[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Toontown]

Because that's how thinking objectively works.

Trying to tell me I don't know what I know is objective because______________?

 

[abaddon]

Are you the mortality cop?

It's the topic of this thread. Why should the topic of this thread be somehow worthy of your mockery?

 

[godless dave]

No.

If the U-brain assumption is true, then the target always existed. It was always the prerequisite to my existence.

To yours, yes. Not to the existence of unique brains in general.

 

[Toontown]

Why does that seem odd? Why would I expect to experience something in someone else's brain?

What 'you'?

Brains have owners? Who are these owners? Souls? Is there a brain dealer? Did your brain come with a title?

 

[godless dave]

Then state actuality and make it true and on topic.

You only need to answer one simple queston: is there a defined target space, or is there not a defined target space?

There is a defined target space if you're talking about one specific potential brain, not if you're talking about the existence of unique brains in general.

The former would be special pleading, so I assume you're not doing that.

 

[Toontown]

Your analogies are above critique?

I see.

No, you don't see. He tried to alter the analogy by adding conditions. If he wants to critique it, he can critique the unaltered version.

But he didn't critique the central point of it, and neither have you. The point is to disprove the validity of lenny's arbitrary existence cop rule.

 

[Toontown]

It's the topic of this thread. Why should the topic of this thread be somehow worthy of your mockery?

Mostly because of the mockers.

 

[godless dave]

1. Flawed counterexample. The game of football is completely understood and documented, therefore no resort to probability or hypothesis is indicated.

Irrelevant.

2. Biased biased counterexample. The football game was post-selected specifically because of it's perceived improbability.

Bingo. And that's precisely the flaw in you're reasoning.

5. No chance event should ever be deemed "too unlikely to happen by chance". However, When testing a hypothesis, one does not assume that chance alone accounts for the variance between the observed and the expected, because one simply does not know what accounts for the variance, else one would not be doing the test. One simply determines the probability that the variance would occur by chance. This value is identical to the probability that the hypothesis is correct, unadjusted by any other known factors.

In the "unique brain hypothesis", there is no variance between observed and expected.

 

[Toontown]

There is a defined target space if you're talking about one specific potential brain, not if you're talking about the existence of unique brains in general.

The former would be special pleading, so I assume you're not doing that.

I'm not talking about unique brains in general, and your insistence that yours is the only valid viewpoint is itself special pleading, which I demonstrated with another analogy.

 

[godless dave]

What 'you'?

Brains have owners? Who are these owners? Souls? Is there a brain dealer? Did your brain come with a title?

The brain is me. That's why I can't experience things someone else is experiencing.

 

[godless dave]

I'm not talking about unique brains in general

And there's your mistake.

If you accept that the existence of unique brains in general is possible, then you accept that your existence is possible. There is nothing special about your brain that makes it less likely than any of the others.

 

[Toontown]

In the "unique brain hypothesis", there is no variance between observed and expected.

Wrong again.

(1-0.000000......1)²/ 0.00000.....1

 

[Toontown]

And there's your mistake.

If you accept that the existence of unique brains in general is possible, then you accept that your existence is possible. There is nothing special about your brain that makes it less likely than any of the others.

And why would that be a requirement? Why would I compare the likelihood of my brain with the likelihoods of various random objects in the universe?

 

[godless dave]

And why would that be a requirement? Why would I compare the likelihood of my brain with the likelihoods of various random objects in the universe?

Because your brain is a random object in the universe. Why would you treat it any differently?

 

[dafydd]

What 'you'?

Brains have owners? Who are these owners? Souls? Is there a brain dealer? Did your brain come with a title?

It didn't come with a ''This brain is immortal'' sticker either.

 

[dafydd]

It will be over as soon as your little tag team gets out of it. Just turn your pretty head and walk away.

Does immortality exist? Is that question a mockery? I don't think so, given the title of the thread.

 

[dafydd]

Are you the mortality cop?

No, I'm the guy who keeps reminding you of the topic of the thread.

 

[godless dave]

Wrong again.

(1-0.000000......1)²/ 0.00000.....1

What is that supposed to mean? The "unique brain hypothesis" predicts that some human brains will exist and all of them are unique. And that's exactly what we see, in exactly the frequency we expect.

 

[dafydd]

What is that supposed to mean?

Who knows? It's a mystery. Even Jabba has given up on it.

 

[Toontown]

What is that supposed to mean? The "unique brain hypothesis" predicts that some human brains will exist and all of them are unique. And that's exactly what we see, in exactly the frequency we expect.

'You' have no expected frequency. Because you insist on a viewpoint that doesn't give you one.

Don't look back. You'll see your tail.