

I think that's the first time I've ever seen a false dichotomy where both alternatives are pure nonsense.

 

[Toontown]

Yes, I can. The brain is not "assigned" to be me, it is me. The reason the brain is me is because my parents had sex, conceived a child, and he was born.

That's not an explanation. That's a tautological description. You're saying that brain is you because that brain is you, and hoping to fob that off as an explanation by talking about your history, when in fact you are unwittingly admitting that any brain could just as easily have lit up your jungle for the same tautological non-reason.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't start with what the bullet hit. I reject the hypothesis that requires the bullet to hit a specific target (or else) I don't start anything at all.

Didn't I just explain that? I'm pretty sure I did, but see, it's like this: The unique brain assumption put the target around the bullet, and I used the target with the bullet hole in it to reject the assumption.

Still wrong.

Your description that it is a "target" that has the bullet hole requires prediction. If not, then you create the "target" with the bullet hole, therefore TSF.

Which is it, Mr. Whitman?

 

[Toontown]

...are you saying that you reject the idea that there is only one unique self that is the emergent property of my nervous system?

Here come the believers in the unique brain hypothesis, two by two.

Uh...you just drew a target around your bullet hole.

 

[jt512]

what level of improbability (P-value) would you reject a hypothesis?

What a strange question to ask in a thread with "Bayesian" in the title.

The corollary to the unique brain assumption is no less counterintuitive, doesn't flunk the observational test, and therefore should be favored.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[godless dave]

OK, we have a believer in the unique brain assumption. Which explains why you've been hassling me so much.

But wait. I'm pretty sure you denied believing that a few pages back.

No...

 

[godless dave]

That's not an explanation. That's a tautological description. You're saying that brain is you because that brain is you, and hoping to fob that off as an explanation by talking about your history,

It's not an explanation, it's a statement of fact, like saying red and scarlet mean the same thing.

I'm me because I'm me. It's not something that demands an explanation. It's what the word "me" means.

when in fact you are unwittingly admitting that any brain could just as easily have lit up your jungle for the same tautological non-reason.

If it were a different brain, it would be someone else's jungle.

 

[godless dave]

As near as I can tell, the "unique brain assumption" is the scientific explanation for the existence of brains.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Here come the believers in the unique brain hypothesis, two by two.

Uh...you just drew a target around your bullet hole.

...by asking you to clarify your own contradiction? Which is it, Walt?

Might you be so kind as to explain how the emergent properties of different neural systems may "share" identity? Does that not violence to the very meaning of the term?

(...not to mention that the thought of more than one of me is giving my mother nightmares, even as I type it...)

 

[Toontown]

Still wrong.

Your description that it is a "target" that has the bullet hole requires prediction. If not, then you create the "target" with the bullet hole, therefore TSF.

Which is it, Mr. Whitman?

You don't get it at all.

No "prediction" required. You are failing to differentiate between a prediction and an expected distribution, which is a fundamental concept. An expected distribution is not a prediction. It is a mathematical summary of possible outcomes and their relative expected frequencies. It is a quite common practice to use expected frequencies and (gasp) already existing data to test hypotheses.

The supposed hit has an expected likelihood associated with it, implied by the hypothesis, not by me. I don't even agree with the stinking expected likelihood. It's a consequence of the hypothesis. I just used it to reject the hypothesis.

Once again, an expected likelihood is not a prediction. An expected likelihood is simply an acknowledgement of the likelihood that an event or events will be observed. It is not a prediction of any specific observation or observations.

Who ARE you people? Seriously.

 

[godless dave]

You don't get it at all.

No "prediction" required. You are failing to differentiate between a prediction and an expected distribution, which is a fundamental concept. An expected distribution is not a prediction. It is a mathematical summary of possible outcomes and their relative expected frequencies. It is a quite common practice to use expected frequencies and (gasp) already existing data to test hypotheses.

The supposed hit has an expected likelihood associated with it, implied by the hypothesis, not by me. I don't even agree with the stinking expected likelihood. It's a consequence of the hypothesis. I just used it to reject the hypothesis.

Once again, an expected likelihood is not a prediction. An expected likelihood is simply an acknowledgement of the likelihood that an event or events will be observed. It is not a prediction of any specific observation or observations.

But if you specify one target, you are making a prediction. If you observe that there are several possible targets, each with a particular likelihood, then you are talking about the expected likelihood. In this case there are billions of possible targets. That one particular target will be hit is unlikely. That, out of all the targets, some of them will be hit is very likely; you just don't know which ones.

 

[Toontown]

It's not an explanation, it's a statement of fact, like saying red and scarlet mean the same thing.

I didn't say you couldn't describe an object. I said you have no explanation.

If it were a different brain, it would be someone else's jungle.

How would you know that? All you know is you woke up. And it was a different brain when you were born. Different atoms, different connections.

You admit a brain is simply you acausally, which doesn't exactly cast doubt on the proposition that any brain could just as simply be you acausally.

 

[godless dave]

I didn't say you couldn't describe an object. I said you have no explanation.

Explanation for what? For synonyms being synonyms?

How would you know that? All you know is you woke up. And it was a different brain when you were born. Different atoms, different connections.

That's half true (the atoms are probably the same; many connections I had in childhood are gone and new ones have formed as I grew older). But so what? "Me" is not a static thing that never changes. People are constantly learning and changing in response to experiential stimuli

You admit a brain is simply you acausally, which doesn't exactly cast doubt on the proposition that any brain could just as simply be you acausally.

If it were a different brain, it wouldn't be me, because it would have none of the same neurons.

 

[Toontown]

But if you specify one target, you are making a prediction. If you observe that there are several possible targets, each with a particular likelihood, then you are talking about the expected likelihood. In this case there are billions of possible targets. That one particular target will be hit is unlikely. That, out of all the targets, some of them will be hit is very likely; you just don't know which ones.

There, there, Dave. You'll know which one if it hits you. Oh wait, it did hit you. Did you feel that?